[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: What does God command regarding the baby about to be aborted? Source: ChristianPatriot.com URL Source: [None] Published: Feb 7, 2015 Author: Pastor Bob Celeste for ACP Post Date: 2015-02-07 16:29:11 by BobCeleste Keywords: None Views: 55221 Comments: 95 What does God command regarding the baby about to be aborted? Does God command us to stand around and do nothing or does He command us to rescue the baby by what ever means we need to use? You decide: Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Surely we did not know this," Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? Proverbs 24:11&12. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: BobCeleste (#0) " Does God command us to stand around and do nothing or does He command us to rescue the baby by what ever means we need to use? " A very troubling question, that many wrestle with. I look forward to reading the responses. Si vis pacem, para bellum Stoner  posted on  2015-02-07   17:48:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: BobCeleste (#0) Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Surely we did not know this," Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? Proverbs 24:11&12. Sobering. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-07   19:45:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: BobCeleste (#0) The same thing regarding the innocent man about to be put to death: don't kill them, and if you do, their blood shall be upon your head. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-07   20:29:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Vicomte13 (#3) The same thing regarding the innocent man about to be put to death: don't kill them, and if you do, their blood shall be upon your head. He's asking about witnesses to an innocent's murder, not the executioner. kenh  posted on  2015-02-07   23:18:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: kenh (#4) (Edited) He's asking about witnesses to an innocent's murder, not the executioner. Put in other terms, he's asking if the United States, today, should attack North Korea, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia as these nations murder innocents as a matter of course all the time. Looking backward in history, he is asking if the United States should have gone to war with Germany immediately in 1939, the instant they attacked Poland, and should we have gone to war with Japan in 1934, when they attacked China. Should the US Cavalry have ridden out onto the Plains and slaughtered American settlers, as they were provoking wars with and killing Indians by coming there. By extension, then, should those who know that a man in state prison who is about to be executed is innocent storm the prison and shoot the executioners? Or, more directly to the underlying intent of the question: do we have the right to violently attack abortion providers to prevent abortions, which are murders of the innocent? I provide all of the parallels because they ARE parallel. North Korea kills lots of innocent people and we know it. So does China. Should we, then - MAY we - spontaneously attack them. The resurgent wave of jihadism in Islam thinks so. Islamic jihadis believe that they, each being instruments of God, have the right, and even the duty, to violently attack whatever is wrong, as they define wrong. Violent attack to stop something inevitably involves killing, and so Muslims kill in order to attack something they believe is ungodly. The question, then, is whether Christians have the same right. The answer to that question is difficult, because different people assign different final authority to different places. Jews, for example, would answer "No", because any infliction of death by the Jewish faithful would require a full formal trial that respects all of the procedures. This is the Jewish rabbinical interpretation of the Torah. So, while Jews would be justified, by their religion, to intervene to stop a street crime, they would not be justified in attacking people doing something legal even if they thought it was immoral. The great Jewish prophets such as Jeremiah and Jonah and Amos railed against evil practices, offensive to God, and they did so inspired by the Holy Spirit. But they did so using WORDS, or symbolic acts. What they did NOT do was violently physically attack the people doing the wrong. King Ahab passed his children through the fires of Molech. Elijah and Elisha excoriated him, but they didn't directly seek to kill him, or call for a revolt. Of course, Jews are not Christians, and Jews don't have Jesus or Paul or the other Apostles to guide them. So just because the Jews' interpretation of their law would NOT justify attacking abortion clinics doesn't mean that that is the right answer for Christians. With Christians, the answer may depend on where Christians believe the final authority to answer such questions reposes. Obviously all Christians believe that it ultimately reposes on God, so the question really is "To whom does God reveal the answer to questions like this." In a formal sense, most Christians think that God has invested the Church with those answers and with the authority to pronounce them. So, that settles it for the 80% of the Christian world who are Catholics, the 10% who are Orthodox and the 5% who are Anglican/Episcopalan. All of those traditionalists, which is 95% of the world's Christians by numbers, think that God vested the Church with the authority to answer such questions, and the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Communion Churches all definitively answer NO. No, a man does not have the right, on his own, to go attack abortion clinics or prisons, or states. Men are bound to respect the laws. If the laws are evil, then men must not obey those particular laws. This does not, however, justify a proactively aggressive attack on the state or on people doing something, however odious, that is legal under the laws of the state. Looking at the other 5% of Christians (who form a majority in the United States), several others such as the Presbyterians, Methodists and Mormons think likewise when it comes to the Church having the authority to decide these things. Their concepts of what the Church IS differ from Catholic/Protestant/Anglican traditionalists, but their conclusion about what the Church DOES is not. And so we are left with those few percentage of Christians who do NOT believe that the Church is vested with the authority to answer such things for individuals, or those who DO, but whose Churches are small and are filled with people who are ready to attack. In the latter case, people who believe Church decides, and Church has told them to attack, they certainly feel justified in attacking. However, no such Church claims the authority to institutionally speak for God that that Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican Churches do, so even in those cases the individual Christian would have to satisfy himself that what God himself said (or is believed to have inspired) in the Bible (or elsewhere, if they believe in direct ongoing revelation) authorized the attack. And there, there is a problem, because different people who read the Bible well and thoroughly focus on different things they find there. Here is what I believe is the BEST read. In Genesis, whatever laws God may have formally given to Adam and Eve, the only ones that are formally written down are to reproduce, to eat the fruit of the garden (then, after the fall, to eat the herb of the field and bread gained by the sweat of the brow), and to not eat of a particular tree. They ate of it so they were expelled. God didn't discuss murder with them and hadn't given a law against it, at least not that's in the text, when Cain slew Abel. God did not put Cain to death for this. Rather, he marked him, and doomed him to wander. Although God did not prohibit killing in the text, it's clear that it disturbed him greatly, for in the text leading up to the Flood, we are told that the world was filled with violence, and that God repents of having made men and resolves to destroy it, by Flood. So, the Flood happened because of violence. Note that it wasn't until AFTER the Flood that God gave men animal flesh to eat. But immediately after that he warns them not to eat flesh with life's blood in it. This has been interpreted ritualistically as "pour out the blood", and indeed God does say just that to the Jews, but the text here in the Hebrew seems to speak of flesh that is still alive: don't tear parts off of living animals to eat them, don't eat flesh that is still alive. Kill it first. Immediately after that God gives the general law against killing man. He says that whoever (man or beast) sheds man's blood, by man his blood must be shed. So, God puts an onus upon man to repay bloodshed with bloodshed. And that's where the law for mankind in general ends until Jesus. The rest of the Old Testament speaks of God's specific contracts with one specific man and his family, and then with the nation he set up. For that nation, Israel, he made all sorts of laws. But those laws were for that people in that land, a land that God was ruling DIRECTLY as King. God didn't give the laws of Israel to all of mankind. The laws for all of mankind were given to Noah, and there are not many of them. The law about killing is simply: don't. Don't, but if somebody does, shed his blood in return. The Jews were given many laws. Picking and choosing among them to decide which of them applies too everybody is a sterile exercise: NONE of them do. It was a contract: DO ALL THIS, and you get a stable farm in Israel. That's it. And it was only for the circumcised descendants of Abraham,. Isaac and Jacob and their adoptees. Nothing more. Trying to pick through the New Testament ends up being shunted back to references in the Old Testament a lot, which would seem to bring those provisions forward, but Jesus generally made the law as he intended it pretty clear. To know what WE are bound to, all we need to do is read Jesus. It's particularly important to read the last page of the Bible for there, in Revelation, Jesus twice gives lists of deeds that will cause a man to fail final judgment and be thrown into the Lake of Fire, and murder appears on both lists. "Murder" doesn't mean what it means in our Anglo-Saxon law. This is important. To us, murder is an UNLAWFUL killing. But to the Scripture, a murder is an INTENTIONAL killing. Note well that in the Torah, when executions for committing crimes against God are revealed, God says that the criminal is to be judged and then taken outside of the camp and MURDERED by the people - with stones, or hanging, or whatever. In the Scriptures, the word God uses to describe a LAWFUL execution after a trial is MURDER. We don't execute somebody in the electric chair for having committed murder. We MURDER the murderer in the electric chair. That is the lexicon that God uses. Now, most people upon hearing that don't like it very much. They do not like to think that soldiers in the field doing their "duty", or the state executioners, are committing MURDER. But they are. This is a distressing discovery, when one reads on the last page of the Bible, twice, that murderers do not enter into the city of God but are thrown into the lake of fire. It calls into question the ability to execute people for crimes ("Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone" is Jesus' standard for executions). It calls into question the ability to make war at all. At this point, most people prefer to recede into the traditions of their Churches, because the Churches have fabricated Just War doctrines, to allow organized mass murder for reasons of state (war). Those without organizations who read the Bible directly have frequently come to the conclusion that even that is not allowed. Quakers and Shakers and Brethren and others are pacifists BECAUSE the easiest straight read of the Bible is that that's what God asks us to be. Others read the text differently, though generally with a mindset that God CAN'T have asked that, because that would mean that OTHER things we value, such as our states and political control, would not be attainable. Generally speaking such people then burrow into the Old Testament, where God directs the killing of many for reasons of state. They reason that Christians are not the Chosen People, so Christians can affirmatively do all of those things (though they say that Christians are not at the same time BOUND by all of the restrictions of the texts that say that they CAN'T do something - Christians see THOSE as having been "Just for the Jews", but executing witches, or tithing? Well, that's for everybody, that's for us. It's a convenient, self-serving, and altogether dishonest way to read the text. And in that list of things that'll get you damned, lying is right alongside of murder as something that'll take you to the Lake of Fire. Jesus at the Last Supper reminded his disciples that he'd sent them out before without money or weapons, and they had not been molested. But now that he was leaving, he told them they'd need to buy swords. Now, the Zealot among them, exulted at the authority to carry weapons again: HERE ARE TWO SWORDS! (YAY! We get to FIGHT!). But Jesus cut them off curtly: ENOUGH! He said. In other words, NO, I am not authorizing you to take up the sword. I'm authorizing you to have a sword for you own defense. And within an hour or two, when the band came to arrest Jesus in the Garden, Peter drew a sword and struck off a man's ear. Jesus told him to put away his sword, that he who takes up the sword perishes by it ("Live by the sword, die by the sword.") Any Christian who seeks to find solace for a profession of arms in the text of the Bible will find it to be very unappetizing gruel indeed. He will have better luck in the traditions of the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian,. Baptist, Mormon, and other Churches (not the Quakers or the Jehovah's Witnesses), who have highly refined theories of justification regarding force. Those theories are comforting for people who want to make a profession of arms. They don't follow the Bible really - they spend a lot of time dwelling in the Old Testament, but that seems to be good enough for people who want the answer to be that they can take up arms and sometimes kill other people and NOT be murderers destined for the fire. On a straight read of Scripture, especially of Genesis, Jesus and Revelation, I think they have a lot more to worry about than they believe. And that's where I come down on the matter of physically attacking abortionists. It ends up being the same "No" that the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons and others come down on: it's not authorized by God. But the reasoning is different. They think that's because the state is imbued with power to decide such things. I don't think God imbued states with the power to kill. The states cannot make abortion licit. It's murder. The problem is that you have to commit murder to prevent the murder, and God never authorized that. Jesus authorized apostles carrying swords to defend themselves as individuals from attacks, presumably from individuals. But against social evils such as war and abortion, Jesus left us with the swords of our mouths, and NOT the physical sword. If we would kill an abortionist because he's a murderer, we had best remember the standard: Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone. And we had best realize that the state is going to arrest us and cage us, and perhaps kill us for this crome of murder - that it IS murder under God's law (just as the abortion is). I don't see it justified Biblically. I do see that vengeance is reserved by God to himself alone. I think that men who murder others over abortion are arrogant. They have arrogated themselves the right to be judge, jury and executioner, because they have elevated an inchoate right of defense into an authorization for attacking others who are doing something bad. Killing somebody is not the worst crime in the Bible. It's in the same league as serious sexual sin, lying and idolatry. Biblically, life goes on after death, so the dead baby has not been completely destroyed. God knows who did it, and God has said that murderers are thrown into the Lake of Fire. So no, WE are not authorized to kill abortionists. But yes, all abortionists, and all women who procure abortions, are going to fail judgment as murders and be thrown into the flames, unless God forgives them. THAT much is clear. So, to answer the original question again: the baby about to be killed will go to God innocent and live happily ever after. The abortionist and the mother, and the nurse and the financier and the front office staff - everybody - they will descend into Gehenna where they will pay for their sins. They actual murderers: the abortion doctor and the mother, have committed a sin that cannot be paid, and that will get them cast into the lake of fire unless they stop, repent it, and cease to support such things. So, the baby lives, the doctor and the mother dies in the flames of hell. And the bystander? God gave no clear directions. He can certainly intervene with words. If he intervenes with violence, the state will punish him. Whether God rewards or punishes him is up to God. The range of possible outcomes for him are from being rewarded as a faithful servant to being thrown into the lake of fire along with the woman and the abortionist, for "Vengeance is mine alone." To get into the position to do anything about an abortion in progress, one must undertake several steps. Better be sure that one of them is being free of sin, for if you cast stones to murder while in your own sins, you're in trouble deep. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-08   10:05:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13 (#5) So, to answer the original question again: the baby about to be killed will go to God innocent and live happily ever after. The abortionist and the mother, and the nurse and the financier and the front office staff - everybody - they will descend into Gehenna where they will pay for their sins. They actual murderers: the abortion doctor and the mother, have committed a sin that cannot be paid, and that will get them cast into the lake of fire unless they stop, repent it, and cease to support such things. So, the baby lives, the doctor and the mother dies in the flames of hell. This may be personally satisfying but it's not Scriptural. First, we don't know what the destination of the unborn will be. We have hope, but the closest Scripture comes to answering this is David's son. Second, if any of the people involved in the abortion come to faith in Jesus Christ their sins are forgiven and they are saved. Third, there is no purgatory and there never was. Sheol was divided into two parts Abraham's Bosom also known as Paradise and Hades. Those condemned waiting final judgement are in Hades. Those that were in Paradise are now in Heaven with Jesus. wmfights  posted on  2015-02-08   17:38:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: wmfights (#6) This may be personally satisfying but it's not Scriptural. First, we don't know what the destination of the unborn will be. We have hope, but the closest Scripture comes to answering this is David's son. Second, if any of the people involved in the abortion come to faith in Jesus Christ their sins are forgiven and they are saved. Third, there is no purgatory and there never was. Sheol was divided into two parts Abraham's Bosom also known as Paradise and Hades. Those condemned waiting final judgement are in Hades. Those that were in Paradise are now in Heaven with Jesus. What you wrote is traditional and satisfying, but it is not Scripture. In Scripture, in the Old Testament, there is only Sheol. Sheol is where the spirits of the dead go. Their bodies fall into powder. That the spirit continues in Sheol is made clear by the spirit of Samuel, called up by the witch of Endor to speak with Saul. But that is as far as the Old Testament goes. In Greek, Sheol is translated as Hades. Hades is not "Hell". Hell appears nowhere in the Bible. It is a Scandinavian word. Hades and Sheol are the same thing: the place of the dead. Hell has been added in English translation, but it does not exist in either the Greek or the Hebrew. It's a grafted-on pagan word and pagan idea. The division of the afterlife into Heaven and Hell appears nowhere in the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures. It is the belief of the Norse, the Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons and the Germanic tribes that overran everything. It was grafted into the English, as parallel words, but the words are not parallel and the ideas are wrong. What Scripture tells us, in the Greek, and what the contemporary Hebrew tells us also, is that the dead all descend into Hades, and Hades is divided into two broad parts: Gan Eden, which is Paradise in Greek, and Gehenna, which is the Hebrew purgatory. There is a black chasm between the two. Abraham's Bosom is exclusively for the descendants of Abraham, which Gentiles are not. It is part of Gan Eden, but it is not the place to which those who aren't heirs of his body go. Jesus tells us important things about Gehenna: it's parched and fiery, always. It's a prison. But he ALSO tells us that it can be temporal. He warns that his Father will put the unforgiving there UNTIL the last penny of debt is paid. UNTIL is a limitative word. It is NOT the word "FOREVER". Jesus spoke of greater and lesser punishments for sin. Jewish Gehenna is a place to which the spirits of those who die with sins descend. They descend to different levels, depending on their degree of sin, and there, they pay for their sins. Jesus tells Christians how to avoid Gehenna: stop sinning, and forgive others their sins against you. If you won't forgive, then you'll be held liable for your sins and you'll have to repay also, in Gehenna. This is actually pretty clear in Scripture. Christians have garbled it by putting pagan traditions on top of it, but Scripture is clear. What is also clear is that men never go to Heaven. Never ever. Heaven is the word "Sky" in both Hebrew and Greek. God does indeed live in the sky. And the City of God is in the Sky. Read Revelation again, carefully: the world is destroyed and the City comes OUT of the sky down TO the Earth. Then the dead are all resurrected, from Gan Eden/Paradise and Gehenna, and THEN each is judged. Those who pass judgement walk through the gates into the City, which is on earth, the new earth. Those who fail judgment are thrown into the Lake of Fire and utterly destroyed: the second death. The first death separated body and spirit. The second death takes body and spirit together into the fire. It does not say whether or not the second death means that both are utterly destroyed and gone - body and spirit both - what one would EXPECT would happen in fire, or whether they will survive, burning, for eternity. Lots of Christian tradition says the latter, but that's all made up. The Bible says that about the ANGELS that are thrown into the fire, but they were beings of pure spirit to begin with. It doesn't say that humans who are thrown into the fire LIVE in the fire. It says that they die again in the fire. The better read is that they are utterly destroyed, gone, body and spirit. But if one wants to hold out the possibility that both live on, one can. However, the notion that anybody goes to Heaven - to Asgard in the sky and lives in Valhalla- well, the pagans thought that, and kept thinking it when they became Christians, and that became the tradition, but it's not what the Bible says at all. The City of God comes to earth. Men do not fly off to live in the sky at the end. Hades/Sheol is not "Hell". It's neither the Lake of Fire nor Gehenna. Gehenna is purgatorial, a prison where the dead with sins are imprisoned UNTIL THE LAST PENNY IS PAID, if they are unforgiving. That's what Scripture actually SAYS, in the Greek and Hebrew. Your traditions say differently, and some of them are quite old. They're widely believed, as is the absurd notion that the soul, upon death, flies off to "heaven" or "hell". But the soul, in the Hebrew, is the unity of body and spirit - the soul ceases to exist at death, and the body falls apart. It is the spirit that goes down into Sheol, and into Gan Eden or Gehenna, and if Gehenna, perhaps to Gan Eden, once the debt of sin of the unforgiving is paid. Nobody goes to Hell, and nobody goes to Heaven, in the Bible, because the former place does not exist in Scripture, and the latter is just the sky, and men don't go off to live in the sky. They go down, to live in Sheol, and then they rise and walk into the City, which is on earth. Scripturally speaking. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-08   19:28:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: BobCeleste, Stoner, redleghunter, Vicomte13, kenh, wmfights (#0) BobCeleste Abortion is not mentioned in the Old or New Testament so he does not command anything for us to do. And vengeance will be for the Lord. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-08   19:37:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Pericles (#8) Abortion isn't mentioned as such, but it doesn't need to be. From Genesis forward, lives in Scripture are dated from conception. Read carefully: Adam begot Cain. Not "Eve gave birth to Cain". Lives are measured from the FATHER'S begetting. That only occurs as the result of intercourse at the beginning of the pregnancy. The FATHER begets when his seed joins with the woman's seed to create a new person. As Scripture progresses, we come to the commandment in the Torah that if men fight and strike a pregnant woman such that they cause the baby to suddenly be born, if there's no harm the one who struck has to pay the husband for striking his wife, but if there IS harm, then life for life, etc. Note well, the distinction is not simply about the mother being struck, the subject is the baby being born prematurely. If two men fighting and one strikes a pregnant woman in his rage (remember, SHE'S not fighting, he is fighting another man) if the baby is born prematurely and dies, the man who struck her is to be put to death. Likewise if she dies in childbirth. Inducing a premature birth is not what we would call "abortion", but it carries the death penalty in the Torah if the baby is killed, and it carries wound for wound body damage if the baby is crippled. And then we have several moments in the Old Testament in which God speaks of knowing the man in the womb. And of course, Jesus comes to be when he is begotten by the Holy Spirit, not when he is born. One baby in his mother's womb leapt with joy at the presence of Jesus in his mother's womb. Babies in the womb are PEOPLE in the Scripture, And that means that there's no SPECIAL law for them, Kill a baby in the womb, and you have committed a murder, no different than if you lie in wait and stab a man. Abortion isn't separately mentioned because it's just murder, same as any other murder. Murder is extensively mentioned in Scripture, and Jesus said that murderers are thrown into the lake of fire at judgment. Abortion is murder, tout court. Nothing more to say. So much so, that the Bible doesn't elaborate. Doesn't NEED to. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-08   20:03:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Vicomte13 (#9) Abortion isn't mentioned as such, but it doesn't need to be. Then how can Protestants be against it, Sola Scriptura and all that? Pericles  posted on  2015-02-08   20:05:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Pericles (#10) Then how can Protestants be against it, Sola Scriptura and all that? Because abortion is just another name for murder. The Bible doesn't say "you shall not leap out of an alley to slit the throat of a 73-year-old woman" either, for the same reason. God forgives people from killing people. Pure and simple. He doesn't make a bunch of rules about who you can kill and who you can't. In the Bible, life begins at begetting and ends with the last breath. Killing at any point on that progression is murder. "Abortion" is our name for a specific sort of killing. God didn't say: "Thou shall not drown housewives", but one if there's a movement afoot to drown housewives and it gains a name "Blubwifing", the Bible doesn't have to say "No Blubwifing" for it to be prohibited. Don't kill people suffices to cover it all. Sola Scriptura does contain the "no murder" clause, and the "begotten by father" terms, and the "cause a premature birth that kills the baby and be put to death clause. And that's quite a bit of Scriptura for the position. The Catholic and Orthodox position is also Scriptural. Alas, there are many Protestant Churches now that DON'T oppose abortion anymore, because THEY say what you said "It's not in the Bible, so it's ok". THOSE Protestants are either illiterate and don't know better, or they're liars who do know better. But the Protestants who oppose abortion do it for the same reason Orthodox and Catholics do: it's murder, clearly, Biblically and logically both. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-08   20:17:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Vicomte13 (#11) Because abortion is just another name for murder. No, it is not. The human body aborts fetuses all the time. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-08   20:56:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Stoner (#1) A very troubling question, that many wrestle with. I look forward to reading the responses. I agree, and me too. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-08   21:15:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: redleghunter (#2) Sobering. It is, isn't it. I have now been pondering it for a couple of days. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-08   21:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Vicomte13 (#3) The same thing regarding the innocent man about to be put to death: Yes, but a man can fight back, a man can run, hide, and call for help, the baby in the womb is trapped with no where to run, no where to hide and no one it seems to rescue little him or her. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-08   21:19:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Pericles (#8) Abortion is not mentioned in the Old or New Testament Please explain how Leviticus 20:1-5 is not dealing with abortion. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-08   21:24:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, liberator (#10) Then how can Protestants be against it, Sola Scriptura and all that? Read Vic's post again. He, uncharacteristically, succinctly just told you why. Life begins at begetting that is conception throughout the OT. Terminating, murdering defenseless life was also forbidden throughout scriptures. No shedding of blood. That is murder. It's there. Read his post again. He wasn't speaking Greek. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-08   22:14:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: Vicomte13, Pericles, redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator (#11) Alas, there are many Protestant Churches now that DON'T oppose abortion anymore, because THEY say what you said "It's not in the Bible, so it's ok". THOSE Protestants are either illiterate and don't know better, or they're liars who do know better. Why do you insist on spelling it incorrectly? Its Protest-ants. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-02-08   22:22:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, Murron, Vicomte13 (#12) No, it is not. The human body aborts fetuses all the time. You mean miscarriages. Abortion is a premeditated action with accomplices. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-08   22:36:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: SOSO (#18) Why do you insist on spelling it incorrectly? Its Protest-ants. Probably because most Protestants don't refer to that term. Correctly put it would be mostly Reformed, Lutherans and Evangelicals. I mean Roman Catholics don't go around calling themselves "papists." :) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-08   22:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: redleghunter (#20) I mean Roman Catholics don't go around calling themselves "papists." :) True, the Protest-ants call them that. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-02-08   22:42:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: BobCeleste (#16) (Edited) Please explain how Leviticus 20:1-5 is not dealing with abortion. It is sacrificing a child born to a foreign God. God had no problem accepting a child sacrificed to him. "At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." "So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter." (Judges 11:29-40 NLT) Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   0:34:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, liberator (#17) (Edited) The Old Testament says nothing of t he kind. the only place I know from the ancient world where abortion was expressly prohibited was the pagan Greek Hippocratic Oath. Abortion was probably not mentioned in the Old Testament because the Hebrews were primitive goat herders who had no ability to induce medical abortions so it never occurred to them is best I can gather. This is the original version of the Hippocratic Oath: HIPPOCRATIC OATH: CLASSICAL VERSION I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else. I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work. Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves. What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about. If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot. —Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath- today.html Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   0:42:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: SOSO (#18) Why do you insist on spelling it incorrectly? Its Protest-ants. Because I don't see what "Protest-ants" is trying to get at? That they're ants? Well, I don't see it that way. I think Luther had a lot of good points. I agree with all but about three of his theses. Those abuses were real, and if he hadn't done what he did, the Church would not have had the impetus to reform. That was then. Today, I think that Protestant scholars have done much more extensive work than that Catholics at really decorticating the Scriptures so that their meaning and implications are clear. The Catholics have come late to the party. Now, I think that when Scripture is really delved into, that the Catholic doctrines are mostly upheld, but it wasn't the Catholics who got us to such a deep understanding of Scripture. Left alone, the Catholics would have continued to discourage reading them. It took the Protestant push to get the Catholics to finally LOOK at the treasure trove that is Scripture. Ants? No. They're not ants. The Quakers in particular were utterly admirable people, and truer as a whole to the Gospels than any other religious institution has been. In terms of respecting God's commandment against violence, the Quakers exceed the Catholics. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   0:54:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Pericles (#12) Because abortion is just another name for murder. No, it is not. The human body aborts fetuses all the time. When the human body does it, that is the hand of God. When a human hand takes the life of another, that is murder. God kills everybody, in time. But God forbids human beings doing it, ever. Are you really asserting that abortion is not murder? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   0:56:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Vicomte13 (#25) (Edited) Are you really asserting that abortion is not murder? Under some cases it is not murder. I am not a totalist and neither is the Catholic Church per the ethical principle called "double effect." Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   1:08:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Pericles, ALL (#8) The fact that the word "abortion" does not appear in the Bible does not mean God is silent on the subject. Rather, one must probe the Scripture in deeper and broader context to discern His will regarding this matter. One doesn't find "heroin, LSD, crack, arson, bombing, machine-gunning, extortion, torture, hijacking or child abuse" mentioned either, but it is not difficult to for Christians to decide they are not part of God’s will. The basic question remains, does God consider the unborn to be a person? If the answer is "no," then perhaps we have the right to dispose of the unborn as an unwanted appendix or tumor. If the answer is "yes," then we must treat the unborn with all the love and concern due another person that God requires of Christians. How can we love God and not love our unborn brother or sister whom God has stated He loved from before the foundation of the world? “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-09   2:06:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: Vicomte13 (#25) God kills everybody What verse is that found in? A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-09   6:56:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: redleghunter (#17) He, uncharacteristically, succinctly just told you why. ZING! LOL Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   8:41:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: A K A Stone (#28) What verse is that found in? "Not a sparrow falls..." - Jesus Fall, as in die. Sparrows do not die until the Father wills it. And you are more important than a sparrow. More generally, "The wages of sin is death", and "All men have sinned." Who makes it such that the wages of sin is death? God. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   8:45:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Pericles (#26) Under some cases it is not murder. Legalism. The only exception in Catholic doctrine is to save the life of the mother from imminent death. In that one case it is a case of self- defense. And in the modern medical world, that case barely exists. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   8:49:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#23) Abortion was probably not mentioned in the Old Testament because the Hebrews were primitive goat herders who had no ability to induce medical abortions so it never occurred to them is best I can gather. You missed the points the other gentlemen pinged already provided. The TaNaKh clearly shows that life begins at begetting. The biblical genealogies describe a father's begets as the start of life for the offspring. Exodus references given by Vic and Gary showed us the unborn child if killed in a struggle required the same blood for blood punishment...execution. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   9:04:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Vicomte13 (#29) Thought you would like that. And I did it with such class:) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   9:05:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#32) Exodus references given by Vic and Gary showed us the unborn child if killed in a struggle required the same blood for blood punishment...execution. No, it required a fine only and under specific circumstances would that fine apply - the woman somehow got in the middle of the fight. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   9:26:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Pericles (#22) you have completely missed the meaning of the word "seed". You are also 100% wrong, but, I have ehard the same thing numerous times by women who have multiple abortions, men who have brought their daughters, wife or girl friend for an abortion, and most of all from those sick, vicious, hell bent that do abortions. But at least, unlike most of the above mentioned, you seem to acknowledge the one God. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:14:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: BobCeleste (#35) I am against abortions but your arguments are failures. Your kind of reasoning has not ended abortions at all is what I am getting at. If you can't show it in the Bible (you can clearly show where being gay is wrong for example) unless you are a Biblical scholar then no one will take it as authoritative. You need to up your game. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   10:16:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Vicomte13 (#31) And in the modern medical world, that case barely exists. I think it is called a tubal something or other and it means the baby is developing outside of the womb an if not removed will kill both mother and baby. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:16:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: A K A Stone (#28) God kills everybody What verse is that found in? I believe that Roman Catholic theology takes that from when Jesus is warning people who to fear; But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after He hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him. Luke 12:5 As is so often the case, most who study what God said, in His book, the Bible, disagree with the RC position. And from 1 Samuel chapter 15, the first few verses. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:23:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: GarySpFC (#27) From 8, Abortion is not mentioned in the Old or New Testament so he does not command anything for us to do. Gary, I have heard the same thing numerous times by women who have multiple abortions, men who have brought their daughters, wife or girl friend for an abortion, and most of all from those sick, vicious, hell bent that do abortions. But at least Pericles, unlike most of the above mentioned, seems to acknowledge the one God. He or she is worthy of our prayers for his or her salvation. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:28:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: kenh (#4) He's asking about witnesses to an innocent's murder, not the executioner. How would you separate the executioner from those who stand by and allow it to happen without interfering? BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:30:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: All (#0) Who does God hold most responsible for an abortion? Leviticus 20:1-5 I'm going to do this thought as if it were a letter to a young girl, a young girl who has had an abortion. It makes no difference what I call her, and it makes no difference how many abortions she has had, or even her age, she could be 16, 26 or even 60 or more. I'm going to call her Rachael. Dear Rachael, I know you have had an abortion and I know that you know that what you did is wrong. How you got pregnant is not relevant, what is relevant is that you allowed the life of the little baby in your womb to be ended. Rachael, I also know that you think that Christ hates you for what you did and that He could never forgive you. Two things my little one, first Christ does not hate you and second He can't wait to forgive you, but, He is holy and as such must maintain His rules, and His rule is that you must respond to His persistent, through the Holy Ghost, call for you to ask to be forgiven. (Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any *man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me. * the Greek word translated man is "tis" it would be better translated "whomever" for it is not limited to man, but all of mankind, male and female, unlike the Hebrew "'iysh" word used in Leviticus 20:1-5 which means man, not mankind, not man and women but only man, for the Hebrew word for man is "adam".) Rachael, as you will see, as we go through the most important prohibition of abortion, by God Almighty, it is the guy who got you pregnant that God commands to be killed for allowing you to abort his seed, it is not you God is furious with, it is the man whose sperm joined with your egg and became his seed. Now, why you ask does God hold the baby's father more responsible for the baby's death than you? It is because he is, in the original Hebrew, adam and you are 'ishshah. > 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying: 2 "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name." 4 "And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not, 5 then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people." Leviticus 20:1-5 ACP/KJV Now, let's look at some very key words. Let us first look at what God has to say about abortion and the penalty for the father that allows his child in the womb to be slaughtered. Yes, the father of the baby, for it is, as you will see, the father God commands to be stoned to death for the abortion, the murder of his seed. Verse one: " And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying;" Rachael, the speaker is God Almighty Himself, Moses is but the recording secretary, Rachael, this is not Moses speaking. It is God Almighty Himself speaking. Verse two: "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones." God tells Moses to relay to the People of God that none is to offer his seed to the devil. The word translated "seed" is, in the ancient Hebrew, zera`, pronounced zeh'-rah. It means, seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity: child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing- time. In other words seed means sperm both before and after fertilizing the women's egg. It also means the baby both before and after leaving the womb. So, in verse two and after the word seed means the baby from the instant of conception and for sperm before. At the end of verse two God dictates the punishment for men who allow the abortion of their seed, death by stoning. Verse three: "And I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name." In verse three the word Sanctuary is miqdash, pronounced mik-dawsh' or miqqdash in Exodus 15:17) {pronounced mik-ked-awsh'}; it is a consecrated thing or place, especially, a palace, sanctuary (whether of Jehovah or of idols) or asylum:--chapel, hallowed part, holy place, sanctuary. In other words anywhere where God is or dwells or visits is His sanctuary. God as the creator of the earth, the universe(s) the heavens, all things, owns everywhere and everything, so His sanctuary is everywhere, even the lake of fire to come and hell now are God's creation and therfore He rules over them as well. God does not allow abortion, which is the offering of the baby in the womb to satan as a little human blood sacrifice, no where in all of His creation. Verse four and five: 4 "And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people." These two verses make it clear that God not only curses and condemns, to death, the man who allows his baby to be aborted, but the society that does not punish the man who allowed the baby he fathered to be aborted. Yes Rachael, what you did is wrong, what you did was take your baby to a man or woman who is a high priest or priestess of the devil and you allowed that person to murder your baby, to offer little him or her to the devil as a little human blood sacrifice, and yes God is mad at you, but He is more than willing to forgive you. But, the man who fathered the baby, you had aborted, he is another story. Oh sure he can be saved, but God holds men to a much, much higher standard. Now, Rachael, you must be wondering why God holds the man to a higher standard and declares a more sever punishment for the man who got you pregnant than you, you who brought the baby to be aborted. The answer my dear is simple, he is adam and you are 'ishshah. It goes back some 6,450 years, back to the time Adam and Eve sinned and got evicted from the Garden of Eden. Unto the 'ishshah God said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Rachael, you will find that in verse 16 of Genesis chapter 3. What God is saying is that from that time forward all 'ishshahs, all women, will have pain in childbirth, but additionally, God further said that a woman's desire would be to obey her husband and serve him. Now Rachael, like it or not, God has made women subservient to men, it is not arguable, it is a simple fact of life. As such, the man is held more responsible than the woman. It is kind of like this, when you were a little girl, say four years old, and if your mom or dad told you to move a glass fish bowl that was to heavy for you to move and you dropped it and it broke, killing the fish and getting water and broken glass all over the floor, whose fault was it? Yours or your mom or dad who ordered you to move the fish bowl? It would of course be the fault of the parent that told you to do it. Why? Because in the Ten Commandments of God it says "Honor thy father and thy mother" And just as God has commanded you to obey your mom and dad when you were little, so has He ordered you to obey your husband when you are married. "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord:" 1 Peter 3:5&6 But, you say, "Pastor Bob, I was not married to the man (men) that got me pregnant to the baby(s) I aborted." Rachael, in the laws of man you weren't, but in God's eyes you were. For you see, in God's eyes, a man and a woman are married when they have sexual intercourse, when they, in the words of the bible, "know" each other. That word "know" is translated from the Hebrew word "yada". "And Adam {'adam} knew {yada`} Eve his wife {'ishshah}; and she conceived , and bare Cain." So you see Rachael, yes you messed up, you messed up, you messed up big time when you killed that baby, but Rachael it is not the unpardonable sin and yes God is willing to forgive you. Email me if you want to know how to approach God for forgiveness, for forgiveness is what He sent His Son to earth for. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him (Jesus) should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18 ACP/KJV BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:33:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, liberator, BobCeleste (#34) No, it required a fine only and under specific circumstances would that fine apply - the woman somehow got in the middle of the fight. Not so. Someone pinged here worked on Bible translations about 20 years ago specifically on the Exodus 21 verses in question. One of the theologians who worked on the project had this to say: The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates by John Piper Sometimes Exodus 21:22-25 is used by pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible does not regard the unborn as persons just as worthy of protection as an adult. Some translations do in fact make this a plausible opinion. But I want to try to show that the opposite is the case. The text really supports the worth and rights of the unborn. This passage of Scripture is part of a list of laws about fighting and quarreling. It pictures a situation in which two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to make peace. She is struck, and the blow results in a miscarriage or pre-mature birth. Pro-choice reasoning assumes that a miscarriage occurs. But this is not likely. The RSV is one translation that supports the pro-choice conclusion. It says, When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. The RSV assumes that a "miscarriage" happens, and the fetus is born dead. This implies that the loss of the unborn is no "harm," because it says, "If there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows . . ." It is possible for the blow to cause a miscarriage and yet not count as "harm" which would have to be recompensed life for life, eye for eye, etc. This translation seems to put the unborn in the category of a non-person with little value. The fine which must be paid may be for the loss of the child. Money suffices. Whereas if "harm follows" (to the woman!) then more than money must be given. In that case it is life for life, etc. But is this the right translation? The NIV does not assume that a miscarriage happened. The NIV translates the text like this: If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . . What the NIV implies is that the child is born alive and that the penalty of life for life, eye for eye, etc. applies to the child as well as the mother. If injury comes to the child or the mother there will not just be a fine but life for life, eye for eye, etc. I agree with this translation. Here is my own literal rendering from the original Hebrew: And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. The key phrase is "and the children go forth." The RSV (and NASB!) translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life. Which of these interpretations is correct? In favor of the NIV translation are the following arguments: 1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25. 2. Rather the word for birth here is "go forth" (ytsa'). "And if her children go forth . . ." This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children "going forth" or "coming out" from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, "And the first came out (wyetse') red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau." (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.) So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth. 3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Isaiah 33:3). But these words are not used here. 4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. "Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form" (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135). 5. Verse 22 says, "[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . ." It does not say, "[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . ." (NASB). The word "further" is NOT in the original text. The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman ("If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . ."). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children. Likewise in verse 23 when it says, "But if there was injury . . ." it does not say "to the woman," as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, "If there was injury (to the child or to the mother)." Many scholars have come to this same conclusion. For example, in the last century before the present debate over abortion was in sway, Keil and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 134f.) say, If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye . . . George Bush {not the POTUS GB}(Notes on Exodus, vol. 2, p. 19) also writing in the last century said, If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect The contextual evidence supports this conclusion best. There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother. Therefore this text cannot be used by the pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible regards the unborn as less human or less worthy of protection than those who are born. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-misuse-of- exodus-2122-25-by-pro-choice-advocates NB: this was written by Piper back in 1989. In 1995 the NASB update included the same Hebrew translation as the NIV stated in the article above. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   10:34:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: BobCeleste, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#38) Fear is a word that has changed meanings over time. In the Old English they ment it as "revere". Also 'terrible' did not mean 'bad' but great and awesome meant scary or something to fear - like lightning which could kill you if not careful, etc. I love the way Old English sounds when I read it - it is an Amazing language because it captures the Germanic with the Latin and Greek to balance it out so it sounds harsh and soft at the same time (to my ears anyway) but you need to background to understand the words in more depth and they can be misleading to modern readers. For example in a lot of the Bible God is also called in the Hebrew "Abba" what can be translated in Greek as "Baba" aka "Daddy" or "Dada" or "Poppa" - like a child would call his father but in English it sounds harsher and more formal "Father". Father these days in modern English is formal though it must have not been back in the day. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   10:39:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: redleghunter (#42) So the Sola Scriptura is not clear.... Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   10:40:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: BobCeleste (#41) Thanks. Excellent note. Came at a good time as I am deep in the Torah books for my Bible studies. Just covered Lev. 20 yesterday. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   10:41:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator (#44) So the Sola Scriptura is not clear.... LOL, that was Sola Scriptura. Where did you think the church fathers gained their understanding on the prohibition of abortion? "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   10:43:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: Vicomte13 (#30) "Not a sparrow falls..." - Jesus Fall, as in die. Sparrows do not die until the Father wills it. And you are more important than a sparrow. More generally, "The wages of sin is death", and "All men have sinned." Who makes it such that the wages of sin is death? God. Elaborate more on the sparrow. If the wages of sin is death. Then you earn it yourself. God didn't come to kill. That is the Devil. IU think you are confused. OfDoesn't it say God isn't willing that any should perish? A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-09   10:44:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Pericles (#36) I am against abortions but your arguments are failures. Your kind of reasoning has not ended abortions at all is what I am getting at. If you can't show it in the Bible (you can clearly show where being gay is wrong for example) unless you are a Biblical scholar then no one will take it as authoritative. You need to up your game. The Bible teachers that God knew you in the womb. It also teaches that to murder is a sin. People back then weren't so stupid that they called a baby a fetus in order to pretent it is not a baby so they can murder it. The Bible also doesn't say getting sex change is wrong. But it is. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-09   10:46:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: Pericles (#36) I am against abortions but your arguments are failures. Your kind of reasoning has not ended abortions at all is what I am getting at. If you can't show it in the Bible (you can clearly show where being gay is wrong for example) unless you are a Biblical scholar then no one will take it as authoritative. You need to up your game. You still have not shown me how Leviticus 20:1-5 is not, when you understand the word "Seed" talking about abortion. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:59:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: redleghunter (#45) Thank you. Now it is 9:AM so I shall start to type out the thought. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   11:02:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Vicomte13 (#24) Because I don't see what "Protest-ants" is trying to get at? Me thinks thou protest too much. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-02-09   11:24:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#21) "True, the Protest-ants call them [Catholics] that." Clever! "Protest-Ants" = Small Yuk-yuk. In between washing dishes and serving food, will you be performing your schtick all week? Liberator  posted on  2015-02-09   11:25:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: redleghunter, Pericles, GarySpFc (#46) That was Sola Scriptura. Where did you think the church fathers gained their understanding on the prohibition of abortion? Pope Francis?? Liberator  posted on  2015-02-09   11:27:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator (#46) (Edited) Where did you think the church fathers gained their understanding on the prohibition of abortion? Abortion was already seen as a bad thing to be avoided per the Hypoccratic Oath to Apollo. In fact I use dthis to shut up a self professed "Pagan" woman in civics class in college who was arguing she was for abortion and not beholden to Christian values as a pagan. When I mentioned the Oath she looked dumbfounded. I think she replied that maybe it was created after the Christians took over and I told her nope - pretades Jesus by about 600 years and they probably never heard of the Jews of their God when it was created. She then mentioned something about a male dominated world back the and she sat down and refused to continue the conversation. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   11:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: BobCeleste (#40) How would you separate the executioner from those who stand by and allow it to happen without interfering? Jesus was innocent. Many bystanders, such as John and the two Marys, knew it. Ten of the other Apostles and many disciples knew it. He was tortured to death slowly in public, an innocent man, and he had at least 13 people who knew it. Were they supposed to come up Golgotha and attack the Roman guards? They could have. Should they have? The result would have been their deaths also, and probably the deaths of some of the guards. When Saul went persecuting Christians, were Christians supposed to lie in wait and kill that bastard? Were they? When Stephen was stoned, were the Christians supposed to surge forth and start murdering the Sanhedrin? Had they, maybe that murderous bastard Saul of Tarsus would have been killed early and not been allowed to go on his tear of evil. God did eventually knock him off his horse and close his eyes, but really, wouldn't it have been justice to put a knife through that blackguard's heart BEFORE he got the chance to convert, to kill the murderer once and for all and be rid of him. The world didn't NEED Paul, after all. Had be been justly slaughtered for the murderous servant of Hell that he was before his conversion, God would have just chosen somebody else. Right? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   11:41:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: SOSO (#51) Me thinks thou protest too much. Do you dislike Protestants qua Protestants? I don't. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   11:54:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: A K A Stone (#47) Doesn't it say God isn't willing that any should perish? Yes, but Jesus also says people who are clearly dead are alive. Meaning that Jesus speaks of the spiritual life, not the physical life. Jesus speaks of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Moses as alive. But the bones of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses are all mouldering in the grave. Was Jesus lying, then, when he said that God is the God of the living, and presented them as alive? No. He was speaking of the spiritual life. The Devil tempts men to commit sin, and thereby incur the death sentence, but it is God who authorizes the execution. God does not WANT anybody to perish. He does not WANT anybody to sin. But they do sin nevertheless, and God does not change his opinion: you sin, you die. Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I YHWH do all these things." You are the one who is confused. Somebody told you God can't do evil. But God himself told you from his own mouth that he CREATES evil. Of course he does. SATAN didn't unleash the Flood that killed everything in the world. God did. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   12:00:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: Vicomte13 (#56) Do you dislike Protestants qua Protestants? I don't. I generally prefer to live and let live.......until I am attacked. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-02-09   12:16:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: Vicomte13 (#55) Were they supposed to come up Golgotha and attack the Roman guards? No, for the Lord had already covered that in Matthew 26:51 thru 54. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   12:28:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: SOSO (#58) I generally prefer to live and let live.......until I am attacked. Me too. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   13:12:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: BobCeleste (#59) No, for the Lord had already covered that in Matthew 26:51 thru 54. Were they supposed to attack when Stephen was being dragged out and stoned? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   13:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: BobCeleste (#39) Gary, I have heard the same thing numerous times by women who have multiple abortions, men who have brought their daughters, wife or girl friend for an abortion, and most of all from those sick, vicious, hell bent that do abortions. Bob, I agree abortion is murder, but the word itself is not in the Bible. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-09   13:16:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Pericles, BobCeleste, Stoner, redleghunter, Vicomte13, kenh, (#8) Abortion is not mentioned in the Old or New Testament so he does not command anything for us to do. And vengeance will be for the Lord. My thought about abortion is that as Christians we should oppose it. We should always strive to help and protect the weakest among us and no one is weaker and more defenseless than the unborn. I certainly agree with you that vengeance will be for the LORD. I see nothing in Scripture that tells me we will be going to some place for punishment because we didn't act. This line of thinking diminishes Jesus Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. wmfights  posted on  2015-02-09   13:27:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: Liberator (#53) Me: Where did you think the church fathers gained their understanding on the prohibition of abortion? You: Pope Francis?? LOL. Where's the latest Pope Frank I publicity disaster posted? Oh only have to go to TOS to pull one down:) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   13:37:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#54) Abortion was already seen as a bad thing to be avoided per the Hypoccratic Oath to Apollo. In fact I use dthis to shut up a self professed "Pagan" woman in civics class in college who was arguing she was for abortion and not beholden to Christian values as a pagan. So the church fathers, as in for example Irenaeus, 'knew' abortion was murder because of the testimony of the heathen pagans of their age, and not because of their exhaustive studies of TaNaKh and B'riyt HaHhadashah? "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   13:42:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: redleghunter (#65) So the church fathers, as in for example Irenaeus, 'knew' abortion was murder because of the testimony of the heathen pagans of their age, and not because of their exhaustive studies of TaNaKh and B'riyt HaHhadashah? St Paul said the Athenians worshiped God without knowing who he was. The Greek phiolosphy and logic and the Hebrew spiritualism came together in the New Testament and completed each other. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   14:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste (#66) The Greek phiolosphy and logic and the Hebrew spiritualism came together in the New Testament and completed each other. I think the pagan syncretism came a bit later. But no, Christianity is not based on a syncretism of Greek philosophy and Hebrew 'spiritualism.' It's a good try but no. Maybe when the church fell into pagan syncretism later on but not the NT times. All the apostles were very Hebrew. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   14:27:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste (#67) (Edited) I think the pagan syncretism came a bit later. But no, Christianity is not based on a syncretism of Greek philosophy and Hebrew 'spiritualism.' I did not implay syncretism at all. Only that the Greeks using their philosophy discerned some of God's truths. See the Jewish Philo of Alexandria. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   15:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: Pericles (#68) I did not implay syncretism at all. Only that the Greeks using their philosophy discerned some of God's truths. See the Jewish Philo of Alexandria. Total nonsense! Greek philosophers had absolutely nothing to do with writing the New Testament. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-09   16:17:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: Vicomte13 (#61) Let's get refocused. Here is the original post: What does God command regarding the baby about to be aborted? Does God command us to stand around and do nothing or does He command us to rescue the baby by what ever means we need to use? You decide: Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Surely we did not know this," Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? Proverbs 24:11&12. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   16:44:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: GarySpFC, Vicomte13 (#69) Total nonsense! Greek philosophers had absolutely nothing to do with writing the New Testament. The Greek Fathers were Greek philosophers before their conversions. They converted because Greek philosphies matched the New Testament. You sound like Tertullian who stated "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" and was rebuked for it and the Islamic scholar Al-Ghazali in "his 11th century book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. The encounter with skepticism led al-Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present Will of God. The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna and Al-Farabi) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks." Al-Ghazali's renounciation of Hellenistic philosophy doomed Islam to a backwardness it never recovered from. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   17:03:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: BobCeleste (#70) (Edited) Let's get refocused. Here is the original post: What does God command regarding the baby about to be aborted? Does God command us to stand around and do nothing or does He command us to rescue the baby by what ever means we need to use? God commands everybody: doctor, mother, bystander, to not kill anybody. God commands people who shed blood to have their blood shed, after a legal process. God commands people not to take revenge into their own hands. God permits people to arm themselves for self-defense and to defend others. So, in the case of the baby about to be killed, you have two choices: (1) You can verbally object to the evil laws of the land, pray for the baby's spirit, but not strike violently at the people doing it. If you take this route, you will neither be condemned by the laws of the country OR condemned by the laws of God, for God did not command pro-active violence that will result in your own immediate destruction or death. That is one thing lacking in the Scriptures: Jesus suggested peaceful cooperation with morally repulsive authorities, keeping the mind focused on God. He didn't say whether this was to preserve the life of the oppressed one, or to prevent the oppressed one from committing violence. He merely gave the example. (2) You can take justice into your own hands and kill the doctor. You can't kill the mother without killing the child. Now you have a set of questions that Scripture doesn't answer for you very well. You have killed. You have shed blood. You've cast the first stone, and taken a life to - temporarily - save a life. Have you saved a life? Perhaps. More probably the abortion will take place anyway. You will be punished, and in a state where there is the death penalty, you may be put to death for first degree murder. You're a murderer who has executed judgment without a process. And Jesus will be the judge. Given what Jesus did, and what the Apostles did - how they went to their deaths. Given that the Christians did not murder Paul when he was out there tracking them down and murdering him, but instead submitted to the maltreatment, one might worry. On the other hand, if the child were visible, and men were coming to kill it, and you killed them, that would be justifiable. But in that case, the law would not cage you or kill you. Still, if men of overwhelming force were going to kill an innocent and you did not go in and sacrifice your own life in a blaze of hopeless resistance, God would not condemn you for that. That is clear enough from the behavior of prophets and oppressed people all across the Biblical timeline. So, the crux of your question is two-fold: if you murder abortion doctors, will you be thrown into the fire as a murderer at final judgment? The answer to that probably depends on your mental state and reasons. Maybe yes, maybe no. The Scriptures point both way. If you do NOT murder the abortion doctor, and instead pray and remain meek, will you be thrown into the fire at final judgment? And the answer to that is that you will certainly not be thrown into the fire for that. God never commands any Christian to actively pick up the sword to go out to kill. He permits carrying a sword for defense. He does not command Christians to attack. A comparable situation was the death of Terri Schiavo. Were Terry Schiavo's parents, or any other person, authorized by God to begin to murder the police guarding Schiavo, the medical staff who refused to feed her, the judge who pronounced her death sentence, or the husband who sought her death? You tell me what you think. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   17:16:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste (#68) I did not implay syncretism at all. Only that the Greeks using their philosophy discerned some of God's truths. See the Jewish Philo of Alexandria. Only if you see the Gnostic movements and docetism as "discerning 'truths'." Gnosticism ORIGINS Some German scholars, such as R. Reitzenstein, W. Bousset and R. Bultmann, have strongly supported the concept of pre-Christian Gnosticism. The sophisticated second-century religio-philosophical systems did not get that way overnight, since it would appear that a certain amount of lead time is required for their development. Those scholars believe that gnosticism is of Iranian origin. This hypothesis has been abandoned; the alleged Iranian mystery of the "saved savior" has been disproved. At present, many scholars are inclined to believe that gnosticism is built upon Hellenistic-Jewish foundations and can be traced to centers like Alexandria, which had a large Jewish population. Polemics in the writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo, who himself was an opponent of local heresies, make it clear that he knew Jewish groups that had already formulated certain basic elements of gnosticism, though a consistent system did not yet exist in pre-Christian times. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex/I-Intro/chapter4.html "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   17:26:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: Pericles (#71) The Greek Fathers were Greek philosophers before their conversions. They converted because Greek philosphies matched the New Testament. You clearly don't know the first thing about the New Testament or its history. Furthermore, you are denying the work and role of the Holy Spirit in the conversion process. You sound like Tertullian who stated "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" and was rebuked for it and the Islamic scholar Al-Ghazali in "his 11th century book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. The encounter with skepticism led al-Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present Will of God. Tertullian despised Greek philosophy. Your sentence regarding Tertullian is totally incoherent as to who rebuked him and the connection between the two. BTW, I have a large Islamic library, including the Life and Teaching of Al- Ghazali. No connection between the two exists in his book. The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna and Al-Farabi) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks." This had nothing to do with the New Testament. Al-Ghazali's renounciation of Hellenistic philosophy doomed Islam to a backwardness it never recovered from. These subjects are toptally divorced from each other. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-09   19:10:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: GarySpFC (#74) (Edited) You clearly don't know the first thing about the New Testament or its history. Furthermore, you are denying the work and role of the Holy Spirit in the conversion process. And you deny God is rational and created an orderly rational universe. Your view of God is Al-Ghazalian aka Islamic. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   22:31:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste (#73) Only if you see the Gnostic movements and docetism as "discerning 'truths'." Gnosticism was a subversion of Hellenistic thought and Philo agreed. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   22:33:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: wmfights, BobCeleste, Stoner, redleghunter, Vicomte13, kenh (#63) What I am saying is the old Holy Roller arguments don't work. You think Biblical talk will disway any abortions? Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   22:35:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: Pericles (#76) Gnosticism was a subversion of Hellenistic thought and Philo agreed. And Alexandria was a hotbed of heretical doctrines very early on. Seems more than Hellenistic thought was soiled. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-10   0:10:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: Pericles (#77) What I am saying is the old Holy Roller arguments don't work. You think Biblical talk will disway any abortions? Sure they do. It is called pointing out error using God's Word. Sure those who reject God and His Holiness don't care and that is why we have on demand abortion in most Western nations. However when supposed Christians preach or teach the Bible is silent on abortion, they must be corrected. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-10   0:14:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: redleghunter (#79) There are two parallel threads going on here. One is a dispute as to whether the Scriptures prohibit abortion. The answer to that is obvious. They prohibit abortion, and they also prohibit locking men in cages and burning them alive. And yet neither the words "You shall not commit abortion" nor the words "You shall not lock men in cages and burn them alive" appear anywhere in Scripture. They don't need to: you shall not kill covers the waterfront. The other discussion has to do with intervention to prevent harm. If you see an old lady being beaten by a young punk, and you are armed and strong, do you have the right to intervene? Do you have the moral obligation to intervene? If you DON'T intervene, have you sinned? Once you've answered that question, then change the scenario: The old lady is being beaten by three strong punks, and you are armed and strong. Same questions. Now change the question again: The old lady is being beaten by three strong punks who ARE armed, and you are NOT armed. What are your obligations? If a child is cowering in a corner and a man is moving in to beat him, what are your intervention rights and obligations? Do they change if you are armed or not? (In other words, does your own self- preservation have ANY bearing on your moral obligations under the divine law?) Do they change if the man moving in to beat (and maybe kill - you have no real way of knowing that beforehand) is his father? Our religion tells us that the baby in the womb is no different from the old lady or the child cowering in the corner. You are armed and strong, and the doctor is not. You know that it's happening. Your answer to the question about the old lady or the boy should, logically, be the same as your answer to this one. But is it? One key difference is that if you intervene to save the lady, you will be thanked by the law. If you intervene to save the boy from a killing, you will be thanked, but if you intervene to save the boy from discipline by his father you will be sued and you may lose. If you intervene to prevent the abortion, you will be going to jail for a long time, affecting the lives of your own family (not to mention yourself). If you kill the abortion doctor, you will be put to death in some states, or spend life in prison without parole in others. And so the matter of what your obligations are when the intervention includes your own self-destruction and death. That second question is interesting. There is no clear Scriptural answer. God did not give an exact template for dealing with this sort of evil. You have to reason it out, and whichever way you go, there is Scripture that will tell you you're wrong. My answer is: don't kill except in self-defense of hearth and home, or of things happening right before my eyes. That I suspect a man is beating his wife or child does not give me the right to go hide in his house to catch him and stop him. If he beats her on the street, I can intervene, but intervention may include getting the authorities (after all, SHE could have always gone to the authorities - SHE is not helpless, so I am not morally obligated to destroy MYSELF because SHE has refused to act in her own behalf in the past leading up to this. When it comes to a little child, it is more pathetic and may require intervention, but it's a judgment call. Words? No. Spanking? No. Violent beating? Yes. But what if it's behind closed doors? If I hear screaming, I can go pound on the door, perhaps, but it's usually still better to call the police, because people sometimes scream in anger or despair, not actual pain, and if I go charging in there, where I have no right to be, and I'm wrong, I'm going to jail. I can decide that something is my business, but my judgment will itself be judged by others who have numbers and guns, and if they don't agree with my judgment, my life is destroyed. Obviously if God firmly speaks to me and tells me to do something, I have to do it, but that is unlikely to be the case. It is more likely that I will just be hearing the yelling and having to decide based on imperfect information. And in that case, I think the right answer is to call the authorities who are empowered to enter and handle these things. If I hear what sound like death screams, perhaps I grab a weapon and bang on the door - but if they stop (because they're not REALLY death screams) and there's a through-the-door conversation, I wait until the proper authorities arise. If I deputize myself and I'm wrong, I'm destroyed, for nothing. With an abortion clinic, there's no doubt what is going on in there: babies are being murdered. Does that mean that I can go and commit a murder myself? If I don't KILL the abortion doctor, he will murder others. If I simply break in, I will be arrested and immolate my own life by going to jail, but I won't actually STOP anything, merely delay it. Nowhere does God require us to sacrifice our lives to make a beau geste. There's also no doubt what's going on in prison: a certain number of those men are innocent and their lives are being taken by a brutal and uncaring state. In China and Iran and Saudi Arabia and North Korea, people who are innocent of anything that I would call a crime are facing torture and death. Because I am reasonably sure that some of the men that prison guards are guarding are in truth kidnapped slaves, innocent men, do I have the right to attack the prison to kill the guards? I don't think I do. The way I read Scripture, I do not have the right to kill. Even carrying a sword for self-defense. Yes, Christ authorized it, but the hope there is that just by HAVING the weapon and displaying it, that those who might attack are dissuaded. If they are not, I may have to use it to defend myself, and to defend others right around me. But does that mean that God commissioned me to go marching into pagan places and use that sword proactively to stop them from doing things that are mortal sins? The jihadis think so, and Allah told them to do it. I don't read YHWH or Jesus ever having said that to Jews or Christians, though. I think that this is one of the terrible evils of the world, but that killing is not, after all, the worst evil. Blaspheming the holy spirit is. Killing, even being a serial killer and mass murderer is bad, but it is forgivable. Saul of Tarsus, the Apostle Paul, was a serial killer. He hounded people across the Middle East, dragged them back, procured their deaths and was very satisfied with himself for doing so, a real blackguard. But he was forgiven by God. I do not read that God gave people the right to kill bad people. I read in Scripture only that God commands the execution, after due process, of KILLERS. Elijah excoriated King Ahab for being a Molechite, for idolatry, for murder and other sins. But he didn't set upon the King and strangle him. Nor did he call down fire from Heaven to burn the King alive as he did the priests of Ba'al. If I went and killed abortion doctors, I would know that I was doing it based on a justification that I had ginned up in my head. I talk to God, after all, and God has never told me to do any such thing. He has told me to mourn the children, hate the evil, and to leave vengeance up to him. I think that is the right answer. That's really where the provocative question that lead off the thread is leading. Without asking point blank, it is asking if we have the moral obligation and the right under God to attack and kill abortion providers. And the answer to that is I do not think we have the right to kill. They don't, and we don't. They'll be dead soon enough, and they'll each be thrown into Gehenna, to pay a debt. Murder is a pretty bad debt. Mass murder, the serial killing of infants, I doubt that ends well for the killers. So, do I have to destroy my life here and now in a futile gesture against one of them? No. There is no moral obligation to commit suicide. There is a moral obligation not to. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-10   9:03:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: Vicomte13 (#80) The answer to that is obvious. They prohibit abortion It is not obvious. I know of several debates in colleges where the pro abortion side said - and they said it to Protestants so maybe that is where the abti- abortion side got tripped up - they asked the anti abortionist where does the bible say abortion is wrong? They want a prohibition like that for gays, eating shellfish, etc. We need arguments rooted in logic as well as in faith. We need Athens and Jersualem to end abortions or to be more realistic - minimize them. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-10   10:01:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: Pericles (#77) You think Biblical talk will disway any abortions? YES, not only do I think it, I know it. Have you never been at an abortion mill where Christians spoke to troubled females about to enter and slaughter their kid? Any who have know that it is only Scripture that works arguing doesn't, not even asking the question, "What did the baby do that was so bad you're going to have little him or her killed?" What have you used, if not Scripture, to change a woman from murdering her baby? BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-10   10:31:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: Pericles (#81) It is not obvious. I know of several debates in colleges where the pro abortion side said - and they said it to Protestants so maybe that is where the abti- abortion side got tripped up - they asked the anti abortionist where does the bible say abortion is wrong? They want a prohibition like that for gays, eating shellfish, etc. We need arguments rooted in logic as well as in faith. We need Athens and Jersualem to end abortions or to be more realistic - minimize them. I really disagree with you here on the most profound level. To my reading of Scripture, it is absolutely clear. Life begins at conception. It begins at begetting. That is clear in Scripture. It's not a conjecture. God knows the man in the womb. That's clear in Scripture too. That's not conjecture. God commands men not to kill other men. That's clear in Scripture. It's not conjecture. And Jesus says that murderers are cast into the lake of fire. To me, it's an iron bridge, one girder linked to the next. I don't see how any reasonable person who reads it can see it any differently, to be honest. God never commanded men not to torture other men to death with electricity. He never prohibited plunging people we hate into sulfuric acid. God never prohibited rounding up people and suffocating them in gas chambers. He never prohibited the lining up and guillotining of one's adversaries. God did not prohibit men from killing men by going through a laundry list, he simply flat out prohibited it. HOWEVER a man kills a man, if he does it intentionally and not in repayment of a killing, it's murder. So, the Scripture very clearly dates human life from conception: the begetting by the father, and it very clearly prohibits men from killing other men. And THEREFORE it prohibits street murders, and Auschwitz, and abortion. It's straight linear logic. Do not kill means don't kill in ANY circumstance, unless EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED (which, for anybody but Hebrews in Israel, was only for the shedding of blood - CHRISTIANS are just plain murderers when they executed people for witchcraft, idolatry, devil worship, adultery, treason, are anything but MURDER). It's crystal clear to me from the text. Let me use an exact parallel: God did not explicitly prohibit women from having sex with other women. Also, God forbade men from lying with other men as with women (sodomy), but he never explicitly forbade men from giving each other handjobs. He never forbade orgies of oral sex between whatever sex. What he forbade was "porneia", which obviously covers all of those things - just as obviously as "don't kill other men" covers abortion. If I took your view, abortion isn't mentioned, and neither are many homosexual acts as long as there is no anal intercourse. But I can't take that view, because if I tried to I would be being dishonest. "Don't kill" self-evidently covers abortion, just as "porneia" self-evidently covers ALL of the various forms of unmarried sex. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-10   10:35:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#80) Elijah excoriated King Ahab for being a Molechite, for idolatry, for murder and other sins. But he didn't set upon the King and strangle him. Nor did he call down fire from Heaven to burn the King alive as he did the priests of Ba'al. A good example. Elijah, by God's sovereign design, had a different mission. He was a prophet. As we know Ahab dies later and eventually his entire house is judged by God using the sword of Jehu. But as the example of the Good Samaritan. If we have the ability to help those in need we do so. Not because a law of some sort says so, but because we love Christ and want to be like Him. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-10   12:00:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: redleghunter (#84) But as the example of the Good Samaritan. If we have the ability to help those in need we do so. Not because a law of some sort says so, but because we love Christ and want to be like Him. Yes, if we have the ability to HELP. But where is the example from Jesus of the man who HELPS by KILLING SOMEBODY? That's the problem. How can we save a particular unborn facing abortion? We only have one choice: We can physically attack the clinic to stop the procedure. Will this actually save unborn? Probably not. We'll be arrested and then imprisoned, if we're not killed, and the mother will simply reschedule the murder of her child. Bob has spoken of using words of Scripture, and that's about what we're left with, I think. The question of the thread, to my perspective, is when we can proactively draw the sword to go and kill somebody else to stop him from doing something evil. A straight read of Scripture doesn't answer it. "Don't shed blood", "Don't kill", "Don't murder" are pretty categorical. The only clear exception is in execution of judgment, but the judgment process that is depicted, for the Jews anyway, is a careful judicial process requiring multiple witnesses. In God's own state, murderers to unwitnessed murders got away with it, and God's judgment would prevail. Also, the Jews were given the Urim and Thummim to consult God on matters where they had no clear answer. We do not have direct oracles, and without a direct and unmistakeable physics-breaking miracle or two, as tests, I would not trust any spirit that told me to go kill somebody. I would argue Scripture with that spirit and demand to be shown why it was ok, and be shown miracles of the nature that proved I was speaking with God and not some demon. Killing people is a fatal thing: murderers are thrown into the Lake of Fire - Jesus said so twice on the last page of Scripture, in his final words. We have to take that seriously. I cannot read the Scripture and take an admonition to help people so far as to say that that extends to pro-actively killing people for doing evil things, to protect other people from those evils. After all, that would justify pre-emptively killing anybody who leads other people into mortal sin, since physical murder is no worse than pornea: Both get the spirit thrown into the lake of fire. So, one man can justify himself in killing abortionists to save the babies, and another man can justify himself in slaughtering prostitutes because they commit pornea and thereby damn not just themselves but their sex partners. Anybody dealing drugs is marketing pharmakon, and that leads to the destruction of souls. Therefore, one does a favor to all those who would be corrupted by slaughtering all drug dealers. And then we come to false or erroneous religions. After all, physical death, such as suffered by the baby, is MERELY physical death. The baby has no personal sins and will be acceptable to God. But consider the clergy of false religions: Imams and Mullahs, Hindu priests AND RABBIS. Let us not forget that RABBIS ALSO deny the divinity of Christ, and that without Christ, there is no salvation. Religious leaders, by teaching false doctrines, lead people away from God by the millions, and in the ultimate, potentially idolatrous sense. THEREFORE, if we can do a kindness by saving babies' lives, temporarily, by killing the abortion doctor, how much greater service will we do by silencing all tongues that teach falsehoods and prevent people from finding Jesus Christ. We would be doing a kindness by slaughtering all rabbis, and all imams, and all Hindu priests, and all people who preach anything other than Christ, who teach anything other than Christ. We would be purging the Devil's own teaching from the earth and saving people from Hell. That would be a greater kindness, certainly, than saving one baby. Billions of souls saved, at the mere cost of a few million rabbis, imams and pagan priests. And that's called jihad. And it is not in the Scripture. You should be a good Samaritan. That means helping people. It doesn't mean drawing the sword and hacking your way through the evil people, for all have sinned, and therefore all are evil. Live by the sword, die by the sword - Jesus Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-10   13:13:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: Vicomte13 (#85) I have to say Christians are doing everything within the context of the Good Samaritan. They are protesting abortion; they are using whatever political pressure they have to oppose abortion; they are adopting unwanted babies and setting up pregnancy crisis centers to offering options other than abortion. I see these efforts as keeping with the Commands of Christ and the practice of the NT church. So yes, in principle I agree with you. We know of no armed Christian assaults to free other Christians being fed to wild animals in Rome and other cities. Our mission as Christians is an evangelical mission. The Gospel. Christ commanded the Gospel as our marching orders. However, I personally would risk life and limb to protect innocent or defenseless life. There is a way to do so without slashing with a sword or shooting a gun. The history of Christians standing against evil is long. It is a standing and courage not wrought of ourselves but from Christ. Bottom line, as God Wills no me, not us. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-10   13:45:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Vicomte13 (#83) To my reading of Scripture, it is absolutely clear. Because you are Catholic. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-10   15:26:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#86) (Edited) So yes, in principle I agree with you. We know of no armed Christian assaults to free other Christians being fed to wild animals in Rome and other cities. Our mission as Christians is an evangelical mission. The Gospel. Christ commanded the Gospel as our marching orders. However, I personally would risk life and limb to protect innocent or defenseless life. There is a way to do so without slashing with a sword or shooting a gun. The history of Christians standing against evil is long. It is a standing and courage not wrought of ourselves but from Christ. Bottom line, as God Wills no me, not us. What right wingers like you say is so topsy turvey in their thinking. There are many that would probably take up arms or risk their lives to save a baby from being aborted but when I ask them are they willing to create a govt funded form of welfare for babies from conception till they are 18 years old - free health care, free day care, free pre K, subsidies to moms, clothing allowances everything possible to make the mother want to birth her baby - if she does not want to keep it - free federal adoptions - end overseas adoptions by the way - the anti-abortion right wing reacts in horror. I think such an approach would end a great many abortions - abortion would be legal but no reason to do it. It is just wrong headed American conservative thinking that keeps doing the same thing since the late 70s. Either that is a sign of insanity on the right or its a way the GOP grifts religous folks on a flashpoint wedge issue to keep them voting and donating to the GOP while the GOP does nothing to end abortion. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-10   15:31:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, liberator (#88) when I ask them are they willing to create a govt funded form of welfare for babies from conception till they are 18 years old - free health care, free day care, free pre K, subsidies to moms, clothing allowances everything possible to make the mother want to birth her baby - if she does not want to keep it - free federal adoptions - end overseas adoptions by the way - the anti-abortion right wing reacts in horror. I would think such folks would be horrified that a government must take on those responsibilities. In the early Church all of the above was an individual, family and church effort. Paul was clear on that. I am horrified we have such sub standard 'mothers' to be these days. What happened to all those women who defended their babies to their last dying breath? Not many left. Instead, the socialism you hail from makes government 'god.' So I hear your point. You think government should sweeten the pot for women so they decide not to kill their own baby. There's a term for this, it's called "strong delusion." If a mother to be needs such assurances to birth a child, then maybe they should not engage in adult decisions like intercourse. It is much better to place an unwanted child with a home which appreciates them. There are numerous Christian ministries in the US which do this line of missionary work. They are standing by to accomodate more. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-10   16:23:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, liberator (#88) I think such an approach would end a great many abortions - abortion would be legal but no reason to do it. Abortions in the West have nothing to do with finding a place for an unwanted child who is born. It has everything to do with promiscuity, convenience and career. Not many women who do not want a child will wait the 9 months to birth the child. They do not want to be bothered by pregnancy. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-10   16:28:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: redleghunter (#89) would think such folks would be horrified that a government must take on those responsibilities. Allowing libertarian ideals of killing fetuses (no govt can tell you what you can do with your own body) is better? Like I wrote, the American right wing is a failure and is schizophrenic. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-10   22:16:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, liberator (#90) I think such an approach would end a great many abortions - abortion would be legal but no reason to do it. Abortions in the West have nothing to do with finding a place for an unwanted child who is born. It has everything to do with promiscuity, convenience and career. Not many women who do not want a child will wait the 9 months to birth the child. They do not want to be bothered by pregnancy. I rather women be sluts then abort their babies. You want your cake and to eat it too. If the child to be is taken care of even the slutiest of sluts will not abort her child. Those that don't use protection - which should be encouraged to be used. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-10   22:18:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: Pericles (#91) Allowing libertarian ideals of killing fetuses (no govt can tell you what you can do with your own body) is better? Like I wrote, the American right wing is a failure and is schizophrenic. No you cut and pasted a partial thought. Go back and see WHO I said is responsible and WHO is helping. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-11   1:31:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: Pericles (#92) I rather women be sluts then abort their babies. You want your cake and to eat it too. If the child to be is taken care of even the slutiest of sluts will not abort her child. Those that don't use protection - which should be encouraged to be used. Without accelerants there is no fire. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-11   1:36:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: Pericles (#91) Allowing libertarian ideals of killing fetuses (no govt can tell you what you can do with your own body) is better? The baby's body is not your body. Of course government can tell people that they cannot kill their own children, ever, not from the moment of conception until natural death. That's the first and most legitimate purpose of government: to punish people who kill other people, and to dissuade them from doing it. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-11   10:09:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com