Are Abortions Part of God's Plan?

[Easy90]

I was just wondering if some of the more informed theology buffs here could explain to me if abortions are part of "God's plan" or not.

[BoogyMan]

There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that would authorize such a practice.

[Easy90]

There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that would authorize such a practice.


Sure there is: The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]

Doesn't that indicate that God knows you will be aborted..and as such, wouldn't that be part of his "plan?"

[BoogyMan]

There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that would authorize such a practice.


Sure there is: The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]

Doesn't that indicate that God knows you will be aborted..and as such, wouldn't that be part of his "plan?"


God, having knowledge of a coming event, does not imply his approval of said event.

There certainly is no scripture you can provide that shows approval of abortion.

[PostmodernProphet]

I was just wondering if some of the more informed theology buffs here could explain to me if abortions are part of "God's plan" or not.

what are you asking?.....are you asking if the act of abortion is in accordance with God's will?....or are you asking if God will make use of your predisposition toward murdering children to further his plans.......

[Easy90]

what are you asking?.....are you asking if the act of abortion is in accordance with God's will?....or are you asking if God will make use of your predisposition toward murdering children to further his plans.......

Whoa thar Buckwheat! Who says "I" have a "predisposition toward murdering children?" All I am asking is, since the scriptures indicate that God knows exactly how long you will live, and your life (tenure on this mortal coil) is pre-determined...according to His Holy Word...is an abortion part of his plan?

[davo]

Isn't God supposed to have given us free will, where we make our own decisions?

[Easy90]

Isn't God supposed to have given us free will, where we make our own decisions?


But, how can your will be "free" if God already knows what you're going to do before hand?

[Saigio]

There is really nothing that I have seen in the bible that supports or condemns abortion. If God really plans out every second of every persons life, he would have planned out every abortion that has happened. If he has planned out everything, it also means that the same god planned the holocaust, the current genocides, the systematic slaughter of native Americans, and every single other atrocity in history, and every single one still to come.

[BoogyMan]

There is really nothing that I have seen in the bible that supports or condemns abortion. If God really plans out every second of every persons life, he would have planned out every abortion that has happened. If he has planned out everything, it also means that the same god planned the holocaust, the current genocides, the systematic slaughter of native Americans, and every single other atrocity in history, and every single one still to come.


There is a huge difference between foreknowledge of all possible outcomes and planning out someones life. Man has a free will and can choose good or evil.

[Saigio]

There is really nothing that I have seen in the bible that supports or condemns abortion. If God really plans out every second of every persons life, he would have planned out every abortion that has happened. If he has planned out everything, it also means that the same god planned the holocaust, the current genocides, the systematic slaughter of native Americans, and every single other atrocity in history, and every single one still to come.


There is a huge difference between foreknowledge of all possible outcomes and planning out someones life. Man has a free will and can choose good or evil.


I know that. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of claiming that God plans out everything.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, I am guessing people who believe the bible forbids abortion will say that abortion is of Satan, not of God.

[Easy90]

What I hear some of you saying is, "God has no idea what's going to happen." Is that it? The Supreme Being has engaged in a "crap shoot?"

[Saigio]

What I hear some of you saying is, "God has no idea what's going to happen." Is that it? The Supreme Being has engaged in a "crap shoot?"


I don't have the same beliefs of God as you may. I feel that humankind has the power over their destiny, and that whatever gods that may be sit back and watch over us, not getting involved in our existence.

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, I am guessing people who believe the bible forbids abortion will say that abortion is of Satan, not of God.


no, abortion is of "human" not of God.....[hr]
what are you asking?.....are you asking if the act of abortion is in accordance with God's will?....or are you asking if God will make use of your predisposition toward murdering children to further his plans.......

Whoa thar Buckwheat! Who says "I" have a "predisposition toward murdering children?" All I am asking is, since the scriptures indicate that God knows exactly how long you will live, and your life (tenure on this mortal coil) is pre-determined...according to His Holy Word...is an abortion part of his plan?


fair enough, change it to "predisposition of those who support abortion toward murdering children"........

[Easy90]

Well, I am guessing people who believe the bible forbids abortion will say that abortion is of Satan, not of God.


no, abortion is of "human" not of God.....[hr]
what are you asking?.....are you asking if the act of abortion is in accordance with God's will?....or are you asking if God will make use of your predisposition toward murdering children to further his plans.......

Whoa thar Buckwheat! Who says "I" have a "predisposition toward murdering children?" All I am asking is, since the scriptures indicate that God knows exactly how long you will live, and your life (tenure on this mortal coil) is pre-determined...according to His Holy Word...is an abortion part of his plan?


fair enough, change it to "predisposition of those who support abortion toward murdering children"........


And you came to that conclusion because I asked if abortion was part of God's plan? Sorry, but I asked that, because according to many Christians, God has a plan that includes his foreknowledge of every event, and He knows how long each of us will live. I assume, that since aborted fetuses are considered to be living humans by Christians, and others...those who believe God knows how long we have to live, also knows when a child will be aborted. Hence, with that knowledge, abortions must be part of God's divine plan.

So far, in the past two days, you have called me "ignorant," a "child murderer," and a supporter of those with a predisposition to murdering children... But you haven't given any logical answer to my questions. Why is that?

It's been my experience that someone who resorts to unwarranted ad hominem attacks early in a discussion, usually has a paucity of depth to bring to the table, or has anger management issues. Could that be your problem?

Have you by any chance read "A Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren?

[Alonzo]

The bible does make a distinction between fetus and person:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:22-25

A fine, in whatever the amount the husband demands, isn't nearly as much as the eye for an eye punishment for harming the wife.

And then there's the passage saying unfaithful wives should get abortions:

20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband-- 21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; 22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'

And this one on quality of life:


"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"

[BoogyMan]

Boy are you REALLY stretching the scripture to try and make that feeble point Zo, and one specifically from a covenant under which we do not today operate.

The numbers passage seems to be the most egregious error posted so far as it doesn't tell the women to go and get abortions but describing a check of the innocence of the one involved.

[PatrickHenry]

This thread has potential.

Is God omnisicent? IMO, yes, it comes with the position.

God is the creator of the Space/Time Continuum, existing both within it and outside of it (ie., he doesn't depend on it for his existence).

Hence he views all events from an exalted perspective. The evil and the good.

One of the parameters of his creation is an ability to choose by some of his creatures.

I don't think his omniscience amounts to predestination, though I can see how you could argue otherwise.

God says choose life.

[Alonzo]

Boy are you REALLY stretching the scripture to try and make that feeble point Zo, and one specifically from a covenant under which we do not today operate.

The numbers passage seems to be the most egregious error posted so far as it doesn't tell the women to go and get abortions but describing a check of the innocence of the one involved.


My point is that, according to the bible, God doesn't seem to view a fetus or embryo as a full human, they're something lesser but not quite worthless either.

I'm not arguing the bible is pro-choice, but there seems to be a decent pro-"depending on the circumstances" argument.

But much of the old testament still applies, it's the dietary laws, ritual practices and punishment that do not. But that doesn't mean that it is without meaning. They're still God's words and punishment still reflect his desires. Even if the punishment itself does not apply, what caused that punishment, and what the punishment was, still provides insight into Gods view. God seems to have concluded that there were occasions where abortion was acceptable, and seems to have distinguished in value an embryo/fetus and a born human.

[BoogyMan]

But much of the old testament still applies, it's the dietary laws, ritual practices and punishment that do not. But that doesn't mean that it is without meaning. They're still God's words and punishment still reflect his desires. Even if the punishment itself does not apply, what caused that punishment, and what the punishment was, still provides insight into Gods view. God seems to have concluded that there were occasions where abortion was acceptable, and seems to have distinguished in value an embryo/fetus and a born human.


Only if you view the determination of innocence as an abortion Zo, it is a serious twist to take that from the text.

You will also have to admit that even in your example life is valued, pure and simple.

[Alonzo]

Only if you view the determination of innocence as an abortion Zo, it is a serious twist to take that from the text.

Only the innocent ones remain though.

You will also have to admit that even in your example life is valued, pure and simple.

I didn't deny that. But it is reasonable to conclude that a pregnant drug addict, or a pregnant woman who is chronically homeless, would have a valid reason for abortion.

[PatrickHenry]

it is reasonable to conclude that a pregnant drug addict, or a pregnant woman who is chronically homeless, would have a valid reason for abortion.
Also a valid reason not to be fertile in the first place...

[BoogyMan]

Only if you view the determination of innocence as an abortion Zo, it is a serious twist to take that from the text.

Only the innocent ones remain though.

What is and should be discussed with regard to this is the choice is not up to man, it is God who makes the choice.


You will also have to admit that even in your example life is valued, pure and simple.

I didn't deny that. But it is reasonable to conclude that a pregnant drug addict, or a pregnant woman who is chronically homeless, would have a valid reason for abortion.

See my first response above, God not man makes the choice in your example so it would be safe to say that we are not comparing apples to apples here.

[Alonzo]

Also a valid reason not to be fertile in the first place...

Isn't the issue about what to do once already pregnant?

What is and should be discussed with regard to this is the choice is not up to man, it is God who makes the choice.

The passage describes an abortion that take place only if the woman was guilty. While it is right to say another person can't determine that, the woman in question can almost always determine whether she did indeed engage in extra-marital sex. She has no more or less insight into her guilt than God would.

[BoogyMan]

What is and should be discussed with regard to this is the choice is not up to man, it is God who makes the choice.

The passage describes an abortion that take place only if the woman was guilty. While it is right to say another person can't determine that, the woman in question can almost always determine whether she did indeed engage in extra-marital sex. She has no more or less insight into her guilt than God would.


Yet God is the one who is making the call here Zo.

[PatrickHenry]

Also a valid reason not to be fertile in the first place...

Isn't the issue about what to do once already pregnant?
If I give you the abortion for a pregnant druggie, will you give me the sterilization?

[Alonzo]

Yet God is the one who is making the call here Zo.

That seems to be an extreme technicality, since it says he will make that judgement when she's guilty, something she already knows the answer to. Her going to the priest is not different than her walking into a clinic, either way she knows the result of her trip because she knows her guilt. You'd have a point if she was merely accused but denied it or refused to answer.

If God so disapproved of all abortion then the killing of the fetus or embryo wouldn't even have been mentioned. And he would certainly have made an explicit anti-abortion statement at some point in the bible, considering how widespread herbal and other forms of abortion have been throughout history.

If I give you the abortion for a pregnant druggie, will you give me the sterilization?

Have a biblical passage for sterilization due to poverty or illness?

[PatrickHenry]

If I give you the abortion for a pregnant druggie, will you give me the sterilization?

Have a biblical passage for sterilization due to poverty or illness?
Nothing in the Book about sterilization...Nothin' about the Space/Time Continuum either....

[AnnEsthesia]

Nothing in the book about treatments and medications that extend life beyond what God determined our lives should be, either.

[Alonzo]

If I give you the abortion for a pregnant druggie, will you give me the sterilization?

Have a biblical passage for sterilization due to poverty or illness?
Nothing in the Book about sterilization...Nothin' about the Space/Time Continuum either....


But there is a basis for abortion under some circumstances. So I'm not sure of your point.

[PostmodernProphet]

So far, in the past two days, you have called me "ignorant," a "child murderer," and a supporter of those with a predisposition to murdering children... But you haven't given any logical answer to my questions. Why is that?


first of all I said that you were ignorant of the teachings of Christianity....given your statements about those teachings, that should be self-evident.....I apologize for calling you a child murderer....I had no right to do that because I do not know if you actually support abortion or not, you may well be opposed to it.....as far as giving you a logical answer to your question, I don't believe it can be stated much clearer than "it is not God's will that people murder their children".....I can't imagine that you find that illogical, but I will leave that up to you.....

[PatrickHenry]

But there is a basis for abortion under some circumstances. So I'm not sure of your point.

Just saying as a practical matter...without all the dogma.

You know...dealing with reality...one case at a time.

And this whole debate doesn't address the real problem. That abortion is the de facto method for everyday birth control for any number of women.

[PostmodernProphet]

The bible does make a distinction between fetus and person:



Quote:
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:22-25

A fine, in whatever the amount the husband demands, isn't nearly as much as the eye for an eye punishment for harming the wife.




hmm....I take issue with that interpretation....

in the original the passage says

Ex 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
{will only display properly if you have Hebrew font installed}
.Wa.c'y.w h'r'h h'Via.Wp.g'n.w ~yiv'n]a.Wc'NIy-yik.w
r,v]a;K ven'[ey vw{n'[ !w{s'a h,y.hIy a{l.w 'hy,d'l.y
~yilil.piB !;t'n.w h'Via'h l;[;B wy'l'[ tyiv'y
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi
there is no clear conclusion that the first part refers to a miscarriage.....it begins by referring to a woman with a child.....not a woman with a fetus or a woman with a bundle of referenceless cell tissue, but a woman with a child....and states that if a man strikes her and she delivers but no harm is done (i.e. the child lives) then he pays a fine....but if further harm is done (i.e. the child dies or is injured) then there may be further punishment......

[Easy90]

I don't believe it can be stated much clearer than "it is not God's will that people murder their children". PP

Really? Then look at Deut 21:18-21. It says:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

Looks to me like God says it's OK to murder their children sometimes.

[Drocket]

Ex 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

AKA: she has a miscarriage.

[Pookie]

What if you're not a Christian? What applies there?
Just a question. I'm curious, nothing more.
Purrs,
Pookie

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't believe it can be stated much clearer than "it is not God's will that people murder their children". PP

Really? Then look at Deut 21:18-21. It says:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

Looks to me like God says it's OK to murder their children sometimes.


if they were carrying out punishment decreed by God wouldn't it be justice rather than murder?.....[hr]
Ex 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

AKA: she has a miscarriage.


an assumption....it could just as easily be a premature birth....nothing in the passage requires you to believe the "fruit" didn't live....if anything the 'no mischief follow" would lead you to believe that the "fruit" DID live.....[hr]
What if you're not a Christian? What applies there?
Just a question. I'm curious, nothing more.
Purrs,
Pookie


I have always been puzzled why secular humanists are not the primary opponents of abortion.....

science makes it obvious that the unborn are human beings, as no significant event occurs after conception upon which the issue of "human-ness" should balance.....

it is not characteristic of a belief in the sanctity of life to believe that it can summarily be extinguished at will....

[underdawg]

I am not a Christian and I have seen no evidence of a God or his actions in modern times. I say as long as a fetus is still phyically joined to the mother, it is the mother's choice to do determine the fate of her own body. Whether there is a god or not, it should not be the right of others to assume to know the will of god and try to forse their beliefs upon the life of the mother, for without her, the fetus or baby would not exist.

[Alonzo]

hmm....I take issue with that interpretation....

in the original the passage says

Ex 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
{will only display properly if you have Hebrew font installed}
.Wa.c'y.w h'r'h h'Via.Wp.g'n.w ~yiv'n]a.Wc'NIy-yik.w
r,v]a;K ven'[ey vw{n'[ !w{s'a h,y.hIy a{l.w 'hy,d'l.y
~yilil.piB !;t'n.w h'Via'h l;[;B wy'l'[ tyiv'y
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi
there is no clear conclusion that the first part refers to a miscarriage.....it begins by referring to a woman with a child.....not a woman with a fetus or a woman with a bundle of referenceless cell tissue, but a woman with a child....and states that if a man strikes her and she delivers but no harm is done (i.e. the child lives) then he pays a fine....but if further harm is done (i.e. the child dies or is injured) then there may be further punishment......


I'm not sure how to respond, because you quoted "fruit depart from her" and "a woman with child" and think that doesn't relate to the loss of a fetus or embryo. You don't strike a woman and hurt the child next to her, there's only one way to hit a woman and cause her to lose her "fruit", and that's when the "fruit" is inside her.

And, depending on the translation, it's "no mischief", "no injury" etc. You have a very strange way of reading things if you think that means no harm to the fetus.

I have always been puzzled why secular humanists are not the primary opponents of abortion.....

science makes it obvious that the unborn are human beings, as no significant event occurs after conception upon which the issue of "human-ness" should balance.....

Try getting scientists to agree when death occurs you won't get very far either, doesn't mean it's not dead at one point and alive at another.

Besides, a clump of cells, or a human looking structure with human dna, possess none of the consciousness we associate with humans or other intelligent animals. That's clear.

it is not characteristic of a belief in the sanctity of life to believe that it can summarily be extinguished at will....

If you believe in sanctity of life you'd be either vegan or vegetarian. Unless you are you probably shouldn't be talking about "sanctity of life", or you should change it to "sanctity of human life".

[Easy90]

if they were carrying out punishment decreed by God wouldn't it be justice rather than murder?..... PP

You could make that an excuse I guess. That what they said during all the witch burnings and other killings of people like me...during the Inquisition. :shame:

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm not sure how to respond, because you quoted "fruit depart from her" and "a woman with child" and think that doesn't relate to the loss of a fetus or embryo.

that is because there is another alternative.....does not the fruit depart from her when a child is born?.....the injury could have resulted in a premature birth of a healthy child.....[hr]And, depending on the translation, it's "no mischief", "no injury" etc. You have a very strange way of reading things if you think that means no harm to the fetus.

do you really think it's strange?....the verse says "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow"...it would seem to me that the first logical object of that mischief would be the "fruit"

[Alonzo]

Which makes absolutely no sense:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her

Usually when a woman gets attacked the baby isn't born healthy, if the attack is the cause of labor. And the sin described here, requiring payment, isn't really much of a sin if nothing goes wrong is it?

The way you're reading it simply makes no sense.

[PostmodernProphet]

If you believe in sanctity of life you'd be either vegan or vegetarian. Unless you are you probably shouldn't be talking about "sanctity of life", or you should change it to "sanctity of human life".

I am talking about what secular humanists believe.....if you are one, you can change it to whatever you will.....

[BoogyMan]

Which makes absolutely no sense:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her

Usually when a woman gets attacked the baby isn't born healthy, if the attack is the cause of labor. And the sin described here, requiring payment, isn't really much of a sin if nothing goes wrong is it?

The way you're reading it simply makes no sense.


Can you say OLD TESTAMENT law and not part of NEW TESTAMENT law? How about showing some scripture from the NT that authorizes man to kill his children in the womb? Just a hint, you won't find any.

[PostmodernProphet]

Which makes absolutely no sense:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her

Usually when a woman gets attacked the baby isn't born healthy, if the attack is the cause of labor. And the sin described here, requiring payment, isn't really much of a sin if nothing goes wrong is it?

The way you're reading it simply makes no sense.



I disagree...it makes perfect sense....if the act happens and the child is born without injury, then he merely pays a fine, but if the child is injured he is in trouble.....

[Alonzo]

Boogy, that quote was directed at the bizarre way he was reading it.

But old testament law, not relating to ritual and punishment, is still in effect. This is punishment so the punishment would not be in effect, but the reasoning behind would likely still be informative.

As I said earlier, the distinction God made between fetus and adult is why the passage is important, as that distinction is made on multiple occasions and it reflects the way he views life.


I am talking about what secular humanists believe.....if you are one, you can change it to whatever you will.....

I'm not one, but my comment was directed more at the phrase "sanctity of life", a phrase which is often misused in such debates.

[PostmodernProphet]

As I said earlier, the distinction God made between fetus and adult is why the passage is important, as that distinction is made on multiple occasions and it reflects the way he views life.

and again, the problem is that that distinction is based upon your assumption, which isn't necessarily compelling in the original Hebrew......if you are going to draw from scripture the way God views life, it ought to be based upon more than assumption....

further, I would argue that the assumption that God views the status of fetal life as something less than adult life is not born out by other passages of scripture, such as Psalm 139
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

[David Hume]

There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that would authorize such a practice.


I started to type up a reply, then realized that it'd be easy enough just to cut & paste some Bible verses that show that God most certainly authorizes the practice of abortion. He's also an advocate of infanticide, the murder of children, & child abuse. Proof's in the pudding:

Abortion:

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?

Infanticide:

1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.

The murdering of children:

Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

2 Kings 6:28-29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.” To put it very bluntly this poor, young lady was murdered by her mate for being raped.

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?

Exodus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai. They were all slain in the ambush that was planned by god.

2 Kings 2:23-24 The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them. You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death.

Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”

1 Samuel 15:11-18 God repents of having made Saul king since Saul refused to carry out God’s commandments (i.e., Saul refused to murder all the innocent women and children.) At least god realizes what an immoral, murderous pig he is on this one.

I Kings 16:34 Laying the foundation for a city using your firstborn child and using your youngest son to set up the gates.

Isaiah 13:15-18 If God can find you, he will “thrust you through,” smash your children “to pieces” before your eyes, and rape your wife.

Jeremiah 11:22-23 God will kill the young men in war and starve their children to death.

Jeremiah 19:7-9 God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.

Lamentations 2:20-22 God gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children.

Child abuse:

Genesis 22:9 & 10 “And they came to the place which God had told him of and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.” It matters not that god let Abraham get out of murdering Isaac. To put a knife up to your son’s throat is child abuse.

I Kings 3:24-25 “And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other." This test was of course given to see who the real mother of the child was. Christians view this king as a wise man. I look upon his suggestion with far more revulsion then I give accredit to Susan Smith.

Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13-14 & 29:15 God commands repeatedly that you beat your children.

Matthew 19:29 If you really loved Jesus then he insists that you abandon your wife and children for him. Only that way will he allow you to go to heaven. (That is if you meet his other hefty requirements, don’t slip through the loopholes, and ignore the contradictions.)

Mark 7:9 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.

In conclusion I shall end this list with a verse that should keep the pro lifers in check. It is Romans 13: 1-7

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. The authorities that exist have been established by god. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he shall commend you. For he is god’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is god’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. There fore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are god’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Clearly it is the job of Christians to obey the laws, and the laws of this country clearly state that abortion is legal. So too should Christians respect and honor that law. God commands them to NOT disobey, which entails attempting to get the law overturned. If god wanted abortion to be illegal he wouldn’t have appointed authorities to make it legal.

http://www.evilbible.com/god's%20not%20pro-life.htm[hr]

Which makes absolutely no sense:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her

Usually when a woman gets attacked the baby isn't born healthy, if the attack is the cause of labor. And the sin described here, requiring payment, isn't really much of a sin if nothing goes wrong is it?

The way you're reading it simply makes no sense.


Can you say OLD TESTAMENT law and not part of NEW TESTAMENT law? How about showing some scripture from the NT that authorizes man to kill his children in the womb? Just a hint, you won't find any.


In that same vein, I'd like for someone to show me some NT passages that say homosexuals are evil deviants.

[Alonzo]

david: david, casting God as some evil villain probably isn't going to win you many arguments with regards to the bible.

And evilbible is not scripture, and not really a reliable a source for reliable interpretations.

PostmodernProphet: Actually I posted three passages supporting that distinction. Even putting aside your strange interpretation of that, that's not the only passage.

further, I would argue that the assumption that God views the status of fetal life as something less than adult life is not born out by other passages of scripture, such as Psalm 139
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

Which says what we all know, you were created in the womb. Says nothing about equality with adults. And, since it ends with "before one of [the days] came to be", suggests it is talking about a period before they were fully human in the full sense.

It also does not even mention adults, so there's no possible way to compare worth.

[BoogyMan]

David, I do believe that you have been sold a bill of goods as it is always easier to consider the text in terms of your ignorance of it than it is to present it honestly.

I could go and drag up some hateful garbage at a site intended to inflame you in your lack of knowledge of spiritual matters, but I find such hogwash to be beneath me and it really would simply be accepting your invitation to wallow. Not going to go there.

Zo, I am still offering you an opportunity to support your view with NT scripture and I certainly appreciate your discussion of the topic without the irreverance chosen by others.

[Alonzo]

I don't have a new testament passage that supports a fetus is equal to a born human and I don't have one supporting that it isn't.

I also did a little research on your argument, apparently the dispute about whether or not where are bound by the old testament is due to the form of Christianity we adhere to. Catholicism teaches what I said, that we are bound by the morals of it but not the rituals or punishment. What I wasn't aware of was that some other branches of Christianity dispute that.

Essentially, we view the old testament differently.

[Yarp]

So your basically saying God knows all, so it's part of "predestination"? Well, then you could say God know's everything so what makes abortion any different. I don't see what your getting at.

[PostmodernProphet]

It also does not even mention adults, so there's no possible way to compare worth

the speaker says that God created HIS (an adult's) inmost being while he was still in the womb.....that inmost being isn't something which the adult obtained at the time of birth, or at the age of 10 or at some other stage in the post-birth life....it happened while he was a fetus.....

Actually I posted three passages supporting that distinction. Even putting aside your strange interpretation of that, that's not the only passage

well, to be honest with you, this one was your best shot....the other two simply have nothing at all to do with abortion.....

[David Hume]

David, I do believe that you have been sold a bill of goods as it is always easier to consider the text in terms of your ignorance of it than it is to present it honestly.

I could go and drag up some hateful garbage at a site intended to inflame you in your lack of knowledge of spiritual matters, but I find such hogwash to be beneath me and it really would simply be accepting your invitation to wallow. Not going to go there.

Zo, I am still offering you an opportunity to support your view with NT scripture and I certainly appreciate your discussion of the topic without the irreverance chosen by others.
'

Hmm, how convenient, some passages in the Bible make you uncomfortable so you pull out the old "I'm not gonna go there" card.

Zo, Boogy, please, feel free to place the verses quoted in their proper context if you feel they've been presented unfairly. Because regardless of context, a reasonable person would conclude that ripping a fetus from a womb is tantamount to abortion. And there is no question that the God of the OT either did these things or sanctioned them.

And Boogy, you might want to check your own ignorance of matters related to the Bible. It seems you conveniently overlook items that don't square with your faith, which I do believe is the defintion of willful ignorance.

[BoogyMan]

Hmm, how convenient, some passages in the Bible make you uncomfortable so you pull out the old "I'm not gonna go there" card.

Zo, Boogy, please, feel free to place the verses quoted in their proper context if you feel they've been presented unfairly. Because regardless of context, a reasonable person would conclude that ripping a fetus from a womb is tantamount to abortion. And there is no question that the God of the OT either did these things or sanctioned them.

And Boogy, you might want to check your own ignorance of matters related to the Bible. It seems you conveniently overlook items that don't square with your faith, which I do believe is the defintion of willful ignorance.


David, you obviously have no bible knowledge and simply wish to try and trash it at every possible turn. We are not under OT law as is easily proven, if you cannot deal with that one simple fact I would recommend you find some other topic to to be woefully misinformed of.

[David Hume]

Hmm, how convenient, some passages in the Bible make you uncomfortable so you pull out the old "I'm not gonna go there" card.

Zo, Boogy, please, feel free to place the verses quoted in their proper context if you feel they've been presented unfairly. Because regardless of context, a reasonable person would conclude that ripping a fetus from a womb is tantamount to abortion. And there is no question that the God of the OT either did these things or sanctioned them.

And Boogy, you might want to check your own ignorance of matters related to the Bible. It seems you conveniently overlook items that don't square with your faith, which I do believe is the defintion of willful ignorance.


David, you obviously have no bible knowledge and simply wish to try and trash it at every possible turn. We are not under OT law as is easily proven, if you cannot deal with that one simple fact I would recommend you find some other topic to to be woefully misinformed of.


I have decades worth of Bible knowledge----your attempts to write me off as ignorant make you look silly.

I'm quite well aware that OT laws were superceded. However, the God of Abraham is still the God of Jesus. Did God's personality change after Jesus' arrival? It seems so. Earlier, I asked someone to please let me know why it's convenient to say "OT law was superceded" for things that people as yourself would like to write off (such as God killing the unborn, which clearly happens in the OT), but in the next breath will cite the OT as evidence that gays are immoral and that their lifestyle is not God's way.

If you could clarify this for me, then perhaps we can move onto other matters of the Bible.

And before you attempt to impugn me again with another immature post filled with name-calling and bad attempts of making judgements on someone you do not know (aren't you an "official" here and shouldn't such posts be beneath you?), it might do you well to peruse Matthew 7:1-5 before posting again. For your convenience: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&version=9;

(I do believe God is talking to you, my man. :clapper:)

PS: What exactly are your credentials in regards to intellectual discussions about the Bible? I could just as easily say your ignorance of the Bible is atrocious, so careful with that axe, Eugene. Furthermore, how is quoting directly from the Bible "irrereverent?" If you don't like what the Bible says, maybe you should find a different master. . . .

[Alonzo]

David tell me something good about the bible and/or the effect Christianity has on people.

We are not under OT law as is easily proven, if you cannot deal with that one simple fact I would recommend you find some other topic to to be woefully misinformed of.

I'll go tell the pope how misinformed he is then.

[BoogyMan]

David tell me something good about the bible and/or the effect Christianity has on people.

We are not under OT law as is easily proven, if you cannot deal with that one simple fact I would recommend you find some other topic to to be woefully misinformed of.

I'll go tell the pope how misinformed he is then.


Offered your sacrifices lately? Attended worship on a sabbath lately instead of the first day of the week is we have NT apostolic example of? :)

[Alonzo]

Those are rituals, they are not valid. Neither are the punishments. The laws dealing with morality are valid though.

[BoogyMan]

I have decades worth of Bible knowledge----your attempts to write me off as ignorant make you look silly.

So where are you keeping it? :)


I'm quite well aware that OT laws were superceded. However, the God of Abraham is still the God of Jesus. Did God's personality change after Jesus' arrival? It seems so. Earlier, I asked someone to please let me know why it's convenient to say "OT law was superceded" for things that people as yourself would like to write off (such as God killing the unborn, which clearly happens in the OT), but in the next breath will cite the OT as evidence that gays are immoral and that their lifestyle is not God's way.

Where have you seen me cite the OT as an example of why homosexuality is wrong David. Post it here publicly. You cannot because it doesn't exist. Show me EXACTLY where I made such a claim backed up with OT scripture.


And before you attempt to impugn me again with another immature post filled with name-calling and bad attempts of making judgements on someone you do not know (aren't you an "official" here and shouldn't such posts be beneath you?), it might do you well to peruse Matthew 7:1-5 before posting again. For your convenience: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&version=9;


Matthew's verses with regard to judging have WHAT to do with my simply pointing out that you don't want to honestly and openly discuss these issues? I have, and will continue, to treat you in the same fashion that you treat me.

You might also actually read that passage that you site whose general context is NOT that we should not judge, but that we should expect to be held to the same standard with which we judge and that we should make sure that we have addressed our own issues first.


PS: What exactly are your credentials in regards to intellectual discussions about the Bible? I could just as easily say your ignorance of the Bible is atrocious, so careful with that axe, Eugene. Furthermore, how is quoting directly from the Bible "irrereverent?" If you don't like what the Bible says, maybe you should find a different master. . . .


David you clearly have problems with those simply trying to follow the will of God as it is laid out in the New Testament. You also claim that I have used OT scripture to voice opposition to homosexuality, a specious claim you will never be able to back up.

You demand that the OT be taken as law today when it was nailed to the cross as Colossians 2:14 clearly states.[hr]
Those are rituals, they are not valid. Neither are the punishments. The laws dealing with morality are valid though.


Think about this for a bit Zo.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The OT law brought us to where we are now under the NT.

I am not saying there is no value to reading the OT, but we are not under that convenant.

[Alonzo]

And boogy:

Matthew 5:17-18

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

I'm still standing on solid ground and Christ hasn't come back.

[BoogyMan]

I guess you missed that whole "fulfill them" point from your own post Zo. We still have the whole of those scriptures, not one pen stroke is hidden. We are not under the authority of the OT as I have previously shown.

Also you might consider reading about the Judaizing teachers who were dealt with in Acts 15 who were trying to bind the OT requirement of circumcision on Christians. They were rebuked for their teaching as they are no longer under that law.

[Alonzo]

Fullfill them, and that will not happen until the end times according to that passage.

They were rebuked for their teaching as they are no longer under that law.

Is circumcision not a ritual?

[BoogyMan]

Fullfill them, and that will not happen until the end times according to that passage.

They were rebuked for their teaching as they are no longer under that law.

Is circumcision not a ritual?


That isn't what that verse says Zo, it says that no scripture will disappear until the end. We will always have it. Your own argument here doesnt make sense in light of your misread of that passage Zo, because if that passage is stating that we have to follow ALL scripture including OT (which it doesn't :) ) we will need to start gathering sacrificial animals, keeping the feasts, and any number of other OT requirements.

[PostmodernProphet]

And before you attempt to impugn me again with another immature post filled with name-calling and bad attempts of making judgements on someone you do not know (aren't you an "official" here and shouldn't such posts be beneath you?), it might do you well to peruse Matthew 7:1-5 before posting again.

David, lest you think that the Lord is above a bit of name calling, you should have read a few verses further.....there was a passage particularly directed to you as well....
Matt 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man.....

[David Hume]

And before you attempt to impugn me again with another immature post filled with name-calling and bad attempts of making judgements on someone you do not know (aren't you an "official" here and shouldn't such posts be beneath you?), it might do you well to peruse Matthew 7:1-5 before posting again.

David, lest you think that the Lord is above a bit of name calling, you should have read a few verses further.....there was a passage particularly directed to you as well....
Matt 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man.....


Who's to say I don't do them? :thumbsup:

I'm also aware that God gets caught up in a bit of name-calling. He also has a problem with smearing feces on the faces of his followers & forcing them to partake of their own urine. I'm sure Boogy hasn't investigated those unfortunate passages, and I'm sure he'll just cast another aspersion my way for pointing them out.

[hr]Boogy, if you read my posts carefully, you'll not see that I've accused you of using the OT to criticize homosexuality. Rather, I said that many, many people do just that. I think you'd have to agree with me.

And where have I stooped to calling you names? Where did I ever say you were ignorant? I simply think that, as a moderator, you should really try to set a better example. Just because you don't like the fact that I posted many verses from the Bible that cast God in a negative light doesn't mean I was attacking you personally. And you still haven't even attempted to address what I've posted, which leads me to believe that you're just uncomfortable with those facets of the Bible.

By all means, feel free to put this ignoramus in his place. ;) For if you do, you'll find out just how much Biblical knowledge & training I truly possess. :)

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, if you read my posts carefully, you'll not see that I've accused you of using the OT to criticize homosexuality. Rather, I said that many, many people do just that. I think you'd have to agree with me.

And where have I stooped to calling you names? Where did I ever say you were ignorant? I simply think that, as a moderator, you should really try to set a better example. Just because you don't like the fact that I posted many verses from the Bible that cast God in a negative light doesn't mean I was attacking you personally. And you still haven't even attempted to address what I've posted, which leads me to believe that you're just uncomfortable with those facets of the Bible.

By all means, feel free to put this ignoramus in his place. ;) For if you do, you'll find out just how much Biblical knowledge & training I truly possess. :)


I have read your immediately hostile invective several times David. Saying that someone is ignorant of something is not an insult, it simply points out a lack of knowledge in a particular area.

I have shown several times over that your demands that the OT be held up as definitive today are ill advised at best, if you refuse to learn there is nothing I can do for you.

You continue to demand that I accept your assertion that we are under OT law, which is not the case as I have previously shown.

[Wndrtch]

There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that would authorize such a practice.


Ahhh...but God likes to test us, doesn't he? Sin exists at God's will, and is a tool for him to teach us, so we can learn from our mistakes and guard against future mistakes. We can evolve as beings, and not just as an animal.

Remember, life and death are different for God, because He knows our physical being is not the sum-total of existence. There is an immortal component, and therefore death is not final. This is why God can say to us that all sins are equal in his eyes. Murder is no greater than stealing, because He knows death is not final. To us, death is seen as final, and therefore most heinous.

[BoogyMan]

There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that would authorize such a practice.


Ahhh...but God likes to test us, doesn't he? Sin exists at God's will, and is a tool for him to teach us, so we can learn from our mistakes and guard against future mistakes. We can evolve as beings, and not just as an animal.

Remember, life and death are different for God, because He knows our physical being is not the sum-total of existence. There is an immortal component, and therefore death is not final. This is why God can say to us that all sins are equal in his eyes. Murder is no greater than stealing, because He knows death is not final. To us, death is seen as final, and therefore most heinous.


I have to differ with your take on this Wndrtch, as does the NT. Consider the following:


13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

[Wndrtch]

There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that would authorize such a practice.


Ahhh...but God likes to test us, doesn't he? Sin exists at God's will, and is a tool for him to teach us, so we can learn from our mistakes and guard against future mistakes. We can evolve as beings, and not just as an animal.

Remember, life and death are different for God, because He knows our physical being is not the sum-total of existence. There is an immortal component, and therefore death is not final. This is why God can say to us that all sins are equal in his eyes. Murder is no greater than stealing, because He knows death is not final. To us, death is seen as final, and therefore most heinous.


I have to differ with your take on this Wndrtch, as does the NT. Consider the following:


13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.


I'm confused. Perhaps I stated my point badly.

I'm not saying that sin is not evil and despicable to God. Nor am I saying that God is susceptible to sin Himself. I was only pointing out that sin exist because God created it or allows it. If he didn't, then sin would not exist. Therefore, sin must serve a purpose for God, and "a part of His plan" (OP).

I only suggest that a possible "purpose" could be as a tool to teach and evolve Man's being (soul). We learn best from our mistakes, so God allows us to make them, and provides the tool to do it (sin). That doesn't mean that he wants us to fail, but if we do, to learn and evolve from it into better beings.

[Deadshot]

Boogy, I ask you because your a New Testament guy, where in the NT does it say sex is only for procreation?

I ask because I'm a big believer that Abortion numbers would be lower if we had Universal birth control. That would be Birth Control offered to Junior High girls AND boys to stop the Pregnancy BEFORE it started.

I'm adopted, so I don't like abortion, but it's not my choice to make. But if the NT doesn't say sex is ONLY for procreation, and I'm trusting Boogy's Bible studies on this, then I think that's a big example of how God has given us the tools to have sex and not have abortions, i.e. Birth Control, but we simply haven't used them.

Now I have another argument, that's less theological to argue if Boogy can come up with solid NT evidence that sex is ONLY for procreation, but I'm waiting before I begin to blaspheme.:shock:

[BoogyMan]

I'm confused. Perhaps I stated my point badly.

I'm not saying that sin is not evil and despicable to God. Nor am I saying that God is susceptible to sin Himself. I was only pointing out that sin exist because God created it or allows it. If he didn't, then sin would not exist. Therefore, sin must serve a purpose for God, and "a part of His plan" (OP).

I only suggest that a possible "purpose" could be as a tool to teach and evolve Man's being (soul). We learn best from our mistakes, so God allows us to make them, and provides the tool to do it (sin). That doesn't mean that he wants us to fail, but if we do, to learn and evolve from it into better beings.


I see what you are saying now. It sounded like you were meaning that God was behind the temptation when that isn't the case.

Thanks for clearing that up. :)

[Wndrtch]

Boogy, I ask you because your a New Testament guy, where in the NT does it say sex is only for procreation?

I ask because I'm a big believer that Abortion numbers would be lower if we had Universal birth control. That would be Birth Control offered to Junior High girls AND boys to stop the Pregnancy BEFORE it started.

I'm adopted, so I don't like abortion, but it's not my choice to make. But if the NT doesn't say sex is ONLY for procreation, and I'm trusting Boogy's Bible studies on this, then I think that's a big example of how God has given us the tools to have sex and not have abortions, i.e. Birth Control, but we simply haven't used them.

Now I have another argument, that's less theological to argue if Boogy can come up with solid NT evidence that sex is ONLY for procreation, but I'm waiting before I begin to blaspheme.:shock:


I would just like to add, that this is all in the context of having an unwanted pregnancy, which is only one reason to avoid recreational sex. Another is the spread of disease, which is having a much greater impact on society. Just because you are "responsible" and use protection, doesn't mean that you will not contract a disease and spread it around before you find out. God sees those aspect as well, and may be the larger reason he promotes marriage and monogamy.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, I ask you because your a New Testament guy, where in the NT does it say sex is only for procreation?

I ask because I'm a big believer that Abortion numbers would be lower if we had Universal birth control. That would be Birth Control offered to Junior High girls AND boys to stop the Pregnancy BEFORE it started.

I'm adopted, so I don't like abortion, but it's not my choice to make. But if the NT doesn't say sex is ONLY for procreation, and I'm trusting Boogy's Bible studies on this, then I think that's a big example of how God has given us the tools to have sex and not have abortions, i.e. Birth Control, but we simply haven't used them.

Now I have another argument, that's less theological to argue if Boogy can come up with solid NT evidence that sex is ONLY for procreation, but I'm waiting before I begin to blaspheme.:shock:


There IS NO verse in the NT scripture that calls out sexual activity for procreation only. As a matter of fact 1 Cor 7:5 gives the idea that the marriage relationship is to fulfill those desires and not to be held back from each other.

[PostmodernProphet]

Remember, life and death are different for God, because He knows our physical being is not the sum-total of existence. There is an immortal component, and therefore death is not final.

and how is that different for us?.....we know death is not final as well......

[Wndrtch]

Remember, life and death are different for God, because He knows our physical being is not the sum-total of existence. There is an immortal component, and therefore death is not final.

and how is that different for us?.....we know death is not final as well......


We only have faith that this is true.

God has knowledge.

[PostmodernProphet]

if that's a difference, how much faith do you actually have?........

[Alonzo]

And before you attempt to impugn me again with another immature post filled with name-calling and bad attempts of making judgements on someone you do not know (aren't you an "official" here and shouldn't such posts be beneath you?), it might do you well to peruse Matthew 7:1-5 before posting again.

David, lest you think that the Lord is above a bit of name calling, you should have read a few verses further.....there was a passage particularly directed to you as well....
Matt 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man.....


Who's to say I don't do them? :thumbsup:

I'm also aware that God gets caught up in a bit of name-calling. He also has a problem with smearing feces on the faces of his followers & forcing them to partake of their own urine. I'm sure Boogy hasn't investigated those unfortunate passages, and I'm sure he'll just cast another aspersion my way for pointing them out.

[hr]Boogy, if you read my posts carefully, you'll not see that I've accused you of using the OT to criticize homosexuality. Rather, I said that many, many people do just that. I think you'd have to agree with me.

And where have I stooped to calling you names? Where did I ever say you were ignorant? I simply think that, as a moderator, you should really try to set a better example. Just because you don't like the fact that I posted many verses from the Bible that cast God in a negative light doesn't mean I was attacking you personally. And you still haven't even attempted to address what I've posted, which leads me to believe that you're just uncomfortable with those facets of the Bible.

By all means, feel free to put this ignoramus in his place. ;) For if you do, you'll find out just how much Biblical knowledge & training I truly possess. :)


Let me ask you again:

David tell me something good about the bible and/or the effect Christianity has on people.

At least this time I'll know it's intentional if you don't answer.

[Wndrtch]

if that's a difference, how much faith do you actually have?........


What?

Are you trying to say that faith and knowledge are the same? Faith is what you have when you lack knowledge. God doesn't lack knowledge, we do. Are you saying that your faith in the afterlife, is equal to God's knowledge of it?

Living Humans will never understand nor relate to the afterlife as well as God understands and relates to it.

[David Hume]

Boogy, if you read my posts carefully, you'll not see that I've accused you of using the OT to criticize homosexuality. Rather, I said that many, many people do just that. I think you'd have to agree with me.

And where have I stooped to calling you names? Where did I ever say you were ignorant? I simply think that, as a moderator, you should really try to set a better example. Just because you don't like the fact that I posted many verses from the Bible that cast God in a negative light doesn't mean I was attacking you personally. And you still haven't even attempted to address what I've posted, which leads me to believe that you're just uncomfortable with those facets of the Bible.

By all means, feel free to put this ignoramus in his place. ;) For if you do, you'll find out just how much Biblical knowledge & training I truly possess. :)


I have read your immediately hostile invective several times David. Saying that someone is ignorant of something is not an insult, it simply points out a lack of knowledge in a particular area.

I have shown several times over that your demands that the OT be held up as definitive today are ill advised at best, if you refuse to learn there is nothing I can do for you.

You continue to demand that I accept your assertion that we are under OT law, which is not the case as I have previously shown.


Please show me where I ever said we're under OT law. (Hint: I can point to a passage where I said exactly the opposite.)

Your inability to phrase a retort based on anything other than personal insults leads me to believe that it is you who is ignorant of the Bible.

I'm also sorry for your ignorance of reading comprehension skills, friend. :(

[PostmodernProphet]

if that's a difference, how much faith do you actually have?........


What?

Are you trying to say that faith and knowledge are the same? Faith is what you have when you lack knowledge. God doesn't lack knowledge, we do. Are you saying that your faith in the afterlife, is equal to God's knowledge of it?

Living Humans will never understand nor relate to the afterlife as well as God understands and relates to it.


yes, in the context of this argument I would say they ARE the same.....the point was raised that God would look at things differently because he was immortal......anyone who truly believes in the teachings of Christianity would also look at things from the perspective of immortality.....thus a knowledge of an afterlife and a true faith in an afterlife would be identical.....

now, in the context of what is that afterlife like, obviously knowledge and faith are not the same.....but that isn't what we have been discussing.....

[BoogyMan]

Please show me where I ever said we're under OT law. (Hint: I can point to a passage where I said exactly the opposite.)

Your inability to phrase a retort based on anything other than personal insults leads me to believe that it is you who is ignorant of the Bible.

I'm also sorry for your ignorance of reading comprehension skills, friend. :(


This is pretty funny David. You are the person making claims about Christianity based on OT scripture. This shows a complete lack of biblical knowledge.

When you can frame an intelligible argument about Chrstianity from the covenant that governs it we will be able to get somewhere.

[David Hume]

Please show me where I ever said we're under OT law. (Hint: I can point to a passage where I said exactly the opposite.)

Your inability to phrase a retort based on anything other than personal insults leads me to believe that it is you who is ignorant of the Bible.

I'm also sorry for your ignorance of reading comprehension skills, friend. :(


This is pretty funny David. You are the person making claims about Christianity based on OT scripture. This shows a complete lack of biblical knowledge.

When you can frame an intelligible argument about Chrstianity from the covenant that governs it we will be able to get somewhere.


I didn't claim the OT had any validity whatsoever, yet you keep making this claim. Is it one of your clever debating tactics to put words in people's mouths? Is this how you disguise the fact that you don't know a thing about the Bible? I note that you've not handled so much as one verse I posted up and instead wanna cast aspersions my way. Is that a debating technique in the Boogy playbook? Name call until the poster who is about to hand you your a$$ goes away?

[BoogyMan]

I didn't claim the OT had any validity whatsoever, yet you keep making this claim. Is it one of your clever debating tactics to put words in people's mouths? Is this how you disguise the fact that you don't know a thing about the Bible? I note that you've not handled so much as one verse I posted up and instead wanna cast aspersions my way. Is that a debating technique in the Boogy playbook? Name call until the poster who is about to hand you your a$$ goes away?


LOL, continue to deny that you did what you did and claim persecution. I guess whatever works for you David. You now claim that you put no stock in the OT yet demand that I address the OT scripture you misused as definitive today. Now THAT is just funny.

Have a nice day.

[Wndrtch]

if that's a difference, how much faith do you actually have?........


What?

Are you trying to say that faith and knowledge are the same? Faith is what you have when you lack knowledge. God doesn't lack knowledge, we do. Are you saying that your faith in the afterlife, is equal to God's knowledge of it?

Living Humans will never understand nor relate to the afterlife as well as God understands and relates to it.


yes, in the context of this argument I would say they ARE the same.....the point was raised that God would look at things differently because he was immortal......anyone who truly believes in the teachings of Christianity would also look at things from the perspective of immortality.....thus a knowledge of an afterlife and a true faith in an afterlife would be identical.....

now, in the context of what is that afterlife like, obviously knowledge and faith are not the same.....but that isn't what we have been discussing.....


So, you're saying that someone with "true faith", has a perspective that is equal to Gods perspective? I'm not sure that fits with Christian doctrine. Man is inherently flawed, and therefore will never have the same perspective as God, who is perfect and has perfect knowledge.

[Deadshot]

Boogy, I ask you because your a New Testament guy, where in the NT does it say sex is only for procreation?

I ask because I'm a big believer that Abortion numbers would be lower if we had Universal birth control. That would be Birth Control offered to Junior High girls AND boys to stop the Pregnancy BEFORE it started.

I'm adopted, so I don't like abortion, but it's not my choice to make. But if the NT doesn't say sex is ONLY for procreation, and I'm trusting Boogy's Bible studies on this, then I think that's a big example of how God has given us the tools to have sex and not have abortions, i.e. Birth Control, but we simply haven't used them.

Now I have another argument, that's less theological to argue if Boogy can come up with solid NT evidence that sex is ONLY for procreation, but I'm waiting before I begin to blaspheme.:shock:


There IS NO verse in the NT scripture that calls out sexual activity for procreation only. As a matter of fact 1 Cor 7:5 gives the idea that the marriage relationship is to fulfill those desires and not to be held back from each other.


Then, taking Boogy at his word here - i.e. scripture doesn't talk about Abortion or Birth Control, Abortion is caused by improper birth control, IMHO. Yet many, if not most, of those who are against Abortion are also vehemently against Birth Control.

I could get behind the "No Abortion" thing IF everyone has access to, education of and the ability to use Birth Control.

But since Religions have opened up BOTH Pandora's boxes and they will NEVER truly be closed, I'll have to keep my views as they are...Abortion, while not the best way to deal with the situation, is simply part of some people's lives.

[Wndrtch]

Boogy, I ask you because your a New Testament guy, where in the NT does it say sex is only for procreation?

I ask because I'm a big believer that Abortion numbers would be lower if we had Universal birth control. That would be Birth Control offered to Junior High girls AND boys to stop the Pregnancy BEFORE it started.

I'm adopted, so I don't like abortion, but it's not my choice to make. But if the NT doesn't say sex is ONLY for procreation, and I'm trusting Boogy's Bible studies on this, then I think that's a big example of how God has given us the tools to have sex and not have abortions, i.e. Birth Control, but we simply haven't used them.

Now I have another argument, that's less theological to argue if Boogy can come up with solid NT evidence that sex is ONLY for procreation, but I'm waiting before I begin to blaspheme.:shock:


There IS NO verse in the NT scripture that calls out sexual activity for procreation only. As a matter of fact 1 Cor 7:5 gives the idea that the marriage relationship is to fulfill those desires and not to be held back from each other.


Then, taking Boogy at his word here - i.e. scripture doesn't talk about Abortion or Birth Control, Abortion is caused by improper birth control, IMHO. Yet many, if not most, of those who are against Abortion are also vehemently against Birth Control.

I could get behind the "No Abortion" thing IF everyone has access to, education of and the ability to use Birth Control.

But since Religions have opened up BOTH Pandora's boxes and they will NEVER truly be closed, I'll have to keep my views as they are...Abortion, while not the best way to deal with the situation, is simply part of some people's lives.


Are some choices better than other to you?

[PostmodernProphet]

So, you're saying that someone with "true faith", has a perspective that is equal to Gods perspective? I'm not sure that fits with Christian doctrine. Man is inherently flawed, and therefore will never have the same perspective as God, who is perfect and has perfect knowledge.

no, I'm not saying that....and I must add that it annoys me when someone transfers something I have said into something inherently stupid and pretends I have said it....it is a sign of a dishonest debater.....

I am saying that a Christian who truly believes in an afterlife is going to look at the impact of that upon his present life in the same way as if he had actual knowledge of that afterlife.....

[Wndrtch]

So, you're saying that someone with "true faith", has a perspective that is equal to Gods perspective? I'm not sure that fits with Christian doctrine. Man is inherently flawed, and therefore will never have the same perspective as God, who is perfect and has perfect knowledge.

no, I'm not saying that....and I must add that it annoys me when someone transfers something I have said into something inherently stupid and pretends I have said it....it is a sign of a dishonest debater.....

I am saying that a Christian who truly believes in an afterlife is going to look at the impact of that upon his present life in the same way as if he had actual knowledge of that afterlife.....


Dude, light'n up. I ment no insult. I only wanted to understand your point. Mine was about God's knowledge vs Mans faith, and I had my faith called into question by you for it.

No mans faith will ever equal God's knowledge, so no mans perspective will ever be equal to God's. God's knowledge of immortality, will never be equal to man's faith IN immortality. That a man of strong faith can use it to to act in accordance to God's will, is an entirely difffent topic altogether.

[PatrickHenry]

...Abortion, while not the best way to deal with the situation, is simply part of some people's lives.
And other little innocent people's deaths...

[PostmodernProphet]

God's knowledge of immortality, will never be equal to man's faith IN immortality.

not the point....the point is, man, having a belief in an afterlife, is going to conduct himself in such a way that reflects the existence of an afterlife....it makes no difference if the existence of that afterlife is predicated upon faith or actual knowledge......

[David Hume]

I didn't claim the OT had any validity whatsoever, yet you keep making this claim. Is it one of your clever debating tactics to put words in people's mouths? Is this how you disguise the fact that you don't know a thing about the Bible? I note that you've not handled so much as one verse I posted up and instead wanna cast aspersions my way. Is that a debating technique in the Boogy playbook? Name call until the poster who is about to hand you your a$$ goes away?


LOL, continue to deny that you did what you did and claim persecution. I guess whatever works for you David. You now claim that you put no stock in the OT yet demand that I address the OT scripture you misused as definitive today. Now THAT is just funny.

Have a nice day.



What no name-calling this time? How nice that you've read the rules of the site.

Show me where I did what you claim I did. You'll be searching a long time, but knock yourself out.

And I don't feel persecuted, but I do think moderators should use better judgement & not break the rules by engaging in name-calling. What would happen if I reported it? I have a hunch. . . .

[BoogyMan]

Let me put it out there clearly for you David. Saying someone is ignorant of something (biblical knowledge in this case) is NOT the same thing as calling someone ignorant.

Thank you and have a nice day talking to yourself. You chose this path not I. :bye:

[Ralph]

I was just wondering if some of the more informed theology buffs here could explain to me if abortions are part of "God's plan" or not.


Abortion is a part of secular mankind's plan. God does not condone the spilling of innocent blood, in fact it is presented in His revealed word as one of 7 things that He declares as an "abomination". (Proverbs 6:6-19). If someone could point out how even the smallest human fetus does not contain "blood", that is in no way deserving of being spilled, please do so. For just what crime against God or man have they been "accused" let alone proven to be guilty off? (R)

[piratemonkey]

If someone could point out how even the smallest human fetus does not contain "blood", that is in no way deserving of being spilled, please do so.


When we're still in the zygote stage, there is no blood... only about 500 cells.

A zygote has no nerves, has no blood, has no organs, cannot think, cannot feel and has no conciousness whatsoever. In fact, zygotes are regularly expelled naturally from the female body.

Why would a just God create the female body to naturally eject 1/3 - 1/2 of all fertilized eggs?

[PostmodernProphet]

If someone could point out how even the smallest human fetus does not contain "blood", that is in no way deserving of being spilled, please do so.


When we're still in the zygote stage, there is no blood... only about 500 cells.

A zygote has no nerves, has no blood, has no organs, cannot think, cannot feel and has no conciousness whatsoever. In fact, zygotes are regularly expelled naturally from the female body.

Why would a just God create the female body to naturally eject 1/3 - 1/2 of all fertilized eggs?


While we are still in the zygote stage (first two weeks) it would be a rare occurrence that a woman would be aware she was pregnant......therefore, it is unlikely that an abortion has ever occurred at the zygote stage of pregnancy......

[Ralph]

If someone could point out how even the smallest human fetus does not contain "blood", that is in no way deserving of being spilled, please do so.


When we're still in the zygote stage, there is no blood... only about 500 cells.

A zygote has no nerves, has no blood, has no organs, cannot think, cannot feel and has no conciousness whatsoever. In fact, zygotes are regularly expelled naturally from the female body.

Why would a just God create the female body to naturally eject 1/3 - 1/2 of all fertilized eggs?


While we are still in the zygote stage (first two weeks) it would be a rare occurrence that a woman would be aware she was pregnant......therefore, it is unlikely that an abortion has ever occurred at the zygote stage of pregnancy......


Thus, He has in fact answered his won query, "Why does God allow natural abortion?", If in fact nature aborts the fetus, it is not "planned", as was the topic of this thread. When some event, other than nature occurs it is done so with "premeditation". And from scriptural evidence we find that God does not spill innocent blood, there is only one other source......MAN. (R)

[Tharagor]

I was just wondering if some of the more informed theology buffs here could explain to me if abortions are part of "God's plan" or not.


Those who support that "God's" knowledge is infinite clearly support abortion as part of "God's" plan.

[piratemonkey]

Didn't God 'design' women, according to your religion?

Why didn't he 'design' women to not naturally abort Billions of zygotes?

[Wndrtch]

If someone could point out how even the smallest human fetus does not contain "blood", that is in no way deserving of being spilled, please do so.


When we're still in the zygote stage, there is no blood... only about 500 cells.

A zygote has no nerves, has no blood, has no organs, cannot think, cannot feel and has no conciousness whatsoever. In fact, zygotes are regularly expelled naturally from the female body.

Why would a just God create the female body to naturally eject 1/3 - 1/2 of all fertilized eggs?


Because they were genetically deffective.

[piratemonkey]

Because they were genetically deffective.


Really? You know that for a fact? Considering I've never read that in the literature, I doubt you are right.

Even assuming you are correct, why would God create a system where 1/3 - 1/2 of all fertilized eggs are defective genetically?

Why would he then allow those "babies" to be aborted, just because they aren't perfect?

Does that mean if a woman finds out her fetus is genetically defective, then it's OK to get an abortion?

[PatrickHenry]

The "why" question about God's doing is ultimately pointless. We CAN'T know.

But the zygote issue returns me to the only form of abortion that IMO is not killing an innocent person.

A chemical means of preventing implantation of the zygote in the womb. This is available only within hours of the sex act that creates the zygote.

Educatio is the key to preventing abortions. Contraception is a means of preventing the creation of the zygote. It should be used by all who wish to avoid creating new life.

In the event of an accident, there is Plan B, which I do not consider abortion.

[Ralph]

There is really nothing that I have seen in the bible that supports or condemns abortion. If God really plans out every second of every persons life, he would have planned out every abortion that has happened. If he has planned out everything, it also means that the same god planned the holocaust, the current genocides, the systematic slaughter of native Americans, and every single other atrocity in history, and every single one still to come.


There is a huge difference between foreknowledge of all possible outcomes and planning out someones life. Man has a free will and can choose good or evil.


I know that. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of claiming that God plans out everything.


So you are calling God ridiculous because He "plans" for the future? The "Claim" is not a claim but a statement concerning such, "Declaring the end from the beginning, AND FROM THE ANCIENT TIMES THE THINGS THAT ARE "NOT YET" DONE, saying, My council shall stand (or what I have said "will" come about) and I will do all my pleasure (or when and where I want)." "......yea, I (God) have spoken it , I will also bring it to pass, I have "purposed" (planned) it, I WILL ALSO DO IT." (Isaiah 46:10-11). (R)[hr]
The bible does make a distinction between fetus and person:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:22-25

A fine, in whatever the amount the husband demands, isn't nearly as much as the eye for an eye punishment for harming the wife.

And then there's the passage saying unfaithful wives should get abortions:

20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband-- 21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; 22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'

And this one on quality of life:


"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"


I also notice that YOU conveniently omitted the rest of passage concerning judgment upon those that would cause harm to the unborn. The rest of the scripture that demands "an eye for an eye" as punishment should "death" come to the unborn as a result, " And if any "mischief" (like death) follow, then thou shat give LIFE FOR LIFE" (Exodus 21:23). And before you start making argument that MISCHIEF does not mean death, consider the entire text of the passage, and how it ends with the statement A LIFE FOR A LIFE. Thus, if you are required to pay with your life, what else could the "mischief" be referencing? Should one be REQUIRED to pay for a minor mischief with their life? Not, according to the LAW, as explained in the previous verse, they would be under the judgment of the Husband. (R)[hr]
What I hear some of you saying is, "God has no idea what's going to happen." Is that it? The Supreme Being has engaged in a "crap shoot?"


Its not a crap shoot, if YOU have the POWER to manipulate any outcome that YOU wish. What anyone with "common sense" observes is the "physical fact" that any future event can not be under the control of anyone, even the supreme GOD, because it is yet to take place, and with the future being controlled by factors that are continually in a state of flux due do the many variables that determine the physical reality, even God cannot control what yet does not exist. As I said, the "idea" or "theory" that there are various planes of time that run concurrently with the past and the present are grounded only in "science fiction". That is why they exist only in the world of "theory", or the gray matter that rests between the ears of people, because they can not breach the "physical laws" of reality that God has implemented. As declared by God Himself, "He hath made EVERYTHING beautiful IN HIS TIME: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that NO MAN can find out the work that GOD MAKETH FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END." (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Notice that maketh is used as a "verb" to describe an ongoing process. The passage did not say, what He has MADE, but what He is making.

You may consider a deity that has the Power to "manipulate" any future that He wishes to come about by simply controling the phycial plane of existence that He Created, as a crap shoot, but I prefer to think of it just as God declares that He deals with it, "....what ever I purpose, I will bring about." This to me is much more an example of DIVINE POWER than thinking of God as some "fourtune teller". He simply has the POWER to do as He will......who's to stop HIM? Man's "free will" choices? By example of the Book of Genesis, that has already been attempted with failure. (Genesis 3:22-24). (R)

[Athena]

Because they were genetically deffective.


Really? You know that for a fact? Considering I've never read that in the literature, I doubt you are right.

Even assuming you are correct, why would God create a system where 1/3 - 1/2 of all fertilized eggs are defective genetically?

Why would he then allow those "babies" to be aborted, just because they aren't perfect?

Does that mean if a woman finds out her fetus is genetically defective, then it's OK to get an abortion?


It seem obvious this discussion is limited to a biblical understanding of God, using the bible as the authority about God. There is another authority, Nature Herself. Rabits will spontaniously abort if the mother is over stressed. So I will say, yes, God condones abortion.

If males were left responsible for children, what a different world it would be. They would be less apt to engage in wars, as they have done in Iraq. The harm done to the lives of mothers and children is so ignored and sooo immoral! I find arguments about abortion annoying, considering the number of males who do nothing or very little to rear their own young, and their war activity, engaging in wars without being fully prepared to protect citizens.

In areas where people live on the verge of starving to death, females may start avoiding contact with males, to avoid the sex that leads to pregnancy. If their babies stop crying for food, they stop feeding them, and passively allow them to die. What we assume is a marvelous mothering instinct, that assures all children have good care, is dependent on good conditions. God does not send birds to feed people, and the reality of life has been harsh throughout much of our history and in many places. If the death a newly born child, increases the chances of the mother and other children living, that new child must die. If men played a stronger role in improving the conditions, the facts of life would not be so harsh, so don't give me self righteous talk- give me action.

PS what happens is a crap shoot and shit happens.

[Wndrtch]

Because they were genetically deffective.


Really? You know that for a fact? Considering I've never read that in the literature, I doubt you are right.

Even assuming you are correct, why would God create a system where 1/3 - 1/2 of all fertilized eggs are defective genetically?

Why would he then allow those "babies" to be aborted, just because they aren't perfect?

Does that mean if a woman finds out her fetus is genetically defective, then it's OK to get an abortion?


It seem obvious this discussion is limited to a biblical understanding of God, using the bible as the authority about God. There is another authority, Nature Herself. Rabits will spontaniously abort if the mother is over stressed. So I will say, yes, God condones abortion.

If males were left responsible for children, what a different world it would be. They would be less apt to engage in wars, as they have done in Iraq. The harm done to the lives of mothers and children is so ignored and sooo immoral! I find arguments about abortion annoying, considering the number of males who do nothing or very little to rear their own young, and their war activity, engaging in wars without being fully prepared to protect citizens.

In areas where people live on the verge of starving to death, females may start avoiding contact with males, to avoid the sex that leads to pregnancy. If their babies stop crying for food, they stop feeding them, and passively allow them to die. What we assume is a marvelous mothering instinct, that assures all children have good care, is dependent on good conditions. God does not send birds to feed people, and the reality of life has been harsh throughout much of our history and in many places. If the death a newly born child, increases the chances of the mother and other children living, that new child must die. If men played a stronger role in improving the conditions, the facts of life would not be so harsh, so don't give me self righteous talk- give me action.

PS what happens is a crap shoot and sh1t happens.


If one takes the view of "God, the Creator of all things", then obviously if something exists, it is at his will or it would not exist. However, I would change your wording from "condones" to "allow". If we take that a little further, then we must assume that God allows all sin in general. Perhaps, these are tools for Him to teach us about ourselves. Through challenges in life, we can become stronger souls, or we can collapse. A loving God would want us to become stronger.

[Athena]

Because they were genetically deffective.


Really? You know that for a fact? Considering I've never read that in the literature, I doubt you are right.

Even assuming you are correct, why would God create a system where 1/3 - 1/2 of all fertilized eggs are defective genetically?

Why would he then allow those "babies" to be aborted, just because they aren't perfect?

Does that mean if a woman finds out her fetus is genetically defective, then it's OK to get an abortion?


It seem obvious this discussion is limited to a biblical understanding of God, using the bible as the authority about God. There is another authority, Nature Herself. Rabits will spontaniously abort if the mother is over stressed. So I will say, yes, God condones abortion.

If males were left responsible for children, what a different world it would be. They would be less apt to engage in wars, as they have done in Iraq. The harm done to the lives of mothers and children is so ignored and sooo immoral! I find arguments about abortion annoying, considering the number of males who do nothing or very little to rear their own young, and their war activity, engaging in wars without being fully prepared to protect citizens.

In areas where people live on the verge of starving to death, females may start avoiding contact with males, to avoid the sex that leads to pregnancy. If their babies stop crying for food, they stop feeding them, and passively allow them to die. What we assume is a marvelous mothering instinct, that assures all children have good care, is dependent on good conditions. God does not send birds to feed people, and the reality of life has been harsh throughout much of our history and in many places. If the death a newly born child, increases the chances of the mother and other children living, that new child must die. If men played a stronger role in improving the conditions, the facts of life would not be so harsh, so don't give me self righteous talk- give me action.

PS what happens is a crap shoot and sh1t happens.


If one takes the view of "God, the Creator of all things", then obviously if something exists, it is at his will or it would not exist. However, I would change your wording from "condones" to "allow". If we take that a little further, then we must assume that God allows all sin in general. Perhaps, these are tools for Him to teach us about ourselves. Through challenges in life, we can become stronger souls, or we can collapse. A loving God would want us to become stronger.


God allows absolutely no sin, and neither burning candles or saying prayers, nor any other religious, superstitious ritual, protects a person from the consequences of his/her action. Reason, is the controlling force of the universe. If we do good, the result will be good. If we do bad, the result will be bad. There is no God ruling my whim and rewarding or punishing people. There is only the result of the movement.

Smoking and praying for good health will not undo the damage of smoking. Invading Iraq ready to protect oil wells, but not citizens, will not come out good, and should not be considered the will of God. :dizzy: Please, can give up notions of a supernatural God who rules by whim, rewarding and punishing people as He pleases, and start working with reality? There is no magic nor religious ritual that protects us from the damage of our own action. It may take 3 generations to before the problems we cause are realized as problems that hurt us, but sooner of later, the results of our action effect our lives. God does not allow sin.

[Wndrtch]

God allows absolutely no sin, and neither burning candles or saying prayers, nor any other religious, superstitious ritual, protects a person from the consequences of his/her action. Reason, is the controlling force of the universe. If we do good, the result will be good. If we do bad, the result will be bad. There is no God ruling my whim and rewarding or punishing people. There is only the result of the movement.

Smoking and praying for good health will not undo the damage of smoking. Invading Iraq ready to protect oil wells, but not citizens, will not come out good, and should not be considered the will of God. :dizzy: Please, can give up notions of a supernatural God who rules by whim, rewarding and punishing people as He pleases, and start working with reality? There is no magic nor religious ritual that protects us from the damage of our own action. It may take 3 generations to before the problems we cause are realized as problems that hurt us, but sooner of later, the results of our action effect our lives. God does not allow sin.


So, who defines "Good & Bad"? Good & bad is determined by the individual, because it is subjective. Who defines the reference of Good behavior or Bad?

"Reason" doesn't control anything. I can always "reason" an excuse to take your life, or posesscions, just because I want it and can take it. Terrorist have "reasons" for blowing themselves up and killing as many people as possible in the process. The Chi-Coms have "reasons" for killing disedents, and harvesting their organs. Hitler had "reasons" for Genocide. Saddam had "reasons" for killing rivals and Kurds. George Bush had a "reason" to invade Iraq!

[Athena]

God allows absolutely no sin, and neither burning candles or saying prayers, nor any other religious, superstitious ritual, protects a person from the consequences of his/her action. Reason, is the controlling force of the universe. If we do good, the result will be good. If we do bad, the result will be bad. There is no God ruling my whim and rewarding or punishing people. There is only the result of the movement.

Smoking and praying for good health will not undo the damage of smoking. Invading Iraq ready to