Monday, June 1, 2009


Tiller began providing the life-ending procedure known as abortion(also known as a "choice" by some) in 1973 after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. I guess there is a statistic out there that can put an actual number to all the nameless children that Tiller killed but I do not have it ready and quite frankly, would probably be appalled by what I would find. 36 years of "technological service" to ending babies lives is the legacy of Tiller.

Comparing Tiller's end with an abortion may seem shocking at first but the irony is truly found in the details. Consider that Tiller made a living taking children from the sanctity of their mother's womb. Tiller's own life was taken from him in the sanctity of a church. Tiller made a living treating babies as if their lives had no value. Tiller's own life was taken from him by an individual that assigned more value to unborn babies than Tiller's value as a human being. Tiller's death left a family in shock and disbelief. How many husbands, fathers, and mothers were left in shock and disbelief after learning of Tiller's procedure upon a loved one? Tiller's years were shortened no doubt in an instant, in a single moment of time. Tiller was denied the privilege of living out those years. His family was denied the joy of those years. Yet, Tiller constantly shortened lives in an instant of time. He denied those babies the privilege of living out their years. He denied the families of those babies the joy of those years. But you argue, Tiller did not have a choice in his death. He was killed by another man on that man's whim. And I respond to you, all of those babies killed by Tiller did not have a choice in their deaths either. They were killed by another man on that man's whim.

I'll conclude this brief comparison in this way. It was an outrage for Tiller to day in and day out take the lives of babies. It was an outrage for Tiller, in the name of technology, to impose his practice upon those who had no choice in the matter. In much the same way, it was an outrage for Tiller to have his life taken in the place and in the manner of its taking. I do not doubt that many will cry foul, though I am quite sure that had he chosen to do all within his knowledge to extend life rather than take life, he himself would be alive today.

Where is the outrage? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when a baby was ripped limb by limb from its mother's womb? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when a mother on occasion died from the procedure? Where was the outrage of those crying foul when the mothers who survived the abortion procedure went on to live with years and years of terrifying dreams and visitations from their unborn child? There was no outrage for those babies or the women left scarred from the procedure, so why would you expect there to be an outrage over his own life being taken?

In no way do I commend Tiller's murderer for what he did and where he did it. But I find it extremely ironic that Tiller met his fate much the same way the victims of his "procedures" did. He found himself at the end of an instrument being held by an individual who sought to impose his will upon another. The only real difference that I can see is that the babies had nowhere to run.

***News article can be found HERE.***


Byroniac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Byroniac said...

Luke, this is a well-written post. I agree 99.44%. The 0.56% disagreement (per Ivory soap specifications) may be more of a caveat than anything else. I think people without the Spirit of God try to use faulty reasoning to reach fatally flawed conclusions: human life is sacred (true), abortion is murder (true), murder is evil and deserves the death penalty (true according to God's law to Noah), stopping an abortion provider (murderer) will prevent future abortions (murders), and since abortion providers are murderers they deserve the death penalty, especially if such prevents future murders. That logic sounds great, but it ignores the fact that there are other people involved in that decision (to have an abortion) as well, and God will judge the hearts. But I'm interested mainly in what you think of my logic, because I do think there is a problem of extremism that is causing horrific crimes such as this to happen. But the fault is not in being pro-life, but probably in playing God and taking vengeance when it is not yours to take (speaking about the one who did this ghastly deed).

Luke said...

Your question to me regarding your logic deserves a thoughtful response. I am currently "mulling" it over. It's not that I disagree. I think the tree just needs a few more branches. So I'm not putting you off, I am just trying to give a well reasoned response. Hopefully by this afternoon.


Luke said...


Quicker than I thought will be my response.

I think your logic in trying to trail together the thinking of such an individual is probably close to the thinking of those who would respond as this man has responded.

However, I do not think your logic lends itself automatically to extremism. The point of divergence comes in the application of how one STOPS the murders. And here is where it gets sticky.

Suppose you happened upon a man/woman who was being beaten to the point of death by a robber. Would you intervene and would you use death to stop the offender if that it was the situation called for? I'll answer for my own self. If I happened upon such a scene and the only way to stop this was to kill the offender, I would not hesitate for one moment.

Now my thinking leads some to conclude that I should do the very same for the unborn baby. I have no doubt that that is where the practical application of my thinking would lead me if I followed through.

I agree, though, with you that the abortion also includes others such as the mother who is choosing to do this to herself. And that is where the defining point of this issue will be. Is the child just another organ of the woman or is the child just that, fully human and deserving of all rights.

It would appear that our court system is inconsistent on this issue. Murderers have been charged for killing the unborn as well as the mother when they committed the act against the woman.

And by that reasoning, it would not be an extremist conclusion but rather a natural conclusion that an unborn child needs to be protected...if not by the mother then it needs to be defended from its mother.

All of this leads us to the larger debate about just "when" the baby truly becomes a baby. Some would argue a woman can be pregnant but not with a baby until X number of weeks. Others argue that a baby is formed at the moment of conception.

I think many of us are empathetic with what the man did and in some way are relieved that Tiller will no longer be able to kill babies. We just differ in practical application of how Tiller should be stopped.

That's the long of it. At least for the moment.


Byroniac said...

I guess what I was looking for is the way to defuse such logic. I'm not persuaded by it, but I can see it as a logical conclusion of truth mixed with faulty premises. What I want to know, why is the man wrong for killing the doctor, and on what basis?

Sure, there is the sixth commandment, but that only drives the argument back a step (because the doctor murders by committing abortions), and then you can keep backing it up I suppose (how is justice to be carried out and who gets to do it and under what circumstances?) and not really get anywhere. I can reason that behind abortion is the desire to murder, behind the desire to murder was the desire to escape the consequences, behind (chronologically) the desire to escape the consequences was the desire to fornicate or commit adultery, behind that was the desire to sin and rebel against God. Based on this, I would seek to undo the faulty reasoning of the logic I gave and get off into a theological tangent.

I for one, do not empathize at all with this cold-blooded killer, even if he did stop an abortion doctor from continuing to perform abortions. I can't see a fetus in the womb, but I can see a fellow human being who is cut down in a place supposedly of peace and sanctity (not that I believe the building actually does anything, but I can recognize the purpose behind the building). I would have to ask myself, though, how does a religious congregation overlook abortion in their own midst? Then I have to ask a hard question, do we encourage brutal killings like this with our dogmatic theology and lack of outrage? (Don't get me wrong, it's always a human life, from the point of conception on, but I think we're guilty ourselves of placing less value on some human life than others, we just come at it from a different perspective, and I am not sure how to approach this with respect for all human life, but without sacrificing justice).

Luke said...

Ahhh, I see what you are getting at.

I think that for us, the contention comes between God's law and man's law/governmental law. We are bound by much of man's law. We are not bound to uphold it when it violates God's law. Thus Jesus was all for paying taxes since the money was made by the government, it belonged to the government and could be recalled by the government for any reason.

As far as killing the man in church, I do have problems with that BUT,(don't you just love when someone does that :)), in the book of Numbers when the people went after the way of Balaam, we do have a man and woman killed in the Tent of meeting but that is where the sinful deed took place. My point for that is, the deed was addressed WHERE it took place not withstanding that it was in the Tent of meeting.

Back to the issue. If we are going to be true to our Scriptural boundaries, we must find some constructive way to stop the abortions. It would be most acceptable to be done within our legal means. I think that is where both your and my struggle remains. It is the living out practically with our hearts in heaven while our feet are on earth.

By the way, I noticed that you did not address my illustration of helping another individual who was being attacked. Would you care to address your thoughts there? To me, it is helpful in determining that both of us are ideologically on the same plane, we just fold the dimensions a little differently in the corner.( That was a play on words there about plane.)

Kim said...

I think the bottom line is that Dr. Tiller was acting under a legal right to practice abortion (certainly not a moral one, though). As such, his life was fully protected by the law, whereas the unborn child is NOT protected by law. Unless, of course, the mother wants that child, in which case if someone were to in some way kill that child while it is in her womb, they would be charged with murder. Quite a country we live in, huh?

From what I understand of the bible, we are to obey the law of the land unless it is in direct opposition of God's Law. But murdering someone, for ANY reason, is against God's Law in the New Testament. "Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord". This is a case of two wrongs not making a right. Unfortunately it will likely cause damage to the pro-life movement, and give Homeland Security more ammo to go after "extremists"... in fact there is talk in the news of the right-wing extremism report as deserving a second look. So the backlash from this action is already under way and being used to further hamper the pro-life movement.

There is a difference between killing (as in self-defense) and murder (as in a pre-planned action). So if in coming upon the scene of a crime and intervening on the behalf of the victim led to the killing of the perpetrator, it would be unplanned and would fall under grace. (That's not to say your actions would necessarily hold up in a court of law, but I don't think it would be counted as a sin by God).

By the way, Napolitano is an ardent pro-choice advocate. Is that any surprise, though, Considering that our President is in favor of late term abortion? God help us all.

Luke said...


I agree that the backlash is sure to cause waves of response that we will not be fond of and with pro-choice leaders, it is a surety(without Divine intervention) that new laws will emerge because of this.

Is all killing murder? Obviously, we do not think so. The Bible did not hold the blood avenger accountable as a murderer. Instead, it gave the blood avenger complete liberty to slay the murderer of a kinsman. It is also clear that God uses various means and methods to bring about His vengeance. Against Israel was brought Syria, Assyria, Babylon, Medo/Persia, Greece and Rome. He used the hands of men to establish His justice BUT he held those men accountable when they ventured outside of the bounds of His will in regarding HOW His justice was to be carried out.

You are very correct that we are told in the NT that vengeance belongs to the Lord. Would we recognize His vengeance if He used the hand of man? This is currently what I am wrestling with. I still maintain at gut level that the man who killed Tiller cannot be commended. I am just not at the point to be able to reconcile all of my thoughts on this into one cohesive and consistent reasoning.

The premeditation on Tiller's killer's part is worth thought as to how that fits into the whole scenario. In fact, even more than that, did this man even have a family member affected by Tiller's trade is going to be an important issue.

Thanks for your contribution Kim.

Our help comes from the Lord, maker of heaven and earth. May we look to him for wisdom in addressing this issue in its totality.

Byroniac said...

I like what Kim said.

Luke, I need to give a longer response than this maybe, but I am going to boil it down to a nutshell.

I did not really want to deal with your illustration, which made me uncomfortable, because I am not sure how to answer it. Let me pull my slightly lame "Excuse Rabbit" out of the postmodern hat and say this, feeling that you must do something (kill the attacker in your scenario) does not always translate into being right to do so (for example, we might be guilty of false reasoning, have overlooked or misunderstood a critical piece of data concerning the situation which might have altered the course of events and avoided bloodshed, or so on). And of course, I made an implicit appeal to Romans 13 and the proper use of government. What I wonder is, supposed you want to kill a man who in your view deserves to die, but you cannot according to Romans 13 let's say because it is not legally sanctioned. Then suppose you win a legal and criminal judgment against that individual, the sentence is death, and you are commissioned to carry out the penalty. What really was accomplished here, except you doing what you wanted to do anyway, and that you gained permission from others who had the powers of oversight and justice in the matter? What I mean is, suppose you acted alone, killed the man, then won in a court of law. It would seem that this is only slightly worse than executing the man according to legal duty in light of Romans 13, only the permission was not obtained first in your scenario. Is that what you are talking about, having a struggle with how to straighten this out morally? Because that is where I am stuck, pondering it.

Kim said...

Byroniac, I think you pretty much answered your own question: gained permission from others who had the powers of oversight and justice in the matter. To me, this translates as a jury finding the defendant guilty - therefore following the law of the land. If state law condones capital punishment, then you would be "justified" (by LAW) in taking that life. If, however, YOU are acting as judge and jury, you are considered a vigilante and you are taking the law into your own hands...without the benefit of the burden of proof.
For someone to actually be condemned under death penalty rules in this country, a long line of procedure must be undertaken: To punish with death, each one of the 12 jurors must agree with the prosecution in each of five specific areas ( 12, 14, (a)14, (b)15, (c)16, and (d)17 (with 18 & 19). A death sentence requires that the prosecution must prevail in 60 out of those 60 considerations, or 100%. To avoid death, the defendant must prevail in only 1 out of those 60 considerations, or 1.67%. If convicted and sentenced to death, the inmate may then begin an appeals process that could extend through 23 years, 60 appeals and over 200 individual judicial and executive reviews of the inmates claims.

With that being said, God CAN and does use murder and death (or any other sin) to glorify Himself. We don't always see the big picture, and we can't possibly anticipate HOW He will utilize mans actions as something that magnifies His omnipotence, but it always does! Praise be to God.

Luke said...


Legal duty, moral duty and perhaps even spiritual duty. Let me explain. The death of a murderer is required because they took the life of another. The life of the one that was killed was just as valuable as any human life and to demonstrate that value, the murderer was to be put to death. In other words, the slain one's blood cries from the earth.

If I can prevent the murder of an individual, I have a moral responsibility as well to intervene. To sit by and watch makes me a co-conspirator according to Scripture and so I am under obligation to get involved. Prevention of the murder of the innocent requires whatever the least amount of interference that is needed to stop the murder. Should that require the ultimate for the murderer, then so be it. Within this scenario is our duty towards our neighbor who is the one in need. The murderer is not the neighbor in this instance.

Where I am at Byron, is that I would NOT find a person guilty of murder who was defending himself or another. Would they be guilty of killing someone, yes. I mean, come on, the person is dead. But it would not be murder.

Why do we view it differently when someone was seeking to protect an unborn baby who cannot defend or even speak for himself?

Kim is right in that the law governs these circumstances. We do not view a cop guilty of murder who protected the innocent even when it meant the killing of the violent individual. The law is on his side and by the way, I believe the law of God would be on his side as well.

But just because something is legal, abortion, does not make it right. The law is on the abortionists side and in this case, is against the individual who would seek to protect the innocent unborn baby who cannot protect himself. I think this is duplicity in its finest.

Different example. In Nazi Germany, Jews could be killed/murdered indiscriminately, LEGALLY. But suppose you took one into your home, the Gestapo showed up and you killed the Gestapo defending the Jew. Are you guilty of murder? I am sure the German law at that time would have said yes. Would you have been a participant in murder had you given them the Jew? NOT according to German law. But in both of these, there is a higher law. God's law. And that is where I struggle. To what degree and just where do we draw the line? What does God expect from us?

If a law was passed that is was legal to kill Byrons. I would be willing not only to kill to defend Byron but face whatever penalty is decreed for those who do so. Why? Well, Byron is my friend. Byron is just as much human as any other in spite of the fact his name is Byron. And being named Byron is not worthy of death. It does not violate the value of any other human being.

Well, I've tried to illustrate in multiple ways where my thoughts/logic are at at this time at least. Hope this helps.

Luke said...


That is my greatest hope in all of this that God is working to bring to pass His will which would include the cessation of the murder of unborn babies assuming that He finds that offensive and sinful. If we have no hope in God, then we are truly without hope for only He can change the heart of man.

Byroniac said...

Luke, thanks, and yes, I agree. I still think the problem of vigilante justice and extremist logic remains, not through any fault of the pro-life platform itself, but due to wrong interpretations and conclusions. I do not know what to say about this. It's possible that neither the doctor nor his killer were truly saved in the first place and both acted out of carnal reasoning from the flesh, in the name of man's religion (something I suspect). Sorry, I had to go on a tangent there, but I'm back.

Luke said...

I too would have a hard time reconciling genuine Christianity with an individual like Tiller who killed babies on a daily basis. I think we'll learn more about his killer as time comes to pass.

For both men, God is the final say and the truth detector on what is/is not within their hearts. One man has met eternity. The other has not but one day will as shall we all. I am indeed thankful that I stand in the righteousness of Christ for without that, I could not stand before God.

selahV said...

Luke, and then we have the innocent soldier standing in front of a recruiting office when an Islamic extremist murders him and wounds another. And reports allege he had far more targets in mind, including a Baptist church and day-care center. And there's no outrage there, either. All depends on the media's perception of which group they want to spotlight as the villains of life.

Personally, I absolutely do not agree with Tiller's assailant even as I abhored Tiller's actions. Hard as it is to deal with, God's grace covers all sins--no matter who commits them (large or small). God's mercy is greater than our mercy and His judgement more just than our own. Had the courts gotten it right when they tried Tiller, then this would not have occurred, would it?

I wish we didn't have to try and figure out all this stuff. It's easier just to trust in the Lord with all our heart and lean not unto our own understanding. Isn't it? selahV

Grant said...

This is amazing that I have stumbled upon this post late at night. For the past few months I have wrestled with this same topic. It has even kept me from sleeping like it is tonight. First of all I am no biblical scholar but I do have a strong point of view on this subject. However this point of view comes straight from my gut. Whether it meshes with biblical truth or not is where the struggle comes from. As far as my gut goes, I have no sympathy for Tiller and I am even a little relieved that he has taken his last breath. I wouldn't have advised anyone to go through with this kind of violence but since it has happened I am not outraged or saddened. Maybe I am wrong but that is what I feel. I like Luke's comparison between this situation and the hollocaust. Would we frown on someone who killed a Nazi to save thousands of jews? I don't think we would. Do we consider life in the womb to be just as valuable as a fully grown adult? I believe we do! So in the end what is the difference. Just because that "clump of cells" does not look like you or me does not mean it has less worth. In fact we are all a clump of cells when you get right down to it. If we go by my logic though shouldn't we all take up arms and storm abortion clinics. The answer is absolutely NO! Abortion is a completely different animal from the Hollocaust or other attrocities. It has to be attacked in different ways. Legislation and most of all a change of heart are the best ways to go about it. I go back to my struggle, though. Why do I not feel anger towards this man? Well, first of all I don't know his intent. Was this act just a way for him to gain notoriety and gain the love of anti abortionists all over america? Maybe, he viewed it as a desperate act to save countless lives. Maybe he was impacted personally by an abortion that took place in his own life. I guess what I am getting at is that while I do not condone his actions maybe his intent was honorable. We all can do wrong and stupid things with the right intent can't we? I just think that those who have honorable intentions and make a big mistake should not be lumped into the same category as those who profit from and even enjoy the death of innocents. Well I hope this made sense because it is 4 in the morning. If you made it this far thank you for taking the time to read it.

Luke said...

Mrs. V,

I wish the courts had gotten it right. There would be millions of babies who had lived and abortionists would either be behind bars or 6 feet under after facing the death penalty.

As you, my comfort is that the Lord has all of this figured out and He doesn't need my guidance. I'm content to trust Him.

And by the way, I too am surprised/not surprised that the media is not going to make much of the Islamic military killer here in the USA. I wonder how they will react when the TV studios are attacked or subjugated by those of that ilk?

Luke said...


I think your final synopsis is worth great consideration and no I do not believe the abortionist and the abortionist killer should be lumped into the same category.

Speaking with others, off the record thus no names, many will confess that deep down, they are relieved that the abortionist can no longer kill babies even though it meant he must die. I will confess that there is a part of me that feels no sympathy for Tiller seeing that he reaped what he sewed.

But like SelahV, God's grace covers all our sins to which it is applied. We join you in agreeing that legislation can stop abortion but a change of heart on both the doctor's part and the mother's part would be much more effective and even have eternal consequences.

Grant, I too sympathize with your lack of outrage and seek out our Lord to know my heart about this whether it be right or wrong. It is quite possible that we have become so used to hearing about abortion that we no longer give the proper value due an unborn child. I trust our Lord to give us peace, understanding and wisdom as we grapple with this part of our lives.

Hope you were finally able to get some sleep. Thanks for stopping by and hope to see ya again.

Byroniac said...

Well, abortion results in the death of human life, which is pretty much an inescapable reality. I wish the pro-Choice side of the argument realized this (or were more willing to admit it, instead of rationalizing the life away as a clump of human tissue). I'm not a fan of ZPG (Zero Population Growth) and I believe abortion is ultimately self-destructive for a society. I have no fear of being proven wrong on this.

Having said that, I find it very difficult to assign any kind of noble intent to the killer. How do you determine to arm yourself, hunt down a man, gun him down in cold blood in a place where violence should be unthinkable, and then assign noble intent to it? You have to jump quite a few hurdles first, not the least of which should be a natural human aversion to taking other human life. What Grant said, was perhaps the killer had a desperate desire to stop the murder of other (unborn) lives. Perhaps so, but that in no way justifies this deed or even approaches noble intent, without the devaluing of human life. This is still the taking of a human life, who is equally human to the unborn humans he caused to destroy. However, we tend to lessen the value of his human life due to blood-guiltiness and this is something that Scripture itself condones but in a context of social justice and not vigilante justice.

Numbers 35 is interesting in this context because even though we do not live under its rules from the Old Covenant, it deals precisely with accidental death versus intentional manslaughter and leaves no room for "noble intent." Granted, there is no abortion in this context, though. I would think that matters of the heart bear on this, and that makes this and any and all Scripture relevant.

One last problem I see is that the problem is almost always that I see framed simply in terms of the two people directly involved here: the doctor and his killer. What about the women and their supporters who come to the doctor for abortions, supporting him financially at least? Why is nothing ever said about them in times like these? I'm sure it's because of political correctness, especially in cases of rape or incest. Without the patients, the doctor would not be killing the unborn (though this does not excuse him!), and would not have that medical job (and perhaps not even be involved in any medical practice).

But this is why I am not impressed with my fellow Republicans who have won over all three branches of government in recent history and gave excellent speeches concerning the pro-life platform but then basically...what? I had to pause for words here, because they did so LITTLE, I find it difficult to find the right words to express their inaction. Republicans have lost almost all credibility with me, and I really think it had to do with not having as strong agreement from the American people as they liked to pretend in their speeches. A moral majority may indeed exist, but if so, it is doing a pretty good job of hiding. I have never seen it.

The doctor's medical "practice" bothered me, because he had to have rationalized away the human life he was taking as something less than fully human, probably searing his conscience over time. But truth be told, I still feel more outrage over the fact that the killer gunned him down in an apparently premeditated act (guess I would not be a good choice for his jury, huh?). I keep thinking of verses like 1 John 3:15, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." How do you square noble intent with something like that?

(Sorry, Grant, I'm not trying to disagree with you in everything, but I think there is a little more to consider here. Evil exists on both sides of this equation. And to think this whole sorry sordid affair began probably began with "lesser" sins such as lust and fornication/adultery, then compounded to this horror. Seems like sin certainly begets sin, and I have not even heard what motivated the killer yet.)

Byroniac said...

Actually, I think the Numbers 35 passage argues against my understanding, rather than for it, especially if we were still under an Old Covenant context. And I would much rather be guilty of affirming Scripture than denying it, if so. So I think I made an error of judgment now that I am giving it more thought.

Luke said...


I believe that within the context of Numbers, Tiller's killer would be allowed to live on in the Levitical city provided he was a legitimate blood avenger.

And while you wrestle with I John, also keep in mind that the man who killed Tiller can argue precisely that his love for the unborn and defenseless overruled his love for a murderer of the unborn who was not showing love for his brothers.

It is unfortunate that our laws protect men like Tiller while offering no protection for the defenseless unborn.

Your point is taken that if women were not showing up to take advantage of Tiller's provision, then abortions would dramatically fall. Rest assured, though they may ignore the silent screams taking place within their bodies and though the nurses may ignore the silent screams taking place in the rooms of the abortion, there will be no ignoring their ignoble deeds when they stand before the One who searches out the heart. I pity them for the same grace offered to me is offered to them and that grace is the only hope of their salvation.

I appreciate about you Byron that when you become aware that a passage does not support your view, you state it, own up to it, acknowledge it. For that you are to be commended and I wish you every bit of wisdom as we walk this path together.

Grant said...

Thank you Luke and Byron for taking the time to read my post and comment thoughtfully. I think we can all say that this is a tough issue that must be dealt with thoughfully and carefully. I do not just want to satisfy my own urge for justice but I want to glorify God in all my thoughts and actions. I also do not want to lose my righteous anger over the slaughter of innocent life. I do not want to be just content and appathetic. I never want to get to that point. I forgot to mention in the other post that I ultimately want to go into to law inforcement so the issue of justice is something I am constantly thinking and wrestling with. The main reason I want to be in law enforcement is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. I have always had a black and white view of what is right and what is wrong. Also, going back to the subject of Tiller's killer I would have to know his heart before I could have sympathy or anger towards him. His heart, though, is probably something I will never know.

On the subject of hate and vigilante justice I have a different view than most. Maybe most acts of vigilante justice are for selfish reasons and hate but we cannot rule out the possibility that some of these acts could have been done for the good of others. I do not think that eveyone who has killed someone for the sake of the innocent has hated the person they killed. Even Hitler and Hussein are my fellow human beings but I did not think they deserved to take another breath of life. I don't need hate to bring me to this conclusion. I see them killing thousands upon thousands of people and I see how taking them out is a way for that to stop. This is possibly what Tiller's killer felt at the time. Maybe he did not hate the man. Maybe he felt sorry to do it but he was desperate to stop the killing. Again, I am not agreeing with him. I am just trying to understand him when others seem to just lump him in with everybody else.

Also, Byron I do not think that one human being is more or less important in God's eyes. He loved Tiller and his gunman. He loved Hitler and Hussein. He loves me and he loves you. That is one thing we know. I just don't think that punishment or killing is always motivated by hate. Just as a father is pained to spank his son we should also be pained by the punishment of the guilty. That does not mean it shouldn't be done.

Also one last thing then I am done. I just was thinking about this and wanted to see where you all stand on this interpretation. The verse that says that vengence is the lords seems very interesting to me. We seem to think that by a lone person taking a life instead of judge and jury that God's vengence has been snatched from Him. I think this verse is saying that no matter what happens to the individual that vengence is ultimately the Lord's. I just don't see it as a solid verse to come back at those who have taken man's law into his own hands. God is not standing on high with his hands on his hips saying, "That's not fair! That is may job!" Whether the court or a single man delivers earthly justice God has the final word. I think it is our job as christians to seek justice in all areas of life. I believe our system of government is the best we have but let us not forget that it is flawed. I believe it provides more justice than any system has previous but it is just as suseptible to corruption as anything else. The reason I say that is so we will not follow with blind allegience a system that is run by flawed men and women.

Well thanks for listening again. If you feel like it more comments would be appreciated. I really enjoy getting these ideas out there and seeing what my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ have to say on the matter.

Grant said...


I forgot to respond to a point that was very interesting in your post. You asked why do we have more anger towards the doctors and not the women and their supporters. Well I can't speak for the whole pro life movement but anyone who is content with killing their child or anyone who is content with having other people's children killed are all just as guilty. The only women I feel sorry for are young teenagers whose parents push them to get an abortion to get rid of the "shame" they have brought on the family. This is totally without support but I think many people who get abortions are part of puritanical families who feel that the sight of a "baby bump" is more shameful than having that babies brains sucked out in a tube. I feel no sympathy for people who go in and come out with a clear conscience. Again, change of heart through the saving grace of Jesus Christ is the only way this can be stopped and stopped for good.

Luke said...


I do not have the time at the moment to answer your interpretation question but if I do not get to it tonight, I'll try to have a response first thing in the morning.


Byroniac said...

Grant, my view of right and wrong tends to be more black and white, like you mentioned, too. But I guess I am guilty of becoming content and apathetic on the issue of abortion, simply due to disillusionment that nothing has been done when people in office had the power to do something. And because of my own sinful heart which is not sufficiently steadfast in righteousness. Deep down I am relieved (but hate to admit it) that he won't be able to murder any more unborn babies. But I keep thinking, there has to have been a better way to solve this, but maybe not.

Also, I do believe that some people are more important in God's eyes than others, unless you very carefully nuance and define importance. I think this is evidenced by the fact that God does not create all people equal (in other words, legal equality does not translate into equality in Creation and natural attributes). And also, for example, God did not raise up every believer to become His personal spokesman, a prophet, to Israel. I also believe that God differentiates in His love and does not love all people equally, (such as 2 Chronicles 19:2, and John 14:21, which says, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."). I believe God loves all people, but I believe that God loves the saved more than the lost (because God should be free to distinguish His love for people just like I am free to distinguish between love for a best friend and love for a stranger).

And back to one of my trains of thought: I was thinking that since God judges the thoughts and intents of the heart, the question must be asked, where does the sin of murder in abortion begin? It does not begin with the abortion doctor, because in most cases, he or she does not even know the woman who becomes a patient. The guilt would probably begin with the mother who is making that choice to terminate a human life. Now, the scary question that goes along with that is this, who has the primary fault? If the gunman saw into the heart like God sees, what would stop him from killing the murderous mother first, then going after the abortion doctor (the accomplice)? And another question, how would the gunman/killer resolve his anger and sense of justice if the women involved could self-abort their babies (let's say for the sake of argument such a thing as volitionally intentional miscarriage existed), and there were no abortion doctors, only women who killed their babies? I guess my basic question is this, sure the killer may indeed think he is solving something and satisfying his personal quest for righteousness (possibly), but since sin begins in the heart and we may never know the full guilt or identity of all the people involved, how can that be resolved except that God does it? Reminds me of Job 14:4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one."

Byroniac said...

Luke, I forgot to thank you. Thanks. If I disagree with Scripture, then I'm wrong. Period. If I agree with Scripture, that just shows that Scripture is true anyway and God gave me the good sense to agree with the truth. Unfortunately, that is not always the case with me, and sometimes I find out I'm badly mistaken, but Scripture continues being right eternally.

Grant said...

Thank you Byron for you very intelligent and heartfelt response. Both you and Luke have caused me to think and pray on this more than any other in recent memory. Due to my limited knowledge of the Bible (which I am ashamed to mention) many of my comments have been personal opinions and gut reactions. I like how you put both your feelings and God's word into the equation. I know what you mean when the world is so full of violence and many innocents (including the unborn) are suffering every day it is easy to try to become apathetic and shut it off. Especially when everyone around you seems to not care. Obviously, though, you and I have not reached that point or we would not be conversing on here. It is nice to discuss these issues with people who give thoughtful responses and don't dismiss one another. It is very refreshing. I thank both of you for taking the time to post these wonderful ideas that have helped me to dig deeper into this subject.

First of all let me say Bryon everything you said made sense and I can see very easily where you are coming from. I know it sounds cheesy and cliche (and maybe unbiblical) but I view God as a father figure. He has many children. There are those that continue his work and legacy and there are those who rebel and do what they want. They are the one's who displease the Father. There are some of these "rebels", though, who eventually return to Him and there are those who never return. He may say to those who never return that He is ashamed of them and is greatly displeased with their actions. Does he love those "rebels" less? I deep down do not believe He does. I think sometimes we earthly creatures measure love on kind words and deeds. I am not saying that is what you are saying but people tend to believe that way. Sometimes a fathers love is turning his back or slapping us in the face. It would be the same for me if I had a son. If he did the most horrible acts imaginable I would still love him. The only difference is that I would take my hand of protection off of him and let his punishment come. I believe he grieves for those who do not follow Him and abondon His will. He took the time to create us so why would he love one more than the other? I do think God believes one person is more important to the kingdom than another. Just like the son who helps his father with his business is more of an asset than the one who wants to sit on the couch all day. Like I said before I believe he is greatly saddend by those who choose to leave and rebel. Don't you have to have love, though, for someone to be hurt by their actions. I think you do. These are all human feelings and emotions that I am applying to Almighty God, so I could be coming completely out of left field. I can't escape the feeling though that God is my ultimate father who loves me more than any other human being ever will. I have disappointed him on numerous occasions but I don't believe he has ever left my side. I also can't help the feeling that he loves the rebel who committed the ultimate act of betrayal which is rejection. He may not sit next to the father in the hereafter but remember he did create him with the same care he made you and I.

Byroniac said...

Grant, thanks. I'm what's known as a Calvinist, though, so I see things a bit differently than you do. I could be wrong, though. What I know we share in common is the belief in the absolute goodness and holiness of God, and that we're unworthy of His love and grace, yet He loves and shows us grace anyway. We serve an awesome God!

Luke said...


Here is how I view Romans 12:19.

It is buried within the context of how we are to behave daily towards those who are within, specifically, the body of Christ. Chapter 13 would deal more or less with our interaction with those on the inside of the body(10-13)and those on the outside of the body (14-21). In practice, when Peter was imprisoned, we do not find the Christian's storming the gates of the prison to release Peter but rather praying for him. Perhaps that is where we in modern Christianity have failed so horribly. Our pray lives have been replaced by Facebook and the likes. As far as it relates to us directly, we are not to enact revenge when we have been done wrong. We are to let the Lord do that.

I am at present unsure how this relates though to us interceding on another's behalf. For that, I am still seeking wisdom from above.

May the Lord grant us wisdom from above to face down this holocaust against the unborn. May our message of the Gospel not be hid from our enemies. May the God of salvation change the hearts of our enemies.

Byroniac said...


I am sorry but somehow I forgot to answer your question to me and Luke concerning Romans 12:19. Luke did a better job than my own reply would have been. So I am going to have to give the "me too!" reply for it. ;)