I am a strong advocate of doing our best, insofar as it’s possible, to live peaceably among all men (Romans 12:18). That includes doing our best to be respectful of others, even when we strongly disagree on the various issues. Kindness goes a long way, but our current Commander-in-Chief has, in my opinion, brought about great shame to the Republican Party by resorting to name-calling, and insulting those who disagree with him. His approach does nothing for those who point to the Republican Party as the one which bases its platform on Biblical values.

It’s true I agree with considerably more Republican policies than I do those of the Democratic Party, but the one policy that absolutely prohibits me from voting for a Democratic candidate is that of abortion. In the past year, I have posted an article, as well as a PowerPoint presentation, detailing why I am opposed to abortion, including how the Bible presents abortion as murder, but this year I found myself engaged in an internet discussion on a social media app with a liberal on this same topic. I should mention the social media app is Nextdoor, which turns out to be a liberal-leaning media source, its founder on record as having contributed to a Democratic candidate in the 2000 election cycle. During the course of the abortion discussion, I experienced a tactic that, only a few years ago, I had heard is a liberal approach to differences of opinion. That stratagem is called censorship. Although I probably should have expected it, I was nevertheless surprised when it happened to me.[1]

Liberals Seem to Support Censorship of Opposing Ideas and Beliefs

I am blessed to know the true history of my ancestors dating from the 17^th century. They fled England and came to the USA due to a combination of religious intolerance and censorship. Daring to speak out against either the king or the Church of England was a capital crime (“high treason”), for which the penalty was either imprisonment or death. Thankfully, they overcame the obstacles, including arrest, and made it here. Generations later, our new nation’s constitution established freedom of speech (including non-censorship of those who speak against an unjust government) and freedom of religion (excluding any religion supporting or enforcing intolerance of other religions, which would negate “freedom”). Sadly, the Democratic Party is now known to support tolerance of any and all religions (including those who impose the death sentence on those who renounce their "faith"), as well as censorship, which is why a conservative billionaire (thankfully) purchased the social media network Twitter, fired its liberal-leaning staff, and changed its censorship policy of banning respectful conservative comments and arguments, including suspension of conservative members. The new owner restored the right to exchange differing views and changed the social media network’s name to “X.” But, as I recently discovered, other liberal-leaning social media networks continue to exist. 

Several years ago, I received an email invitation to join the social media app Nextdoor. I joined. Initially, I liked the app because it’s designed for neighborhoods within a certain radius of where my wife and I live. I found myself drawn to what local neighbors are saying, and I would occasionally throw in my two cents’ worth regarding various issues. During the year 2024, I observed more and more liberal postings, and noticed that opposing opinions were being “removed” by Nextdoor moderators. Eventually, that included me. For example, on two occasions, posters commented matter-of-factly that there is no Creator, that we humans have evolved, etc. On both occasions, I waited a few days to see if anyone protested. Although various individuals did protest, no one attempted to refute the evolutionists' claims. I decided to respond with one of my primary reasons for believing we are children created by a loving Heavenly Father. In both instances, my posts were removed by Nextdoor moderators. It immediately became clear that Nextdoor, like Twitter, censors posts they don’t like, and they apparently don’t like posts promoting faith in the Creator of the Bible. Posts submitted that advocate the evolution religion are retained.

For some reason, I continued to check out various posts by my neighbors just to see what others are thinking. Then, in early 2026, while engaged in a respectful discussion with a liberal Democrat named David, the topic of our not-very-religious President came up. I pointed out that while I agree he’s not very religious, I DO agree with him on one major religious topic. David asked what topic that is. I refused to answer in that particular “thread.” The topic is “Abortion,” but I replied that I couldn’t bring up either the name or issue in the Nextdoor forums because it would most likely be removed and/or I might even be suspended. David was very curious as to what the topic is, so he then suggested that I DM (“Direct Message”) him in the “DMs” section of the Nextdoor app, which he apparently thought would be a safe place for a private discussion. It was not. A few days into the discussion, I was “Indefinitely Suspended” from Nextdoor, which means I am no longer able to post there. I’m not sure if David was suspended or not because Nextdoor doesn’t tell you what you did wrong—they just arbitrarily suspend you and at that point you lose all contact with any of the Nextdoor “neighbors.” Here's the message that popped up when I tried logging in:

Thankfully, I had been saving all the postings that David and I submitted, so for any who might be interested in how that discussion went, what follows is a transcript of our discussion.

Transcript of “Abortion Discussion” With a Liberal Named David

I love the Biblical narrative of King David. He was a very, very human king who “royally” messed up. Hopefully, we all know the story. But, unlike many, including his predecessor, he repented of his gross mistakes. Just read Psalms 51, a beautiful psalm in which he poured out his heart to Yahweh. But my recent “Abortion Discussion” was with a different “David.” My discussion was with a very liberal David who, from my perspective, doesn’t have much interest in living by Yahweh’s every Word. He was very, very curious as to what Scriptural topic it was that I agreed with our nation’s President. So in what I thought was a private discussion, I opened up as follows:

Larry Acheson

01/26/2026  2:28 pm

Hi, David. I appreciate you wanting to know what Bible teaching our President upholds that he has “fought” for. I do want to answer, but as I mentioned, it’s an ultra-sensitive topic. From experience, when I share it with those who do not regard the Bible as the Creator’s basic instruction manual for us, the discussion goes sideways, and emotions tend to go off the chart. This includes family members. So before I answer your question, may I ask if we can agree the Bible is the Creator’s instruction manual for mankind? Thank you!

 

Special Note: Out of respect for David's actual identity, I am only identifying him here as "David K."

 

 

David K.

01/27/2026  4:52 pm

I will accept your premise as instruction manual yet it is abused by taken out of context and not taken account for historical context. I’ll admit my biblical knowledge is limited. While I don’t wish this discussion to go “sideways” Im eagerly prepared to discuss.

 

Larry Acheson

01/27/2026 11:45 pm

Hello, David,

Thank you for getting back to me. You and I do have some things in common that I was not expecting. I agree the instruction manual (the Bible) is abused, many verses are taken out of context, and historical context is very important. I make no claims of being an expert in biblical knowledge, but it is nevertheless my favorite Book. My family and I live a Jewish lifestyle, but we do regard the New Testament, in its original form, as being inspired.

You may have already guessed that the one item on which I agree with our President (Scripturally-speaking) is that of abortion. I strongly favor abortion ONLY if a woman’s life is otherwise in danger; otherwise, according to the Bible, it constitutes murder. It’s a strange twist that Presidents such as Kennedy and Carter shared my view on abortion--that it murders an unborn child--but when Roe v. Wade was passed, of the nine Supreme Court justices, six of the majority opinion justices were nominated by Republican Presidents. Only one Democrat-nominated justice supported passage of Roe v. Wade. The other did not. However, since President Carter’s term, there has been a shift. Republicans, as a general rule, now oppose abortion, whereas Democrats generally favor it.

I strongly value life, which, by the way, is why I think ICE should have taken measures to preserve the lives of others instead of killing them. While I respect the right to defend oneself, every precaution needs to be taken to avoid casualties. In the same way, many have determined that a “fetus” is not a life until it is born. This view is not supported by Scripture, nor is it supported by history.

The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits abortions once a heartbeat is detected, typically around six weeks of pregnancy. As I’m sure you know, many abortions are performed because the couple determined they are not ready to start a family. That’s a hard decision to make, and if they decide to abort the child, I am persuaded it’s murder, yet if they make that decision within six weeks, they are within Texas law. And if the woman is raped, she needs to report it within six weeks, which I feel is certainly adequate time to have it aborted, if she so chooses.

A friend of ours, a woman, strongly disagrees with us, stating that ANY abortion is not only murder of an unborn child, but is a crime for which there needs to be punishment to fit the crime, even in cases of rape. She did not specify what that punishment should be.

My goal is to honor our Heavenly Father. If He defines abortion as the taking of a life, then the unborn child is a LIFE. And if the penalty for taking that life is death, then this is a serious matter. Democrats once understood this to be true; now they have shifted, and so have I.

So although I am no fan of our current President, I do (mostly) support his stand on abortion. I am Pro-LIFE. All the way.

I hope this explanation helps to explain the ONE Biblical issue on which I agree with our current President. I’ll be glad to share additional details if needed.

Thanks again, David.

 

David K.

1/28/26  2:03 pm

Thank you. Im greatful that you agreed to this conversation. My hope is that we will be able to clearly express our thoughts. There are so many facets when we think of abortion. I will attempt to list some.

 

        1. Biblical reference- murder, beginning of life.

        2. Biological reference- when does life begin?, viability.

        3. Historical and Legal reference- women’s rights.

 

Let me begin by stating my position. Im against abortion as a form of birth control. Otherwise, i consider it a medical procedure made between a woman and her doctor.

        1. Biblical reference-- You stated “according to the bible, it constitutes murder.” Where does the bible refer to abortion as murder? Jesus never mentioned abortion. In Exodus 21, the fetus is the property of the husband. In Numbers chapter 5, it depicts a gruesome divinely prescribed abortion tip for an unfaithful wife. There is no punishment in the bible for killing an unborn child. Yet, killing or injuring a slave, there is. Re: Exodus 21:20-21. When does life begin? Bible says when God created Adam out of clay/mud. He formed him then breathed life into him, thus creating life.

You also wrote “if” our heavenly father defines abortion as taking a life, then the unborn child is a life. I will agree “if” you can show where this defination occurs.

The new testament is silent on the status of a fetus. The old testament presupposes the fetus is not a human.

I will pause for now awaiting your response.

 

Post-discussion Note: With the above commentary, I'm certain David thought he had me "painted in a corner," unaware of an ancient translation known as the Septuagint. I was prepared for his anticipated "conclusion of the matter" as follows:

 

Larry Acheson

1/28/26  5:41 pm

David, thank you for getting back to me. I’m certainly glad you are opposed to abortion as a form of birth control. The “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade (Norma McCorvey) later expressed concern because her original intention was that abortions would only be an option for truly desperate and needy women, not for birth control.

The Bible does not specifically state when life begins, so I am persuaded this calls for discernment. I’m no biologist, but I know sperm are classified as living cells, so they are “life.”

As for biological reference, science has demonstrated that when a sperm fertilizes an egg, there is a brief “spark,” known as “the spark of life.” It’s an amazing thing to see. Here’s the link to a YouTube video to give you a better idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9tmOyrIlYM

Historically, it was understood that abortion is murder. A Jewish first-century historian named Josephus classified abortion as “murder.” In his book “Against Apion,” he wrote the following:

The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean.

The Didache (which is Greek for “Teaching”) is attributed as a first century writing that speaks against abortion. Here’s what we read in chapter 2, verse 2:

The second commandment of the teaching (is the following): you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not molest children, you shall not steal, you shall not be a user of magic arts, you shall not use drugs, you shall not kill a child in abortion nor kill that which has been born; you shall not desire (to have) that which your neighbour has.

Even late in the history of our nation, Democrats found abortion to be repugnant. During his campaign for the presidency in 1959, then-Senator John F. Kennedy agreed to an interview with Harper’s magazine editor John Fischer. The interview was recorded in Kennedy’s book The Strategy of Peace. One of Fischer’s questions was, “Do you see any hope at all of slowing up the rate of population increase?”

Kennedy replied, “Now, on the question of limiting population:  as you know, the Japanese have been doing it very vigorously, through abortion, which I think would be repugnant to all Americans.”

Jimmy Carter supplied an outstanding commentary on his opposition to abortion EXCEPT FOR women whose lives are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest, but I will save it for later if you want to read it.

I hope the above serves to supply ample historical support in opposition to abortion.

As for women’s rights, I’m all for saving the life of the mother if she experiences life-threatening consequences. If she is a victim of rape, she needs to report it right away. I support counseling, though, before having the unborn child aborted. So I do uphold a woman’s right to have an abortion in those situations. What other situations are there? The only one I can think of is birth control, which you and I agree is morally wrong.

Next, you bring up Scriptural context, and the example you raise is actually an example of what we agreed upon yesterday, i.e., the instruction manual (the Bible) is abused. Here’s what you wrote today:

“Biblical reference-- You stated ‘according to the bible, it constitutes murder.’ Where does the bible refer to abortion as murder? Jesus never mentioned abortion. In Exodus 21, the fetus is the property of the husband.”

I reply: You’re going by Exodus 21:22-25 as translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. I am persuaded the Hebrew Masoretic Text was tampered with. The earliest Hebrew manuscripts available today only date back to the 11th century. On the other hand, the Greek Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BC. It was the Bible most frequently used in the first century, and when New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, nearly all of their quotes are taken from the Septuagint text.

When you read the text of Exodus 21:22-25 in any translation from the Hebrew text, the death penalty is for killing the woman, and there is no mention of any penalty for killing the unborn child. So when viewed through a “Pro-choice” lens, the loss of the unborn child essentially amounts to being, “too bad, so sad,” and assuming the woman survives being struck, the worst that can happen to the man who struck her is he has to pay a fine.

But I must emphasize that you can only come away with this interpretation when reading a translation from the earliest available Hebrew text. As I just mentioned, there’s another edition of the Bible that was translated from a much older Hebrew text, and that version is known as the Septuagint, which was translated from Hebrew into the Greek language in the third century BC. For some perspective, the first five books of the Septuagint were translated over 250 years before the birth of Yeshua the Messiah. [NOTE: I refer to Him by his original Hebrew name instead of “Jesus.”] For additional perspective, our nation turns 250 years old this year. So by the time Yeshua was born, the Septuagint had been around for a long time, and I am persuaded the evidence shows that either the Septuagint or the ancient Hebrew original from which the Septuagint was translated—they were the primary source of reference for early believers, and the Hebrew text currently available to us was LATER corrupted, leaving us with what’s currently available. I should reinforce the fact that whenever the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament, the quotes are nearly always taken from the Septuagint version instead of the Hebrew text that’s currently available to us. The Septuagint translation is more important than many, including possibly you, are willing to acknowledge.

So my point here is that there’s an underlying Hebrew Bible from which the Greek Septuagint was translated. That original Hebrew Bible is no longer available to us, but it appears that during the copying process, the original text was corrupted by the 11th century CE. That original Hebrew Bible, or the Greek Septuagint version which was translated from that original Hebrew Bible, is what was available to first-century writers of the New Testament, and when they quote from the Old Testament, their quotes most often line up with the Septuagint text.

I might add that scholars have found that the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually favors the reading found in the Septuagint over and above the Hebrew copy available to us today.

And this is important for the abortion discussion because the Septuagint translation of Exodus 21:22-25 is quite different from the Hebrew version from which most English Bibles were translated. According to the Septuagint version, the death penalty is NOT due to the death of the mother, but the object of concern is the miscarried child. If the child is fully formed, the offender must pay with his life. So that’s quite a difference from what we read in the Masoretic Hebrew version of Exodus 21:22-25, and this means that an unborn child is more than a “piece of tissue.” It’s a LIFE, and killing that life is so much an abomination that whoever did it was to be executed. So the question is, did the people who translated the Bible into Greek mistranslate verses and/or add words to the text OR did they faithfully execute an accurate translation, whereas the scribe who copied the Hebrew version currently available to us today got sloppy?

We can only speculate about accidents or impure motives, but the fact is, the two versions have very different readings of Exodus 21:22-25. So now the question becomes, how does the Septuagint text of Exodus 21:22-25 read? Here it is:

22 And if two men fight and smite a woman with child, and her child be born not completely formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.

23 But if it be completely formed, he shall give life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So as we can plainly see here, according to the Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 21:22-25, the concern is not about the woman’s welfare, but rather the aborted child. Now this should not suggest that the woman’s welfare wasn’t important, but the specific concern addressed in the Septuagint’s rendering of this passage is that of the miscarried or aborted child. According to the Septuagint reading, if a man strikes a pregnant woman, resulting in a miscarriage, he only pays a fine if the child isn’t completely formed. But if it’s completely formed, then he pays with his life. In fact, it’s “life for life,” which in turn means the aborted child was a LIFE, not just some inhuman fetus or conglomeration of cell tissue, or whatever it is Pro-Choice people try to make it out to be. It’s a LIFE! This fact makes abortion a very, very serious matter. As we can now see for ourselves, the Septuagint translation presents a radical distinction between the two versions of Scripture, and even if you reject the Septuagint translation, there’s no getting around the fact that this is indeed how those scholars way back in the third century BC regarded the status of an unborn child: To them, it was a life. The only question is, “When is a fetus ‘completely formed’?”

According to Mount Sinai Hospital’s website, a fetus is, for all practical purposes, fully developed at 10 weeks.

Something else to consider: The scenario described in Exodus 21:22-25 involves a man ACCIDENTALLY striking a woman and causing a miscarriage. But what if it’s done on purpose? And what if the woman does it on purpose?

Finally, another first-century Jew named Philo of Alexandria agreed with the Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 21:22-25. Here’s what he wrote in his treatise “The Special Laws, III”:

But if anyone has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world.

Suffice it to conclude that Philo, who authored this commentary 2,000 years ago, shared my understanding and interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25. Philo was pro-life. I might add that his testimony serves as additional historical support. By the way, Philo was a prominent Jew living in Alexandria, Egypt during a time where pogroms were being carried out against his fellow Jews. Out of a population of Jews numbering in hundreds of thousands, Philo is the one who was chosen to lead an expedition to Rome to plead their cause before Gaius Caligula. I mention this because if Philo had a skewed understanding of Exodus 21:22-25, I highly doubt he would have been chosen for the mission. Again, Philo was pro-LIFE.

One more thing. You wrote: “The new testament is silent on the status of a fetus. The old testament presupposes the fetus is not a human.”

I reply: I have already shown that the most ancient text of Scripture validates that a fetus IS a life (i.e., a human). As for the New Testament, are we supposed to require a statement in that volume stating that a fetus is a life? Are you persuaded that Yeshua or the Apostle Paul had to specifically state that abortion is murder before you would believe He was opposed to it?  If that’s the approach we’re supposed to take, then I should mention there are OTHER Old Testament laws that Yeshua didn’t comment on. Does this mean they, too, no longer apply? In Leviticus chapter 19:14, we are told to not curse the deaf or put a stumblingblock in front of blind people. That seems like a fair law to me. If it were okay to curse deaf people, I’m sure some folks would actually think it’s funny, since deaf people can’t hear a word you say anyway, so let’s have some fun by cursing them (or so they would say). The same for blind people. If I put something in front of a blind person that causes him to stumble and fall, there are people who would think that is sooo funny, ha ha. And you know what? Yeshua never said anything about that law! That can only mean it’s now okay to curse the deaf and put stumblingblocks in front of blind people.

I hope you and I both know better. I am persuaded that if nothing from the Old Testament is specified as having changed, then it’s “status quo,” including the penalty for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry a fully-formed baby. Please keep in mind that the Septuagint is the version that was in vogue during the first century, which means those people agreed with Philo.

In conclusion, I would say our Creator, speaking through Moses, defines abortion as taking a life, at least when it’s “fully formed.” If you wish to define that specific moment as when life begins, I will respect that understanding, even though I personally believe it begins with the “spark of life.” Thank you for your patience. I know my explanation was lengthy.

 

David K.

1/28/26  9:15 pm

Larry,

My whole point is calling themselves Christians does not make it so. There has been a growing movement of Christian Nationalist whose mission is to achieve prominence and dominance through coersion. The teachings and commandments of Jesus are followed only when it suits their objective.

In Matthew 25 Jesus explained at the end of the world what is going to happen and who’s going to hell and who’s not. He says that He’s going to gather all the individuals and nations and He’s gonna say to them “When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was in prison, did you visit me? When I was sick, did you care for me? When I was poor, did you care for me? When I was a stranger, did you welcome me? If you didn’t do it for the lowest of my people, you didn’t do it for me.

Jesus was telling individuals and nations that to be a Christian nation, His marching orders are; individuals and nations, take care of the poor. Take care of the sick. Welcome the stranger. Be kind to those in prison.

You will never hear evangelical Christians fighting to put those words on a classroom wall or courthouse wall.

These conservative evangelicals like to worship Jesus as a God because that’s alot easier than following His inconveniently liberal teachings. So they worship Him, but wave Him around like a prop.

If Jesus were to return today and show up at the southern border, He would be called “woke” and probably arrested and deported. He would show up to the immigration camps to wash the feet of the prisoners.

What say ye?

 

Larry Acheson

1/29/26  12:45 am

Hi, David, Please pardon me. I do not understand how this discussion has evolved into one about the (Torah) law, yet it has. Abortion is no longer the subject?

You (David K.) had written that you do not see how a Christian could vote for our current President’s policies, and you asked, “Can you name one actual teaching or commandment of Jesus that he or maga movement have fought for?”

I reply: I feel I have already answered your original question. I’m no supporter of Trump. I do not personally like him, I would have voted for another candidate. But I DO support the BASIC Republican stand with regard to abortion, notably here in Texas. It essentially aligns with the original Scriptural instruction. If I’m mistaken, please let me know. 

You wrote: “My whole point is calling themselves Christians does not make it so. There has been a growing movement of Christian Nationalist whose mission is to achieve prominence and dominance through coersion. The teachings and commandments of Jesus are followed only when it suits their objective.”

I reply: I think you are correct. Do you have examples?

You added: “In Matthew 25 Jesus explained at the end of the world what is going to happen and who’s going to hell and who’s not. He says that He’s going to gather all the individuals and nations and He’s gonna say to them ‘When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was in prison, did you visit me? When I was sick, did you care for me? When I was poor, did you care for me? When I was a stranger, did you welcome me?’

‘If you didn’t do it for the lowest of my people, you didn’t do it for me.’

Jesus was telling individuals and nations that to be a Christian nation, His marching orders are; individuals and nations, take care of the poor. Take care of the sick. Welcome the stranger. Be kind to those in prison.”

I reply: I support compassion. I really do. I would give you names validating that I support this truth, but it might be construed as boasting. At the same time, I’m persuaded He (Yeshua) taught obedience to the commandments (Matt. 5:17-19). That includes the law pertaining to the fully-formed fetus prematurely birthed due to his/her mother having been accidentally struck by another party. Are you persuaded that the law, as expounded on by Yeshua in Matthew 5:17-19, no longer applies to us today?

 

Larry Acheson

1/29/26  7:55 am

Hello again, David. I apologize for not finishing my response to your latest post. I probably replied too late last night.

You mentioned conservative evangelicals preferring to worship Yeshua as the Almighty because that’s a lot easier than following His “inconveniently liberal teachings.” Could you please specify which “liberal teachings” He taught?

Might it include His teaching that if our right eye causes us to sin, we should pluck it out and cast it away? If our right hand causes us to sin, we should cut it off and throw it away? (Matthew chapter 5). Where exactly did He “go liberal”?

The Yeshua of the Bible did not sin, nor did He go up against any of the man-made laws. I’m sure He would have done so if they conflicted with Torah, but I do not recall any such incident. If I’m mistaken, I would like to know. I say this because I’m persuaded Yeshua, assuming He would have been a non-USA citizen, would not have shown up at the US/Mexico border in the first place with the intention of entering illegally. Understanding the correct process, He would have applied for USA citizenship—the right way. That’s the Messiah I worship. If my understanding is correct, this makes your potential scenario a VERY non-likely one.

This also calls to mind the fact that the penalties for disobedience to Old Testament laws did indeed change once foreign nations such as Babylon and Rome conquered rebellious Israel and Judah. Jews were and are compelled to comply with laws enforced by their conquerors. New Testament teachings, such as Romans 13:1-7 compel us to be subject to governing authorities, which I’m persuaded applies to PENALTIES for disobedience to Torah law, but not to actual disobedience. In other words, I’m persuaded abortion is still a sin, but the penalty is whatever the governing nation determines. For example, in Spain there are potential prison sentences of one to three years for the provider. That would be the penalty in Spain. Here in Texas, I believe the penalty imposed upon the provider is a minimum of 5 years in prison, along with a hefty fine. The civil penalties overrule the penalty specified in Exodus 21. I hope this serves as a more complete response to your latest post. Thank you!

 

David K.

1/29/26  5:24 pm

Larry,

I must once again thank you for your thoughtful dialog. We may not agree on many things, but my hope is that we can civilly give each other something to think about.

The subject of abortion doesn’t lend itself to yes or no answers. To call it murder or taking a life, we must first establish when life begins.

I must admit that I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I still claim that Jesus never mentioned abortion. My reference to the old testament was to illustrate the thinking of that time and to convey that abortion was less important than the treatment of slaves, eating pork, working on the sabbath, and other old testament laws. That’s a problem with being a Christian. Are we selective with which laws we choose to follow?

Quite honestly, I don’t understand what the “law” that Matthew 5:17 is referring to.

I would say the liberal teachings would include love your enemies, be compassionate, equality, and care for the poor. One could argue that he hung out with women as much or more so than His deciples. He challenged legalism by teaching that the sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the sabbath, allowing for healing and compassion over strict rule following. Also, welcoming the stranger teaching goes against conservative opposition to undocumented immigrants.

I would suggest the “man-made law” Jesus went up against resulted in His crucifixion. That being sedition and treason.

The hypothetical scenario of Jesus showing up at the border is to illustrate how He could be treated as an illegal alien. Who would recognize Him as our Savior? The Messiah you worship also overturned the tables in the temple, so your contention that He would have applied for citizenship in a country that He rules, flies in the face of His rebellious nature.

Regarding the book of Romans, I believe historical context is needed to understand it’s meaning. Paul was addressing the Church of Rome, aimed to unify the Jewish and Gentile believers. I believe the letter to Rome was directed specifically to instruct them how to coexist both legally and spiritually. I find it hard to apply it to modern times. How do we follow a corrupt government? Blind obedience is not an option.

Lastly, I find it interesting that abortion is legal and free in Israel.

Thanks again for your indulgence.

 

Larry Acheson

1/30/26  12:01 am

Hello again, David,

I likewise appreciate your congenial, yet straightforward, approach to this discussion. It is true that we will most likely not agree on many things, but at least neither of us is going ballistic in our disagreements. Back in 2020, my wife, grandson and her sister were visiting their father in Illinois. I should mention my wife’s sister and her husband absolutely and positively hated Trump. With a passion. My wife keeps political disagreements to herself in order to maintain peace in the family. As the visit was winding down, our grandson, then only nine years old and unaware of any political differences, made some comment to the effect that he was hoping Trump would win the then-upcoming election. My sister-in-law went completely ballistic, literally screaming at him about how horrible Trump is, etc., etc., bringing him to tears. He had no idea what hornet’s nest he had just stepped on. My wife pulled her sister aside to let her know what she had just done to a nine year-old boy, and suggested that she apologize. Thankfully, after my sister-in-law recovered from her tirade, she did apologize.

However, later that evening, she had a brain aneurysm. They called an ambulance and rushed her to the hospital, but the best they could do was stop the bleeding. She no longer recognized anyone, she talked about things that happened 30 years ago like they were yesterday, and she was entirely dependent on her husband for everything. She didn’t know Biden from Fillmore. She was essentially a vegetable for four years before she passed away. Every now and then my wife expresses wonderment at how things might have turned out if her sister hadn’t had such a high level of hate. It’s just not worth it. We don’t hate Democrats; after all, I was raised Democrat.

So yes, my point here is, I’m glad you’re coming across as the more reasonable type of liberal. I can handle that. We are still unable to communicate with our brother-in-law, who shares and maybe influenced, his wife’s hate for Trump.

Okay, with that as my introduction, I will now address your comments.

You wrote: “The subject of abortion doesn’t lend itself to yes or no answers. To call it murder or taking a life, we must first establish when life begins.”

I reply: The first-century Jewish scholars I previously cited would argue that abortion is a definite “no,” but they didn’t address things like an expectant mother’s life being in danger or what to do in cases of rape. In this 21st century, I think the Texas Heartbeat Act is fair. It gives a woman six weeks to seek an abortion, no questions asked. I’m still upset with Ken Paxton over denying an abortion to a woman whose life was in danger, forcing her to go to another state. That was WRONG, and he should have been removed from office, not only for that, but for other actions that give Republicans a bad name.

About when a life begins: We’re not going to agree on that, apparently. The “spark of life” didn’t resonate with you as it did with me. To me, it’s as though the Creator make it obvious, but I know what’s obvious to one person is unremarkable to another.

Regardless of your inability to discern “exactly” when life begins, this was not an issue with first-century believers because “life for life” meant the death penalty for the individual who struck the woman, causing her to miscarry a fully-formed baby. It couldn’t be construed as “life for life” if the baby hadn’t first been a --> LIFE.

You wrote: “I still claim that Jesus never mentioned abortion.”

I reply: So I guess my reference to the laws against cursing the deaf and putting stumblingblocks in front of blind people doesn’t resonate either. I could cite a host of other laws that are considerably more distasteful than those laws, yet not mentioned by Yeshua. Nevertheless, in spite of your insistence on Yeshua not mentioning abortion as constituting a valid reason to uphold its legitimacy, both Christians and Jews in the first century expressed strong opposition to such a notion. Why didn’t THEY try making your point? How could they have missed grasping your reasoning?

You continue: “My reference to the old testament was to illustrate the thinking of that time and to convey that abortion was less important than the treatment of slaves, eating pork, working on the sabbath, and other old testament laws. That’s a problem with being a Christian. Are we selective with which laws we choose to follow?”

I reply: But, as I previously mentioned, the Hebrew scholars who translated the Septuagint into Greek did NOT convey that abortion was less important that the treatment of slaves, eating pork, working on the Sabbath, etc. The penalty for causing an expectant mother to prematurely abort a “fully formed” baby was death (“life for life”). That’s a pretty hefty penalty for something that you consider “less important.”

Now I will agree with you about the problem with being a normative Christian, which is why I am not one. My family and I consider all the laws you referenced completely valid today. My family line has never owned slaves, and it’s not even legal in the USA, but if I were to ever own a slave while living in some other country where it’s legal, I would do my best to treat him kindly and see to it his needs are met. As a side note, my previous employer essentially treats its employees worse than slaves should be treated, so in a way, slavery is still alive and well here in Texas! My wife and I do not consider the commandments to be multiple choice, and Yeshua taught His followers to not think He had come to destroy the law. Yet the majority of Christianity teaches that all or part of the law has been “done away,” which is a polite way of saying “destroyed.” Some denominations teach the entire law was “done away”; others are, as you classified it, “selective” with the ones they choose to follow and the ones they ignore.

You wrote: “Quite honestly, I don’t understand what the 'law' that Matthew 5:17 is referring to.”

I reply: It’s the collective set of commandments found in Torah (the first five books of the Bible). That includes the Ten Commandments, the laws pertaining to unclean meats, holy days, idol worship, etc. Christianity’s (mis)interpretation of Matthew 5:17-19 is one of the big reasons Christians and Jews are so much at odds with each other. Yeshua stated that until heaven and earth pass away, not a jot or a tittle will pass from the law or the prophets until all be fulfilled. Christianity teaches that all was fulfilled when Yeshua died on the Cross. However, Yeshua told His disciples on the night before His crucifixion that He would not again partake of the Passover with them until it is “fulfilled” in the Kingdom of heaven. So “ALL” will not be fulfilled until at least the future Passover that will be celebrated in the kingdom of heaven. Christianity, out of its desire to not have to obey the law, rushes the fulfillment. That’s basically it in a nutshell. There’s lots more to add here, but I know I’m already over-extending my explanations.

You wrote: “I would say the liberal teachings would include love your enemies, be compassionate, equality, and care for the poor. One could argue that he hung out with women as much or more than His deciples He challenged legalism by teaching that the sabbath was made for humanity, not not humanity for the sabbath, allowing for healing and compassion over strict rule following. Also, welcoming the stranger teaching goes against conservative opposition to undocumented immigrants.”

I reply: I mostly agree with what you wrote above. Those things (love your enemies, be compassionate, etc.) are important, but they’re also found in the Old Testament law, so I believe they are just as valid now as they were three thousand years ago. As for the Sabbath, I think this is where context is important. And if it was made for humanity, then that means it’s still there for resting.

About welcoming the stranger: Another Old Testament law is that there shall be one law for the native born and the stranger that dwells among you. But the “stranger” had to go through a vetting process before he could be accepted as an equal with the same rights and privileges as the natives. I’ll skip the details of the vetting process, unless you ask for them!

I also find it interesting that no one complained about deportations of illegal immigrants during President Obama’s tenure. Here's the link to the statistics for the year 2010:

https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2010/10/06/secretary-napolitano-announces-record-breaking-immigration-enforcement-statistics

You wrote: “I would suggest the ‘man-made law’ Jesus went up against resulted in His crucifixion. That being sedition and treason.”

I reply: But the Bible plainly states why He was crucified: He claimed to be the son of the Blessed One, i.e., the Creator, which they regarded as blasphemy. Indeed, such a claim would be blasphemy--unless He really IS the son of the Blessed One. See Mark 14:61.

You wrote: “The hypothetical scenario of Jesus showing up at the border is to illustrate how He could be treated as an illegal alien. Who would recognize Him as our Savior?”

I reply: I have long maintained that if Yeshua were to return here as a flesh and blood human, few, if any, would recognize Him. He would be regarded as a crackpot. Regardless, He wouldn’t have attempted to enter the USA illegally.

You continue: “The Messiah you worship also overturned the tables in the temple, so your contention that He would have applied for citizenship in a country that He rules, flies in the face of His rebellious nature.”

I reply: I agree that the Messiah I worship overturned the tables in the temple. The priests had essentially turned the holiest place on the planet into a marketplace. It wasn’t just business that was taking place there, but exploitation. The devout were being cheated; especially vulnerable were foreigners and the poor, in direct violation of the Almighty’s commands (Exodus 22:21; Leviticus 19:33-34; Deuteronomy 10:18-19; Isaiah 1:17). As Yeshua overturned the tables in the temple, He referenced Isaiah 56:7, which calls the temple the Almighty’s “house of prayer.” Yeshua’s anger was rightly ignited by the misuse of the temple and the injustice taking place within it.

You say Yeshua had a “rebellious nature.” That is simply not true AT ALL. With all due respect, such a summary view of His nature at best reflects a superficial overview of the Bible. At worst, you have unjustly misrepresented/mischaracterized the Messiah, the Savior of the world, who was the epitome of humility (Philippians 2:5-12, 1 Peter 2:21-25). Yeshua was the OPPOSITE of rebellious. He was obedient to His Father, the Creator of us all, and if you can believe it, the voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” But you’re right, He was not the gentle, serene man depicted in movies and such. He was strict, and He will be even more strict when He returns. According to prophecy, He will rule with a “rod of iron.” There’s a major difference between “righteous anger” and a “rebellious nature.”

You wrote: “Regarding the book of Romans, I believe historical context is needed to understand it’s meaning. Paul was addressing the Church of Rome, aimed to unify the Jewish and Gentile believers. I believe the letter to Rome was directed specifically to instruct them how to coexist both legally and spiritually. I find it hard to apply it to modern times. How do we follow a corrupt government? Blind obedience is not an option.”

I reply: My quote from the book of Romans is not the only source from which I derive the need to obey our leaders—except when their demands would require us to compromise our beliefs. Even Yeshua stated, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to the Almighty those things that are the Almighty’s.” He didn’t teach open rebellion against governing authorities. And what Paul wrote to the Romans is universally understood as teachings that should be practiced by ALL, not just the “Church of Rome.” The book of Romans is one of my favorite books of the Bible.

Speaking of following a corrupt government, surely you’re aware of how MASSIVELY corrupt the government of Rome was! And yet, Paul instructed his Roman counterparts to obey and be subject to the government leaders. He would apply that same principle to believers here in the USA.

May I ask what corrupt laws have been enacted since our current President was elected? As for our PREVIOUS President, I was about to be released from the company I worked for because I refused to get the Covid vaccine for religious reasons. I had just drafted a letter explaining my reason for objecting when Governor Abbott signed SB 7 into law. I still question as to whether or not they would have acquiesced to my explanation because I know many were not so blessed as I was. Our niece was about to be discharged from the Navy, but she opted to compromise and was vaccinated at the last minute. What laws has our CURRENT President enacted that conflict with religious beliefs?

You concluded: “Lastly, I find it interesting that abortion is legal and free in Israel.”

I reply: When I mentioned that I live a Jewish lifestyle, I should have added it’s not based on modern-day Judaism, certainly not that which is recognized in Israel. Please remember, Judaism of today has no regard at all for the Septuagint translation. They go strictly by the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the oldest surviving Hebrew Masoretic Text only dates to the 11th century. First-century Jews, on the other hand, either went with the Septuagint OR the Hebrew Bible from which the Septuagint was translated. It certainly was NOT the current version today’s normative Judaism recognizes, i.e., the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which I am persuaded is a corrupted version. THEY (1st century Jews and Christians) opposed abortion and even cited Exodus 21 from the Septuagint as their proof text. On the other hand, MODERN Judaism would agree with the argument you presented yesterday, i.e., “the fetus is the property of the husband.” Believe it or not, I have had this same basic discussion with fellow Jews, who think I’m overly eccentric. I’m just as eccentric as Jewish believers Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria were. I do not relate to modern-day Israel at all.

I once again apologize for my lengthy response, though you did give me quite a bit to respond to. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything!

END OF DISCUSSION

NOTE: I was notified the following day (January 31, 2026) that my account with Nextdoor was “Indefinitely Suspended.” No reason specified. I'm persuaded that both David K. and I did our best to exhibit respectful behavior. As such, none of the "forbidden criteria" listed below seemed to apply to the suspension:

We didn't use fake names or addresses; we weren't "abusive or unneighborly," we didn't use discriminatory or hateful speech, and we weren't engaged in fraudulent activity or spam, so why was I suspended? Might it be due to expressed concerns about liberal theology? Yeah, I think so.

Although the discussion between myself and liberal David remained respectful, I was nevertheless suspended by Nextdoor moderators. No reason given. I have no way of knowing whether or not David's account was also suspended. The only difference between this form of censorship and the censorship endured by my ancestors is that I don’t think my life is in danger. But if my concerns are valid, that's what's eventually coming.

 

___________________________________

 

[1] Nextdoor moderators (or "reviewers") are local community-based, and are not vetted for political bias. As such, if a comment is posted that annoys a moderator, he or she is at liberty to remove and/or suspend the one who posted it—without explanation, without pointing out any specific inappropriate comments. In 2024, a Nextdoor reviewer shared his own concerns about moderators on the social media app reddit. Here's what he wrote:

As a reviewer, I can tell you that content moderation is only as good as the reviewers. Reviewers are your neighbors, so if your neighbors are biased and not able to make decisions based on the guidelines, then your content moderation will reflect that. I don't predict it will get better because the far right is pushing to get SCOTUS to rule that social media platforms cannot remove user content, even if it is discriminatory, inaccurate, and inflammatory. ND's answer to this is 'we don't decide to remove or keep, our neighborhood moderators decide that.' So if anything, it's going to get worse. We're already fighting a losing battle against people who want to freely and frequently flood your general feed with non-local trash.

For the record, I personally regard censorship as a tricky maneuver. There is certainly an influx of disrespectful commentary flooding the media in this hotly-divided political climate. Rather than immediately removing posts that moderators deem objectionable or hostile, I would recommend flagging them and encouraging the individual to apologize for any offensive comments, and to re-word his argument in a respectful tone. Those who refuse to "shape up" after two warnings strike out and are banned from further posting. It is possible for adults to agree to disagree agreeably, and respectful discussions should be encouraged, not censored.