Jesus, abortion and homosexuality

Debra from Bread n Roses posted a YouTube in which the narrator asks:

Why do we hear so much about abortion and homosexual behaviour from the Christian Right, and not so much about stopping war and poverty?

The commenter says that Jesus mentions abortion and homosexual behaviour zero times, but the Bible mentions poverty 2000 times.

Before I address the issue directly, I just would like to say that most people who are not Christians are fairly illiterate about Christianity and theological reasoning. Not all people mind you-- I've met some fairly knowledgeable atheists, but those are few and far between. To any reasonably educated conservative Christian, this question is not very intelligent at all. It presumes a very liberal mindset about Revelation.

It's true that the Bible does not mention abortion. But that's because abortion would have been rare in the Jewish world. The goal of the Jewish people was to have as many children as possible, to increase the Jewish population, but also, more immediately, to help with everyday survival, as many hands make light.

I've addressed a number of pro-abort arguments about abortion and the Bible in this article, if you want to go more in depth.

However, the Bible does address fetal personhood. And in Luke 1, the unborn Christ and the unborn John the Baptist, in light of Christian theology, are people. The Unborn Christ as "Lord" is a person; the Holy Spirit in John the Baptist means that he has a human soul.

If the Bible is silent on abortion, Sacred Tradition-- what Catholics consider to be the unwritten teaching of God's Revelation-- is universal. Abortion is wrong.

Sacred Tradition is considered to be Divine Revelation. What that means is that Jesus agrees with it. So as far as Catholics are concerned, Jesus condemns abortion.

The same is true of homosexual behaviour. Jesus, as a good Jew, would have agreed with the Law: that homosexual behaviour is an abomination. He would have agreed with the condemnations of the homosexual behaviour in the Pauline Epistles. Homosexual behaviour is also universally condemned by Sacred Tradition.

So why place so much importance on these things?

With abortion, the answer should be easy, but liberals keep overlooking the fact that in the eyes of fetal rights advocates, abortion is the killing of a human being who is an equal with a right to life, and that no innocent should be killed. Murder is among the most serious of sins, and the fact this is legally sanctioned and even encouraged in some quarters is abominable.

As for homosexual behaviour: The family should be the basic cell of society; and families can only be created through heterosexual union. Even homosexuals face that fact.When you have two homosexuals who are supposedly married and have kids, there are at least three parental figures in that that child's life. While it's true that heterosexuals with kids re-marry , the reconstituted family is not seen as something desirable. If anything, many re-married people know firsthand that this is not in the child's best interest. Just because some heterosexuals do this, doesn't meant that homosexuals should be doing this, either. The children's interests are not best served by having more than two parental figures. Another point is that personal fulfillment is best achieved through a proper development of gender identity. Without a parental figure of one sex, that child lacks that role model.

So aren't war and poverty important issues?

The commenter in the video is under the impression that Jesus is all about stopping war. While it's true that the Bible condemns killing the innocent, it's not against war. Quite the opposite. The Bible sanctions wars of self-defense, which is what many on the Right believe the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are. If you're asking why the Christian Right doesn't talk about it, there's one answer. It doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't try to stop war. But the commenter seems to be under the impression that war should be verboten because of Christian Revelation.

The Bible does talk quite a bit about helping the poor. It tells people that to help the poor, one should give charity to them. People on the right do that. The Bible does not talk about social policy. It does not talk about social programs. It does not talk about ending poverty. Quite the opposite. Jesus said "the poor will always be with us". Poverty policy and social programs are fine to alleviate poverty, but Jesus was not out to create a classless society. His goal in having people help the poor was not just helping people get the basics, but the spiritual development of those who gave to the poor. Helping the poor creates a sense of self-sacrifice and humilty. That is the primary goal.

In the hierarchy of values, the right to life and the preservation of the family is of a more fundamental importance than fighting poverty. If a person, such as an unborn baby, does not have the right to life and is killed, he has nothing. You worry more about those in danger of dying than those who are not. If the family structure is not acknowledged and recognized, you will essentially be committing social suicide. And then what? If anything, fighting for the family is fighting poverty. Marriage is one of the best guarantors of economic security.

So there you have it folks. Personally, I was not in favour of the War in Iraq. However, I do believe that the United States has a moral obligation to stay because they are the de facto power in the region, and if they left, it'd be worse than it is now. The United States must now help establish stability. I do feel the War in Afghanistan is justified, however.