‘You’re Lucky I Don’t Have My Pistol:’ Post-Abortive Father Violently Attacks Abolitionists

OklahomaNORMAN, Okla. — A video uploaded last week by the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma shows a post-abortive father shoving and punching a sidewalk counselor before pursuing another man holding a camera in order to destroy evidence of the attack.

The incident occurred last Tuesday as Society director Toby Harmon and his friend Jeremy Brown were seeking to provide alternatives to abortion-minded mothers at Larry Burns’ Abortion Surgery Center in Norman, Oklahoma. As they stood holding signs on the sidewalk, the men saw a couple exiting the facility and attempted to offer help.

“[The woman] was visibly shaken and upset,” Harmon outlines in an online video in which he described the attack. “So, I called out to them and asked if they had an abortion today, and if there was any help that we could provide for them.”

When the woman replied in the negative, Harmon again extended the offer. And that’s when the man accompanying the woman became physically aggressive.

“I said, ‘Well, we would like to help you,'” he recalled. “And the man began taking his jacket off and walking towards us. And she was pleading with him not to do this and to stop.”

The man, described as being in his early twenties and wearing a white t-shirt and jeans, then confronted Brown, who held out his arm to keep the man at a distance. However, the man then pushed Harmon, and seconds later, punched him in the face.

“There’s forgiveness in Christ,” Brown stated in response.

  • Connect with Christian News

However, when Harmon advised that he had captured the assault on camera, the man then began following him down the street. Harmon instructed Brown to call the police.

As Brown phoned 911, the man continued pursuing Harmon, pushing him, grabbing his possessions and stomping on his camera.

“You ain’t about to have kids when I’m done with you, boy,” the man threatened.

As Harmon had a backup camera, he continued recording as the man angrily roughed him up and spit upon him.

“You’re lucky I don’t have my pistol on me, too,” the man called out as he walked away. “I would have shot ya’ll now.”

“Did you just threaten my life?” Harmon asked. “Yeah, I did,” the man replied.

Brown and Harmon later pressed charges against their attacker. Police have characterized the incident as “assault and battery,” and criminal “vandalism.” Harmon said that the men never defended themselves when assaulted.

“We turned the other cheek,” he stated. “We didn’t strike back. We didn’t hit back. We didn’t call names. I even thought twice about whether to press charges or not.”

Harmon is now requesting prayer for the man that attacked them last Tuesday.

“I hope that [Christians] would show the love of Christ and pray for him and his girlfriend,” he said. “Obviously, there’s a lot of hurt and pain there, and they do need the healing of Jesus Christ.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Sir Tainly

    I give the man some credit for at least recognizing that women don’t need to be interfered with as they are getting medical issues taken care of, even if he did overreact.

    Since abortion is not murder and never has been starting with a Bible that never even had one statute written against it….why do most abolitionists seem to think that abortion is murder?

    If it were my wife, I’d be angered at anyone that said that they wanted to help while simultaneously going for the falsely so-called “murder” induced guilt trip.

    I wouldn’t want these sadly mistaken do-gooders anywhere near any woman that was considering abortion while they sought to prevent “murder”….because abortion is not murder and never has been.

    I don’t like people hassling even my friends with some guilt inducing fantasy head trip! Step-off dudes and pray that God forgives you for hassling these women.

    • Mark

      If abortion is not the intentional, deliberate and absolutely selfish taking of a developing humnan life, then what is it?

      • Sir Tainly

        I’ll leave the definition of murder as God intended it to be…the taking of the life of a living breathing human being……amended according to the actual laws as necessary. Yanno….actual laws instead of your ideas?

        I’ll leave the freedom of women &/or their families to decide what abortion is to them and if it is necessary.

        All your ideas by comparison are just regrettable nonsense.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com Russell Crawford

        Abortion is clearly not murder. A person must be able to prove the life was viable and human before there can be murder. The problem for the pro life movement is that a life cannot be proved to be human enough to live as a human until birth and it cannot be proved to be capable of life until birth.
        In fact until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, one cannot tell if the product of conception is alive, capable of life at birth or if it is human. The scientific fact is that 70 percent of conceptions die in the first trimester and of those that die 42 percent do not have enough human DNA to live as a human.
        That pretty much clarifies the “murder” claim. There is no murder. But it does not settle the issue. Pro lifers have a choice, they may save innocent babies or they may let those babies die and instead save a fetus. The fact is that because all 7 billion people on earth are dying, one cannot save all life. Therefore one must choose which life to save. I choose to save innocent babies, pro lifers choose to let them die. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

      • Mark

        First, I cannot believe you both to be so blatantly ignorant on basic human biology. Even a simpleton can understand basic human biology.

        I guess you both would rather beleive the legalistic mumbo jumbo of what a baby human is before comprehending basic human biology.

        Second, all you hsve to do is look at yourselve while you developed inside your mother’s wonbs. To even dare deny the humanity of the developing baby is to basically deny your own humanity.

        • Sir Tainly

          Between your’s and Mr Crawford’s post Mark…

          One of you actually comments specifically as to basic human biology.

          The other one just rants nonsensically about basic human biology.

          Guess which one is your’s Mark! 😀 😀 😀

          • Mark

            I don’t need to be scientist to express my views. As the AT&T commerical says, “it’s not complicated.”

            Abortion is NOT a complicated issue; it takes a human life whether you accept this or not.

            Abortion is a common sense issue too that it still take a human life whether you accept it or not.

            Otherwise, abortion has no use than killing the developing human life inside the mother’s womb.

    • James J. Grimes

      You have been told before that abortion is murder. Murder is the intentional taking of a life. Look it up.

      • Sir Tainly

        Abortion is not included in the definition of murder Mr. Grimes….look it up.

        Do you think that police and soldiers that execute lawful orders and directives are murderers as well?

        You simple minded definition is…(how do you say it?)….

        (As per Mr. Grimes:”Murder is the intentional taking of a life.”)

        ….stupid and incomplete…and did I say stupid?

        • Ministercreek

          How brave of you Mr.Tainly! Killing the most defenseless of all persons (the unborn) isn’t murder? Talk about reprobate!

          • Sir Tainly

            For all your moral outrage you’d think that God Himself would have bothered to write even one tiny little statute by the hand of Moses to clarify it, yes?

            Did you know that the earliest record of an abortion that we have is from Egypt before Moses time. Boyoboy, you’d think that with Moses being educated as a prince that he would have brought it up.

            I guess that you are getting all worked up about an issue that wasn’t even fit for God to bother with one tiny little precept.

            Freedom to choose I say. Not a False Law, based on self-righteous and imaginary legal standards that do not bring righteousness. (Feel free to take the sentiment from the Pauline Epistles, almost anywhere….he says virtually the same thing over and over again.)

            You false laws bring bondage. Do you just like to pick on little girls?

        • Flash

          The Bible doesn’t call abortion, “abortion” but the Bible does address it. Consider these verses to start:

          “Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

          This passage declares that God Himself said that He “formed” and “knew” the baby “in the womb… before” the baby was “born”.

          “What then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him? Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:14-15)

          This passage affirms that “God… made” the baby “in the womb.”

          “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 very well.” (Psalm 139:13-14)

          The “You” in this passage of course refers to God, who “formed” the baby’s “inward parts”.

          And Luke 1:15 states that John the Baptist will be “filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb”, which means that the baby in the womb has a soul for the Holy Spirit to fill.

          Abortion activists attempt heroic acrobatics in logic to try to dismiss these Bible verses, which indicate that abortion kills babies whom God “formed”, “sanctified” and “made” in the womb and in whom the Holy Spirit may already reside, and is therefore a murderous rebellion against God.

          The “choice” pregnant women have is between keeping or giving up their babies for adoption, not murdering the “wonderfully made marvelous … works” of God. It is unconscionable that 1.3 million unborn and even born babies are murdered annually in America (see early abortions and born-alive abortions). To put this atrocity into perspective, 1.3 million is even more than the number of Jews the Nazis gassed annually during the Holocaust.

          • Sir Tainly

            Yes, and he knew us before the foundations of the earth (Ephesians) and He knew Josiah before his parents were even born. God also formed the multitudes of miscarriages in the womb, and all the stillborn children, and all the starving children.

            I don’t know, but is this an area where some of you think you will keep God’s plans from falling through the cracks, because nothing we do ever can touch God’s plans. He knows every healthy birth, he knows every still birth, and he knows every abortion long before it happens, and has given all authority to choose to the women and or families concerned.

            Some of you disrespect women as this aggressive abolitionist from the article has. Some of you think that women are to be subjegated. But all abolitionists are mistaken in believing that God backs their effort….else God would have made it clear Himself through his word.

            Just because God designed life does not mean he has given a woman’s choice to you. It’s none of your dang business. Laws (especially false and unGodly laws that aren’t in the Bible like the ones the abolitionists seek to enforce) do not bring righteousness but instead bondage. Otherwise God would have made the law himself long before you were a gleam in your ancestors’ eyes thousands of years ago.

            Furthermore….John the baptist in the womb was animated by the Spirit that was on him, otherwise he would have never reacted to the Lord being close. You underestimate the Spirit and overestimate the life and consciesness of a fetus.

            The problem with you is that you think you are judging correctly, and in spite of your Biblical framework you are entirely making up a false ethos that just serves to put people into bondage. You are practically making stuff up if the best you can come up with is two passages that can be considered marginal in terms of even being somewhat relavent.

            Thou shall not have an abortion or induce miscarriages as I know has been going on for all of recorded history….said God NEVER.

    • Michael Stoicjackal
      • Sir Tainly

        Some stuff about the blessing of the womb are good sentiments IMO…the best ones on this list.

        Abortion is not murder…so it has nothing to do with the commandment as to murder.

        Not only is it a stretch to say that these scriptures have anything to do with abortions, but some of those references are so far out in left field from the abortion debate that I think the author is desperate to make up for the fact that God has not stated one statute that criminalizes abortions or self-induced miscarriages.

        Why don’t you guys just rewrite yourself a brand new Biblical commandment? I’m sure that God won’t mind….or will He?

    • Kati

      Just for the record, the bible talks of sanctity of life in the womb and stated that if a man were to strike a pregnant woman and cause her to lose the child he should be treated and tried as a murderer. Try actually reading and studying instead of cherry picking, fool.

      • Sir Tainly

        Tomorrow I’ll get to this one…Merry Christmas to you too Kati.

        • Mark

          A rather sarcastic reply to her and basically a lie to get around the humanity of the pre-born baby and Kati is a woman too.

          • Sir Tainly

            I tries several times to post another response to Kati only to see my legitimate and reasonable response to be left awaiting moderation.

            I tried to post more than once thinking that it might be an internet glitch.

            And you are way to aggressive to be throwing stones at me for my good-natured sarcastic tenor Mark.

          • Sir Tainly

            Let’s try this again…without posting the link perhaps..
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            THIS:
            Exodus 21:
            (22) If men are in struggle with one another and butt a pregnant woman so that
            the product of her womb [hydly] comes forth in fatal miscarriage, but there is
            no further serious injury [Nvsx] to the woman, then someone (the guilty party
            or a representative of the guilty parties) will be charged tort in accordance with
            what the woman’s husband requires of him, paying the amount for which he is
            culpable (?) [Myllpb]. (23) But if there is further serious injury [Nvsx] to the
            woman, then you Israelite will payout [hqqn] as the guilty party according to
            the formula: “the monetary value of life in exchange for the life lost [tHt wpn
            wpn], (24) value of an eye in exchange for the eye lost, the value of a tooth in
            exchange for a tooth lost, value of a hand in exchange for the hand lost, the
            value of a foot in exchange for the foot lost, (25) the value of injury caused by
            burning in exchange for burning inflicted, the value of a wound in exchange
            for a wound inflicted, the value of a stripe in exchange for stripe inflicted.”

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            You have either interpreted it as you wish or have been misled. You need to think about it more IMO.
            The author of this knows that it has often been interpreted according to the current state of the abortion debate and also does a somewhat lengthy examination of the passage. Enjoy the read Kati.
            Maybe after you read some more and think about it (and pray about it more as well)you can return some of those supposedly Bible based anti-choice diatribes that you’ve been reading. This guy that did this work does not really have a dog in this fight and I believe that he would tell the truth no matter what he thought was a good understanding.

          • Sir Tainly

            To find it and read for yourself just Yahoo search “Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993) 233-53
            Copyright © 1993 by Westminster Theological Seminary”

          • Sir Tainly

            TO FIND THIS:

            ABORTION IN THE BIBLE
            by J.B. Hare
            August, 2008
            copyright terms
            As far as I can tell there is no use of the term ‘abort’ in the sense of a medical procedure in the Old or New Testament of the Bible. There are 26 Verses total in the OT and NT with one of the three Greek or Hebrew words in Strong’s Lexicon potentially meaning ‘abortion.’ However, as will be demonstrated, in context, none of the uses in the Bible text has any bearing on the medical procedure of abortion.
            In other words, there is no Bible verse that can be cited which specifically says ‘thou shalt not abort.’

            SEARCH THIS:
            “sacred texts abortion in the bible”

  • Sir Tainly

    Do you think that all cases of killing through self defense is murder?

    Do you think that taking of a life while defending the life of a pregnant woman is murder? I think it a reasonable reason for an abortion though….but as I say, that is entirely up to the woman. I’ll pray for them if there is nothing else I can do.

    • Daniel

      That is a disgraceful way of viewing things Tainly, abortion is the “legal” murder of a defenseless child. God said to Jeremiah that He knew him before he was formed in his mother’s womb. David spoke saying, “You saw my unformed substance in my mother’s womb…there were written for me in your book all my days before one of them came to be”. God chooses which child lives and dies, He is the God of all flesh, and no one has any right to abort His plan. If you want to prevent having a child then stop having sex (but no we’re too pleasure-addicted in our society to actually think of the consequences of our actions and the lives of others). The blood of the innocent are on all the hands who stand by saying over and over (silencing their conscious which tells them the truth) “It’s not a baby, it’s not a baby.” Yes it is! And your idea of pro-choice is deplorable, it is giving the mother a choice whether her child lives or dies. Does a mother have a right to murder her child after they’re born? I mean its still “part of her body”, the child came from her so why not give her the right to end her child’s life? Do you see where your logic gets you, really?

      The man in this video who attacked the camera is clearly in the wrong. The preachers where trying to help the mother; understanding that, no matter what our culture says, abortion weighs heavily on the mother’s heart and mind. The violent man in this video probably talked her into getting one in the first place so as to not take responsibility for his actions. There is no giving credit to this man, he was not defending her from “the big bad preachers” if he was any man at all he would have tried to talk her out of having an abortion. But you wouldn’t understand such a sentiment since you want to justify the selfish deeds of those who wish to end a life for their “quality of life”.

      • Sir Tainly

        Disgracefull…my views!?

        Het…why don’t you go make up some commandments out of thin air without God’s blessing that also demonstrably change God’s order and actually steal from peoples’ inherint liberty: just to bring in tithes and offerings…nevermind, that’s what you are already doing.

    • Mark

      We’re on the subject of abortion – the killing of an pre-born developing baby human, NOT self-defense. That is an entirely different subject.

      • Sir Tainly

        That comment of mine was in response to Jimmy Grimes’ definition of murder…which I think calling simplistic is about as tactful as I can get.

        “Murder is the intentional taking of a life. Look it up.”

        This conversation is about whether or not abortion is murder Mark. So definitions and things like killing will of course come up as a part of the exchange.

        Try to keep up a little better before you mistakenly cry “FOUL” again….K?

        • Mark

          THANK YOU for defining exactly what abortion is….“Murder is the intentional taking of a life. Look it up.”

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Sir Tainly, you are making a common false argument, namely that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Based on your foolishness, we cannot even say that what Hitler did to the Jews was murder because it’s not mentioned in the Bible!

    There were many ways to murder someone in ancient times – I am sorry that not all of them were listed in the Bible for your clarification – so that you wouldn’t have to think for yourself. Perhaps one reason Moses didn’t mention abortion is that only the most callous and cold-blooded individual would not recognize the hiring of an assassin to chop up a baby in the womb as murder?

    You make the ironic statement “freedom to choose I say.” But, you have left out “choice” for the baby. Who speaks for her? Obviously not you.

    If you are a man, shame on you for not protecting the innocent and defenseless! If you think you are a Christian, please repent and surrender your life to the God of Life, Jesus Christ, and abandon the devil of death. If you have advised your girlfriend to have an abortion, there is hope and forgiveness for you to be found in Jesus Christ.

    • Sir Tainly

      Nice try Wordgonecrazy, but this is not personal at all for me except that I think I need to speak. You can’t touch this! 😀

      It’s not murder if it’s not a living breathing human. And sometimes even that is OK with God as in self-defense, soldiers, and the Police. But you are not as hard to answer as in these cases that require some intelligence and subtlty, you just don’t have a case cause abortion is not murder.

      What color is the sky in your world?

      Emotionally driven nonsense, to write an unGodly law to force families to do something without God’s blessing. Your types never end well.

  • James J. Grimes

    There is a difference between murder and homicide. Homicide is always a crime. Both involve taking a human life. Life begins at conception. Christians believe that. Heathens believe otherwise.
    Your comment,”You simple minded…” Was that supposed to be an insult?

    • Sir Tainly

      It was supposed to say “Your simple minded definition…..” and I don’t really care how you take it James as long as you know that I meant it.

  • Thom Dunbar III

    “God’s commandment, or law says ‘You shall not murder.” (Deuteronomy 5:17 ESV) In our law – until recently, killing babies thru abortion was murder. Our laws might change, but God’s law doesn’t change.”

    • Sir Tainly

      Until recently abortion was not murder, nor was a self-induced miscarriage. Recently that changed, and more recently the laws were corrected to line up with the Bibe, where the individual’s involved have all authority with no interference from God himself.

      God’s laws don’t change but you are making up definitions and even have history entirely backwards….sheesh.

  • Karate Kathleen

    Well, these men may have good intentions but their approach was wrong. They need to be more sensitive and less confrontational. Their “in your face” and pushy approach wasn’t helpful, especially when they persisted after they got a negative response from the lady. The lady’s response should have told them they needed to leave her alone, but they didn’t. So they are partially responsible for the attack. I think they need to stop doing this, and get more training.

  • Lindsay

    I think we need to remember that God calls us as Christians to rescue those headed to the slaughter.
    These two men are obviously there in hopes of sharing the gospel which condemns sin. could their approach be better? maybe. Things are bad because the church is silent. If you see a problem with these mens’ approach start praying and studying the word and stand with them at your local abortion center…

    • Sir Tainly

      For whatever it’s worth to you, I have had polite conversations with kind faces about what is on my heart for the protests. My point was pretty much, I fear that you are leaving these girls intimidated and scared and that it could be handled much better. As it was a decent conversation with a kind person it went well. Then the protests stopped, but maybe it is just the weather. 😉

    • Karate Kathleen

      Lindsay, yes well said. I’m going to think about this some more. There must be a way to reach out to people and get better results. A major problem is how to reach out without turning people off.

  • Leslie Eyton

    James Patrick Riley – well stated. I agree that turning the other cheek is needed when the circumstances warrant, but we too often forget that circumstances also warrant turning over the tables in righteous anger. It’s a dangerous path to justify ourselves by our own sacrifices, defending them without humility, as Aamir is now doing. Pride in turning the other cheek only feeds the victim’s self-righteousness, and feeds that of the one swinging.

  • James J. Grimes

    Ladies and Gentlemen, you’re wasting your time with this guy Tainly. Totally ignore him and maybe he will go away.

    • Sir Tainly

      Once again with the extra harsh and unwarranted judgment James. I’m beginning to think that is how you normally operate.

      You make up your own definition for murder. You act like you have God’s blessing when you do not have his Word. You are consistent with the put downs when your own logic fails you.

      All this from my perspective and I have at least said that I am glad our exchanges are in this public forum so that the readers may decide for themselves.

      That is actually how “pro-choice” is supposed to work.
      When you say:

      James J. Grimes
      December 25, 2013 – 10:59 pm
      “Ladies and Gentlemen, you’re wasting your time with this guy Tainly. Totally ignore him and maybe he will go away.”

      …..you do not operate without making your unfair and rude directives known.

      Are you used to talking to sycophants?

    • Mark

      Yeah really. Can’t debate ignorance.

      I’ve only been here a short time and already I’ve see him (or her) as another ignorant selfish person who really needs God to open his secular polluted mind. NO professed Christian of his or her right mind would ever deny the humanity of a developing baby human.

      • James J. Grimes

        Mark, thanks for sharing. It is unfortunate that those with other agendas – Atheists, abortionists, and such stalk this site to try to impose their heretical positions on the rest of us.

        Have a great day. I hope your Christmas was a good one.

        James

      • Sir Tainly

        Two direct insults and an implied mental imbalance from the Markmeister…. at least He’d (Jesus, not Mark….definitely not Mark) straightened that sort (mentally imbalanced) out personally, and advocated comfort for the feeble-minded, spoke of patience with those that oppose themselves…..well, OK, some of that was the apostle Paul too but I think it to be sound, reasonable, and a true Christian ethic.

        WOW, with you guys it’s like talking to the exact opposite of Jesus.

  • Janet

    The pro-life crowd would like to see fetuses given full human rights. Problems like this are going to start happening.

    Pregnancies that become life-threatening conditions: can we now press charges against a fetus for attempted murder?

    If I threatened someone’s life, I would surely be charged with the same.

    If they are people, they are subject to the laws the res of us have to follow.

    No law allows me to hijack another person’s body or organs simply because I need them to survive. If my kidneys failed on me tomorrow, I do not have the right to take them from an unwilling individual, just because I need them. Organ trafficking and human trafficking are illegal in most (of not all) countries. The only exceptions might be the theocratic middle-eastern countries where Sharia is the law of the land. Christian Sharia is coming if these pro-life idiots get their way.

    • Mark

      “Pregnancies that become life-threatening conditions: can we now press charges against a fetus for attempted murder?”

      Not exactly. Laws on the books do allow the mother to abort if her life (can be defined rather broadly) is threatened; or in case(s) of rape or the rare case(s) of incest.

    • Sir Tainly

      I like a system that gives all authority to the woman and maybe her hubby &/or family, trusted confidants as SHE WILL.

      It’s called the Bible.

      Janet is correct to point out errors as to complications arising from full human rights for a nonviable fetus, and also correct to point out the ethics issues arising from a government that takes away all of a woman’s control over her pregnancy.

      To Janet…I just call them the American Taliban! 😉

      • Mark

        I love how the pro-aborts like Sir Tainly call pro-lifers the “American Taliban.” I wonder what he call if the Taliban were not in existance?

        Fir Sir tainly American pro-lifers have 1 million percent more respect for women than the Taliban ever had. Remember 9/11, Sir.

        • Sir Tainly

          Mark
          December 30, 2013 – 4:42 pm
          “I love how the pro-aborts like Sir Tainly call pro-lifers the “American Taliban.” I wonder what he call if the Taliban were not in existence.”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          I don’t call all pro-lifers anything derogatory Mark, because the difference between our two views is that I gladly would give people the right to decide for themselves.

          But as regards to the Christian right, I don’t intend to call all of them anything derogatory either, because many of them have a clear conscience and just want to live their beliefs.

          But there is a certain point where people go beyond conscience and their own beliefs when they mistakenly think that they have the right to dictate peoples’ decisions for them.

          As to common faults within the pro-life movement…but not all of them….they remind me of the Taliban in that they would impose their religiously based laws on all other peoples.

          Except it’s even worse in this case because our American Taliban members (that in this case happen to also be pro-lifers)don’t even have any religious laws to back them up….nor any authority from God’s Word rely on.

          Straightly said…factors that I see at work are false prophets, the money generation for an emotional cause as it applies to the collection plate, and histrionic ministers that are acting for the sake of getting their reward from men.

          As to what I would call them if the Taliban was not around…I’ll have to think about it Mark buddy. 😀

        • Sir Tainly

          I have not forgotten your question Mark. (no pun intended) ” I wonder what he call if the Taliban were not in existence?”

          Right now the best answer that I have is; churches that abuse.

          From Wikipedia, the entry for a publication called, “Churches That Abuse”.

          Churches That Abuse, first published in 1991, is a best-selling counterculture apologetic book written by Ronald M. Enroth. The book presents real-life stories of pseudo-Christian churches and organizations deemed spiritually abusive and the effects these groups have had on their members. A primary theme of the book is to demonstrate, through case histories of individuals, couples, and families, that “spiritual abuse can take place in the context of doctrinally sound, Bible-preaching, fundamentalist, conservative Christianity”.[1]
          Enroth outlines the backgrounds of the leaders of these groups and explains how the groups evolved to the point of becoming spiritually abusive. A few religious authors, such as Ruth Tucker, former professor at Calvin Theological Seminary, have objected to the research methods used by Enroth.[2] However, the book has been praised by many in the anti-cult movement, including Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph.D;[1] Michael D. Langone, director of the American Family Foundation; Dr. Paul R. Martin;[3] and James Leo Garrett Jr. of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

        • Sir Tainly

          “In the book, Enroth lists several characteristics in identifying abusive churches.

          Control-oriented leadership[edit]
          According to the book, “…experience with authoritarian leadership is, unfortunately, not unusual for people who have been a part of spiritually abusive groups. Control-oriented leadership is at the core of all such churches. These spiritual power holders become strong role models, and their dogmatic teaching, bold confidence, and arrogant assertiveness become powerful forces of influence. They use their spiritual authority to intimidate the weak and those who consider leaving their flock.” (Page 42)

          Spiritual elitism, perceived persecution[edit]
          According to the book, “The spiritual elitism of abusive churches can be seen in some of the terminology they use to refer to themselves: ‘God’s Green Berets’, ‘God’s End-Time Army’, the ‘faithful remnant’, the special ‘move of God’. As one ex-member put it, ‘We believed we were on the cutting edge of what God was doing in the world. I looked down on people who left our movement; they didn’t have what it took. They were not faithful to their commitment. When everyone else got with God’s program, they would be involved in shepherding just like we were.’ … If abusive churches are exclusive and special, it follows that they will be targets for persecution, or so their leaders seem to feel.” (Page 61)

          Manipulation of members, fostering dependency[edit]
          According to the book, “Spiritually abusive groups routinely use guilt, fear, and intimidation as effective means for controlling their members. In my opinion, the leaders consciously foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and interpersonally, by focusing on themes of submission, loyalty, and obedience to those in authority. In all totalitarian environments, dependency is necessary for subjugation.” (Page 53)

          Life-style rigidity[edit]
          According to the book, “Traditional evangelical churches value and respect individual differences. For the most part, they encourage people to become unique persons in their own right, not mere photocopies of someone else. Authoritarian, manipulative fringe groups, on the other hand, encourage clones and promote cookie-cutter life-styles.” (Page 54)
          “… authoritarian churches demonstrate an excessive focus on such concerns. The restricted life-style and limits on personal freedom that follow are just other examples of the need to control that all abusive churches exemplify. Conformity to prescribed standards is achieved, more so than in mainline churches, through peer pressure and pastoral directives.” (Page 70)

          Emphasis on experience[edit]
          According to the book, “Quite clearly, the excesses at Community Chapel demonstrate what can happen when spiritual experience dictates theology and then necessitates a re-interpretation of Scripture. Subjective experience takes care of the theological loopholes that the Bible seems not to address. The leadership of Community Chapel promoted the view that one could accept certain doctrines and practices if they could not be disproved from Scripture, rather than accept them because of a strong conviction they were right because they were taught in God’s Word. It has been said that commitment without careful reflection is fanaticism in action, and that certainly was the case at Community Chapel.” (Page 26)

          Harsh discipline of members, information control[edit]
          According to the book, “Virtually all authoritarian groups that I have studied impose discipline, in one form or another, on members. A common theme that I encountered during interviews with ex-members of these groups was that the discipline was often carried out in public-and involved ridicule and humiliation. (Page 78)
          “Members of all abusive churches soon learn that the pastor or leader is beyond confrontation.” (Page 81)
          “Unwavering obedience to religious leadership and unquestioning loyalty to the group would be less easily achieved if analysis and feedback were available to members from the outside. It is not without reason that leaders of abusive groups react so strongly and so defensively to any media criticism of their organizations.” (Page 84)

          Painful exit processes[edit]
          According to the book, “Leaving an abusive church situation can be extremely difficult, calling into question every aspect of life members may have experienced for the period of time they were involved. (Page 89)
          “Leaving a restricted and abusive community involves what sociologists call the de-socialization process whereby the individual loses identification with the past group and moves toward re-socialization, or reintegration into the mainstream culture. There are a number of emotions and needs that emerge during this transition process. How one deals with these feelings and affective experiences has a significant impact on the overall healing that is required. Many have described the aftermath of abusive-church involvement as comparable to that of rape victims, or the delayed stress syndrome experienced by war veterans. It is recovery from what might be called spiritual rape.” (Page 90)

      • Mark

        “nonviable fetus,” Just another humanisitc label for a developing baby human to deny its’ humanity.

  • James J. Grimes

    Here is some good news – http://christiannewswire.com/news/5664773388.html Death Throes of the Death Industry: A Record 87 Surgical Abortion Clinics Close in 2013

  • els

    No point in arguing about whether abortion is murder. I believe people know deep down that it is and choose to deny it. The problem is they have to confront a Holy God one day-where there WILL BE NO ARGUMENTS. judgement will be final and complete. Murder is murder regardless of how you try to dress it up.The aborted baby will be in the arms of Jesus, while the unrepentent murderer is in fearful place awaiting judgement. Just because someone thinks that jumping out of a plane in mid flight without a parachute will not hurt him, will not change the reality of terrible consequences that person does jump out. Denying the reality will not change the reality.

  • Sir Tainly

    I will gladly give you respect for how you said that with two comments designed for consideration els.

    #1. Would you give people the right to choose and decide for themselves?

    #2. I am not entirely unfamiliar with the issues that arise in regards to God’s judgment and making up commandments and entirely false commandments in God’s name is not very high on the eternal “approval list” either.

    To me your comments are worth considering, but if you threw them at women and their husbands….or babes in Christ, as it more or less happened in this news story….you’d have me all angry as well. I hate it when people throw about God’s judgment as a cudgel to the babes and uninitiated…especially when they are dead wrong.

    • crackedlenses

      @Sir Tainly,

      You and your embattled opponents are missing the forest for the trees. The debate over whether or not you have to be born to be counted as alive is a crucial point, but you are completely ignoring the effects of abortion, as well as the philosophy behind it.

      Is abortion murder? The Jews and the Early Church believed so. The Bible teachers that I trust concur.

      Is abortion destructive to the family and unGodly in its assumptions? A resounding yes.

      -Abortion assumes that the parents, and not God, are the source of the child. Therefore, the parents have the right to terminate the child at any point its development.

      -Abortion also assumes that one can commit fornication or adultery and not deal with one of the consequences: unwanted pregnancy.

      -In that vein, abortion offers the temptation of a cop-out, an attempt to shield one’s self from God’s law. Say what will you will, the vast number of abortions have not and will not be medical emergencies or any other justifiable use, but rather young unwed mothers trying to take the easy way out.

      -Abortion also tempts the men involved to refuse responsibility for the child, and believe that they can use women for their own pleasure without the consequences.

      Notice that I am not speaking in hypotheticals; I am speaking of what has already happened and is happening. Look at the blacks in this country, who account for a majority of abortions and have a record number of single mothers. Look at the number of abortions taking place (and these are all supposed to be medical emergencies?). Is God somehow supposed to condone this? How can your begin to offer a solution when you advocate one of the central causes of this destruction?

      In the end, God, and not sexual intimacy, decides whether or not you become pregnant. Getting rid of the baby or fetus or whatever word you use is telling Him that you know better than He how you should run your life. God gives you the freedom to do so. That does not make it God’s plan, nor does it make it right.

      No disrespect intended, but you are wrong. Dead wrong.

      • Sir Tainly

        You are entitled to your opinion both as to when abortions are legitimate and necessary and when they are wrong crackedlenses. That is how pro-choice works for you. It would be the height of hypocrisy in my book to advocate pro-choice but then begrudge people the right to think for themselves.

        I do have a real issue with the pro-life crowd on both Biblical perspective and seeking to force rigteousness on people through man-made laws…..no matter how sincere the proponents are.

        I also have never seen an abortion restriction that in some way did not hurt some people that forced death or danger on a few women because these situations are complicated and unique.

        So given the truth that God himself has made no restrictions, and also that every one that I have ever seen is in some way faulty it seems both reasonable and spiritual to leave it be as my most uncompromising Biblical view leaves it….entirely in the hands of the people involved in the pregnancy. There is more than one place in the Bible where God gives people enough rope to hang themselves yanno, even if in this case I don’t see that going down. But then it is not for me to guess (or intrude on them with stupid, unbiblical laws)how peoples’ choices go down between God and them in the long run.

        If you want to tell me I’m wrong on that….it would be most helpful to successfully dispute my points….who knows?, I might just thank you when it’s all over. 😉

        • crackedlenses

          “It would be the height of hypocrisy in my book to advocate pro-choice but then begrudge people the right to think for themselves.”

          I’m glad you are being consistent. It would appear that your position hinges on whether or not abortion is murder. I’ll give some of my reasons for believing so later on.

          “I do have a real issue with the pro-life crowd on both Biblical perspective and seeking to force rigteousness on people through man-made laws”

          Forcing righteousness? Hardly. Just because we “force” a man to not murder his brother does not mean we prevent him from murdering his brother in his heart. I guarantee you though that if we leave murder “entirely in the hands of the people involved” murder would dramatically increase, both in deed and thought. People would cease to see murder as morally wrong.

          Actually, this has happened with adultery and is already happening with murder. First, the unborn. Next, the elderly and infirm and deformed. Soon, it won’t be a choice, but will be a state mandate.

          I’ll get to why I believe abortion is murder in my next post.

          • Sir Tainly

            Whether or not abortion is murder is a rather key point, we seem to agree on that.

            As to:”Soon, it won’t be a choice, but will be a state mandate.”
            As to predictions as to what’s coming, they are somewhat centered around opinion and supposition. If it ever becomes, “Thus saith the Lord” the stakes are immeasurably higher as to whether or not it is true or false….to me.

            As to:”Actually, this has happened with adultery and is already happening with murder. First, the unborn. Next, the elderly and infirm and deformed. Soon, it won’t be a choice, but will be a state mandate.”
            I think every one of those situations may be somewhat related, but none of those other issues by themselves change my opinion on this one. Whoever said that the ethical application of scripture to real world situations would be easy anyhow? I’m not lumping them together beyond acknowledging that there perhaps are sick and twisted people in positions of power that are psychopaths that are generally in favor of cheapening the value of human life.

            If I were to see a simpler and better solution than letting women and/or their people decide for themselves I would go for it, but I’m not anticipating a change of position. That’s about as willing to reason on this issue as I’m capable of right now.

        • crackedlenses

          I took a look at your post on Exodus 21. What translation are you using? My translation (KJV) and the translation of the Bible teacher I listened to on abortion (NKJV/NASB I think) render the verse very differently.

          “who knows?, I might just thank you when it’s all over. ;)”

          Actually, I thank you ;). Your posts made me go back and double-check my positions. Let’s get started.

          -First off, the word used for baby in the NT is used for both born and unborn babies. There is no word equivalent to fetus, because life was considered to begin at conception.

          -Second, both the Jews and the Early Church rejected the abortion being done by the Romans and other people around them. One codification of Early Church teachings clearly states that abortion is murder, as well as the Early Church document The Epistle of Barnabus. So, Christian pro-lifers today are actually in line with the Early Church in doctrine if not in action.

          -Thirdly, the writers of the OT clearly believed that God hand-made them in the womb. There are several passages by Jeremiah, Job and David that I know of. There are probably more. Terminating in the womb sounds more and more like murder.

          -Lastly, God’s sovereignty. You stated earlier that “He knows every healthy birth, he knows every still birth, and he knows every abortion long before it happens,…” and you are completely right. God knows everyone who will be saved and yet holds the damned accountable for rejecting Him. Just because he knows what you will do does not make your actions right and does not absolve you of responsibility.

          In light of what I know, it would seem that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder. If abortion is indeed murder, then the pro-life movement is showing remarkable restraint.

  • Sir Tainly

    “I took a look at your post on Exodus 21. What translation are you using?”
    Check the link out for yourself crackedlenses. It is a rather long discussion of the issues along with this translation. The title is:”Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993) 233-53″
    Copyright © 1993 by Westminster Theological Seminary.

    Said the author:
    “It will be my purpose to reexamine the interpretation of this passage and reassess its
    relevance to the issue of abortion.”

    &

    “On the other hand, the case of the pregnant woman cannot be used to
    prove the humanity of the fetus either. Contrary to the exegesis common among certain anti-abortion Christian theologians, the most likely view is
    that the death of the fetus is to be assumed throughout the entire case. It cannot be proven whether the formula “life for life” applies to the fetus since it occurs in the instance with Nvsx (“serious injury”), which deals
    exclusively with injuries to the mother. The wording of the case does not rule out the possibility that the fetus was considered subhuman. Rather than proving the humanity of the unborn, the passage instead serves (by its contrast with the subsequent case) to demonstrate the humanity of slaves.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The early church was never in a position to pass laws and enforce them. And those who were seeking to enforce God’s Laws (Not just their ideas) on others were rather intensely resisted by several apostles. These pro-life laws are not God’s law, so resisting them seems even much easier to me. Our situation now is different, and I’m not taking any position from any person as Gospel (but if either the gospel or the law had made it clear then that would be another cat to skin entirely)…but then I don’t do that for the Epistle of Barnabus either. 😀 So even their opinions are just opinions, not ordinances from the Lord. The writers of the Bible seemed willing to acknowledge the difference.

    And I am not for absolving of any responsibility. To encourage people to make up their own minds is to require them to accept responsibility. But these pro-life laws, they have caused women to die, and for even one life the people that pass these laws shall be held accountable.

    What you don’t have is scriptural precedence as to taking the choice away from the women &/or her people with her. And you have historical records that abortions existed in Egypt, yet OT law leaves it without any ordinances.

    But you do have plenty of precedence for the rebuke of people who seek to bring people into bondage through the law, and pro-life laws do not even rise close to the level of actual OT laws.

    Simply put, it seems that you are trying to reason an uphill battle with me, but I’m still good for now.

    • crackedlenses

      “So even their opinions are just opinions, not ordinances from the Lord.”

      Their opinions were formed based on their understanding of Scripture and the Jewish heritage passed on to them. I have never claimed that “thou shalt not abort your baby” is a law of any kind; rather, it is an aspect of the “thou shalt not murder” law we already have. Unlike you, I believe that what the Early Church believed is of great significance, because of their close proximity to Christ’s life. They knew Him much better than we do. Their opinion counts. Not Scripture, definitely, but still worthy of note.

      “To encourage people to make up their own minds is to require them to accept responsibility.”

      Nice try. What you are referring to actually is encouraging people to terminate a person God created. Last time I checked, we were not given the authority to get rid of people out of convenience. Encouraging people to have the baby and make sure it finds a home is taking responsibility, and highly undesirable when you can simply toss the baby.

      “But these pro-life laws, they have caused women to die, and for even one life the people that pass these laws shall be held accountable.”

      And abortionists like George Tiller will be held accountable for the millions of unborn they have sent into eternity. Somehow I’ll bet the pro-lifers will fare a tad better.

      “What you don’t have is scriptural precedence as to taking the choice away from the women &/or her people with her.”

      I have adequate Scriptural precedence to say that abortion is murder and an assault on humans at the most helpless state in their physical existence; the Law takes care of the rest.

      “Simply put, it seems that you are trying to reason an uphill battle with me, but I’m still good for now.”

      Good for you. The reason I am going to be dogmatic on this and still say you are dead wrong is because I believe the Scripture indicates this. Nothing personal, and I appreciate that you have thought out your position.

      In closing, I believe abortion to be murder, and murder to be against God’s and our country’s laws. No budging there.

  • Sir Tainly

    Opinions count, yes they do crackedlenses. Especially for the people that relate them to their own actions. But opinions are not enough for me to base a law that leads to any suffering or harm to even one woman. Opinions are not enough for me to make laws in God’s name when God Himself left the entire issue unstated.

    They were inducing miscarriages in Egypt when Moses was being raised to the status as a Prince. Given the fact the Pharaoh was having the Israelite male children killed you have to know that Moses was well versed on every aspect of these issues and the ethics involved. For all that, God did not put one ordinance as to the issue: leaving it for us to decide. And those who not hold to scripture, well the scripture gives them the right to choose for themselves as well…right or wrong.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Romans 2: (1599 Geneva Bible)
    7 That is, to them which through patience in well doing, seek [g]glory, and honor, and immortality, everlasting life:
    8 But unto them that are contentious, and disobey the [h]truth, and obey unrighteousness, shall be [i]indignation and wrath.
    9 Tribulation and anguish shall be upon the soul of every man that doeth evil: of the Jew first, and also of the Grecian.
    10 But to every man that doeth good, shall be glory, and honor, and peace: to the Jew first, and also to the Grecian.
    11 For there is [j]no respect of persons with God.
    12 [k]For as many as have sinned without the Law, shall perish also without the Law: and as many as have sinned in the Law, shall be judged by the Law,
    13 [l](For the hearers of the Law are not righteous before God: but the doers of the Law shall be [m]justified.
    14 [n]For when the Gentiles which have [o]not the Law, do by [p]nature the things contained in the Law, they having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves,
    15 Which show the effect of the Law [q]written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts accusing one another, or excusing.)
    16 [r]At the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to [s]my Gospel.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So you need not worry about accountability, for no matter the choice they will face accountability. That is between God and them and He doesn’t need your help cause He has it covered.

    I don’t think that you have adequate scriptural basis to make up laws from scratch in the Lord’s name. This is an entirely different can’o’worms than choosing for oneself what is right and true.

    As to your own mind, you have the right to make it up. But as long as people consider these women that have abortions to be murderers, then they will probably be more justly angry husbands (even if he did over react) as in this story. And I will continue to be stirred up when I see pregnant women and their families troubled by what I consider to be false judgments, false legalism, and the ideas (judgments of men)of even well meaning Christian being substituted for God’s silence on the issue over these many thousands of years.

    You have considered enough to make your mind up as you will, but you have no spiritual precedence either to specify abortion as murder, or write laws accordingly. And even though I find the old “agree to disagree” quote to be somewhat boorish and annoying I do appreciate your conversation here crackedlenses, especially since you seem to be straightforward and not so histrionic as some others.

    his·tri·on·ic
    ˌhistrēˈänik/Submit
    adjective
    1.
    overly theatrical or melodramatic in character or style.
    “a histrionic outburst”
    synonyms: melodramatic, theatrical, dramatic, exaggerated, stagy, actorly, showy, affected, artificial, overacted, overdone; More
    formal
    of or concerning actors or acting.
    “histrionic talents”
    PSYCHIATRY
    denoting a personality disorder marked by shallow, volatile emotions, and attention-seeking behavior.
    noun
    plural noun: histrionics; noun: histrionic
    1.
    exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention.
    “discussions around the issue have been based as much in histrionics as in history”
    synonyms: dramatics, theatrics, tantrums; More
    dramatic performance; theater.
    2.
    archaic
    an actor.

    😀 😀 😀