Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Once Again, The Media Gets It Wrong

By Greg L | 25 February 2010 | 13th HOD District | 25 Comments

For all those so eager to jump on the bandwagon of criticizing Delegate Bob Marshall for comments he never made, here’s something for you to consider. 

Below is the actual press conference where the statements were made, which hasn’t been provided by any of the mainstream media outlets who seem so dedicated to attacking him. Only Bob Marshall seems to be interested in providing the truth here, and “journalists” covering this non-story should be ashamed of themselves for providing such slanted coverage and throwing gasoline on a fire not worthy of being lit.  It has been days now, and not one peep regarding the actual news conference, yet plenty of coverage about what one news outlet said happened at the news conference and apparently never did.

I’m just waiting for a follow up story by the News & Messenger and other media outlets that splashed this non-story all over the Commonwealth, something that will explain how they somehow got their reporting wrong. I’m sure it will come out in their next editions, aren’t you?

Let’s just watch and see how long before they retract their statements.  That should be a fun exercise.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Groveton said on 25 Feb 2010 at 1:04 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t know what you are trying to say in this post. He said exactly what was reported in the story I read. In fact, I copied the exact words he said in a comment to your original post on this topic. I watched the video. I don’t see anything in the video that excuses his inappropriate comments. Apparently, Bob Marshall doesn’t either since he expressed regrets over his “poorly chosen words”. Oddly for a man falsely accused by an unscrupulous press, he expressed his regrets in a follow up interview with the very reporter who originally broke the story.

    The best thing conservatives can do is to let this one go. Bob Marshall’s “poorly chosen words” were not a figment of the press’ imagination. They were a stupid comment uttered by a usually smart man.

  2. charles said on 25 Feb 2010 at 1:20 am:
    Flag comment


    The original news story was clearly wrong, because Marshall never said God was punishing anybody. I know some people equate “Nature” with “God”, and so maybe using Nature without making it clear what was meant was “poorly chosen words”. But that doesn’t excuse a reporter who jumps to conclusions and twists words and pretends he’s just repeating what was said.

    His comments were also correct. There is an effect of aborting a first child. Now again, the term “vengeance” can also mean punishment, but “Nature taking vengeance” isn’t a term used by a Christian to mean “God rendering judgement”. His audience would have known that, but maybe not a reporter — again a reason to say words were poorly chosen, but no excuse for a reporter to claim Marshall was saying handicapped children were God’s punishment for abortion.

    Marshall also noted that theologically, the Bible indicates the special nature of the firstborn. This is a way to suggest that some things we find in religion are later found to have a grounding in science, like for example dietary laws which served to protect from common parasites. And again, his audience would have understood that, and known he was using the science of the study and suggesting that it reinforced Biblical principles. And others might get confused by that, and mistakenly think he was suggesting the biblical concept of punishment was being equated with the scientific “vengeance” that “nature” extracts for abortion. But that doesn’t excuse a reporter from misreporting the facts.

    The reason this became an issue is clear — a scientific study has once again shown that abortion is not like having a wart removed, no matter how much the pro-abortion activists would have you believe otherwise. It is a serious and sinful and unethical choice which, in addition to murdering an innocent person, also has physical as well as emotional consequences for the woman who allows it. Bob pointed that out, so he must be attacked. Can’t have women find out that Planned Parenthood lies to make money on abortions.

  3. Greg L said on 25 Feb 2010 at 1:22 am:
    Flag comment

    He never said disabled children are God’s punishment for women aborting their babies, and that’s the crux of the media reporting that criticized him. Reporters interpreted his comments in a way he never intended them to be taken. Marshall has apologized for making statements that could be misinterpreted, but the misinterpretation is the responsibility of people who made those errors in the first place and never bothered to follow up with him to ensure they were getting their story right.

  4. Groveton said on 25 Feb 2010 at 1:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Once again …. this is what he said:

    “The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

    Be honest …

    He meant:

    1) The bible teaches that the first born is dedicated to the Lord.
    2) Aborting the first born is aborting something dedicated to the Lord.
    3) Women who abort the first born (i.e. something dedicated to the Lord) see a higher rate of birth defects in later children.
    4) Christians suggest this is a “special punishment” - presumably for aborting the first born.

    Sorry guys but just like “Mecaca”, this was intentional and stupid.

  5. I'm just saying... said on 25 Feb 2010 at 8:52 am:
    Flag comment

    we all heard what he said… what’s that quote about “lipstick on a pig”? He is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party since 2008. The best thing Republicans can do is “man up” and dump this guy quickly.

  6. Forgotten Man said on 25 Feb 2010 at 10:12 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t know that I would have said the same thing but I am somewhat perplexed by all of the hoopla. From what I heard from his statement is that after having an abortion there is a medical risk to future children due to the possibilty of medical complications. I would think that this same principle could easily apply to any organ in the human body.
    I think that some folks should take a pill and calm down a bit and concentrate on the real issues out there.

  7. A.G.Gilmore said on 25 Feb 2010 at 10:13 am:
    Flag comment

    If Delegate Marshall was indeed slandered like he claims he was, why doesn’t he just sue the CNS?

  8. Citizwn12 said on 25 Feb 2010 at 12:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    All I see at the press conference is a public official speaking in support of a group opposed to the taxpayer funded practices of a particular organization.

    Someone who opposes this group’s position attacks some aspect of the comments of Bob Marshall in an effort to deflect attention from the topic at hand.

    Has anyone else noted how deflection has become so commonplace as a defense/attack tool in everyday life and no one seems to get called out on it?

    I watched both videos and read numerous articles from a number of sources and don’t see a problem with anything Bob Marshall said.

    What he said was Planned Parenthood was a failure and the money needs to stop, based in part that they account for 25% of abortions and help people prescreen for birth defects and prescribe abortion as a solution.

    He indicated that medical science supports the link between the trauma of first abortions and the subsequent risk problems with future pregnancies.

    He associates Old Testament beliefs with the findings of scientific studies to add weight to the argument presented at a faith based conference.

    On a side note, let’s take religion and abortion out of the equation. As a taxpayer’s we all should want to know what they are spending our money on, and if it’s working as planned.

    Be it teenagers, adults or married couples, when it comes to pregnancy and birth rates I do have a problem with spending billions of tax payers’ dollars through Medicaid and other programs underwriting the breeding cost of irresponsible citizens.

  9. J.R. Hoeft said on 25 Feb 2010 at 3:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree, Citizwn12, in that what Marshall was saying about Planned Parenthood is right on the mark. And that’s where I hope this conversation turns, and quick.

    However, and this is important, we all know what Del. Marshall was implying in his statement when he said “a special punishment Christians would suggest…”

    Just because Del. Marshall has given Liberals ammunition in perpetuity, doesn’t mean we should look just as stupid and add fuel to the fire by perpetuating the myth that he never said it.

    Nope. He said it. It was dreadful. He needs to apologize. We need to move on and continue the critique of PP.

  10. I'm just saying... said on 25 Feb 2010 at 4:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    J.R. Hoeft… I think you’ve got it!

  11. bob marshall said on 25 Feb 2010 at 9:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Please check the facts and go to my website. There also was an article in the W Post today which presented more information in the Metro section. Below are my comments I delivered on the House Floor on Wednesday.

    Mr. Speaker, on Thursday February 18th, a press conference was held in the General Assembly, the purpose of which was to demand Planned Parenthood not receive any funds out of the state budget. Media attending included ABC News, Channel 8, CBN, The Washington Post, Richmond Times, The Virginia Pilot, The Associated Press and other fine news sources.

    Next day press reports noted comments made at the press conference. Conspicuously absent from all the reports was the claim that any speakers at this press conference made statements calling handicapped children punishment from God for abortion.

    Three days later on February 21, Capital News Service claimed that I did in fact make such a statement, yet, no other news service picked up this “alleged statement.”

    Why? Because that statement was never said, period. All of Virginia’s professional journalists missed what a Capital News Service claims to have found? I encourage anyone to go to my web site, www.delegatebob.com to find the entire video of my comments and easily see for themselves, I never made such a comment. But it has been repeated endless times in print and electronic media without producing the smoking gun tape.

    Of course, if some wish to make their own inferences, that is their prerogative. However, they should acknowledge that this is what they are doing. Furthermore, it is no one’s prerogative to claim I spoke words which never came from my mouth, have never been in my heart, and have never been in my public record. I’ve served here nearly two decades. I believe most of you know me well enough to know I would never make such a statement.

    I have championed the rights of children that groups like Planned Parenthood think have no business being born. Everyone deserves a lifetime!

    I acknowledge that my extemporary remarks mentioned “Nature’s vengeance” or “punishment.” I could have certainly used better words to explain the medical research findings which show a high incidence of complications following induced abortions. Accordingly, I have posted on my web site direct excerpts from 258 peer review studies from the National Library of Medicine as well as the results of research contracts with the US Public Health Service.

    Moreover, a 2007 edition of the Journal of Reproductive MEdicine articles notes that 31/5% of all new Cereberal palsy cases occur becase of a previous abortion. And that the cost in the US of this is $1.2 Billion a year.
    Actions within Nature are not direct actions of God. It would have been better had I used the words “natural consequences” to convey my meaning. But even so, not one professional news source attributed a sinister meaning to my words.

    Furthermore, my personal and public life show a respect for unwanted or disabled children, including our adoption of three of our own children, one of whom we were told by the adoption agency had a 50-50 chance of carrying a gene that would cause her death as a young adult. We found out years later she did not have the gene. My oldest son, now deceased, took personal care of his quadriplegic friend, taking him to school and sports events.

    And I am sure you cannot forget my bills to provide health insurance for autistic children which almost got me kicked out of the Republican Caucus for my hardball tactics, as well as my decades of pro-child, pro-women legislation. And this year I authored the cord blood bill to help disabled children and First Responders, which this House unanimously supported.
    I also have proposed HB 334, which passed the House of Delegates 95-2, and which requires women undergoing abortion to be offered medical articles concerning possible complications in future pregnancies, a bill which Planned Parenthood opposes.

    There are powerful interests which seek to prevent this information from reaching women. And, there is the tragedy of Planned Parenthood, which endorses pre-natal diagnosis to eliminate the live birth of persons with disabilities.

    The disabled and their families are reacting in part to words I never said, never meant, and don’t believe. I served here almost two decades. You know these news accounts are not fair. But I continue to apologize to families for the fallout from all of this.

    I take my oath of office seriously, and believe it is important to protect my constituents by ensuring full transparency about a procedure that may adversely impact their future reproductive health. That is why I strongly believe that Planned Parenthood, which performs roughly one-fourth of all abortions nationwide and opposes protecting women with this vital information, should not be funded by Virginia taxpayers.

    Children, whether wanted or unwanted, intended or unintended, “normal” or disabled, of any background or are blessings from a loving God. I have held this view from the first day I came here and will hold it to the last day that I serve here. I will continue to fight on their behalf and on behalf of the courageous families who care for these wonderful children.

    As to the VCU run Capital News Service, I forgive you for making this slanderous claim about me and my life.

    Nevertheless, there remains the journalistic obligation for Capital News Service to correct the record and to publically acknowledge the following:
    -You never gave me a chance to defend myself.
    -You never checked with me to verify whether I believed your claims or that my meaning was as you suggested.
    -You have made inferences about my words, but presented them to the public as if I actually said them.
    -Your web site claims to present my full comments but a transcript of my actual comments made available by CBN and now on my website shows you ended my comment in mid sentence and omitted my reference to a VCU study of adverse complications from induced abortion relating to low birth weight and premature birth.
    -Your report as to what was allegedly said was NOT verified by professional colleagues or a video of the original press conference.
    -You are using equivocal meanings to the terms Nature and God to make a claim about children and the Creator that I never made and don’t believe.

    Let the truth be known.

    Thank you Mr. Speaker.

  12. Charles D. said on 26 Feb 2010 at 11:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Marshall was merely showing a correlation between those who get abortions and the lower subsequent proclivity due to the ramifications of that procedure.

  13. Groveton said on 26 Feb 2010 at 9:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is disgraceful. Weasel words and excuses.

    Here’s the sentence -

    “There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”.

    It’s in the video. Bob Marshall did say it.

    This is almost identical to George Allen claiming first he didn’t know what “mecaca” meant (despite having said it on film - sound familiar?), then claiming he knew what it meant but it isn’t an insult. Finally, he came up with some story about his Mom being Jewish in some bizarre effort to distract people from his comment.

    It’s time for Del. Marshall to “man up”. Time for him to admit his mistake, admit he said something stupid, apologize for what he said (NOT how it was interpreted) and move on. Anything less is somewhere between intolerable hubris and outright deceit.

    Man, what a TYPICAL politician Marshall is.

  14. standing with Marshall said on 28 Feb 2010 at 8:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    As for the disputed Marshall comments, the transcript speaks for itself. Please read it rather than relying on media reports.

    But I feel compelled to provide clarification on one point: Delegate Bob Marshall is anything BUT a typical politician. If you judge the man by his record rather than by a single spoken sentence which was taken out of context, what you find is that Bob Marshall is a statesman who fights for just causes (protection for the unborn, insurance for children with special needs, counseling on the effects of divorce on children…) even when he has to fight alone. Whether you agree with his ideology or not, surely you can respect and admire his courage.

  15. local gop said on 1 Mar 2010 at 12:02 am:
    Flag comment

    “the transcript speaks for itself”

    Of course, and the transcript shows that Marshall said exactly what he claims to not have said. how stupid does he think voters are?

  16. michael said on 1 Mar 2010 at 11:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Regardless of people’s personal interpretation of scripture, I take issue with any government legislator who is unable to seperate church and state, and who uses his position of government appointment to advance his own personal religious morality and clearly personal Christian beliefs and personal interpretation of the Bible by taking the political act of denying government funding, and by taking political action in favor of one religious belief over another in violation of the Constitution and assuming he has a right to dictate to others what God’s intentions are for other people and their unborn child. Bob should stick to denying himself funding and not denying other people funding and choosing only for himself to not choose abortion and not restrict others from having their own religious choice to choose abortion if it is right for them according to thier own understanding of scripture. It is not Bod Marshall’s God given right to deny the rights of others to choose for themselves what the scripture mean regarding abortion, and it is not Bob Marshall’s right to determine who is and is not a proper “christian” according to the “word” as interpreted by Bob Marshall. Bob needs to keep these comments in his own Church and to his own convictions and personal discussions with God, not force his beliefs of what the scripture mean upon others who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what scriptures mean.

    “Obligation Keepers” of Levitican old testament law force others to follow the religious interpretation of the Old Testament by enacting legal and social laws they believe are what God meant, rather than allowing others to choose for themselves what God meant. Obligation keepers are those class of oppressive religious fanatics throughout history who have denied others the right to choose for themselves what scriptures mean..and have oppressed and kept people in misery in the name of God…

    What God’s word and the Bible intends for others is up to God and those individuals, seeking their own advice and direction from God, and freely chosing that path for themselves, not decided by a politician who clearly advocates against abortion because of his own religious beliefs and not because he represents the “people”, “all” of them, and not just the people he agrees with that abortion is a sin according to the bible and according to Gods word.

    Here is my issue…not one single scripture exists that I can find in the Bible that defines abortion…Not one single scripture exists that I can find that specifically prohibits women from having an abortion, and that specifically prohibits women the RIGHT to consult God on what they need to do about having or not having a child based on what is best for that woman and what is best for that child.

    Quote me the SCRIPTURE that says abortion is a sin and that women will not get into heaven if they have an abortion and that God will punish them?

    If you find it explicitly in the old testament, and I seriously doubt you can, I can find lots of other old testament levitican law that advocates putting people to death who violate levitican law in direct scriptural defiance of moses’ law “thou shalt not kill”.

    Personally I believe if you can’t understand how the new testament overrides the law of moses and levitican law, then I seriously doubt Obligation Keeper Christians will ever understand Liberator Christians needs to fight for the right to seperate Church and state to avoid the religious oppression of Obligation Keeper Christians who use politics and government to impose on others their version of what God wants, and will never understand that religious law is between the believer and God, punishment is Gods alone for not understanding the new covenant, and people who go against the compassion of God for the welfare of all his children, by forcing publically religious ideology on people according to their own interpretation of scripture, understand neither the mother nor the unborn nor likely even the second covenant. It is my belief that God has the best interest of all in mind by allowing freedom of choice to choose what the scripture means and what it does not mean for each individual according to his own needs and Gods personal voice. God’s compassion and God’s love for each of his children, both the unborn (who he takes care of when they are not born into this world), and the born who he takes care of if they simply understand and believe in the second covenant.

    Why is it so hard for Obligation Keeper Christians to let God’s words be heard by each individual themselves and not ramed down every individuals throat using oppressive legal laws and government intervention using politics, government and religious oppressions to impose their personal wills onto people’s personal religious needs and beliefs? I can find lots of scripture where Christ supported the needs of women, the needs of the miserable, the meek, and politically oppressed, against the Levitican law, and he himself was crucified because of religious oppression by the government and enforcement of levitican law…

    Show me the scripture where people like Bob Marshall have the right to supercede God’s will to let people choose for themselves and show me the scripture where people like Bob Marshall (whom I call obligation keepers) because they believe they have the right to impose God’s Levitican law on others and the right to impose their interpretation of scriptural beliefs on others through Levitican enforcement and religiously oppressive action using the government?

  17. Greg L said on 1 Mar 2010 at 11:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am right in the middle of a rather large and urgent project so I can’t answer this in the depth it deserves, but you’re running the risk of treating the Bible like a buffet here.

    Some relevant passages are Matthew 18:10, Job 31:15, Psalm 22:9-10, Psalm 139: 13-16, Isaiah 44:2, 24, and Luke 1:15. None of these alone are going to spell it out for you that abortion is a sin, but you can clearly see from these that God created you in the womb, values that creation, and sees the destruction of that creation as murder. Anyone trying to twist these teachings into something they’re not isn’t enjoying their right to ‘interpret’ scripture in their own way but substituting their own desires and ideas for the Word. I can’t imagine how anyone who actually knows the Bible can possibly contort it into condoning the intentional murder of innocent unborn babies. They might as well try to contort it into advocating infanticide. There’s really not a whole lot of difference between the two, after all.

    What you appear to characterize as ‘obligation keepers’ I think are more accurately people who have really tried hard to understand the Bible and follow it’s teachings so as to lead a God-pleasing life as a form of personal worship. Yes, even ‘obligation keepers’ (like myself, perhaps?) will sin and are thankful for the knowledge that through our faith and by the grace of God we are forgiven our sins, they’ve been paid for with the blood of Jesus, and we will one day be in Heaven. We hope everyone else will be there also, even those folks that commit different sins than us such as abortion. Fortunately they’ve got the same opportunity we have.

    As for Bob Marshall’s authority to rebuke those who follow false teachings, I’ll refer you to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Timothy 4:2-4.

    I note that in all the extensive writings you’ve offered about what you believe the Bible says, you’ve yet to refer once to a passage in scripture. I surmise that’s to keep the discussion at a level where folks who don’t regularly read the Bible can feel comfortable, but if you want to discuss theology it’s pretty useful to quote or at least refer to the important passages you’re discussing. That lets people who aren’t quite sure about what you’re saying get a better grasp by going right back to scripture.

    Wish I could write more tonight, but I’ve got lots of “miles” to go before I sleep, and worked through most of last night as well.

  18. michael said on 2 Mar 2010 at 1:01 am:
    Flag comment

    I disagree that those scriptures are talking about abortion…that’s your interpretation not mine, and I don’t treat the bible like a buffet, I see it in its entirety with the second covenant being primary over all other interpretations…compassion for the individual, and Christs love for all..the mother and the child.

    I think you are and often do grasp scriptural quotres out of context…

    This is not referring to abortion…
    Matthew 18:10 See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”

    Scripture is often used out of context…
    Job 31:15 is also not talking about abortion…

    “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?”

    Or Psalm 22:10

    From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

    Which is not talking about abortion but the context of Isaiah 46:3 “Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, And all the remnant of the house of Israel, You who have been borne by Me from birth And have been carried from the womb;

    They are all talking about Christ…your savior who you need to honor and talk to as he was given to us by human birth…none of these scriptures are talking about abortion…

    None of the scripture you quote are directly defining or are talking about abortion… as I interpret them…and none of them give you or me the right to deny another to interpret them as they understand them regarding meaning and context…directly from God…

    Any political oppression to deny the individual the right to interpret the scripture by enforcing law and government policy on that individual is not following the second covenent…including political activism of anti-abortion activism as a religious right justified by scripture…the scripture I read gives each individual the right to interpret God’s word for themselves and to seek that guidance (on all issues including abortion) directly from God and prayer…no politician or interpretion of another has the scriptual validity to over-ride that…

  19. michael said on 2 Mar 2010 at 1:08 am:
    Flag comment

    If you want to challege my belief scripture for scripture have at it..I usually don’t quote it because it is easy to misinterpret without the rest of the scripture that goes with it or the context of the voice of God leading up to it, which I have learned has many meanings to many different people as intended by the writer..

    I’ll find scripture to support my position for every one you find that challenges it, I have no problem with that…so if you want quote away…I’ve got many of my own favorites…that show how people in the Church oppress and enforce their own version of levitican law on others in the Church…out of arrogance, ignorance, and pride…

  20. michael said on 2 Mar 2010 at 1:38 am:
    Flag comment

    The difference between obligation keepers and liberators is the tendancy for some Christians (called obligation keepers) to impose their own political will on others as if they have the right to be the messenger and interpreter, and punisher for not following levitican law…

    A liberator follows the message of the second covenant independant of other’s interpretation and political will or oppressive interpretation of law… A liberator follows the voice of Christ and judges themselves, not others. Obligation keepers judge others and not themselves in contrast to Liberators listening to Gods voice for themselves almost exclusively of God’s voice regarding others…

    It is a huge philosophical difference in the Church, regarding humility, compassion, love for others, sympathy, and a true desire for other’s happiness as a higher calling than the levitican form of justice extraction believing themselves a proxy for Christ to believe in a calling to extract misery and oppression through political activism and oppressive doctrine.

    In my interpretation of scripture, you are correct in that you need to use scripture to better your own life…But I do not believe God intends for others to use scripture to claim they know better for other’s lives when the people they “instruct” see personal misery and political oppression from your actions…contradictory to God’s compassion and love for them…woman and child..

    Refusing to defend the needy- Isaiah 1:17, 23; Jeremiah 5:28
    Not assisting the needy- Ezekiel 16:49
    Excessive violence in war, especially against innocents- Amos 1:13

    The Lord Jesus said in Luke 12:1, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

    Psalm 10:17-18 LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear: To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.

    1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

    Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

    I have to still find the scripture that declares that the greatest oppression and greatest misery will come from within the church…

  21. michael said on 2 Mar 2010 at 10:48 am:
    Flag comment

    I think you miss the point of what I have been saying….

    I am not “for abortion”. I am for “choice”, especially when that choice is made in conference with scripture, which does not give specific guidance for the issue of abortion (you will not find abortion in a concordance), but does give specific guidance for consulting God on a case by case basis, to determine what to do when the scripture is not explicit, prohibitive or directive. It is not “anti-Christian” to consider the entire impact of a pregnancy on a young woman’s life, to determine through prayer what is best for that woman and for that child, to consult with God and dump the entire issue on God’s directives for compassion, understanding, humility, needs for peace, stability, happiness and spiritual calmness, with each answer coming to the individual as they hear it, regardless of the interpretation of the scripture of others, people of power and people of indignation, hatred and anger at the woman…God I believe sees the need to protect the woman as much as the unborn child and to care for the best interest of each.

    But that is not the real issue here…the real issue in Bob Marshall’s choice of words and what he meant is the issue of how God directs each individual to focus only on Him, and not the externals…to focus inward so deeply that what emerges after a period of intense study and internal reflection is a deeply spiritual man of compassion, love, kindness, gentleness and humility approaching that of a lamb…to focus on brotherly love and compassion for others before contempt and anger toward others on all issues (including abortion and politics and comments men make that defile themselves) and the need to keep each individual’s eye on the proper course (the primary focus on the second covenant in all matters), so they do not lose their way…

    To explain that.. I need to go get my bible out of my car as I am naked without it…

  22. michael said on 2 Mar 2010 at 12:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    As often happens it is uncanny how the scripture you need is already tabbed and marked so it is the first page you turn to, but when I awoke this AM and opened my Bible for guidance and understanding of what to say next, this is what was spoken to me:

    (I put the highest priority and deepest meaning on words that come directly from Christ, often in apparent conflict and contradiction over scripture from Levitican Law and scriptures of Moses which deal with old testament laws (obligation keeper quoted laws that are often used by political powers and self-righteous people of anger and hatred toward brothers and sisters to oppress and condemn the needy, the innocent and the oppressed… these laws are prior to the second covenant law…)

    Mark 7:5 “And the pharisees and the scribes asked him, “why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands? And he said to them, Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me, but in vain do they worship Me teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God you hold to the tradition of men. He was also saying to them, You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said honor your father and your mother and he who speaks evil of father and mother, let him be put to death. But you say If a man says to his father or his mother anything of mine you might have been helped by is given to God. You no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down and you do many things such as that. And after he called the multitude to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to me all of you and understand: there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him, but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. If any man has ears to hear, let him hear. And when leaving the multitude, He had entered the house, His disciples questioned him about the parable.

    And he said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach and is eliminated. And he was saying that which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.”

  23. michael said on 2 Mar 2010 at 12:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ezekiel 3:8 Behold I have made your face as hard as their faces, and your forehead as hard as their foreheads, like mery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house, moreover he said to me Son of man, take into your heart all my words which I shall speak to you and listen closely. And go to the exiles, to the sons of your people and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not.”

  24. michael said on 2 Mar 2010 at 12:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    So the primary issue with all political advocacy and the way people treat others in terms of deeds or works is to profoundly understand the gift of the second covenant…and If this cannot be understood and held higher than any law of Leviticus or Moses, then a Christain is lost, wandering and misguided…

    John 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

    Ephesians 2:8 “for by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

    Ephesians 2:14 “But now in Jesus Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barier of the dividing wall, By ABOLISHING in his flesh the enmity, which is the LAW of commandments contained in ORDINANCES, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.”

    Christ did not simply do away with the law, he ended or fulfilled it. Jesus is the substance of the shadows, the antitype of the types, and the very epitome of all the moral enunciations of the law. Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5: 17). Notice the next verse, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (vs. 18). Jesus fulfilled the law and inaugurated his system or testament (Lk. 24: 44, 47). Christ’s system is not without law, but the onerous system of Moses was nailed to Jesus’ cross (Gal. 6: 2, Col. 2: 14, see addendum).

    And his guidance for how we should treat brothers and sisters…the concept of AGAPE overrides anger and contempt for others not following the law of Moses and Leviticus abolished and fullfilled by his flesh…

  25. michael said on 2 Mar 2010 at 12:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Romans 12:9 “Let love be without hypocrisy, abhor what is evil, cling to what is good, be devoted to one another in brotherly love, give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality, bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not. Rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep, Be of the same mind toward one another, do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly.

    Do not be wise in your own estimation, never pay back evil for evil to anyone.

    Respect what is right in the sight of all men” (which can refer to what is said on blogs).

    Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, VEAGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

Comments are closed.

Views: 2241