Penalty for ABORTION.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

a reply to: Seede So based on biblical authority, would you say that abortion is murder, as so many Christians claim it to be?

To answer that question would have to be a case by case determination on my part. If I were to judge the matter as a blanket observation then that would not be right to do so. To me there are justified decisions in an abortion but should be approved after medical opinions and religious examinations are complete. But as to abortion on demand being used as a killing field, as it is today, leaves little doubt in my mind that it is legal murder and a great national sin.

Now you asked this based on biblical authority and that is the key to my understanding. Biblical understanding goes very deep in philosophy. Let me give you an example. One biblical covenant requires the death penalty for adultery while another covenant does not require the death penalty for adultery. Moses taught the one and Jesus taught the other. But both covenants are biblical. Which of the two are right? The answer is within the two covenants and the one you choose to embrace. You can become a member of either covenant by belief but you cannot jump back and forth as it pleases you.

What about the ones who reject all covenants and go marching in the streets demanding the right to kill? Well that was what happened and now we have a national killing field which sells the body parts for the most money. Actually it has now become legalized murder on a grand scale.

Now BELIEVERpriest, I also want you to realize that I have great respect for you and your opinions but was really surprised when I read you thread.

a reply to: Seede

I don't know how much of the thread you've had time to read, and I respect your input as well, but looking at the Mosaic culture, the Biblical themes from Gen to Rev, and the Hebrew/Greek grammar, I see absolutley no support for the notion that soul life begins at conception.

We may have observed a burst of energy within the womb at the point of conception, but that can easily be a biochemical reaction. We have yet to find a way to measure the soul as a form or flow of energy. Its simply not of this world, and all energy is of this world (E=MC^2).

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

And yet you want to base your moral position on something so speculative. I think if you were more familiar with the science of the development process you would see why Seede and I are so surprised by your position on this view.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Its not speculative at all to follow context clues and metaphors to their literary and poetic conclusions. Speculative would be assuming that a burst of energy at conception is indication of ensoulment when it could just as easily be an exothermic or luminescent reaction. The human body is a massive bio-electric circuit system.

Science is man's limited observation of reality. To trust put more faith in science than the Word of God is worldliness.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Its not speculative at all to follow context clues and metaphors to their literary and poetic conclusions.

Is it possible you drew the wrong conclusions? You don't seem to think so.

Speculative would be assuming that a burst of energy at conception is indication of ensoulment when it could just as easily be an exothermic or luminescent reaction.

How is your position that oxygen entering the lungs for the first any less speculative ? My position is based on the classical laws of thought. Namely that something is itself. Either that fertilized egg is human or it isn't. Biologically it is fully human, that is not speculation that is fact. You must reinterpret simple clear verses like Jeremiah 1:5 to mean God formed Jeremiah's body in the womb. To me its clear that verse reads that God formed all of what Jeremiah is in the womb. Your position based on the breath of life can easily be seen as an idiom thru lack of knowledge. If it means soul, there is no issue with God using that phraseology to get his point across to a Hebrew audience like in Ezekiel 37.

I mean we just interpret Scripture totally different at certain points, but you seem to be in a mindset that your conclusion couldn't be wrong. I am willing to be convinced but the fact is when you look into your claims they don't seem to pan out. It seems your position on "ek" is based on an incomplete lexicon, drmsh.com...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Its always possible that I have drawn the wrong conclusion, but that same possibility applies to you too. I don't think I have, but judging by your classical thought process I don't think you believe you have either.

Remember that the word of God is above human classical thought, so science, cultural taboos, philosophy, trivium...its all irrelevant when interpreting scripture. Let the Word of God interpret itself.

You still have not adequately explained why God would deviate from the Adamic pattern of ensoulment, when clearly being born again is not the same as being concieved again. I will refer you again to Luke 8, Matt 13, and Mark 4. The seed entering the soil is conception. The seed sprouting in birth. The sprout maturing and baring fruit is sanctification.

In light of that, life at conception goes against the grain of the Bible. Its a worldly concept, concieved by pagans.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Its always possible that I have drawn the wrong conclusion, but that same possibility applies to you too. I don't think I have, but judging by your classical thought process I don't think you believe you have either. Remember that the word of God is above human classical thought, so science, cultural taboos, philosophy, trivium...its all irrelevant when interpreting scripture. Let the Word of God interpret itself.

I am sorry but how do you interpret the word of God without the law of identity, or how about the law of non-contradiction? These are the very fundamentals of getting to truth brother. You can't just throw them out.

You still have not adequately explained why God would deviate from the Adamic pattern of ensoulment, when clearly being born again is not the same as being concieved again. I will refer you again to Luke 8, Matt 13, and Mark 4. The seed entering the soil is conception. The seed sprouting in birth. The sprout maturing and baring fruit is sanctification. In light of that, life at conception goes against the grain of the Bible. Its a worldly concept, concieved by pagans.

Nothing in Genesis 2:7 says that we are formed in the womb out of dust from the ground and born lifeless bodies only for God to breath life into us after birth. This isn't about the beginning of each individual human life, but rather the beginning of humanity as a whole. Why did God deviate from forming us from the dust of the ground and to forming us from living matter? I don't understand drawing a comparison between all human creation and the first human creation which is we both know is depicted that way to get at the Egyptian creation myths. Where in Egyptian mythology there are normally two Gods one who fashions out of clay and another who breathes the breath of life into the man, we find the God of Genesis preforming both acts.

Genesis 9:

3 “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it.

This verse tells us life is in the blood, so which is it breath or blood? Or should we just assume they were using idioms for life and death based on their lack of knowledge?

I am sorry brother but stabbing a child at 9 months in the back of the head is the pagan concept of child sacrifice, and you gladly defend it. Note the fruits of the organizations that back your political position. They are not baring the fruits of God.

1 Peter 1:23

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Being born again is not a process from my understanding. I have always understood the phrase to refer to the moment at which a person first believes. That is the moment one under goes the baptism of salvation. It is not a process like natural birth. I find it is much closer to the moment life begins than the moment a child changes its mode of oxygen transfer. The seed in that parable is the good news, and the parable is about how different people will receive that news. Do you think that Jesus was likening those that fell away to aborted babies? That is do you think they were spiritually alive and then Jesus aborts them? Because a fertilized egg is alive, and then we end its life. No question about that. So if you think hearing the gospel of salvation is similar to conception that would mean it brings one to life just by simply hearing it, and then if they don't keep it Jesus aborts them from spiritual life...kind of reaching don't you think?

David wrote in one of his great Psalms of repentance: "Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me," (Psalm 51:5).

If David had no soul after being conceived how could he be sinful?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When did Jesus ever say that we needed to be conceived again to receive eternal life? The term is born again, which is different than conception. That is evidence of a continued pattern.

What does the Blood of Christ mean to you? Review Isaiah 53:11.

Life is in the blood but not the blood which circulates in our veins. This is touching upon fundamental doctrines.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

When did Jesus ever say that we needed to be conceived again to receive eternal life? The term is born again, which is different than conception. That is evidence of a continued pattern.

I believe you misunderstand the interpretation of that translation.

1Peter_1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

In this interpretation it should be understood as being born of the celestial Spirit which lives and abides forever. The corruptible seed [meaning of this world] does not live and abide forever. Resurrection is actually compared to as being conceived again. That is for the justified ones. One must be conceived to be born and here it is likened to as shedding the terrestrial corrupted image to be given a celestial everlasting new image.

In some circles of Judaism the naked spirit is that spirit in the confines of Sheol which has not been born again. Only those who are conceived by the Holy Spirit [The Most High] are sanctified or born again and obtain the new garment of celestial covering [body].

Christianity has many forms of denominations within its structure and that is why I use the Nazarene's doctrine.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Hey far be it for me to question the content on ones rebranding. I am merely saying, yes do keep it at a 3rd grade level. After all how will you be believed? See what I did there? Just saying I don't necessarily believe you, even if you believe you.

After all your believe in yourself counts for nothing.

Are we not in agreement?

But hey you could be right, and maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. However nothing you have wrote and said makes me want to do that. So I will go by appearances alone. Which is kind of hard to do, you know through words on a screen in social media and all that.

It is off course judging a book by its cover. I find that one should always do that. After all if I did not, I would be the odd duck out. And I so want to belong and stuff. Its what them cool kids do.

But really the question here is. OK so you saved a fetus? What now? Are you going to raise it? The Chinese at least have a saying about being responsible about a life you save, Confusiusim I suppose. Not to sure about you Christians or Islamists or which ever version of that religion you partake to.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

But really the question here is. OK so you saved a fetus? What now? Are you going to raise it?

I get the impression that you didn't understand me. I'm not for or against abortion. I am in favor of having the right to choose without being labeled a murderer. In my OP, I'm simply asking what certain Christians think the penalty for abortion should be since it is THEY who toss around the murder accusation so liberally. It would pose a double standard if they say no penalty should follow.

I personally do not believe abortion is murder, so I don't believe there should be a penalty.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

the penalty for abortion = no baby . its that simple

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

the penalty for abortion = no baby . its that simple

Yes.. that is penalty enough.. but even worse is the idea that a child is now in the hands of some scientists or those who may sell fetuses for experimentation. Is the baby really gone in all cases ? Or has it become some back room secret experimentation all in the name of evolving scientific research?