 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > For Pastors:The Chief Shepherd's Heart on Abortion | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/6/2004 12:27 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
as we discover more and more evidence proving that the unborn child from conception is a human being that deserves rights, more and more Christians - and Christian leaders - are resisting that evidence and hiding behind the "Well, we're still not absolutely sure, so, we don't feel responsible to do anything about this holocaust." This is the truth.
The problem is you have no evidence, scriptural or otherwise, that says newly conceived human beings are persons. Maybe some are hiding behind the excuse you stated, but I am not, and I'm not sure there is anyone else on this topic who is. quote:
And it's also the truth that we don't need more evidence. We do have our consciences, common sense, the Holy Spirit speaking to us and the Word of God that says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." We are pushing away this truth and forming opinions out of our own ignorance, fears and apathy.
There is no way for me to argue with you about your conscience, common sense, or relationship with the Holy Spirit. All I can say is that these things can be distorted, and that other Christians don't think personhood at conception is common sense. No one in the Bible even expressed that belief. quote:
I'm really at a loss for your other comparison, Sahid. My cry is for the SAFETY and PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN. In other words, if the Pro-Life people get their way, there will be no legalized murders in our land. To compare me, or to compare this cause to Christians who are "killing and taking back the Holy Land" is really more a comparison to those who kill babies in the name of "This baby (or land) is rightfully mine."
The comparison is not in the action. It is in the motivation. I thought I made that clear. I said, " History is full of stories where Christian have a fire lit under themselves to promote a lie." Our conscience, common sense, and feeling of obedience to the Spirit can be distorted as it was in the case of the crusades. quote:
By the way, what is this "Christian fervor to kill Muslims and take back the holy land"? If you're referring to history, then I, along with other sane Christians, deplore that kind of "killing in the name of Jesus." You're throwing up "straw men" to shoot down.
I am not putting up a straw man. I never said you condoned the actions of the crusades. In fact my arguement was based on the assumption that you would deplore those actions. quote:
Sahid, it sounds like there was a time when God gave you His heart for the unborn and you saw the injustice in that and carried his burden. If you are sincerely willing, I would be glad to help you get back that burden - as difficult as it is. I am honestly not trying to be condescending, but helpful. Yes, it takes courage, and yes, one must resist creating other issues and arenas to avoid the real issue. But here's the truth: Abortion is murder - killing innocent babies - from conception to 9 months - is murder. It's happening in our land and God is ready to put a stop to it one way or another. Perhaps you can help me to know how to communicate this difficult truth in the most loving way without compromising this truth. I'd sincerely be open to that.
I still think abortion is wrong except possibly for the case of the mother's life being endangered. What takes courage is to look at the evidence while attempting to remove our unfounded biases. Our consciences can be distorted! Look at the examples I gave before: anti-intellectualism and the crusades. Look at how many Christians became Nazis. Look at how many Christians opposed civil rights for blacks and still do oppose them for homosexuals. Look at how many southern Christians supported slavery. Look at the divorce rate among Christians or take a moment to hear how much they gossip and back stab. Look at local church politics. I'm not accusing anyone here of these things. I'm just saying we must check our conscience, common sense, and even guiding of the Spirit by the scripture and our relationship with Christ. I believe it should be illegal to kill unborn persons, and I believe it should be illegal to gamble with the life of those we are not sure are persons. But I'm not convinced that claiming personhood begins at conception when we have no reason to believe so is right. It's a lie to claim you know something if you don't. Maybe you guys know it in your heart, but millions of people know in their heart that Allah is God. If you are going to go preaching, you need something more than subjective experience. No clear thinking person will be convinced if you have no evidence and no scriptural support.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BemaBound
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/6/2004 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sahid: If you are going to go preaching, you need something more than subjective experience. No clear thinking person will be convinced if you have no evidence and no scriptural support.
"Thou shalt not kill" is not a blanket statement. Not kill what? "People" I think is the obvious answer. By envoking "Thou shalt not kill" you simply beg the question. If you mean we shouldn't kill at all, then stop cutting your grass and brushing your teeth. The real question is who qualifies as a person.
The fact that kill, or murder, is always referred to in Scripture as murdering people (not grass), makes me really wonder where you're coming from. As for God's take on what constitutes a person, there is Scriptural wisdom given. He who has ears to hear, let him hear…
quote:
Exod 21:22-25 "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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
How one can read this passage and not understand that God is giving the unborn "people" status here is beyond me.
Michael | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/6/2004 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BemaBound
quote:
Sahid: If you are going to go preaching, you need something more than subjective experience. No clear thinking person will be convinced if you have no evidence and no scriptural support.
"Thou shalt not kill" is not a blanket statement. Not kill what? "People" I think is the obvious answer. By envoking "Thou shalt not kill" you simply beg the question. If you mean we shouldn't kill at all, then stop cutting your grass and brushing your teeth. The real question is who qualifies as a person.
The fact that kill, or murder, is always referred to in Scripture as murdering people (not grass), makes me really wonder where you're coming from. As for God's take on what constitutes a person, there is Scriptural wisdom given. He who has ears to hear, let him hear…
quote:
Exod 21:22-25 "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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
How one can read this passage and not understand that God is giving the unborn "people" status here is beyond me.
Um, its not completely clear whether the serious injury applies to the woman or the fetus, but at any rate we are likely talking about late trimester pregnancies, since the issue was premature birth.
I.e., the Bible is not saying that all unborn "children" should be legal people at all stages of pregnancy.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BemaBound
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/6/2004 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Exodus 21:22–23 are basic to the pro-life position on abortion, for they indicate that the aborting of a fetus was equivalent to the murdering of the child. The guilty party was punished as a murderer (“life for life”) if the mother or the unborn child, or both, died. See also Ps. 139:13–16.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1993). Wiersbe's expository outlines on the Old Testament (Ex 21:1). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
quote:
Exodus 21:22-25. If . . . a pregnant woman delivered her child prematurely as a result of a blow, but both were otherwise uninjured, the guilty party was to pay compensation determined by the woman’s husband and the court. However, if there was injury to the expectant mother or her child, then the assailant was to be penalized in proportion to the nature of severity of the injury. While unintentional life-taking was usually not a capital offense (cf. vv. 12-13), here it clearly was. Also the unborn fetus is viewed in this passage as just as much a human being as its mother; the abortion of a fetus was considered murder. A person’s physical loss by injury was to be punished by a similar loss to the offender (vv. 24-25), the law of retaliation (cf. Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21). This law was designed to restrict the exacting of punishment to what was equitable.
Commentary by John D. Hannah; Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Ex 21:22). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Michael | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/6/2004 9:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Assume the situation in these verses occurs with a woman who is a week pregnant. How a week-pregnant woman is going to give birth pre-maturely is beyond me, and how anyone would ever know (especially in the time of Moses) that she was even pregnant is even further beyond me. I'd remind you that no one here is arguing that personhood begins at birth.
Another issue is whether this verse even sees the injuries as applying to the unborn fetus. The fetus is never mentioned but implied indirectly by saying the woman is pregnant, but the women is clearly being spoken about. quote:
Exod 21:22-25 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [to whom, the mother the fetus or both? The woman is the only one mentioned], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband [if the verses were about giving legal status to the fetus, wouldn't it say "father" here?] demands and the court allows.
But if there is serious injury [whoever the first one was refering to, it's likely doing the same here], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
It seems to me that these verses give legal status to and provide for the fair treatment of pregnant women. This means unborn feti are valuable as well.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
BemaBound
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/10/2004 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sahid: In short, don't speak the truth in love without actively seeking the truth first.
BemaBound: I will agree with your statement about "Christian resistance to new scientific developments" - but only as far as this: as we discover more and more evidence proving that the unborn child from conception is a human being that deserves rights, more and more Christians - and Christian leaders - are resisting that evidence and hiding behind the "Well, we're still not absolutely sure, so, we don't feel responsible to do anything about this holocaust." This is the truth.
And it's also the truth that we don't need more evidence. We do have our consciences, common sense, the Holy Spirit speaking to us and the Word of God that says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." We are pushing away this truth and forming opinions out of our own ignorance, fears and apathy. And I speak this truth sincerely in love. Not to condemn, but to invite Christians to fight for the rights of the unborn - for that is a way to love the unborn (if you think that these precious unborn children of His are worthy of love).
quote:
Sahid: "Thou shalt not kill" is not a blanket statement. Not kill what? "People" I think is the obvious answer. By envoking "Thou shalt not kill" you simply beg the question. If you mean we shouldn't kill at all, then stop cutting your grass and brushing your teeth. The real question is who qualifies as a person.
(emphasis mine)
.
quote:
BemaBound: The fact that kill, or murder, is always referred to in Scripture as murdering people (not grass), makes me really wonder where you're coming from
.
quote:
Sahid: I so totally said that! That was my point! I was saying that "thou shalt not kill" refers to people! Read what I said!
BemaBound: Your statement threw me off when you said,: "If you (I take it that this is referring to me) mean we shouldn't kill at all, then stop cutting your grass and brushing your teeth. The real question is who qualifies as a person. ....
My reponse was to say "Of course I'm talking about not "killing at all" - not murdering/killing people (and not grass). Your paragraph seemed unnecessary because we all know on this post that the issue at hand is - some people think it's obvious that the unborn - at conception - is a person that should have legal rights like any person, and to some people it's not obvious that the unborn is a person, and therefore the need for their rights is not a real issue. I think I'm correct in saying this.
I admit to, and I apologize for using harsh words like "(your statement)makes me really wonder where you're coming from." I should rather give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to clarify what you're saying rather than take those "pot shots."
So, if there's another point that you were trying to make, I'm sincerely open to hear it. Perhaps you can rephrase your point in another way.
Michael | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/10/2004 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | First of all you're right; I got worked up. It just that that wasn't the first time someone has turned my words into the opposite of what I meant. I'm sorry though. I'll take a deep breath next time.quote:
but only as far as this: as we discover more and more evidence proving that the unborn child from conception is a human being that deserves rights, more and more Christians - and Christian leaders - are resisting that evidence and hiding behind the "Well, we're still not absolutely sure, so, we don't feel responsible to do anything about this holocaust." This is the truth.
And it's also the truth that we don't need more evidence. We do have our consciences, common sense, the Holy Spirit speaking to us and the Word of God that says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." We are pushing away this truth and forming opinions out of our own ignorance, fears and apathy.
I'd really like to know what this evidence is that everyone keeps talking about. Just one shred of evidence that says personhood begins at conception. Not evidence that says life begins before birth. Everyone here agrees. But that is truly not the point. "Though shalt not kill" people. So is a one-celled zygote a person? We do need evidence to answer this question. quote:
Some people think it's obvious that the unborn - at conception - is a person that should have legal rights like any person, and to some people it's not obvious that the unborn is a person, and therefore the need for their rights is not a real issue
Some people think it's obvious that the bovine is a person. Some Christians still think it's obvious that blacks are not truly people. But they're wrong. They even claim to be led by divine influence. But they're wrong. It just doesn't impress me when someone tries to drive their point home by saying it's obivous or common sense or (extra-biblical) divine revelation. These are just as likely excuses to keep from actually having to defend belief as they are accurate. They are appeals to authority and conversation stoppers. They amount to saying, "I'm right, because I'm right." What if I claimed that one-celled zygotes are not people, and I said the Holy Spirit told me so (or common sense)? Would anyone buy it? An appeal to authority needs to be an appeal to a reliable authority. People who claim to hear the voice of God are a dime a dozen. The Bible on the other hand has proven itself reliable. Reason (without bringing in emotion or prejudice) has also been very reliable. When we look at the bad ideas of history, it is really the motivations that usually made the ideas bad. So I will take the Bible and reason as authoritative, that and what is truly obvious (that one cell is a person and another is not isn't obvious to most people). I will not hold "because I say so" as authoritative.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
BemaBound
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/12/2004 8:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
I appreciated your last post.
Allow me to reclarify what my main point is:
Even if the evidence (which some think is more than enough) is inconclusive (that the unborn at conception is indeed a human being) there is at least enough evidence to give the benefit of the doubt to the (possible) unborn child by not taking that fetus' life. Giving this "benefit of the doubt to the possible unborn child" IS the right thing to do. And why? Because, if we were to later discover conclusive evidence - that the fetus at conception is indeed a human being - we would all be guilty of something so horrific - legalized mass murders.
In other words, the only sensible and moral statement a pro-choice person could make is something like this:
"Hey - I'm all for choice; but, since we don't have conclusive evidence that the unborn at conception is NOT a human being, let's hold off on the possible murdering of those fetuses until we know for certain that the fetus at conception is NOT a human being. For God's sake, we don't want to find ourselves guilty of murder." Yet, this assumes that the pro-choice person has an understanding of God and is sensitive in his/her conscience.
Again, the onus is upon those who are acting as if they are sure (sure enough to take the life of the unborn) that the fetus is not a human being, but are also acting without the conclusive evidence that the fetus is indeed not a human being.
The answer: have a moratorium on all abortions until the conclusive evidence is in - stating that the fetus, from conception until ______, is NOT a human being. That's the only sane and moral choice. This moratorium should be enough to protect the unborn until the Lord returns and He makes all things perfectly clear!
Michael | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/18/2004 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But short of a miracle (or disaster) I don't think such a memorandum has a chance of being accepted by a majority of Americans, say in the next 15 years.
I don't think any memorandum may ever be accepted really. Regean said this years ago in his book on abortion that because we just don't know the benefit of the doubt should go to the unborn. The people still don't care. They're choosing as a culture to do other wise. Here's another way of illustrating it with people.
Lets say you're in a hospital room and there is a form which looks human under a blanket. You are told we think the person is dead we're pretty sure of it but go ahead anyway and plunge this knife deep inside the form. How many would do that? Not many. They would say "What do you mean you think they are dead. You don't know it and you want me to do this?" Well most wouldn't do it. So men think that a unborn baby is not a real life but they're just not sure of it. And yet they do it anyway?  | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/26/2004 9:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BemaBound
Bobber,
I've been away from my computer for a while and just read your post. Thank you for your illustration - it was a good one. It's all very sad, isn't it? I'm just extremely sad about this whole thing - especially that Chrristians aren't "getting it" - the seriousness of this issue.
I think it's extremely sad for me becuase I know that Christians are truly "alive" and can now see things for how they really are. I didn't say that all "are" seeing things for how they really are - but we as Christians have the Holy Spirit in us and we're able to not only see things as they really are, but we're also able now to feel things as God feels them. But, we also have a free will - to not see things and to not feel things as God sees and feel them. It's all just sad.
Thanks again for your post.
Hi,
Thought I would add something here. I confess; I haven't been reading along, or had the time to even skim this thread, but the subject is dear to my heart.
Our daughter just arrived home from N.C. for 5 weeks. She volunteers outside of an abortion mill (they do not call them clinics). They are available to talk to young girls/women who are going in; as well as to offer them help with their pregnancy, even financial assistance. Many of the young women who go to the mills, go there because they cannot afford the pregnancy, and have "no alternative." She said, that since they have started (around January), that about 100 of these young women have changed their minds going into the "mill".
I suggested a couple of things to her. I suggested that someone be there for the young women who come out of that clinic; who chose to have the abortion, and that they offer them a safe place to talk if they need one. Another suggestion is that they ask for just 5 minutes of their time before they go in. Most women going in would be in a high state of anxiety, and afraid that they would be detained, and miss this critical appointment. If you could have just 5 minutes, then ask for another 5; you could save a life, or maybe two lives.
There are two souls to be concerned about going in, not just the baby, but the mother as well.
(Some good news, and my thoughts on this),
Nite and God Bless you,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
| 169 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|