|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:26 am
Tangled Up In Blue Seority -x> stare
-reads chapter- its says nothing about abortion
anything that you kill INTENTIONALY, you WILL be punished for it
I don't know what you're saying.
~Ex.Kin.Fin I think her point is that in Exodus 21 the penalty for killing a pregnant woman is death, while the penalty for causing her to miscarry is merely a fine, which would seem to draw a distinction of some sort between the worth of the woman and the worth of the unborn child. After all, if Mosaic Law considered the unborn to be proper persons, then to kill one would be murder and, as such, the proscribed punishment would have to be death. That not being the case, however, it is not unreasonable to infer that the unborn are, in the eyes of the Law, something less than fully realized individuals. but does that make it right to kill them? especially for the sake of mere convenience? (95% of all abortions are for convenience, out of 1.4 million per year in america)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:32 am
divineseraph but does that make it right to kill them? especially for the sake of mere convenience? (95% of all abortions are for convenience, out of 1.4 million per year in america) Divine brings up a good point. While killing fetuses (would the plural of that word be feti?) is not leveled with murder, it is still a punishable offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:54 pm
Tangled Up In Blue Seority -x> stare
-reads chapter- its says nothing about abortion
anything that you kill INTENTIONALY, you WILL be punished for it
I don't know what you're saying.
~Ex.Kin.Fin I think her point is that in Exodus 21 the penalty for killing a pregnant woman is death, while the penalty for causing her to miscarry is merely a fine, which would seem to draw a distinction of some sort between the worth of the woman and the worth of the unborn child. After all, if Mosaic Law considered the unborn to be proper persons, then to kill one would be murder and, as such, the proscribed punishment would have to be death. That not being the case, however, it is not unreasonable to infer that the unborn are, in the eyes of the Law, something less than fully realized individuals. Hmm...I might want to refer you to a section of the NT. Matthew 19: 3-8 And Pharisees came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by asking "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife or any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the shall become one flesh'? What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." If God could allow something that was not His original intent in the law because of the people's hardness of heart, why is it not the same point here? Psalm 139 shows us one thing: that God takes painstaking care to create a new life from the instant it is concieved. A real, living, breathing human is being woven in the womb. Could God have allowed this difference in value to be there because the people were simply too hard-hearted to accept that God views an unborn child as a fully realized person? I'll warrant that this is not explicitly stated in the Bible, but could this be possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:09 pm
hai. i've always hated the argument of "well, God made it so it MUST be good", no matter what the argument was about. be it rampant sex, adultry, abortion, war... it's a stupid argument that only serves to blame what you know is wrong on God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:03 am
divineseraph hai. i've always hated the argument of "well, God made it so it MUST be good", no matter what the argument was about. be it rampant sex, adultry, abortion, war... it's a stupid argument that only serves to blame what you know is wrong on God. Agreed. Plus, quite frankly, after sin came into the world, that arguement became bunk. God made everything, and He saw it was good. When sin came into the world, everything God made ceased to be pure. Therefore, that arguement is null and void. Otherwise, there would be no need for the cross. God made us as well, didn't He?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:43 pm
Matthew 5:21
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.'
Life is life, no matter how small or underdeveloped. To end a life is murder. Abortion is cruel, for it involves a mother sacrificing a child's life so as to make her own a bit easier. Because the child didn't willingly sacrifice itself, the mother has commited murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:09 pm
Berezi Tangled Up In Blue Seority -x> stare
-reads chapter- its says nothing about abortion
anything that you kill INTENTIONALY, you WILL be punished for it
I don't know what you're saying.
~Ex.Kin.Fin I think her point is that in Exodus 21 the penalty for killing a pregnant woman is death, while the penalty for causing her to miscarry is merely a fine, which would seem to draw a distinction of some sort between the worth of the woman and the worth of the unborn child. After all, if Mosaic Law considered the unborn to be proper persons, then to kill one would be murder and, as such, the proscribed punishment would have to be death. That not being the case, however, it is not unreasonable to infer that the unborn are, in the eyes of the Law, something less than fully realized individuals. Hmm...I might want to refer you to a section of the NT. Matthew 19: 3-8 And Pharisees came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by asking "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife or any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the shall become one flesh'? What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." If God could allow something that was not His original intent in the law because of the people's hardness of heart, why is it not the same point here? Psalm 139 shows us one thing: that God takes painstaking care to create a new life from the instant it is concieved. A real, living, breathing human is being woven in the womb. Could God have allowed this difference in value to be there because the people were simply too hard-hearted to accept that God views an unborn child as a fully realized person? I'll warrant that this is not explicitly stated in the Bible, but could this be possible? Even if we accept that such *could* be the case, nowhere does Jesus tell us such. Without a divine message contradicting a stated moral law, there is no reasonable justification for altering said law. As for Psalm 139, that god would put effort into creating fetuses in no way says they are human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:11 pm
Elliot Reilly McMonty Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.' Life is life, no matter how small or underdeveloped. To end a life is murder. Abortion is cruel, for it involves a mother sacrificing a child's life so as to make her own a bit easier. Because the child didn't willingly sacrifice itself, the mother has commited murder. This is not true as the Bible never says a fetus is a human. Unless god specifically forbids something, you as a human have no right to claim it is a sin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:03 pm
zz1000zz Even if we accept that such *could* be the case, nowhere does Jesus tell us such. Without a divine message contradicting a stated moral law, there is no reasonable justification for altering said law. As for Psalm 139, that god would put effort into creating fetuses in no way says they are human beings. Actually, there is a thematic connection between the way God creates a fetus (knitting them in the womb - involving God's explicit handiwork) to the creation of humanity as recorded in Genesis 2 (again involving God's explicit handiwork). The Genesis accounts existed before the Psalms, and the average person hearing the Psalm might have made that connection. That special form of creation that's unique to humanity probably can advocate for the humanity of a fetus. But you would be right to say that the connection is very shaky indeed. And you would be right to say what you did before. It is something to think about, though. Unfortunately things to think about aren't exactly useful in a debate. Something a bit more useful: But about Exodus 21 - if a woman miscarries by her own actions her penalty is death. Abortion defienetly qualifies in that category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:14 pm
As a Christian, you should already know what is a sin and what isn't because of the Holy Spirit's assurance. God speaks to us not only through the Bible, but through the Holy Spirit. When a person sins, the Holy Spirit convicts them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:50 pm
-Sunset Wahine- As a Christian, you should already know what is a sin and what isn't because of the Holy Spirit's assurance. God speaks to us not only through the Bible, but through the Holy Spirit. When a person sins, the Holy Spirit convicts them. "A Christian should automatically know what is and is not a sin, because God will tell them." My rough paraphrase of your post should show how silly that really is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:21 pm
Hasn't the topic of homosexuality and sin been debated to death already? No one is ever going to agree on it. Certain people will say that as long as you don't act on the feelings that it isn't considered a sin, others will say that having the feelings is still a sin, and still others will say that none of it is sin. We all believe what we believe for a reason, and none of us are going to like what eachother has to say on this, so instead of trying to get a gigantic arguement going, why not just start a topic about something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:23 am
zz1000zz -Sunset Wahine- As a Christian, you should already know what is a sin and what isn't because of the Holy Spirit's assurance. God speaks to us not only through the Bible, but through the Holy Spirit. When a person sins, the Holy Spirit convicts them. "A Christian should automatically know what is and is not a sin, because God will tell them." My rough paraphrase of your post should show how silly that really is. Silly because you don't believe in such a thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:10 pm
-Sunset Wahine- Silly because you don't believe in such a thing? No, because it is quite silly. I mean, if everyone automatically knew what God wanted, then we wouldn't really have much to debate about. The problem is that we don't know what God wants in individual situations most of hte time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
