A Different Take On Christianity And Abortion

reply to post by hxc408

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee

Doesn't that mean before his mother was even pregnant? This verse has to do with the pre-existence of the soul. Do you think the soul is organic and is created by sexual intercourse?

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

There's nothing debatable about pedophilia.

You've made yourself a hypocrite.

No I haven't. I have an opinion and I live by it.

Murder of those without understanding is okay, but rape of those without understand is not okay.

If I believed abortion was murder I would agree with your statement than I'm a hypocrite.

I haven't breathed my own first breath, I haven't had my first penetration...

That's an odd statement.

Back back to the 1st breath... if the Bible teaches that you aren't human until God breathes his breath into you then what's the issue?

So destroying penetration is a sin but destroying breath is not.

Another odd statement.

And you have a kid.

Yep.

Shame on you for your level of evil. You think only of the things of this world.

And you think you're God? You are able to determine what is evil, able to judge my soul and pronounce it's guilt? Are able to cast me into hell as well? Or is that for God to decide?

And you left Christianity without seeking further wisdom. I was introduced to Christianity at the age of 16 by people that didn't understand Christianity very well themselves (though they claimed they did!). But I followed to the understanding, not quitting though those that gained me quit, for a time at least.

Without seeking further wisdom? How are you able to determine that? You seem to posses a lot of God's power, are you sure you're a mere human?

What have you done?

I offered a different Christian perspective on a debate.

Seek love and life again, and stop teaching people that it is okay to submit to their desire to destroy for their freedom; for they will never be free again, for they will always remember that soul they prevented. ALWAYS.

Now humans have the ability to prevent a soul? What do we need any god for then?

Read my post history from way back when. I remember. I won't forget.

Link it, I don't have the time or the desire to sift through your post history.

reply to post by Kali74


there is too debate about pedophilia.
islam allows 8 year olds to be married.
a pedophile thinks his / her behavior is okay and moral.
if there are not going to be ultimate objective morals and a source or author for those ultimate objective rules, morals, laws, and values then what ever makes one tick is not debatable.
like what is right for you is not right for me...
if you don't have an ultimate objective universal moral code then we are nothing but complex pond scum and all the people in prison need released.

we have aborted just a little less than 100,000,000. babies in America.

in fact, lets develop SCIENCE to the technology where it can detect the wishes and choices of a unborn baby and let them decide if they want to be born..

in fact from the moment of conception it is extremely OBVIOUS what choice the baby is making, every instant of every day it is alive in the womb, it is constantly striving to survive. every choice it makes is to grow and develop and LIVE.

reply to post by hxc408


I think the Bible is saying that God knew Jeremiahs soul, always. How could he not, he's God.

I think Kali has brought up an excellent point in their OP and so far, no one has managed to successfully debunk what they've said.

If anything, this thread shows how religious people cherry pick from their religious texts. You will happily ignore something in genesis because it says so and so in Jeremiah

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


no because when a person is meant to die not all the money in the world can save that person.

First of all I am not cherry picking scripture nor am I ignoring what is said in Genesis. What is being spoken about in Genesis is the CREATION of MAN, it is not talking about procreation. Which is why God said be fruitful and multiply later on to his people. It is also kind of preposterous to say that these so called fetuses are not alive while in the mother's womb. If something can be killed, then it is a safe bet that the said thing is also alive.

Even if the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid it, abortion clearly is contrary to the general moral and spiritual framework that is outlined. I think most people who consider themselves spiritually engaged would have a problem with abortion as a widespread practice and the culture surrounding it in America.

Not to say that I think it should be outlawed, but America could probably use a bit of an increase in religious style discipline and ethic. And I really do understand the outcry with regard to the prevalence of abortion. It's honestly horrifying. Still, I wouldn't legislate against it. But jeez.

How is America going to get from here to a top to bottom functional society where everyone has a clear path to their highest potential?

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

You continue to impress me, it would have been completely understandable if you had reacted to my post with flames and hatred. Thank you so much for taking it in the spirit I intended.

But even though you were remarkably polite, you were certainly wide-ranging. I saw at least seven issues to be addressed. I have to assume you see all of them as equally significant, so I'll just start at the top and work down if you don't mind.

What is that biblical basis, please?

This seems to me to be an odd question, because you've also said:

I'm not using the Bible as a standard for making moral judgements. My take on the Bible is irrelevant. My point is this... the Bible does not state anywhere that abortion is wrong or against God, so where did the position come from?

So, why ask the question? Assume for a moment, that the Bible has a verse saying that abortion is wrong. Will that affect you? No, because you're "not using the Bible as a standard for making moral judgments." Who will it affect? Only those who already accept the Bible as a moral guide.

But, to answer you're question directly I will quote an earlier post of mine:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."

"My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

"You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish."

"God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."

The first two quotes are from the Bible and the second two are from Church Fathers in the first hundred years of Christianity.

But this brings up an interesting question for you. We know that the prohibition on abortion existed in the 1st Century, or shortly thereafter. If it didn't come from the Bible and Christ's teachings, doesn't that mean it was a recognized principle even before Christ? So, pick one. Either it is clearly a Christian teaching right from the start, or it was a principle accepted even before Christianity came into existence, so the ban on abortions doesn't rest on Christianity alone.

Tell me, does the church still think it's a grave and mortal sin to kill to save a life?

That's misleadingly simple, besides, you know the answer. When was it ever a mortal sin to kill in necessary self-defense? Same thing applies to abortion. If a woman is pregnant and in danger of death, the Church teaches that it is perfectly acceptable for a surgeon to correct whatever the condition is that's threatening the mother's death. If that correction results in the death of the baby, the Church says it is not a sin.

The Church has most certainly changed it's position on abortion, whether or not it's murder and what kind of sin is involved.

Whether or not it's murder or some lesser crime? Whether it's a mortal sin, or a less serious kind of sin? Science changes our knowledge over 2000 years. When has the Church ever said that it is completely acceptable to have an abortion, except in self-defense?

This comes from a very lengthy article, but it is so organized that one can pick and choose what one is interested in. It even starts out with a list of quotes claiming the Church has changed her position.

The teachings of the Catholic Church have been uniformly against abortion in any form, and have been stated and restated consistently through the centuries.

Those who believe otherwise are hereby challenged to produce a statement by any Pope, cardinal or bishop supporting abortion from any period in history (declarations by Modernist priests with suspended teaching authority don't count).

www.ewtn.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Kali74

if the Bible teaches that you aren't human until God breathes his breath into you then what's the issue?

The issue is one's definition on what is classed as a 'human' with potential disregard also for the LIFE of the LIVING SOUL with consciousness in it's early earthly life harbouring womb that CAN be forcibly removed via willfull murder of it's not fully formed make-up of matter (that incorporates that Divine soul that one may consider at such point as a whole 'unhuman').

A fetus is still Given 'breath' for LIFE within the womb by the Power that Created such for mankind's lifecycle, therefore the Scripture is correct, holding True, yet one's interpretation of it can often be otherwise.

Some may find this fascinating.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

I saw at least seven issues to be addressed. I have to assume you see all of them as equally significant, so I'll just start at the top and work down if you don't mind.

Yes, well there are space constrictions. My first reply took up 3 posts, but I lost them, so I rewrote my thoughts much more simply.

What is that biblical basis, please?

This seems to me to be an odd question, because you've also said:

I'm not using the Bible as a standard for making moral judgements. My take on the Bible is irrelevant. My point is this... the Bible does not state anywhere that abortion is wrong or against God, so where did the position come from?

So, why ask the question? Assume for a moment, that the Bible has a verse saying that abortion is wrong. Will that affect you? No, because you're "not using the Bible as a standard for making moral judgments." Who will it affect? Only those who already accept the Bible as a moral guide.

I believe that you're quoting Kali74, not me. I'm taking the biblical point of view, especially the Old Testament, in this thread. But, it's true that personally, I don't use the Bible for my moral guidance.

But, to answer you're question directly I will quote an earlier post of mine:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Charles, I read the entire Bible probably 9 times, cover to cover, before I was twenty, I know for a fact that that's NOT in the Bible! It's just NOT biblical!

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."

Before Jeremiah was in the womb indicates that God knew him before his mother was even pregnant! Pre-existence of the soul!

"My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."

The depths of the earth isn't a mother's womb, is it? Again, this scripture is evidence of the biblical philosophy of the pre-existence of the soul. The Bible doesn't teach that the soul is organic, and arises from sexual intercourse. I t teaches that the he soul IS an exhalation of the very breath of God.

But this brings up an interesting question for you. We know that the prohibition on abortion existed in the 1st Century, or shortly thereafter. If it didn't come from the Bible and Christ's teachings, doesn't that mean it was a recognized principle even before Christ? So, pick one. Either it is clearly a Christian teaching right from the start, or it was a principle accepted even before Christianity came into existence, so the ban on abortions doesn't rest on Christianity alone.

What is Christianity and did Catholics invent it? Because Jesus is silent on the issue, even though abortion and birth control was happening all around him, being that he associated with prostitutes and all.

I understand the Catholic ire, being how they designed the rules of Christianity, and all, and believe that only they can dispense it. But, many Catholic teachings aren't biblical and some of them outright defy biblical teachings. There is NO biblical ban on abortion. The ban on abortion and birth control is uniquely Catholic.

Tell me, does the church still think it's a grave and mortal sin to kill to save a life?

That's misleadingly simple, besides, you know the answer. When was it ever a mortal sin to kill in necessary self-defense? Same thing applies to abortion. If a woman is pregnant and in danger of death, the Church teaches that it is perfectly acceptable for a surgeon to correct whatever the condition is that's threatening the mother's death. If that correction results in the death of the baby, the Church says it is not a sin.

Leo XIII (1878-1903):

He issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used late in pregnancy and is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.

He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. .
www.religioustolerance.org...#

Is this false information? Did a subsequent Pope repeal this?

reply to post by windword

There is NO biblical ban on abortion.

Once again, that is because it falls under the Commanded Holy Decree against murder, based on Righteous recognition in Truth of the soul Created life incorporated as part of one's fetal gestation, within the early human cycle.

reply to post by PrimeLight


What is murder? Is killing an innocent animal for the purpose of sacrifice murder? If one is under the assumption that a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus has no soul, is abortion murder?

Are you of the belief that the soul is organic, and arises from sexual intercourse too? Or, does God immediately trap the soul in a fertilized egg?

If an innocent soul's human life is cut short due to infanticide, or an abortion, and returns home to God, isn't that the most merciful thing for a tainted, or an unwanted child, who will otherwise, most probably, be destined to hell? This is the Christian apologetic argument for the infanticide committed in God's name in the Old testament. How does that NOT apply to abortion today?

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I hope you don't mind if I give you a reply in bits and pieces. I feel that you're helping me with my understanding of the issue and I'm grateful to you for that.

Leo XIII (1878-1903):

He issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used late in pregnancy and is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.

He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. .
www.religioustolerance.org...#

Is this false information? Did a subsequent Pope repeal this?

I think this needs an explanation. If you think I'm dodging I'll try to do better if you ask again. The key here is the word "directly." The Church's position is that it's perfectly fine to kill the foetus, IF the foetus dies as a result of whatever procedure has been performed which is necessary to save the mother's life.

The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.

The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her unborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.

In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

From that rather long article I linked to, above.

Here's one more explanation that may possibly help:

Article 14 of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Declaration on Procured Abortion (November 18, 1974) reiterates it.

The pertinent passage of this document reads; "Deliberately we have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,' 'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies."

Same source.

With respect,
Charles1952

I think a greater question is:

When does the baby stop being a part of the mother and start being its own individual?

reply to post by windword

What is murder? Is killing an innocent animal for the purpose of sacrifice murder?

No it is not, for Righteous sacrifice was Decreed in the 'Old' Testament. Animals and humans are not Created equally and in this fallen earthen condition, mankind were allowed to use them for sustenance and to be Sacrificed for sin atonement, though that Decree for sacrifice no longer applies (after the Renewed Covenant in Christ's Sacrifice). The animals were mercifully slaughtered as Instructed and eaten for provision of nourishment, and not just killed without an Allowed purpose.

If one is under the assumption that a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus has no soul, is abortion murder?

Each is given a conscience and it Reveals what Life is Harboured within when one is brought to intent of aborting---that 'escapist' term for murder to ease offending consciences.

Are you of the belief that the soul is organic, and arises from sexual intercourse too?

No

Or, does God immediately trap the soul in a fertilized egg?

Soul release for insertion combined with matter to be form part of the human life matrix required for this dimensional structure.

If an innocent soul's human life is cut short due to infanticide, or an abortion, and returns home to God, isn't that the most merciful thing for a tainted, or an unwanted child, who will otherwise, most probably, be destined to hell? This is the Christian apologetic argument for the infanticide committed in God's name in the Old testament. How does that NOT apply to abortion today?

There are many gross atrocities commited in His Name, however any violation of the Commandment for one human not to ever murder another is a clear wrong. A soul enters this dimension for a Divined reason, therefore there are no 'accidents' in that regard as part of our earthen based Testing part of this soul journey.

Originally posted by Kali74
thechristinaleft.org

The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

I grew up Christian, my whole childhood I went to churches that were more open minded, less dogmatic. The churches I went to weren't so judgemental, however I don't recall these "liberal" churches having a position on abortion. Looking I made the assumption that the churches I attended just decided abortion was a private matter, a kind of default pro-choice position. So I even though I grew up Christian Left, I never heard their opinion on the matter and to be honest and also never really thought much about the fact that no where in the bible is abortion, forbidden.

Females of most mammal species know natural ways to end a pregnancy. It has never been unknown to societies that women know these ways yet the Bible never mentions these ways as evil, a sin or abhorrent in anyway.

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.

As the late and great Bill Hicks would say, "Well how f***ing scientific of you! I wasn't aware that you went through all that trouble." - in response to a fundamentalist Christian saying that they believed the world was 12,000 years old because they added up all the ages of people in the Bible haha.

Seriously though, I am kind of a hybrid pro-choice/pro-life, meaning that I believe abortion is ethically and morally acceptable up to a certain embryotic age.

I half agree with your stance that a fetus is only living tissue, and does not contain a "soul" so to speak, but not because he/she is or isn't breathing air. What the f*** is going on in your mind to think that breathing air makes you have a soul, makes you feel, makes you human? Oh yeah, you're a Christian, I forgot that you people don't think for yourselves, but just believe the mindless, ancient, and irrelevant drivel written down by a bunch of clueless humans thousands of years before modern science was even conceived of.

I believe that a fetus does not contain a living "soul", or "spirit", so to speak, until roughly after the 49th day after conception.

I have expounded on these very reasons very meticulously in other threads before, I'm not sure which ones exactly and I'm not going to search for them, nor am I going to re-type my lengthy explanation, which is mostly scientific, but also profound in light of certain synchronicities between facts in modern biology and scriptures from the Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead. ( *there were multiple books of the dead in each culture).

In short, the Books of the Dead said that a human soul takes a 49 day, or 7 week (7 days times 7) hiatus, or resting period after dead, or before incarnation or reincarnation. This 49 day period coincides with biological facts dictating the appearance of a fetus's pineal gland, and the reception of the fetus's gender happening on or around the same day. This also coincides with the ancient books of the dead, in the sense that they all agree that a human's soul retains its masculinity or femininity throughout its reincarnations. This would also serve as an alternate explanation for apparent homosexuality in young children, being too young to "choose" to become gay. Although I never once believe that any human has ever had to decide to "become gay", it's always been in their biological makeup, for some it's just a ticking time bomb to be released, others it's been obvious from the get-go.

The pineal gland and the gender appear on the same day, correlating the Egyptians belief that one's soul retains its sexual identity, and the belief that the pineal gland is the seat of the soul.

reply to post by Kody27

Although I never once believe that any human has ever had to decide to "become gay", it's always been in their biological makeup, for some it's just a ticking time bomb to be released, others it's been obvious from the get-go.

May you come to better awareness of the fallen angel influence here utterly meddling against the Original Creaton Design, which included corrupting the genetic lines of the Adams. You also denounce the perverse spirits that have ability within this dimension to enter mankind under sinful permissions (Law violations) and also denounce in such that anything against the Natural Order with elements of homosexuality are based upon a curse on mankind at large for partaking in so much wicked sin under so much increasing evil 'idol based' influences throughout these ages of incarnation.

I forgot that you people don't think for yourselves, but just believe the mindless, ancient, and irrelevant drivel written down by a bunch of clueless humans thousands of years before modern science was even conceived of.

Interesting those Inspired men who produced the works for the Bible were Granted understanding about the soul whilst our 'modern' men of science still scratch their head today regarding such in their search of 'proof'.

Your words and manner are heathous and you will receive a heathen reward of ignorance for such a way of being.

Originally posted by PrimeLight
reply to post by windword

 

What is murder? Is killing an innocent animal for the purpose of sacrifice murder?

No it is not, for Righteous sacrifice was Decreed in the 'Old' Testament. Animals and humans are not Created equally and in this fallen earthen condition, mankind were allowed to use them for sustenance and to be Sacrificed for sin atonement, though that Decree for sacrifice no longer applies (after the Renewed Covenant in Christ's Sacrifice). The animals were mercifully slaughtered as Instructed and eaten for provision of nourishment, and not just killed without an Allowed purpose.

Do you read the words you type? Killing an innocent animal to appease a "god" for one's shortcomings and guilt is NOT righteous. Did Jesus perform animal sacrifices? No, he did not. You know who else didn't believe in animal sacrifice? The Essenes! One Essene sect known as the Nazarene, is also, coincidentally, the name for the first Christians!

If one is under the assumption that a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus has no soul, is abortion murder?

Each is given a conscience and it Reveals what Life is Harboured within when one is brought to intent of aborting---that 'escapist' term for murder to ease offending consciences.

How would you know this? Have you been in the position of contemplating having an abortion and were hence enlightened?

Soul release for insertion combined with matter to be form part of the human life matrix required for this dimensional structure.

Is earthly flora and fauna in a separate dimension than us?

There are many gross atrocities commited in His Name, however any violation of the Commandment for one human not to ever murder another is a clear wrong. A soul enters this dimension for a Divined reason, therefore there are no 'accidents' in that regard as part of our earthen based Testing within this soul journey.

When does the soul enter this dimension?

If what you claim is so, and there are no accidents, everything is ordained, how can you disagree with any person's choices? Is rape also just a test, ordained by God?

How do you rectify the fact that the "giver of the law" and the 10 Commandments, promptly orders his people to kill, rape and steal? How do you rectify Numbers 5, where God instructs Moses on the "offering for jealousy", which results in abortion?

Originally posted by Kali74

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath..

Well then ... you can add this to the long list of things that the bible has gotten wrong. :shk:
Unborn children feel pain. They sleep and wake. They play with their toes and the cord.
babies even learn in the womb