It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pro_Life Violence

page: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Ok, looking at ten commandments, no fine print. THOU SHALT NOT KILL! It doesn't have any fine print below saying unless.....


Obviously you have NO knowledge of the bible yet you cite it.


Leviticus 24:17 - And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.


Not shall be killed, but Put to death. There is a difference you are seemingly selectively ignorant of.




posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Wow are you full of yourself.

I guess it's easy to confuse conficence in the word of the Lord with arrogance.


Originally posted by riley
Perhaps you should actually try giving common sense answers for a change instead of "the doctor can pretend he's saving the child as well." Thats delusional.

Yet you hide behind the pretend notion, that there is not a death, in abortion... comical.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Hmm.. at first thats how I read it- but it didn't make sense.. you do realise what terminating a pregnancy does don't you? The fetus is going to die no matter what. It's not an 'accidental' side effect of abortion that it dies.. there is no pretending that the fetus is somehow not going to die.


ummm... I responded to your "life of the mother is in danger scenario" Do not try to apply my answer to your question, to other questions as if they are "cookie cutter made" or "one size fits all" my responce, was in regards to this from you...


Failing to terminate a molar/ectopic pregnacy would be the direct result of a mother dieing. 'Waiting' for the inevtiable death of a fetus would be a death sentence for the mother.
I gave the examples because I suspect that many are a little ignorant of the types of pregnancy complications that can arise that would make abortion a neccesity.


I understand this is out of order, but I didn't notice how lost your were in the conversation, until just now.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biegacz

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
You know as well as I the OT doesnt apply , the promise of the New Covenant replaced that so this is wrong , why did you go there , the NT or new covenant is our generations commandments.

Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, unitl heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
The New Testament is about salvation, not Laws.









True but you must also look at the larger context there are things that were told us that would go to the side side the first coming brought about change, the bible is and has hidden parts in the obvious words so that when you find the meaning they are shown you in clarity , words like new convenant or in our words new contract or promis are just one of the examples. The fundamentalist short sightedness was existant back then as well that is part of why things where made more clear.



Dr H you know this as well so as to jump on a band wagon and then just to repeat what you are being told is wrong , is not assisting you just making you out to be looking for more justification.








[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I do not misinterpret the bible, and i do not need to go back and re-read it. However, DrH and others, i would seriously consider your understanding of what it means to be a true Christian, or join a Satanistic cult - they're views will match yours much more accurately i think.

To those who advocate killing of other human/s while pretending to be Christian - please do not try to pull the wool over anyones eyes. You are haters, and seek outlets to vent the hate i can only presume consumes your everyday life. Never have i read a post which promises hope or love or forgiveness - that most important part of your faith seems to escape you. I pity you and your views. This thread had disgusted me enough to leave it.


[edit on 22-2-2005 by paranoia]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoia
I do not misinterpret the bible, and i do not need to go back and read it, however DrH i would either seriously consider your understanding of what it means to be a true Christian, or join a Satanistic cult instead - they're views will match yours much more accuracy i think.

To those who advocate killing of another human/s and pretend to be a Christian - please do not try to pull the wool over anyones eyes. You are haters, and seekers of outlets for your inner weakness. I pity you and your views. This thread had disgusted me enough to leave it.


[edit on 22-2-2005 by paranoia]











Setting a course with no change on the ocean is inpossible, no matter the effort shown , God shall provide the winds of change to blow you of your narrow minded course , heed these changes or be bashed on the rocks.

by Dr Bryan K Kruta
December 31 1999








[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
True but you must also look at the larger context there are things that were told us that would go to the side side the first coming brought about change, the bible is and has hidden parts in the obvious words so that when you find the meaning they are shown you in clarity , words like new convenant or in our words new contract or promis are just one of the examples. The fundamentalist short sightedness was existant back then as well that is part of why things where made more clear.



[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]


But the New Covenant is not about laws, it is about Man's relationship with God and how He should be approached. The New Covenant did away with sacrifices and such, not God's rules on how Men should conduct themselves in human-to-human interaction.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biegacz

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
True but you must also look at the larger context there are things that were told us that would go to the side side the first coming brought about change, the bible is and has hidden parts in the obvious words so that when you find the meaning they are shown you in clarity , words like new convenant or in our words new contract or promis are just one of the examples. The fundamentalist short sightedness was existant back then as well that is part of why things where made more clear.



[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



But the New Covenant is not about laws, it is about Man's relationship with God and how He should be approached. The New Covenant did away with sacrifices and such, not God's rules on how Men should conduct themselves in human-to-human interaction.






not true it is a promise of no further world destruction and ammends laws on salvation deleting live sacrifice and sets for the laws concerning future events
one of which is not to seek the end but be aware of the signs it is coming and another is to read and cherish the book of revelation , and there are more you just have to find them.








[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Ok, so the old rules still apply, THOU SHALT NOT KILL! So, again, you people are still hypocrits if you have no problem killing people.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Ok, so the old rules still apply, THOU SHALT NOT KILL! So, again, you people are still hypocrits if you have no problem killing people.








Yes most of the old rules apply but not all I admit that to be fact as it is writen.
where we start drawing a line in the obsolete and non obselete is in the eye for an eye and the God sanctioned wars of men , wars where allowed by God to end sinful conditions now that is through Jesus.



[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
No, according to the bible you eat meat on a friday you going to hell. Catholic church says if you ask for forgiveness from a priest you will be saved. Well, who will save us when the priest themselves are sinners? .....

Matthew 12:31 "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."
The Catholic Church has parted in a big way from the Bible, so don't use them to define Christianity.



Where in the bible does it say as long as you ask for forgiveness you are ok to rape, steal, kill, eat meat on a friday? Also, just because you ask for it doesn't mean you will get it. Doubt, if your god does exist, he is a-ok with forgiving someone who just blew up 5 people and injured 6 others.

The Bible does not say it it is "ok to rape, steal, kill, eat meat on a friday" nor did I--the Bible says that if one sincerely repents, then his sins will be forgiven; the forgiveness of sins means that sins are forgiven, not "ok" to committ.
If one asks for forgiveness, it will be given.
Acts 3:19 "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord"
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Contradicting views abound in those of passion , but those of passion kill people in wars for the sake of there views.......Man would be better represented by compasion and tolerance, the things that war can only show the lack of but cant make come to pass.

by Dr Bryan K Kruta

Feb 7th 2005



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
not true it is a promise of no further world destruction and ammends laws on salvation deleting live sacrifice and sets for the laws concerning future events
one of which is not to seek the end but be aware of the signs it is coming and another is to read and cherish the book of revelation , and there are more you just have to find them.

[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]


But how do you explain Matthew 5:17-18 "...not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law..."?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biegacz

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
not true it is a promise of no further world destruction and ammends laws on salvation deleting live sacrifice and sets for the laws concerning future events
one of which is not to seek the end but be aware of the signs it is coming and another is to read and cherish the book of revelation , and there are more you just have to find them.

[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]


But how do you explain Matthew 5:17-18 "...not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law..."?




that is not pertenent to what I am saying , what I am saying that that type of statement applies to those that where after Jesus begain his ministry, the laws I am refering to came by the lack of Jesus ministry and where meant to govern people till such time as Jesus could fullfill the progression of the revised laws and become the final offering that bound us in the new covenant.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Uh, I thought the Ten C's trump all. They are the Royal Flush of religon, any and all rules fall before those 10. SO, again, THOU SHALT NOT KILL!



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kinja

Originally posted by riley
Wow are you full of yourself.

I guess it's easy to confuse conficence in the word of the Lord with arrogance.

I was replying to your judgement about my highschool education.. you didn't mention 'the lord'. btw.. you forgot "So there". Do you want to go tit for tat or actually stick to the subject?

Yet you hide behind the pretend notion, that there is not a death, in abortion... comical.

I never said there is no death.. I just do not believe it is a sentient person.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Kinja

Originally posted by riley
Wow are you full of yourself.

I guess it's easy to confuse conficence in the word of the Lord with arrogance.

I was replying to your judgement about my highschool education.. you didn't mention 'the lord'. btw.. you forgot "So there". Do you want to go tit for tat or actually stick to the subject?

Yet you hide behind the pretend notion, that there is not a death, in abortion... comical.

I never said there is no death.. I just do not believe it is a sentient person.


OK, just to "liven" things up. A "baby" does not get its "soul" until it take a breath of air once born. While in the womb, the "thing" is a human baby from conception. When the first cell division starts that is "Life". But the child does get a soul until birth.




posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Kinja

Originally posted by riley
Wow are you full of yourself.

I guess it's easy to confuse conficence in the word of the Lord with arrogance.

I was replying to your judgement about my highschool education.. you didn't mention 'the lord'. btw.. you forgot "So there". Do you want to go tit for tat or actually stick to the subject?

Yet you hide behind the pretend notion, that there is not a death, in abortion... comical.

I never said there is no death.. I just do not believe it is a sentient person.


OK, just to "liven" things up. A "baby" does not get its "soul" until it take a breath of air once born. While in the womb, the "thing" is a human baby from conception. When the first cell division starts that is "Life". But the child does get a soul until birth.



Oh, okay, this will be fun. What happens if after the babies first breathe of air, it dies a week later? Does it face judgement? I sometimes wonder how people even try to come up and defend these ridiculous ideas, why bother? It's too much work to even defend these silly concepts when theres no evidence for it, and then to top it all off, act like you know when a "soul" is born? "Come on, Sally."



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
that is not pertenent to what I am saying , what I am saying that that type of statement applies to those that where after Jesus begain his ministry, the laws I am refering to came by the lack of Jesus ministry and where meant to govern people till such time as Jesus could fullfill the progression of the revised laws and become the final offering that bound us in the new covenant.

I understand that Jesus was the sacrifice, terminating the need to sacrifice the O.T. way, but where do you get the idea of "revised laws"?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
OK, just to "liven" things up. A "baby" does not get its "soul" until it take a breath of air once born.

I read somewhere that when abortion was first made illegal [1800s] that Christians were actually against it because that would go against the belief [at the time] that a soul enters the body when it's born. Ironic yes.. obviously the interpritation of the bible changed drastically over the last century.

While in the womb, the "thing" is a human baby from conception.

The thing is a fetus.. not a baby.. as is the dictinction between baby and toddler.

When the first cell division starts that is "Life". But the child does get a soul until birth.

I thought the whole pro-life argument hinged on the fetus having a soul at conception? To say that it doesn't would be more in favour of a pro-choice argument as being 'soul less' would reduce it's 'holy value' to being just a mass of tissue.

[edit on 23-2-2005 by riley]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join