Samuel Sey & Virgil Walker Debate Ab0rti0n LIVE!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2024
- Our guests -
Sam Sey
slowtowrite.com/
Virgil Walker
g3min.org/
justthinking.me/podcast-home/
Cessationist Conference
g3min.org/events/cessationist...
Use code G3BD for a discount on tickets!
--------------------
Bibledingers
--------------------
Website: www.bibledingers.com/
Patreon: / bibledingers
Instagram: / bibledingers
Twitter: / bibledingers
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5N0gWaA...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Samuel Sey refuses to debate T. Russell Hunter because Russell would not allow him to continue to misrepresent Wilberforce.
...and for other obvious reasons.
“The gradual Abolitionists have been, in fact, the only real stay of that system of wickedness and cruelty which we wish to abolish.”
-Wilberforce, 1807
There are abolition bills going onto the floors in states all over the country this year. If you are going to claim abolition in any way, you will support those bills over and against pro-life bills that shield mothers from accountability.
We have one ready in Ohio. Had it last year ready as well and he did not speak publically in support. He was very much made aware and given ample opportunity.
How do the people on the ground support those bills? Do we actually have any say past voting for the reps who then vote on our behalf?
@SomeIsBest you can help by calling your representative and imploring them to support these bills. We must be louder than the prochoice and prolife groups. And yes, also vote them out of office especially if they ran on being prolife.
Sam is indeed insincere. If prolifers were consistent they would not lobby against bills for abolition.
Laws of abortion abolition face just as much *active* opposition from the pro-life movement as they do from the pro-abortion movement. The National Right to Life's letter about why they will actively oppose laws of abortion abolition (because they will subject aborting mothers to due process) is a great example.
Sam’s question to Virgil about the hostages is interesting on its surface but I don’t think it’s applicable to the abortion debate. The terrorists have the power so you’re at their mercy in terms of what they will concede. Whereas in the USA you have a legislative process that allows you to write whatever you want in the bills and vote or not vote based on the contents. Those are very different scenarios, I think.
Sam using mordecai getting a just law to allow for jewish self defense is a horrible argument for an unjust increment.
I've heard that Scripture misused before by Prolifers. Horrible argument indeed. Maybe Denny Burk used it? Can't remember . . .
Sam’s point about voting for Trump was not a strong one. Voting for a president is not a guarantee of a policy or law. A bill, if passed, becomes a law. So for an election, you are levels removed from guarantee of that policy or law becoming reality.
Where Sam was strongest was pushing on inconsistencies in doing justice regarding equal protection and penology. Jeff Durbin responded better to those objections that Virgil did, I think.
The situation in the book of Esther is not a good example of incrementalism.
Its also really dumb to compare rescuing hostages to implementing unjust laws.
Its as dumb as comparing saving one person from falling off the bridge while two people are falling off a bridge.
Bingo.
Sam is, again, all over the place and annoyingly inconsistent. Imagine if this was a conversation about two babies, one born just a minute ago and another born an hour ago, and you saying of the former "I am sorry, it is not possible to save all", and not supporting ferociously a bill to save both but supporting a bill that saves only the latter. What is the difference then, between the born and the unborn? A consistent Christian would say, "No difference, equal protection, from fertilization, no exceptions."
Sam is not on the same team as the abolitionist.
Sam likes to hear himself speak. He has to mature and allow others to speak. He did this to Jeff Durban as well. He will continue to lose support because he has no courtesy for others.
Should be slow to speak as well...
I listened to his debate with Jeff and while I do not agree with Sam I did not hear him not allowing Jeff to speak. On the contrary it did seem that Jeff talked over him.
@@tweak04 then we clearly witness something different. Sam kept cutting off Jeff and didn't allow him to finish his thoughts on the issues Sam brought up. Sam dominated the conversation throughout the debate/conversation and was quite insulting to the point that Jeff called him out.
Sam by the way he speaks, has no faith in the mighty God that we serve. Abolition means trust in Gods sovereignty as to incrementalism means doing it mans way and there will be no victory. Sam you are not the hero in this story, God will have all the glory always. Virgil is 100% correct. Bless him for his patience towards Sam. If Sam really admires him, he should be more respectful and mirror Virgil's respectful manners.
So frustrating to listen to sam
It seems to me, where this discussion derailed was when Virgil was acknowledging Sam's views, but calling him a "unicorn" in the pro-life crowd, which he is. It seems Virgil is sympathetic to the incrementalist POV until we can abolish abortion altogether, but the pro-life movement is simply a grift.
That first question to Sam though 😂😂😂 “we want proof brotha” is basically what that’s saying. If you say you’ve been on a yacht, let me see at least one picture. If not, quit playin’ 😂😂😂
God curses heartbeat bills. Isaiah 10:1 is very clear about that.
I think Sam's strongest argument is that while abolition is ultimately the goal those bills get struck down because they're "extreme". If they're struck down then nothing happens at all which is worse because more babies die than if you were to pass a bill like the heartbeat bill which would in the shorter term save some instead of none.
But in the long run it trains the culture that to kill babies before we can detect a heartbeat is okay, which will make establishing true justice in the long run more difficult and because of dragging the process out longer more babies die in the long run, not less. And I am not convinced that even less babies die in the short term because women are just pushed to abort their babies sooner and possibly MORE babies will die even in the short term because now women are pressured to kill their babies sooner before they may have felt a movement or something else that would have caused a connection that then would have made abortion unthinkable.
This is why it is so important that we just trust God and his word that his way is best, because if we don't trust God's word then our best attempts even driven by our compassion will always be much worse then God's way.
Sam is cross referencing Matthew 5:31 to a bill that’s been passed to kill a fetus if a man made handheld Doppler cannot detect a heartbeat? What church is this again Sam? Because that 2nd question for him is exactly Matthew 5:31 circling right back around to him in the “hardness of their hearts” 👀🤷🏾😁
Matt. 19:8 actually, but still not a good text to go to if you're trying to support incrementalism. I've yet to hear a properly applied text of Scripture that supports incrementalism.
With Mr. Sey’s position, there is a false premise that these laws are actually causing gradual change. This is why I’m not a fan of the term incrementalism because I don’t think they actually lead to incremental change. They just regulate abortion as healthcare. I think pro life regulation of abortion as healthcare has actually contributed to the Overton Window shifting to the left over the past fifty years in that area and has actually caused incremental change in the wrong direction.
But what if Christians had been “radical” and refused to regulate it and just tried to criminalize it? It wouldn’t have happened right away, but that prophetic call would probably have, and I think is starting to, move the culture the other way and cause the incremental change Christians actually want. Incremental change would come from calling for immediate criminalization, while regulation always prevents it in the long run.
So abolitionists aren’t opposed to all increments, such as state by state criminalization. We’re just opposed to unjust regulation. We must be able to think in categories and start looking at this as unjust vs just legislation, rather than calling an unjust law “incremental” with the assumed outcome being that it will gradually change things in the right direction.
The problem with Walker and Durbin is they are not mean-spirited enough to be abolitionists. That is evidenced in Durbin waffling now. These pro-life grifters need to be told plainly that God hates their worship and ignores their prayers. Maybe the reality of the true risk of hellfire would wake them up.
Sam arguing about righteous outcomes is missing the point.
I think our conscience leads in those moments where we say “the righteous thing to do is to advocate for life at all stages so that others can see what life is, regardless of the outcome. The outcome is in God’s hands.”
Just like the Word never changes, our stance on things like abortion should not be changing from a biblical view, that life does start at conception, just to feel like we are winning at something.
Like Virgil was alluding to, God’s sovereignty reigns over everything. By advocating for heartbeat bills, we’re saying that the decision to terminate a life and keep others can be taken into our own hands. But having a clear conscience without compromise will help us make the righteous decision, trusting God’s providence and sovereignty, and by being lead by the Word of God.
And Virgil nailed this point too. Right after I wrote this, he speaks on this at 47:30 ish.
Virgil is the man. I really admire and respect him a ton.
In the Jeff Durbin debate it seemed that Samuel Sey wasn’t getting to explain himself and it was frustrating. However, in this debate it seems that Samuel Sey isn’t allowing Virgil Walker to speak and dominates the discussion. Good moderation.
Thanks for watching!
Me gusta 👍🏾
Me gusta you
If all abolitionist are on Sam’s side, we all lose. If all of Sam’s people are on the abolitionist side, we all win.