Abortion, the Pro-Life Stance, and God's Law. Abortion is Never Okay.

Bard_the_Bowman

New member
Hey Stuart,

I'm choosing to end this discussion with you now. I am not understanding your responses in your last post.

Obviously we disagree. And I think the logic of the points we each have made speak for themselves.

I wish you peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Stuu

New member
What is the value of a human?
Indeed, I think those who oppose abortion know everything about the quantity of life and nothing about its quality.
I submit that we are only as valuable as the purpose we are made.
So you believe you were 'created', while others disagree with that. That could be part of the problem when the religious seem to be significantly represented in the anti-abortion lobby. On that point, those religious opponents are free to not have abortions, but why should their world view be allowed to impinge on the rights of others?

After all, it's not as if the Judeo-christian story is actually historical, it's historical fiction. We should be able to agree on a version of reality that doesn't demand everyone conforms to a fantasy conspiracy theory of invisible friends running the universe.

Well, that might overstate the case, but you see the point I hope.
When a whole batch of wrenches don't work. you don't keep them. They are only as valuable as what they were intended for. Worse? If YOU read the story, these people were given at their worst, not just defective. It really rests on how 'independent' you think you are as to how you view what happened. If you think you have a right to autonomy, you don't. Colossians 1:17 Even your ability to think about these things is sustained. If you sustain abortion, you aren't against God anyway. It becomes a moot point.
Good on you for having a go, but I don't think the mythology of the flood narrative is an ethical one. It just sounds like a failure followed by a spectacular act of mass murder, not limited to just the foetuses that perished.
Pro-death? You mean you are against abortion too?
Well, I'd be happy with the 'life-counters' versus the 'life-valuers'. Given that narrative of 'the purpose for which we are made' I don't think Abrahamists are in a good position to be included in the life-valuers category.
That's good news if true. Can you give a brief synoptic of where you stand?
I think I've already done that. Please tell me where I haven't been clear.
For some reason, Latins embrace Catholicism. I'm sure somebody has done a study but I've not read it.
Yes, well I think you have your school curriculum to blame for not knowing that. Do you realise how close things came to you speaking Spanish today?

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Hey Stuart,

I'm choosing to end this discussion with you now. I am not understanding your responses in your last post.

Obviously we disagree. And I think the logic of the points we each have made speak for themselves.

I wish you peace.
Yes, thank you for engaging. Although I am not a citizen of your remarkable nation, it strikes me that what the US needs is more discussion like this and less of the polarisation that it has suffered for some time.

Stuart
 

Lon

Well-known member
Indeed, I think those who oppose abortion know everything about the quantity of life and nothing about its quality.

So you believe you were 'created', while others disagree with that. That could be part of the problem when the religious seem to be significantly represented in the anti-abortion lobby. On that point, those religious opponents are free to not have abortions, but why should their world view be allowed to impinge on the rights of others?
Briefly: God has the right to give and take life (in your worldview, if he exists). Man does not. He has the right to do so generally within and only within life-saving bounds. The rule of thumb: "If it saves another life in doing so, it may be excused." Originally, when Regan's administration passed that, it was the intent as well as naively optimistic that doctors and insurance would toe-the-line. Because they were well-intentioned, but naïve, we have an abortion epidemic today, killing viable people most often for NO other reason than convenience. There are hundreds waiting for infant adoption who would also help pay for birthing costs, which at times, are significantly lower in taxpayer cost. It ONLY makes sense that even pro-advocates would push for 'lower tax solutions.' Why they don't? Democrats literally throw money at things and then 'more money' at things. You guys are ALMOST more conservative than we are, it is just that you've grown accustomed to more recent values (that don't often work well) than you'd like to admit. Conservatives, I believe, are generally more thoughtful and seeing and conserving things from a much larger picture. It is the mark of intelligence to do so. All these walk-outs? I empathize, but it isn't critical thinking, just mass-demonstration. Sometimes it is needed.

After all, it's not as if the Judeo-christian story is actually historical, it's historical fiction. We should be able to agree on a version of reality that doesn't demand everyone conforms to a fantasy conspiracy theory of invisible friends running the universe.
To date, you've never asked me why I know there is a God. There is a reason I'm convinced of, that you do not: You don't WANT to know. It is one of those 'conservation' things. Don't cherish what is not true. I KNOW there is a God. Do you believe DNA, the building instructions for life, created itself? :nono: Your own mind is very against a random meaningless universe because it isn't, in fact, random OR meaningless.

Well, that might overstate the case, but you see the point I hope.
I agree, I believe it was overstated. Hopefully, despite my very strong adherence to the existence of God, you see some rationale that meets your points directly.

Good on you for having a go, but I don't think the mythology of the flood narrative is an ethical one. It just sounds like a failure followed by a spectacular act of mass murder, not limited to just the foetuses that perished.
Let me push it farther though: "IF" you are for mass abortion, you certainly cannot fault God for doing the same. It winds up being hypocritical in a discussion about that very thing. My contention is also that God has rights that we do not because we don't own one another. It should help, discovering a Christian's pov, that the One who makes a thing obviously has rights whereas the things created do not over one another. To me, it is a fairly simple thing to grasp. We tell kids they can't drink or smoke, regardless if the parent 'can.' It is entirely beside the point, if you follow.

Well, I'd be happy with the 'life-counters' versus the 'life-valuers'. Given that narrative of 'the purpose for which we are made' I don't think Abrahamists are in a good position to be included in the life-valuers category.
There is a stark difference between Christianity and Judaism, which I'm sure you appreciate. While no-too-few Christians believe they are grafted Jews, we protestants make up a sizable number and don't believe war does much good. We recognize its necessity, the US had little choice in WWI and II, but generally, we are more pacifist than not (I know there are a few opposite that - they tend to be pro-Israel as well).
I think I've already done that. Please tell me where I haven't been clear.
Here:
Stuu said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Stuu That's what I keep telling the pro-death camp here: don't emote, have actual arguments. It hasn't been so bad in this thread so far.
It has a 'separating' tenor to it like "that group" rather than "my group." It confused a little because you called that group "pro-death."
Do you mean pro-death-penalty? That's where I was confused. Appreciate your offered help to clarify and thank you.

Yes, well I think you have your school curriculum to blame for not knowing that. Do you realise how close things came to you speaking Spanish today?

Stuart
I could guess as to why, but no, I've still not seen that study. Spanish would be okay. It is better structured than an English mish/mash of languages.
 

Stuu

New member
Briefly: God has the right to give and take life (in your worldview, if he exists). Man does not. He has the right to do so generally within and only within life-saving bounds. The rule of thumb: "If it saves another life in doing so, it may be excused." Originally, when Regan's administration passed that, it was the intent as well as naively optimistic that doctors and insurance would toe-the-line. Because they were well-intentioned, but naïve, we have an abortion epidemic today, killing viable people most often for NO other reason than convenience. There are hundreds waiting for infant adoption who would also help pay for birthing costs, which at times, are significantly lower in taxpayer cost.
Once again you seem to be counting life rather than valuing its quality. You cannot make someone give birth on the basis that someone else will take over the parenting role.

I'm not sure how you justify an 'abortion epidemic', when the figures are coming down.

trendsinabortiongraph.png


It ONLY makes sense that even pro-advocates would push for 'lower tax solutions.' Why they don't? Democrats literally throw money at things and then 'more money' at things. You guys are ALMOST more conservative than we are, it is just that you've grown accustomed to more recent values (that don't often work well) than you'd like to admit. Conservatives, I believe, are generally more thoughtful and seeing and conserving things from a much larger picture. It is the mark of intelligence to do so. All these walk-outs? I empathize, but it isn't critical thinking, just mass-demonstration. Sometimes it is needed.
I'll leave the politics of your bizarre nation to you this time, suffice it to say that Obama lines up with the right wing of most other Western countries.
To date, you've never asked me why I know there is a God. There is a reason I'm convinced of, that you do not: You don't WANT to know. It is one of those 'conservation' things. Don't cherish what is not true. I KNOW there is a God.
I don't think your personal views are relevant to the wider discussion. The claims of christianity are so ridiculous that they do not deserve to have a respected place in the factors that lead to lawmaker's decisions. Of course the people decide who the lawmakers are in a democracy, but it is still the lawmaker's job to arbitrate between claims, and claims of invisible friends running the universe are just not a reasonable basis for making laws for all. Otherwise you wish for theocracy, and I recommend living in Iran as an experience of that.
Do you believe DNA, the building instructions for life, created itself? Your own mind is very against a random meaningless universe because it isn't, in fact, random OR meaningless.
I think those generalisation are too broad to be useful. Some things are random and some things are not. I don't know exactly how DNA came to be the code for all life on the planet, and therefore excellent evidence for common ancestry, but I can tell you the process by which it came to be universal.
Let me push it farther though: "IF" you are for mass abortion, you certainly cannot fault God for doing the same. It winds up being hypocritical in a discussion about that very thing.
I don't know where you are on the spectrum of how detailed your god's meddling is. You aren't a deist who believes that the god kicked things off and hasn't been involved since, and I don't think you believe that every rock and drop of water is individually created and placed where it is found, for a very complicated overall 'purpose'. So you would need to interpret for me in terms of the intentions of your god the statistics on the rate of natural loss (these stats are from the US) of zygotes, embryos and foetuses from the time of fertilisation, which is five times greater than the rate of artificial abortion.

One significant contribution to that is a couple with a poor blood type match getting pregnant, causing a foetus to be nonviable. So you could have almost as much effect on the rate of pregnancies going to term if you gave up opposing artificial abortion and instead campaigned for genetic counseling and maybe blood tests in social venues so people know what they are getting into.

But any, my point is that all that loss of zygotes, embryos and foetuses is subject to the will of a being that you claim to be omnipotent. So what is it playing at? Here is another problem that only exists because of god belief. Another is the so-called problem of evil. Invent an omnipotent god then you end up inventing problems. I guess it's all work for the theologians to do, while the rest of us get on with reality.
My contention is also that God has rights that we do not because we don't own one another. It should help, discovering a Christian's pov, that the One who makes a thing obviously has rights whereas the things created do not over one another. To me, it is a fairly simple thing to grasp. We tell kids they can't drink or smoke, regardless if the parent 'can.' It is entirely beside the point, if you follow.
I think that analogy is based on a mentality that has led to a lot of child abuse. By all means do what you can to discourage smoking, but don't be surprised if it fails through either genetic disposition or rejection of the hypocrisy of do what I say not what I do by the young person. What does it tell you that a god can't let the things it made go free? Clearly it is an abusive relationship, not a loving one. But, anyway, the whole notion is absurd so thankfully we don't have to worry about the theologians' invented problems.
I could guess as to why, but no, I've still not seen that study. Spanish would be okay. It is better structured than an English mish/mash of languages.
Yes, if we were needing English then it is good that we learned it natively. Spanish is easier to pick up than English, as you suggest.

Check out the Holy Wikipedia on South American colonisation.

Stuart
 

Lon

Well-known member
Once again you seem to be counting life rather than valuing its quality. You cannot make someone give birth on the basis that someone else will take over the parenting role.
Rubbish. I CAN tell any parent that they CANNOT murder their children. You are just picking an arbitrary age. EVERY age has its inconveniences, so you are just picking based on societal duping. It is just wrong to take a life EXCEPT for the NOBLE purpose of saving a life. Always. :plain:

I'm not sure how you justify an 'abortion epidemic', when the figures are coming down.
Spoiler


trendsinabortiongraph.png


Yes, yes, I'm well aware that the numbers are down. Half of an epidemic is STILL and epidemic. The lives endangered does NOT match the abortion rate. It is a rate of convenience. It 'looks' like you are counting quantity to me, btw.
I'll leave the politics of your bizarre nation to you this time, suffice it to say that Obama lines up with the right wing of most other Western countries.
Of course and I'll keep my nation regardless.

I don't think your personal views are relevant to the wider discussion. The claims of christianity are so ridiculous that they do not deserve to have a respected place in the factors that lead to lawmaker's decisions. Of course the people decide who the lawmakers are in a democracy, but it is still the lawmaker's job to arbitrate between claims, and claims of invisible friends running the universe are just not a reasonable basis for making laws for all. Otherwise you wish for theocracy, and I recommend living in Iran as an experience of that.
I disagree. "If" you are going to talk about God, then it MUST be entertained. If you don't want to talk about God, you can forgo that but this is what you chose. I gladly accommodate your questions because I'm well suited for doing so. Laymen on TOL, I'd admit, don't always do as well, but in self-analysis, I'm capable of addressing those concerns and meaningfully. It may 'look' different than laymen opinion, but it is collegiately formed.
I think those generalisation are too broad to be useful. Some things are random and some things are not. I don't know exactly how DNA came to be the code for all life on the planet, and therefore excellent evidence for common ancestry, but I can tell you the process by which it came to be universal.
It doesn't help. Again, the question is does DNA write itself. Diversity, imho, incredibly causes complexity. For instance, if you cannot find butterfly DNA in me, then you know that means, at the very least, editing DNA VERY specifically AND divergent complexity that begs the question further. We are no longer talking about 'common' ancestry at that point, but 'common library.' It delves strongly into 'intelligence' as necessary discussion. It is better to be a deist at that point: "Something/someone with incredible intelligence planned this." Regardless, it goes back to the idea that with that information given, we no longer can presume to be as autonomous as we often think we are. It requires accountability AND it is important every time one wants to point a finger at God. It is a cursory observation and inconsistent if by observation and accusation, you are trying to make that same excuse for random acts of fetal violence.

I don't know where you are on the spectrum of how detailed your god's meddling is. You aren't a deist who believes that the god kicked things off and hasn't been involved since, and I don't think you believe that every rock and drop of water is individually created and placed where it is found, for a very complicated overall 'purpose'. So you would need to interpret for me in terms of the intentions of your god the statistics on the rate of natural loss (these stats are from the US) of zygotes, embryos and foetuses from the time of fertilisation, which is five times greater than the rate of artificial abortion.
Colossians 1:17 You can't move that rock unless given the power to do so. It'd be something if you could try and remove your own power cord, but you can't. Even mockery or defiance is a drawn breath. You can't 'make' yourself live, you just do. You can't stop breathing on your own. You'd have to artificially do it. Question: why is that NEVER an atheist option? Answer: Because you only want to be just so separated that you have the illusion of self-direction. Philosophers, not just theologians have long wrestled with these implications.
One significant contribution to that is a couple with a poor blood type match getting pregnant, causing a foetus to be nonviable. So you could have almost as much effect on the rate of pregnancies going to term if you gave up opposing artificial abortion and instead campaigned for genetic counseling and maybe blood tests in social venues so people know what they are getting into.
I've asked a doctor about this. He said it was so minute, it is of no significant consequence any longer. It virtually doesn't exist. This, btw, is like saying I should be more concerned about childhood cancer than school shootings 'by the numbers.' To me? It looks again like quantity over quality. I'm concerned with both so it doesn't matter if you accuse me of it. I'm concerned over both the majority and minority regarding life. The BEST you can do is be concerned about as much life as possible. There is something wrong with us to go against a 'good' thing in nature and destroy it. I realize that throws me in the tree-hugging category too, but we really need to NOT do things just because it might be immediately expedient to do so. Even to an atheist, often times the long and contemplative route is not just better, but best.

But any, my point is that all that loss of zygotes, embryos and foetuses is subject to the will of a being that you claim to be omnipotent. So what is it playing at? Here is another problem that only exists because of god belief. Another is the so-called problem of evil. Invent an omnipotent god then you end up inventing problems. I guess it's all work for the theologians to do, while the rest of us get on with reality.
No, and you'd really need to delve into serious theology education to grasp that greater picture. Until then it is but passing dabbling. If I could redirect you, the greatest concern is 'purposeful' vs prescriptive. There is a difference between God's prescriptive and decretive wills. Man, specifically, has gotten 'himself' in a mess. Any remedy for that mess is up to God's discretion. He is loving. If you can't find a 'loving' answer, you have to look and study, thus a theology education is important for deeper conversations.

I think that analogy is based on a mentality that has led to a lot of child abuse. By all means do what you can to discourage smoking, but don't be surprised if it fails through either genetic disposition or rejection of the hypocrisy of do what I say not what I do by the young person.
It 'may' be hypocritical BUT my mom started smoking before she knew of cancer and other diseases. She wasn't 'trying' to be hypocritical. That wasn't the idea. She was reaping the consequences and DIDN'T want her kids to reap those same ones. She has been smoke free for about 30 years now. Not so hypocritical and way too hasty with that assessment, Stuart.

What does it tell you that a god can't let the things it made go free? Clearly it is an abusive relationship, not a loving one. But, anyway, the whole notion is absurd so thankfully we don't have to worry about the theologians' invented problems.
Same as above. You 'can' be an angry acting out man but you don't have to be. Instead of angry and a bit hasty, you 'could' be thoughtful, reflective with a bit of grace. :think:

Yes, if we were needing English then it is good that we learned it natively. Spanish is easier to pick up than English, as you suggest.
Both are good trade languages. I'm utilitarian on this though do want all citizens in a country to speak the same language that unites it, whatever that is.

Check out the Holy Wikipedia on South American colonisation.

Stuart
Thanks, I knew 'what' caused it, but was interested in what qualities it holds that other faiths do not regarding its holding interest. I'd suspect education (lack thereof) to be part of it, not to disparage Catholicism over this particular, just to understand context for its stronghold.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Rubbish. I CAN tell any parent that they CANNOT murder their children. You are just picking an arbitrary age. EVERY age has its inconveniences, so you are just picking based on societal duping. It is just wrong to take a life EXCEPT for the NOBLE purpose of saving a life. Always. :plain:

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that the numbers are down. Half of an epidemic is STILL and epidemic. The lives endangered does NOT match the abortion rate. It is a rate of convenience. It 'looks' like you are counting quantity to me, btw.
Of course and I'll keep my nation regardless.

I disagree. "If" you are going to talk about God, then it MUST be entertained. If you don't want to talk about God, you can forgo that but this is what you chose. I gladly accommodate your questions because I'm well suited for doing so. Laymen on TOL, I'd admit, don't always do as well, but in self-analysis, I'm capable of addressing those concerns and meaningfully. It may 'look' different than laymen opinion, but it is collegiately formed.
It doesn't help. Again, the question is does DNA write itself. Diversity, imho, incredibly causes complexity. For instance, if you cannot find butterfly DNA in me, then you know that means, at the very least, editing DNA VERY specifically AND divergent complexity that begs the question further. We are no longer talking about 'common' ancestry at that point, but 'common library.' It delves strongly into 'intelligence' as necessary discussion. It is better to be a deist at that point: "Something/someone with incredible intelligence planned this." Regardless, it goes back to the idea that with that information given, we no longer can presume to be as autonomous as we often think we are. It requires accountability AND it is important every time one wants to point a finger at God. It is a cursory observation and inconsistent if by observation and accusation, you are trying to make that same excuse for random acts of fetal violence.


Colossians 1:17 You can't move that rock unless given the power to do so. It'd be something if you could try and remove your own power cord, but you can't. Even mockery or defiance is a drawn breath. You can't 'make' yourself live, you just do. You can't stop breathing on your own. You'd have to artificially do it. Question: why is that NEVER an atheist option? Answer: Because you only want to be just so separated that you have the illusion of self-direction. Philosophers, not just theologians have long wrestled with these implications.
I've asked a doctor about this. He said it was so minute, it is of no significant consequence any longer. It virtually doesn't exist. This, btw, is like saying I should be more concerned about childhood cancer than school shootings 'by the numbers.' To me? It looks again like quantity over quality. I'm concerned with both so it doesn't matter if you accuse me of it. I'm concerned over both the majority and minority regarding life. The BEST you can do is be concerned about as much life as possible. There is something wrong with us to go against a 'good' thing in nature and destroy it. I realize that throws me in the tree-hugging category too, but we really need to NOT do things just because it might be immediately expedient to do so. Even to an atheist, often times the long and contemplative route is not just better, but best.

No, and you'd really need to delve into serious theology education to grasp that greater picture. Until then it is but passing dabbling. If I could redirect you, the greatest concern is 'purposeful' vs prescriptive. There is a difference between God's prescriptive and decretive wills. Man, specifically, has gotten 'himself' in a mess. Any remedy for that mess is up to God's discretion. He is loving. If you can't find a 'loving' answer, you have to look and study, thus a theology education is important for deeper conversations.

It 'may' be hypocritical BUT my mom started smoking before she knew of cancer and other diseases. She wasn't 'trying' to be hypocritical. That wasn't the idea. She was reaping the consequences and DIDN'T want her kids to reap those same ones. She has been smoke free for about 30 years now. Not so hypocritical and way too hasty with that assessment, Stuart.

Same as above. You 'can' be an angry acting out man but you don't have to be. Instead of angry and a bit hasty, you 'could' be thoughtful, reflective with a bit of grace. :think:

Both are good trade languages. I'm utilitarian on this though do want all citizens in a country to speak the same language that unites it, whatever that is.

Thanks, I knew 'what' caused it, but was interested in what qualities it holds that other faiths do not regarding its holding interest. I'd suspect education (lack thereof) to be part of it, not to disparage Catholicism over this particular, just to understand context for its stronghold.


Dear Lon,

You are the voice of reason. We are happy to say what is on our mind and in are hearts, and we should enjoy it being here. Thanks to this website, we can. Now, I will possibly not read this entire, long post, but I will tell you that God does not consider abortion to be moral, and He loves the woman who undergoes it, but He is does not love what they are doing AT ALL!! Abortion is murdering a child, no matter what Age it is. If you don't want the child, let it be born and given to those couples who desperately want a child. Don't kill it!!

I must take this time to mention that God does not condone sexual harassment at all, but He still even loves the person who commits it, but they pay, be sure of that. God will take it out of their hide. I've got to admit that I have even done it by writing a bad poem/song before. But I never did anything otherwise actually.

But I do agree that Trump should not have said that he could pull a woman's private parts because he is rich. It might be true, but it IS still locker room talk. Those in the locker rooms would tell you that. Maybe not all of them have done it, but some sure have. Perhaps they will mention it here too. Few of us here in this Earth are righteous, but God forgives us 70 times 7. Ask Jesus.

I've always treated women as a gentleman indeed, and I open the car door and other doors for them, and I am very proper. But I did 'help' write a bad poem. My good friend was mostly the author of it and it was pretty dirty, to say the least, but I didn't write most of it. I'm sorry that I was a part of it, but I do KNOW that God still loves me and forgives me. I have paid for it with terrible things happening to me afterwards, but life is good now and things will be alright soon. I firmly believe that Jesus will return soon and there will be a change in peoples' hearts.

And the father shall turn towards their children, and the children shall turn to their parents, and things will improve tremendously. Some young adults think that this is the way the World is all there is. They do not know that things used to be a lot better down here. But they were not here then.

I do regret ALL of the SINS that I have committed and I know that God and Jesus still love me, and that I am forgiven. I was saved when I was 11 years old. I was baptized with the Holy Ghost before I was baptized with water. Some of you here think you have been visited by the Holy Spirit, but you are in error. I have not heard any of you tell me how it feels. And having good spirit in your heart is from God, but it is not a VISIT from the Holy Ghost!

When you are filled with the Holy Ghost, it is an ecstatic experience and the Spirit rushes into your body/soul in an instant, and you feel exhilarated and know certain things in an instant, like learning a long secret or such quickly. It flowed into my left ear and filled my brain and then my body/soul with great joy!! And you change and can speak or sing differently. This is the only way I can explain it right now, without many words. When this actually, really happens to you, then come on TOL and let us truly know. Don't lie or you will be in danger of Hellfire!!

Lon, we are definitely on the same wavelength and I am very pleased and joyful that you are a member here on TOL!! Will chat again soon!

Always Love, In Christ!!

Michael

P.S. I've got to also tell you that we do 'make reconciliation' for our sins. We do not get off 'scot-free.' Whether you think that Jesus takes away all sin, well He does, but you still pay for your sins. See Daniel 9:24KJV. He speaks about the End Time. We shall make reconciliation for our iniquity. That's what is says about the subject. So think about it some more. Some of you interpret things without knowledge of each sentence written. Trust me, you do. So have I. We're all sinners and we pay! Jesus does absolve us of all sin, but we don't get out of suffering for it.

MC
 
Last edited:

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Dear Lon,

You are the voice of reason. We are happy to say what is on our mind and in are hearts, and should we should enjoy it being here. Thanks to this website, we can. Now, I will possibly not read this entire, long post, but I will tell you that God does not consider abortion to be moral, and He loves the woman who undergoes it, but He is does not love what they are doing AT ALL!! Abortion is murdering a child, no matter what Age it is. If you don't want the child, let it be born and given to those couples who desperately want a child. Don't kill it!! Lon, we are definitely on the same wavelength and I am very pleased and joyful that you are a member here on TOL!! Will chat again soon!

Always Love, In Christ!!

Michael

Michael,

Shalom. Today is Rishon, Aviv 9.

I see your post to Lon here. I must say that I know some people say to love the sinner but hate the sin. Do you know what the cases are in Torah where capital punishment should be employed? Read the Torah to learn about murder, how it is wrong, and what the punishment for it is and in what situation a murderer should be killed, by who, and with respect to a judge or court or not. There are different kinds of murder, and there is such a thing as a city of refuge. I do not know how to say what different kinds of murder there are. Maybe I am thinking of something that is not murder. I do not know. I cannot remember or I do not know if I have sufficiently learned this to the best of my recollection right now.

Shalom.

Jacob
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Michael,

Shalom. Today is Rishon, Aviv 9.

I see your post to Lon here. I must say that I know some people say to love the sinner but hate the sin. Do you know what the cases are in Torah where capital punishment should be employed? Read the Torah to learn about murder, how it is wrong, and what the punishment for it is and in what situation a murderer should be killed, by who, and with respect to a judge or court or not. There are different kinds of murder, and there is such a thing as a city of refuge. I do not know how to say what different kinds of murder there are. Maybe I am thinking of something that is not murder. I do not know. I cannot remember or I do not know if I have sufficiently learned this to the best of my recollection right now.

Shalom.

Jacob


Dear Jacob,

I find your post intriguing and I do mostly or totally agree with you. I must tell you that we Christians do believe that the Old Testament, which includes the Torah, is second to the New Testament. But I do agree with the Old Testament and the Torah, and know that God's Commandments are 'engraved' there and should be adhered to. Our Jesus tells us to keep His two commandments, and the rest of the commandments shall fall into place within us. I believe you. The only thing I might disagree with is that an adulterer should not be stoned, but instead, be forgiven and given another chance. I would forgive them more than once, as Jesus told us to forgive 70 times 7. God has a HUGE Heart and loves us despite our fallible traits, or our sins and mistakes.

You are right about being certain that the correct punishment be given a murderer according to the details of what actually happened. Of course I feel that way. But Jacob, I just do not agree with housing and feeding a proven murderer, who deserves the death penalty by a jury and judge. The Court has been wrong a few times, I must admit, but they are correct for the most part. For someone who is given the death penalty and is later found to be innocent is tragic, but what each prisoner is costing us for room and board, and meals, is not acceptable. They just commit a tragic crime because they don't want to be homeless, or get a job {even if they could}, so they try to get back into jail where they feel more comfortable, and are housed and fed 3 times a day. They don't want to live the life of a homeless person who has to scrape by just to get food and they don't have a roof over their heads, except the sky.

I agree with you, Jacob. It's a refreshing change!!

May God, And Even Jesus, Watch Over You & Your Countenance,

Michael
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Dear Jacob,

I find your post intriguing and I do mostly or totally agree with you. I must tell you that we Christians do believe that the Old Testament, which includes the Torah, is second to the New Testament. But I do agree with the Old Testament and the Torah, and know that God's Commandments are 'engraved' there and should be adhered to. Our Jesus tells us to keep His two commandments, and the rest of the commandments shall fall into place within us. I believe you. The only thing I might disagree with is that an adulterer should not be stoned, but instead, be forgiven and given another chance. I would forgive them more than once, as Jesus told us to forgive 70 times 7. God has a HUGE Heart and loves us despite our fallible traits, or our sins and mistakes.

You are right about being certain that the correct punishment be given a murderer according to the details of what actually happened. Of course I feel that way. But Jacob, I just do not agree with housing and feeding a proven murderer, who deserves the death penalty by a jury and judge. The Court has been wrong a few times, I must admit, but they are correct for the most part. For someone who is given the death penalty and is later found to be innocent is tragic, but what each prisoner is costing us for room and board, and meals, is not acceptable. They just commit a tragic crime because they don't want to be homeless, or get a job {even if they could}, so they try to get back into jail where they feel more comfortable.

I agree with you, Jacob. It's a refreshing change!!

May God, And Even Jesus, Watch Over You & Your Countenance,

Michael

Michael

If you live according to the Torah it makes sense that there is a death penalty for murderers and adulterers. Meaning, you understand that it exists and that it is what God wants. There must be witnesses. If there is to be a judge or if there is a judge then the judge should know and or learn everything that needs to be known.

Does the law say that an adulterer should be stoned?

I do not believe that Jesus ever said that the law should not be adhered to.
 

Stuu

New member
Rubbish. I CAN tell any parent that they CANNOT murder their children. You are just picking an arbitrary age.
You're saying that it is arbitrary that a foetus is inside a woman's body in a parasitic relationship (albeit necessarily so) and an infant is outside it, an independent individual?
Half of an epidemic is STILL and epidemic.
It does make the claim a bit pathetic, though doesn't it. In the United States in 2016:

about 12,000,000 conceptions, ending in
about 7,200,000 spontaneous losses (or acts of a god); and
about 893,000 abortions; and
3,945,875 live births

The actual abortion rate could be higher than that, because not all abortions are legal and reported, but then again you could decrease the abortion rate because maybe one in every three of those aborted would have been lost naturally (or by an act of a god) anyway.

In any case, rather than objecting about the less than 1,000,000 abortions, shouldn't you spend your time in prayer, asking your god not to kill over 7,000,000 children?

The lives endangered does NOT match the abortion rate. It is a rate of convenience. It 'looks' like you are counting quantity to me, btw.
Only because you insist on counting as a means of argument.
It doesn't help. Again, the question is does DNA write itself.
What does the question mean?
Diversity, imho, incredibly causes complexity. For instance, if you cannot find butterfly DNA in me, then you know that means, at the very least, editing DNA VERY specifically AND divergent complexity that begs the question further. We are no longer talking about 'common' ancestry at that point, but 'common library.' It delves strongly into 'intelligence' as necessary discussion.
I can't find anything scientifically coherent in there anywhere. Do you know any science?

But since you mention 'common library', let me ask you this: given that you are implying that there is DNA code ready to be 'called' into the applications represented by the different species, would you predict that the same job would be done using the same code in different species?
It is better to be a deist at that point: "Something/someone with incredible intelligence planned this."
But, since 1869, complexity in biological systems has been completely explained in terms of entirely natural forces, so the specific need for a biological designer is out of date by as much as 149 years. And so far there is nothing in principle that demands a designer in any aspect of our existence.
Colossians 1:17 You can't move that rock unless given the power to do so. It'd be something if you could try and remove your own power cord, but you can't. Even mockery or defiance is a drawn breath. You can't 'make' yourself live, you just do. You can't stop breathing on your own. You'd have to artificially do it. Question: why is that NEVER an atheist option? Answer: Because you only want to be just so separated that you have the illusion of self-direction. Philosophers, not just theologians have long wrestled with these implications.
It sounds like such a tedious and irrelevant question that no curious human should ever detain himself with it.
I've asked a doctor about this. He said it was so minute, it is of no significant consequence any longer. It virtually doesn't exist.
Sorry, what virtually doesn't exist?
This, btw, is like saying I should be more concerned about childhood cancer than school shootings 'by the numbers.' To me? It looks again like quantity over quality. I'm concerned with both so it doesn't matter if you accuse me of it. I'm concerned over both the majority and minority regarding life. The BEST you can do is be concerned about as much life as possible. There is something wrong with us to go against a 'good' thing in nature and destroy it. I realize that throws me in the tree-hugging category too, but we really need to NOT do things just because it might be immediately expedient to do so. Even to an atheist, often times the long and contemplative route is not just better, but best.
Still looks more like counting to me. Many women choose abortion because they know that it is the wrong time in their lives to have a child. They know that later in life, or in circumstances where they have had the opportunity to have a career, gain some life experience and put themselves on a more secure financial footing, that there will be a time when having children is the right thing for them. The environment of the upbringing of the child will be richer, and the experience will be more rewarding for all involved, with an increased quality of life all round.

Now, you would step in and say no, none of that is allowed. Well, I can't see any basis for you doing that, especially given the facts above. Instead of making life more difficult for women you don't know, get praying, get those rates of chromosomal abnormalities down, and so forth.

None of that is intended to diminish the experience of a woman who takes her pregnancy to term at an early age or in impoverished circumstances. The point is that the only person who should be allowed to make these decisions is that woman. Not even her husband should have any right to decide on her medical consent for her. I know that will startle the religiously conservative, who have railed against the rights of half the population for a very long time.
No, and you'd really need to delve into serious theology education to grasp that greater picture.
Maybe, but why would anyone in their right mind bother wasting their life with such fantasies?
Until then it is but passing dabbling. If I could redirect you, the greatest concern is 'purposeful' vs prescriptive. There is a difference between God's prescriptive and decretive wills. Man, specifically, has gotten 'himself' in a mess. Any remedy for that mess is up to God's discretion. He is loving. If you can't find a 'loving' answer, you have to look and study, thus a theology education is important for deeper conversations.
But if you don't love the god back, then it's burning in sulfur for you. The totalitarian dream. Compulsory love, like they must show for Kim Jong-Un in North Korea. It seems to me you can't bring yourself to even wonder if this particular god of which you write is actually incompetent. The problem of evil, failing to vanquish satan except by human sacrifice, apparently needing to commit genocide against the Amalekites, and indeed having to drown almost the entire population, and even then continuing to view humanity as inherently corrupt after all that purging.

It's almost as if someone has made all of that up in order to effect a con on as many people as possible. It's exactly like that, in fact.

It 'may' be hypocritical BUT my mom started smoking before she knew of cancer and other diseases. She wasn't 'trying' to be hypocritical. That wasn't the idea. She was reaping the consequences and DIDN'T want her kids to reap those same ones. She has been smoke free for about 30 years now. Not so hypocritical and way too hasty with that assessment, Stuart.
Well, she has set a good example the hard way. That deserves only respect.
Instead of angry and a bit hasty, you 'could' be thoughtful, reflective with a bit of grace.
I think anger is an appropriate response to the claims and excesses of christianity. If cigarettes were invented today, they would be banned under hazardous substances regulations, and likewise if christianity was invented today it would be ridiculed out of existence, before it had a chance to lead to so much persecution and misery.
Both are good trade languages. I'm utilitarian on this though do want all citizens in a country to speak the same language that unites it, whatever that is.
Yes, you will always need a lingua franca. Although, ironically, the lingua franca used in Europe was a mixture of Italian with French, Greek, Arabic, and Spanish,and the expression translates as everyone speaking French (which also nearly happened in the US).

Stuart
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Michael

If you live according to the Torah it makes sense that there is a death penalty for murderers and adulterers. Meaning, you understand that it exists and that it is what God wants. There must be witnesses. If there is to be a judge or if there is a judge then the judge should know and or learn everything that needs to be known.

Does the law say that an adulterer should be stoned?

I do not believe that Jesus ever said that the law should not be adhered to.


Well Jacob,

I can't say. I know that Cain killed Abel, and Moses killed a man, and Paul of Tarsus killed his share of Christians, before becoming a Christian himself. Perhaps we should send felons and others to a deserted island and let them fend for themselves, and eat coconuts, bananas, and whatever. God says in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill." We cannot keep spending money to take care of them for their whole lives in jail. It is not acceptable! I'm glad that Jesus is returning soon to remedy this situation. I know you don't believe in Him, but you will believe afterwards.

With Love & Concern,

Michael
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Well Jacob,

I can't say. I know that Cain killed Abel, and Moses killed a man, and Paul of Tarsus killed his share of Christians, before becoming a Christian himself. Perhaps we should send felons and others to a deserted island and let them fend for themselves, and eat coconuts, bananas, and whatever. God says in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill." We cannot keep spending money to take care of them for their whole lives in jail. It is not acceptable! I'm glad that Jesus is returning soon to remedy this situation. I know you don't believe in Him, but you will believe afterwards.

With Love & Concern,

Michael

You are incorrect. Cain did kill Abel. Moses did kill a man. Saul did not kill any Christians.

I believe that murderers should be put to death because I do not believe that the Law has been abolished and I observe God's commandments in obedience to Jesus' instruction. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of heaven, that if we keep/do and teach the commandments we will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Therefore as a Jew of Israel a proselyte and a convert I am Torah Observant. In and with the New Covenant for the House of Israel and the House of Judah we have God's law written on minds and hearts. I understand that the Law, God's Commandments, are about love of God and our neighbor. Therefore, I do not believe that God's law in the New Covenant lets up in or on this in any respect or aspect. That is, I do believe that there is punishment in the New Covenant. This is rather than saying that the New Covenant is only for those who believe in it, and that God's law therefore prohibits punishment for breaking God's law. Then should it be enforced and should there be a judge in the New Covenant or New Testament economy?
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You are incorrect. Cain did kill Abel. Moses did kill a man. Saul did not kill any Christians.

I believe that murderers should be put to death because I do not believe that the Law has been abolished and I observe God's commandments in obedience to Jesus' instruction. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of heaven, that if we keep/do and teach the commandments we will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Therefore as a Jew of Israel a proselyte and a convert I am Torah Observant. In and with the New Covenant for the House of Israel and the House of Judah we have God's law written on minds and hearts. I understand that the Law, God's Commandments, are about love of God and our neighbor. Therefore, I do not believe that God's law in the New Covenant lets up in or on this in any respect or aspect. That is, I do believe that there is punishment in the New Covenant. This is rather than saying that the New Covenant is only for those who believe in it, and that God's law therefore prohibits punishment for breaking God's law. Then should it be enforced and should there be a judge in the New Covenant or New Testament economy?


Dear Jacob,

I do agree with what you say, but do you know that I am talking about 'Saul/Paul' of the New Testament, not Saul of the Old. If he didn't kill Christians, he sure helped. But do you agree that Jesus forgave an adulteress in the New Testament, even though one of the Ten Commandments is to not commit adultery, right? He told her that she was forgiven and to 'go and sin no more.' Well, I enjoy chatting with you, but I have to get going to eat something. It is almost 2:30 a.m. here, and I haven't had dinner. I do eat late, though, and usually stay up until 4 a.m., then go to sleep. You have a nice Sunday and realize that, I too, believe the Sabboth is on Friday evening, to Saturday evening. Constantinople changed the law back when he was the ruler, and many of us keep the wrong day as the Sabbath. And God has to put up with it, because no one wants to believe it or question it. They don't want to change back to the correct day. That will change soon too.

May The Lord Watch Over You!!

Michael
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Dear Jacob,

I do agree with what you say, but do you know that I am talking about 'Saul/Paul' of the New Testament, not Saul of the Old. If he didn't kill Christians, he sure helped. But do you agree that Jesus forgave an adulteress in the New Testament, even though one of the Ten Commandments is to not commit adultery, right? He told her that she was forgiven and to 'go and sin no more.' Well, I enjoy chatting with you, but I have to get going to eat something. It is almost 2:30 a.m. here, and I haven't had dinner. I do eat late, though, and usually stay up until 4 a.m., then go to sleep. You have a nice Sunday and realize that, I too, believe the Sabboth is on Friday evening, to Saturday evening. Constantinople changed the law back when he was the ruler, and many of us keep the wrong day as the Sabbath. And God has to put up with it, because no one wants to believe it or question it. They don't want to change back to the correct day. That will change soon too.

May The Lord Watch Over You!!

Michael

Saul's name was changed to Paul. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. You should read about what Jesus asked and said to the woman caught in adultery. Do you remember how many witnesses there need to be? If Jesus was the Judge even he was only one person and not a witness. If he was the one witness even then she could not be punished with the death penalty as occurs in a capital case.

Shalom.

Jacob
 

Stuu

New member

In my country people born before 1969 are considered to be natively immune to common childhood diseases, and will have been immunised against poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and possibly smallpox. While it was common for people born before 1969 to get mumps, measles and chicken pox, actually these are serious diseases with potentially life-threatening complications. The fact that you are here denying vaccination could well cost a child's life, which would be pretty ironic in a thread that has gone as this one has.

Heres's another image, but this one contains only facts, not conspiracies:

1a93f1cc1d9cd3274e3b452c954f7a51.png


Perhaps you would like to be more specific, and give an example of a vaccination you think should not be on the schedule, and tell us 'only' how many deaths would be expected from its removal.

Stuart
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
In my country people born before 1969 are considered to be natively immune to common childhood diseases, and will have been immunised against poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and possibly smallpox. While it was common for people born before 1969 to get mumps, measles and chicken pox, actually these are serious diseases with potentially life-threatening complications. The fact that you are here denying vaccination could well cost a child's life, which would be pretty ironic in a thread that has gone as this one has.

Heres's another image, but this one contains only facts, not conspiracies:

1a93f1cc1d9cd3274e3b452c954f7a51.png


Perhaps you would like to be more specific, and give an example of a vaccination you think should not be on the schedule, and tell us 'only' how many deaths would be expected from its removal.

Stuart
Hepatitis B vaccination for newborns. See my Conspiracy thread for more data and details. I'm off to bed [MENTION=9611]Stuu[/MENTION] but you can stew on that.
 

Stuu

New member
Hepatitis B vaccination for newborns. See my Conspiracy thread for more data and details. I'm off to bed [MENTION=9611]Stuu[/MENTION] but you can stew on that.
I look forward to you telling us how many extra deaths would result across the coming years if Hep B was removed from the schedule. Those deaths can be nasty, as many involve liver cancer, as no doubt you know. Is that in your conspiracy theory site, in the section dealing with the evil conspiracy of people trying to save the population from really nasty diseases that are no longer part of our collective experience, due to the effectiveness of vaccination?

Stuart
 
Top