Discussion-One on One: Abortion (red77 vs. Turbo)

[Glenda]

Sorry i can't give a more complete response now. Busy busy!

BTW is it warming up there in Australia?.......It is cooling off in Colorado?

You be Blessed, as well.

Thank you and I look forward to reading when you have answer.
Is Spring here so weather is unstable. Deep frost yesterday followed by sunny afternoon and today is rainy and windy. Change of seasons is always unpredictable.
Hope it doesn't get too cold there
blessings

 

[jeremiah]

Peace to you

Thank you for alternative possibilities.

I'm not assuming anything at all except priorities in the eyes of God.
It is not ok to kill.
Parents and offspring do not have 'equal rights' in the eyes of God right through scripture. People these days try to promote equal rights of parents and children, but that is against God's Law and causes many problems.
Parents are allowed to hit children while children are NOT allowed to hit parents in God's Law.
God prioritises parent welfare in the human and animal kingdom eg
Deu 22:6 If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:
Deu 22:7 But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.

What God shows us is that God is a parent and parental welfare and rights come first.
The verses about a pregnant woman do not specify anything except fruit departing and financial compensation ... remember financial compensation in Torah is ONLY for loss! Children are the future source of financial benefit for the parent! Jesus clarified this law has not changed.
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

When an animal kills an offspring, compensation fine must be paid (different to servant price)
Exo 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
Exo 21:31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
Exo 21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Since God's Law specifies financial compensation for loss of an offspring, it must be assumed that the pregnant woman has in fact lost an offspring if financial compensation is involved.

That is not my concern, but rather the fact that God prioritises the welfare of the parent over the welfare of the pregnancy/foetus.
This does not alter the fact that killing is not permissable and I agree that accidents are different to deliberate, morally and scripturally.
I just wanted people to stop promoting the anti-scriptural errancy that a fertilised egg or foetus and mother are equal with equal rights. In God's eyes, the pregnant woman has priority regarding welfare and all else.

Also there is errancy promoted that all abortions involve tearing up a baby and that is untrue when drugs can expel a fertilised egg. Emotions seem to promote a smokescreen over clear facts and that is wrongful.

Truth matters.
The pregnant woman has priority.
Killing is unlawful and killing also includes words as well as actions.
People often tear each other apart with words while pointing the finger at others who tear each other apart physically. According to God they equally have blood on their hands.
I love truth over traditional emotional errancy. If we stuck with truth and God's Law then nobody would be killed or torn apart by words or deeds. That is the best scenario.

Be blessed

Glenda, I'm bacK.:dog:

Thought about the verses you brought up yesterday, at various times throughout workday.

My first impression was they did not seem to fit the point you were making, or your reasoning. Just finished rereading them in context, to confirm my initial thoughts and further ponderings.

Will be going to Bible study shortly, and ask about nest verse, but my understanding is that yes, eggs and even the young birds may be killed and eaten, and so may female birds. The command is to not take "both" mother and young together.

If you are trying to make the point that God gives greater rights to adult birds then young, then what about animal sacrifices he commanded, especially concerning adult birds.

If you are making point that the eggs are equivalent to fertilized egg in human??? then this verse would also "justify" killing newborn babies, and I know you are not going there.

Clean animals are human food. Humans are not food for anyone; therefore I am not sure where your point, of parental rights is leading us, in this particular verse?

I am not confused about the ox goring verses. It seems clear to me that in plain English. NASB version is stating, that if a known dangerous Ox is not confined by its owner, the owner is guilty of causing the death of other human beings. Verse 31 concerning son or daughter, to me, says clearly the same penalty is exacted for them as for an adult. Whether it be his death, or if the "court" has decided upon a monetary judgment rather than death. Some commentaries include both; Death penalty {from God} and monetary judgment from owner's estate.

The only difference is with the slaves. There it is an exact judgment of thirty shekels.

This is a case between premeditated murder, and accidental manslaughter. It is what the courts would probably call 'negligent homocide' today.

Thus the penalties are slightly less, or can be reduced, based upon judgment of witnesses and courts. These are my asumptions when I read these verses.

I also read verses 22 thru 24 differently as I explained earlier, and gave my reasons. The rabbis almost unanimously agree with your reading of them. Monetary compensation for a miscarriage, further penalties for harm to wife.

As I said before, I think that is redundant, of course, if a wife died when she was NOT pregnant, {while two men were recklessly trying to"kill" each other} then they would be paying life for life, and eye for eye. Thus I conclude the verses are all about what happens to the baby, that is why her condition is mentioned. Can you at least see my point here?

Also did you agree with my point that even this case of two men fighting and causing a miscarriage, can not be compared to a woman conciously taking her baby in womb, to a doctor, and paying him to deliberately kill her baby?

I am completely confused about your reasoning concerning the verses from Mark, you will have to explain it to me, please.

Even grown children are to still honor their parents and care for them. By announcing something as Corban, the Pharisses denied the ability of grown adults to provide that, particular "gift to God" to their needy parents. Please explain, I'm just not getting it? .

The verses that came to my mind while at work today, is that "we" are to leave Egypt behind, and, not to take up the practices of those who are inhabiting the land, the Caananites. They were being dispossessed because of their abominable ways. Some of those abominations included infanticide, child sacrifice, and I do believe both physical and chemical abortions. Though my memory fails me where I read that......Need to reresearch, Egyptian and Phoenician et. al. ancient birth control.

Just as I admitted there is no verse saying "thou shalt not commit an abortion," neither are there any verses that say "thou shalt" or that even regulate it.

Gotta go again :dog:

Be Blessed, in Him!

 

[Glenda]

Glenda, I'm bacK.:dog:
Will be going to Bible study shortly, and ask about nest verse, but my understanding is that yes, eggs and even the young birds may be killed and eaten, and so may female birds. The command is to not take "both" mother and young together.

Glad you are back Jeremiah
Sincere apologies for my doing a confusing post
Only point about the bird with young is that God gives priority to keep parental creature alive because it can breed again. A young without an adult to support it will die anyway, so survival of a parent takes priority in God's plan when it is needless that all should die.

If you are trying to make the point that God gives greater rights to adult birds then young, then what about animal sacrifices he commanded, especially concerning adult birds.

No that was not the point sorry. It's not about adult vs young. The point was parental priority in God's eyes. Sacrificed animals are not about being 'adult' or 'young' either. Many sacrifices are 'first-borns' so will be young, while other sacrifices are stipulated to be 'a year old' or 'never having worked or bred'. The point was simply about priority of a parental bird's survival over that of eggs or young.

If you are making point that the eggs are equivalent to fertilized egg in human??? then this verse would also "justify" killing newborn babies, and I know you are not going there.

You 'know' absolutely correctly thankfully.

Clean animals are human food. Humans are not food for anyone; therefore I am not sure where your point, of parental rights is leading us, in this particular verse?

Parental survival priority vs eggs and young survival. It's not right for all to needlessly die so ensure the parent lives to breed again.

I am not confused about the ox goring verses. It seems clear to me that in plain English. NASB version is stating, that if a known dangerous Ox is not confined by its owner, the owner is guilty of causing the death of other human beings. Verse 31 concerning son or daughter, to me, says clearly the same penalty is exacted for them as for an adult. Whether it be his death, or if the "court" has decided upon a monetary judgment rather than death. Some commentaries include both; Death penalty {from God} and monetary judgment from owner's estate.

Ok, if it's ok we'll focus on scripture and not worry about any commentaries, because there is a very distinct difference with the ox goring situation that highlights that death of offspring results in financial compensation while death of an adult results in capital punishment. That was the point I was making ... loss of a child attracts financial compensation because children are the future source of financial security for parents! Death of a parent is a capital offense! Death of an offspring isn't!
Look again:
Exo 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
When it comes to offspring, financial compensation is the outcome.

I also read verses 22 thru 24 differently as I explained earlier, and gave my reasons. The rabbis almost unanimously agree with your reading of them. Monetary compensation for a miscarriage, further penalties for harm to wife.

That agrees with all scripture where loss of offspring results in financial compensation.

As I said before, I think that is redundant, of course, if a wife died when she was NOT pregnant, {while two men were recklessly trying to"kill" each other} then they would be paying life for life, and eye for eye. Thus I conclude the verses are all about what happens to the baby, that is why her condition is mentioned. Can you at least see my point here?

Yes I can see your point.

Also did you agree with my point that even this case of two men fighting and causing a miscarriage, can not be compared to a woman conciously taking her baby in womb, to a doctor, and paying him to deliberately kill her baby?

I totally agree with you Jeremiah.
There is no comparison between deliberate and accidental.
The only point I was making is that many people on this forum have made the unscriptural errant assumption that the life of a parent and the life of a fertilized egg or unborn are equal in God's eyes and they aren't. All are valuable and none should be killed, but the life of the parent has priority scripturally. I'm not promoting killing anyone and I'm not approving or promoting that. I was simply stating a scriptural truth that is often overlooked because of errant traditional assumptions.

I am completely confused about your reasoning concerning the verses from Mark, you will have to explain it to me, please.

Even grown children are to still honor their parents and care for them. By announcing something as Corban, the Pharisses denied the ability of grown adults to provide that, particular "gift to God" to their needy parents. Please explain, I'm just not getting it? .

I was only showing how Jesus did not change the law about offspring being the source of financial security for their parents which is why financial compensation is due to parents on loss of any offspring. The laws of Moses were not changed by Jesus, who verified parents were entitled to financial security from their offspring.

Truly sorry to have confused you.

I was giving multiple OT and NT examples of offspring being source of financial compensation for parents. That is why we know the unborn baby died in scenario when men were fighting. The outcome was financial compensation regarding the loss of offspring. This is important to show how the wlefare of the parent has priority. If mischief follows then there is capital punishment, like with the ox-goring there is capital punishment regarding an adult but only financial compensation regarding an offspring.

If you recognise children as money compensation and recognise adults as capital punishment outcomes, then you realise that God considers death of a parent more serious than death of an offspring.
This is a really important point that highlights the life of the unborn is NOT as valuable as the life of the parent in God's eyes.

However, thou shalt NOT kill!

It's NOT saying it's ok to kill anyone.
It IS saying don't assume or say they are equal when they aren't!
They do NOT have same rights or value and the parent has priority scripturally.
People on forum often say they are equal and have equal rights and that is unscriptural and errant.
It's a 'tradition' mistake but God does not change or make mistakes and God is different to us thankfully so we should heed and believe Him.

The verses that came to my mind while at work today, is that "we" are to leave Egypt behind, and, not to take up the practices of those who are inhabiting the land, the Caananites. They were being dispossessed because of their abominable ways. Some of those abominations included infanticide, child sacrifice, and I do believe both physical and chemical abortions. Though my memory fails me where I read that......Need to reresearch, Egyptian and Phoenician et. al. ancient birth control.

Jeremiah, I TOTALLY agree! Thou shalt not kill ... not physically or verbally.
I think everyone here agrees with that.

Just as I admitted there is no verse saying "thou shalt not commit an abortion," neither are there any verses that say "thou shalt" or that even regulate it.

Again 100% total agreement. Abortion is deliberate killing.

There is a much bigger issue to consider than killing, whether it be abortion or verbal or physical murder or any other capiatl or normal offense.

Loving/obeying Jesus is the biggest issue of all! THAT is what most of us fail in!
JN 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Here are some of his commandments!
LK 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Here is the really sad and scary part:
JN 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Do we love him and obey him and refrain from judging and condemning others? Or do we 'say' we love him but persist with judging and condemning others and this prove we are liars who do NOT love him?

Jesus did not condone the adulteress, but he refrained from judging and condemning her. Are we going to follow Jesus or persist in embracing the accuser/Satan who points the finger at others?
Jesus came to free us from Satan ... but it's going to cost our comfort zone of wanting to judge and condemn others. It means fixing log in own eye instead of pointing the finger at others.

Killing is wrong. Satan does a great job at pointing the finger. Do we co=operate with Satan or with Jesus who refrained from condemning the guilty?

We will be known by our love
JN 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Here are some of his commandments!
Do we really love him?
Do we really wish to follow him?
Should some people really wear his name if they behave like his adversary?

That is a much bigger problem than abortion!
Many lives are at stake because they don't truly love Jesus
JN 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Gotta go again :dog:

Be Blessed, in Him!

Hope you have a great bible study
Be blessed
peace to you

 

[jeremiah]

Glad you are back Jeremiah


Ok, if it's ok we'll focus on scripture and not worry about any commentaries, because there is a very distinct difference with the ox goring situation that highlights that death of offspring results in financial compensation while death of an adult results in capital punishment. That was the point I was making ... loss of a child attracts financial compensation because children are the future source of financial security for parents! Death of a parent is a capital offense! Death of an offspring isn't!
Look again:
Exo 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
When it comes to offspring, financial compensation is the outcome.


I totally agree with you Jeremiah.
There is no comparison between deliberate and accidental.
The only point I was making is that many people on this forum have made the unscriptural errant assumption that the life of a parent and the life of a fertilized egg or unborn are equal in God's eyes and they aren't. All are valuable and none should be killed, but the life of the parent has priority scripturally. I'm not promoting killing anyone and I'm not approving or promoting that. I was simply stating a scriptural truth that is often overlooked because of errant traditional assumptions.


If you recognise children as money compensation and recognise adults as capital punishment outcomes, then you realise that God considers death of a parent more serious than death of an offspring.
This is a really important point that highlights the life of the unborn is NOT as valuable as the life of the parent in God's eyes.

However, thou shalt NOT kill!

It's NOT saying it's ok to kill anyone.
It IS saying don't assume or say they are equal when they aren't!
They do NOT have same rights or value and the parent has priority scripturally.
People on forum often say they are equal and have equal rights and that is unscriptural and errant.
It's a 'tradition' mistake but God does not change or make mistakes and God is different to us thankfully so we should heed and believe Him.

Hope you have a great bible study
Be blessed
peace to you

Yes, we had a great Bible Study. However we found out the Church Building we have been renting from a defunct Church of God, has been sold, and the "Baptists" who bought it are "kicking us out." :chuckle: :banned:

Yes, we will be banned from the premises starting November first. We just started our eighth year as a Church, and 8 is the biblical number for new beginnings. So despite some sadness, we are eager to see what new beginning the Lord has for us, in a still unknown new location.


Now back to topic. I have left your quotes from post, regarding the inequality of parents- adults, compared to children and the unborn. I will simply agree with that principle. What is not established is whether or not the "right to life", of any human, regardless of that inequality, is diminished, by any circumstance, that may be proferred.

You clearly stated that it is not alright to kill anyone. That is the same belief and premise from which I come from.

However you also stated the fertilized egg {human of course}and the unborn, is not equal, to the life of a parent, in God's eyes. What you need to establish is when that inequality, allows for the parent, or someone else? the ability to decide to take the life of the lesser, to save the greater.

In the Torah I see no "grant" given by God for the taking of innocent life, by another individual under any circumstances. Are you aware of any?........ Aside from God's direct commands regarding the taking of the Land, and His allownce for national retribution by armies in wartime. These are times when all are killed! young and old, parents and children.

You are trying to define a case and a circumstance, where killing an "innocent" is an indivual parent's choice and decision. I do not think that inequality, nor, "quality" of life for the greater one, rises to the "occasion."

Only if one "must" die, that another may live, does a choice like that, "have" to be made. That is the choice that Yeshua made. The greater one, died for the lesser. That would, by example, be the choice that mothers used to, and could, and did, make.

In the example of the eleven year old rape victim, she does not yet have the ability of self sacrifice, nor do most human beings. Therefore the choice has to be made for her. I believe, If both she and the baby can live, the issue is decided.

If only one can live, then yes, the baby "should" die. If she were a full grown woman, who had wanted the baby, she would possibly, choose the other way around? But she is not forced to do so, nor condemned, for not doing so.


The scripture concerning the mother bird, is interpreted this way. A mother bird, will feign injury, and draw hunters away from the nest to protect her young, and offer her life for them. Therefore it would be the height of cruelty to kill "something" that has offered its life, for its young, and then returned to protect them, once again.

That is the lesson that the so called "least" of all commandments, is meant to teach us! Self sacrifice, and compassion, and acknowledgment, of it.

That is the very lesson that those who mocked Yeshua on the cross, "missed" and are still missing today. It is, what the one thief on the cross, did not miss.

Yes, Glenda your point about cruel words, and "unjust" judgments against others is correct. You may have heard this story about a certain Rabbi, who was a victim of Lashon harah, the evil tongue. Apparently a man in town ruined a rabbi's reputation by spreading rumors about him. He then went and apologized sincerely to him and begged his forgiveness. The rabbi said nothing, but grabbed a pillow and took it outside. He then cut the pillow open, and let the feathers fly all over the town, in the wind.

Then he said to the man, it is good that you have repented, but what shall you do for my reputation. As impossible as it would be to get every feather back into this pillow, so would it be to have every eye look at me as they did. before you spoke so much evil of me.

Likewise, we should all watch our tongues and speak well of each other. Watch especially what you think, and then speak, about some innocent 11 year old rape victim. Can her feathers ever be regathered?

Only with God, are all things, including the impossible, possible.

Shalom!

 

[Glenda]

Yes, we had a great Bible Study. However we found out the Church Building we have been renting from a defunct Church of God, has been sold, and the "Baptists" who bought it are "kicking us out." :chuckle: :banned:

Yes, we will be banned from the premises starting November first. We just started our eighth year as a Church, and 8 is the biblical number for new beginnings. So despite some sadness, we are eager to see what new beginning the Lord has for us, in a still unknown new location.

Sorry about this. It will indeed be interesting to see where you are all led.

Now back to topic. I have left your quotes from post, regarding the inequality of parents- adults, compared to children and the unborn. I will simply agree with that principle.

That's all I do too. I accept God's rulings on God's priorities.

What is not established is whether or not the "right to life", of any human, regardless of that inequality, is diminished, by any circumstance, that may be proferred.

You clearly stated that it is not alright to kill anyone. That is the same belief and premise from which I come from.

Agreed

However you also stated the fertilized egg {human of course}and the unborn, is not equal, to the life of a parent, in God's eyes. What you need to establish is when that inequality, allows for the parent, or someone else? the ability to decide to take the life of the lesser, to save the greater.

Thankfully, no I don't need to decide. I have not been placed in that position by God enabling me to be a surgeon. It is not for me to know or decide such things. The medical profession are often faced with tubal pregnancies and they prioritise saving the mother rather than have the mother and tubal fertilized egg both die needlessly. This seems to agree with the parent bird not needlessly dying with the chicks or eggs. Minimise loss of life.

If you disagree and think both the mother and the tubal egg should die then I accept that we see things differently. I can't justify 2 deaths if 1 can be saved. Others maybe can justify the extra needless death, but I can't. I rely on God supplying His wisdom along with ability to some surgeons. God did not give me this task and I'm grateful this is not a talent or responsibility that I've been given and that's ok with me.

In the Torah I see no "grant" given by God for the taking of innocent life, by another individual under any circumstances.

So we lack agreement on saving the mother in the case of tubal pregnancy since it involves the death of a fertilized egg. I accept your views and mine are different. I don't know how pleased God would be that a mother died needlessly by such a choice, but I'm not God.

Are you aware of any?........

I thought part of Torah was to save life ... Jesus spoke of saving life.

I assumed that saving the life of the mother would be preferable to have her die needlessly. Tubal pregnancy is an easy example, but there other possible complications with the same outcome where mother and fertilized egg could both die unless a surgeon stepped in to save the mother at the expense of the fertilized egg.

You are trying to define a case and a circumstance, where killing an "innocent" is an indivual parent's choice and decision. I do not think that inequality, nor, "quality" of life for the greater one, rises to the "occasion."

I accept we don't see things the same way so that I believe loss of one life is better than needless loss of 2 and you believe otherwise. I accept people see things differently but I'm saddened it could needlessly cost an extra life.

Only if one "must" die, that another may live, does a choice like that, "have" to be made. That is the choice that Yeshua made. The greater one, died for the lesser. That would, by example, be the choice that mothers used to, and could, and did, make.

But a fertilzed egg cannot live without the mother so there is no point in the 'greater' dying needlessly for the 'lesser' since a tubal pregnancy or other such fatal complication is going to cost the life of the fertilsed egg. If you think the mother should die as well then I accept this is what you believe. That seems to be promoting needless death and saddens me but I accept this is what you believe.

In the example of the eleven year old rape victim, she does not yet have the ability of self sacrifice, nor do most human beings. Therefore the choice has to be made for her. I believe, If both she and the baby can live, the issue is decided.

If only one can live, then yes, the baby "should" die.

Now I'm the one who is really really confused sorry.
I thought the discussion was that you see no allowance ever for terminating an innocent life yet this is what surgeons often must do to save a mother.

You said "In the Torah I see no "grant" given by God for the taking of innocent life, by another individual under any circumstances. Are you aware of any?"

The case I define is welfare of the mother so there are not 2 needless deaths, much like the mother bird with the chicks and eggs.

I'm sorry, but do you feel that a case and circumstance for killing an innocent fertilized egg can in fact be defined and decided by an adult involved or not? I thought you must be against killing a fertilized egg for the welfare of the mother by adult choice. I really am confused. There are many possible pregnancy complications requiring this action that are thankfully covered by medical confidentiality so the public is not privy to the information regarding individuals. It is between the patient and doctor. It is not for me to know or define every possible complication scenario but tubal pregnancy is a very easy one that most recognise. I'm pro saving the mother at the expense of the fertilized egg if the mother's life is endangered. Why lose 2 lives instead of 1?

If she were a full grown woman, who had wanted the baby, she would possibly, choose the other way around? But she is not forced to do so, nor condemned, for not doing so.

I'm sorry but I'm still at a loss. So you would not condemn an endangered child?
Is this your point?

The scripture concerning the mother bird, is interpreted this way. A mother bird, will feign injury, and draw hunters away from the nest to protect her young, and offer her life for them. Therefore it would be the height of cruelty to kill "something" that has offered its life, for its young, and then returned to protect them, once again.

That is the lesson that the so called "least" of all commandments, is meant to teach us! Self sacrifice, and compassion, and acknowledgment, of it.

That is the very lesson that those who mocked Yeshua on the cross, "missed" and are still missing today. It is, what the one thief on the cross, did not miss.

Thank you for explaining this. I appreciate it.

Yes, Glenda your point about cruel words, and "unjust" judgments against others is correct. You may have heard this story about a certain Rabbi, who was a victim of Lashon harah, the evil tongue. Apparently a man in town ruined a rabbi's reputation by spreading rumors about him. He then went and apologized sincerely to him and begged his forgiveness. The rabbi said nothing, but grabbed a pillow and took it outside. He then cut the pillow open, and let the feathers fly all over the town, in the wind.

Then he said to the man, it is good that you have repented, but what shall you do for my reputation. As impossible as it would be to get every feather back into this pillow, so would it be to have every eye look at me as they did. before you spoke so much evil of me.

Likewise, we should all watch our tongues and speak well of each other. Watch especially what you think, and then speak, about some innocent 11 year old rape victim. Can her feathers ever be regathered?

Only with God, are all things, including the impossible, possible.

Shalom!

Thanks for this on lashon hara too.
Peace to you

My post before included general posting not directed at you Jeremiah. It was for anyone who calls themself a Christian. It is still open to response.

Loving/obeying Jesus is the biggest issue!
JN 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Here are some of his commandments:
LK 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

JN 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Do we love him and obey him and refrain from judging and condemning others? Or do we 'say' we love him but persist with judging and condemning others and thus prove we are liars who do NOT love him?

Jesus did not condone the adulteress, but he refrained from judging and condemning her. Are we going to follow Jesus or persist in embracing the accuser/Satan who points the finger at others?
Jesus came to free us from Satan ... but it's going to cost our comfort zone of wanting to judge and condemn others. It means fixing log in own eye instead of pointing the finger at others.

Killing is wrong. Satan does a great job at pointing the finger. Do we cooperate with Satan or with Jesus who refrained from condemning the guilty?

We will be known by our love
JN 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Do we really love him?
Do we really wish to follow him?
Should some people really wear his name if they behave like his adversary?

 

[jeremiah]

Now I'm the one who is really really confused sorry.
I thought the discussion was that you see no allowance ever for terminating an innocent life yet this is what surgeons often must do to save a mother.



I'm sorry, but do you feel that a case and circumstance for killing an innocent fertilized egg can in fact be defined and decided by an adult involved or not? I thought you must be against killing a fertilized egg for the welfare of the mother by adult choice. I really am confused. There are many possible pregnancy complications requiring this action that are thankfully covered by medical confidentiality so the public is not privy to the information regarding individuals. It is between the patient and doctor. It is not for me to know or define every possible complication scenario but tubal pregnancy is a very easy one that most recognise. I'm pro saving the mother at the expense of the fertilized egg if the mother's life is endangered. Why lose 2 lives instead of 1?


I'm sorry but I'm still at a loss. So you would not condemn an endangered child?
Is this your point?


Thank you for explaining this. I appreciate it.

Glenda, sorry you were so confused! ......by my post. It is oftentimes difficult to communicate complex issues, clearly, on internet.

What I thought I said, or meant to say, was if one "must" die, that another may live, then a decision "has" to be made. In the case of the 11 year old, rape victim, the baby "should" die, so that she might live.

You have brought up the case of tubal pregnancies. I thought my general reference covered that, but it obviously did not in your mind. So to be clearer, I know, and understand, that the baby must die, otherwise both will die anyway. It is always "necessary" to take this babies life, before the mother's life is endangered.

I personally know of "zero" pro-lifers who disagree with this sad outcome. When abortion was illegal in this country, tubal pregnancies were ended medically-surgically, and no one was called a murderer, and no one was taken to jail. Doctors were payed, above board, and gratefully thanked, and appreciated, for saving the life of the mother, although it was accompanied by sorrow at the loss of life. It is the same now, even while abortion is legal.

My beliefs and thoughts, cover any "other" circumstance, where a baby "has" to die, so that the mother can live. Again, sorry for the confusion. You don't have to accept that we have "different" opinions on this, since we don't.

There are other conditions which become more pronounced, later in pregnancy, which put a mother's life at risk. I was also referring to these different circumstances, in general.

Many courageous women will endure, great pain and suffering, and risk their own lives so that their baby has the best chance of surviving outside the womb. That is what I was talking about as well. They are not forced to do these things, but many will, and have, barely survived, or in fact, died, in their attempt to save life. That was her "choice."

What you and I may differ on is something we could call, preventative abortion. In order to prevent, possible, or even probable health risks, and possible endangerment to your life, it is best that we abort your baby now, while it is relatively easy, rather than wait, when you and the baby, may be, in greater risk.

I strongly disagree with this attitude toward life and faith, hope and love. No one knows the future in most circumstances, with certainty. Preventative abortions, even when filled with great motives, and compassion, may seem wise, but it still smacks to me of playing God, and deciding, life and death matters without all the information, or a true crises, impending.

There is a football player, injured in Buffalo, about ten days ago who is defying all expectations, and who almost certainly will walk again, when ten days ago, doctors said, he almost certainly would not. Good thing that doctors did all the right things, to save his life and give him the best "chance" that they could, to allow this to happen.

I say that we should have the same attitude concerning life. I think preventative abortions, give neither the mother and obviously not the baby the best chance, of walking with their heads held high.

Obviously, most people alive today, disagree with me. I realize that.

Hope, I have dismissed confusion, and not added to it.

Shalom

 

[Glenda]

Glenda, sorry you were so confused! ......by my post. It is oftentimes difficult to communicate complex issues, clearly, on internet.

What I thought I said, or meant to say, was if one "must" die, that another may live, then a decision "has" to be made. In the case of the 11 year old, rape victim, the baby "should" die, so that she might live.

You have brought up the case of tubal pregnancies. I thought my general reference covered that, but it obviously did not in your mind. So to be clearer, I know, and understand, that the baby must die, otherwise both will die anyway. It is always "necessary" to take this babies life, before the mother's life is endangered.

I personally know of "zero" pro-lifers who disagree with this sad outcome. When abortion was illegal in this country, tubal pregnancies were ended medically-surgically, and no one was called a murderer, and no one was taken to jail. Doctors were payed, above board, and gratefully thanked, and appreciated, for saving the life of the mother, although it was accompanied by sorrow at the loss of life. It is the same now, even while abortion is legal.

My beliefs and thoughts, cover any "other" circumstance, where a baby "has" to die, so that the mother can live. Again, sorry for the confusion. You don't have to accept that we have "different" opinions on this, since we don't.

There are other conditions which become more pronounced, later in pregnancy, which put a mother's life at risk. I was also referring to these different circumstances, in general.

Many courageous women will endure, great pain and suffering, and risk their own lives so that their baby has the best chance of surviving outside the womb. That is what I was talking about as well. They are not forced to do these things, but many will, and have, barely survived, or in fact, died, in their attempt to save life. That was her "choice."

What you and I may differ on is something we could call, preventative abortion. In order to prevent, possible, or even probable health risks, and possible endangerment to your life, it is best that we abort your baby now, while it is relatively easy, rather than wait, when you and the baby, may be, in greater risk.

I strongly disagree with this attitude toward life and faith, hope and love. No one knows the future in most circumstances, with certainty. Preventative abortions, even when filled with great motives, and compassion, may seem wise, but it still smacks to me of playing God, and deciding, life and death matters without all the information, or a true crises, impending.

There is a football player, injured in Buffalo, about ten days ago who is defying all expectations, and who almost certainly will walk again, when ten days ago, doctors said, he almost certainly would not. Good thing that doctors did all the right things, to save his life and give him the best "chance" that they could, to allow this to happen.

I say that we should have the same attitude concerning life. I think preventative abortions, give neither the mother and obviously not the baby the best chance, of walking with their heads held high.

Obviously, most people alive today, disagree with me. I realize that.

Hope, I have dismissed confusion, and not added to it.

Shalom

Oh I'm sorry for misunderstanding
Thank you for clarification Jeremiah
I absolutely agree that people should not play God on assumptions
Peace to you
God bless

 

[PKevman]

Wow Red. Some of your latest comments are mind-boggling. I don't think Eggo could make ANYTHING that waffles more than you do!

You seem to take one position and then you seem to take another. You contradict yourself at practically every turn, and you have no clue you are doing it. I really do pity you in a way, except you have chosen to be this way because you reject clear teachings in the Scriptures for your own interpretations and views.

Turbo has done a brilliant job bringing all of this out, and I think should be commended for his level-headedness. It takes someone with a level head to discuss issues with Red and stay on topic.

 

[Glenda]

The CLEAR teachings of Jesus we MUST embrace IF we LOVE Jesus:

LK 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

JN 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
JN 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
JN 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Where does Jesus ever change his mind and suddenly APPROVE or CONDONE condemning anyone for doing the wrong thing ????????

Jesus did NOT condone adultery, yet he did NOT condemn the adulteress!!!!!

Who considers thay should reject the teachings and example of Jesus by condemning the wrongs of others?????????????

Show me where Jesus gives you the right to condemn others in opposition to his clear teachings and example!

 

[Servo]

Show me where Jesus gives you the right to condemn others...

Try here. & here.

 

[Glenda]

Try here. & here.

I notice you failed to show where JESUS gave you the right to CONDEMN anyone!

You pointed to HUMAN teachings and have not quoted anywhere that JESUS said YOU can CONDEMN anyone!
MT 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
MK 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
MK 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Again I ask you, where does JESUS command YOU to CONDEMN anyone???

I showed where Jesus said do NOT condemn!
Show me where he changed his mind!
Scripture reference please rather than 'traditions' of men!

 

[Servo]

I notice you failed to show where JESUS gave you the right to CONDEMN anyone!

You pointed to HUMAN teachings and have not quoted anywhere that JESUS said YOU can CONDEMN anyone!
MT 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
MK 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
MK 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Again I ask you, where does JESUS command YOU to CONDEMN anyone???

I showed where Jesus said do NOT condemn!
Show me where he changed his mind!
Scripture reference please rather than 'traditions' of men!

Did you read the article? Did you listen to the show?
Why not give it a try???

Here:

Luke 12:57

Matthew 7:5

John 7:24

 

[Glenda]

Did you read the article? Did you listen to the show?
Why not give it a try???

Here:

Luke 12:57

Matthew 7:5

John 7:24

I'll try AGAIN!
You keep trying to justify yourself with verses about JUDGING!
I did NOT ask about JUDGING!

We are discussion CONDEMNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOW ... back to condemnation issue!
I notice you failed to show where JESUS gave you the right to CONDEMN anyone!

You pointed to HUMAN teachings and have not quoted anywhere that JESUS said YOU can CONDEMN anyone!
MT 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
MK 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
MK 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Again I ask you, where does JESUS command YOU to CONDEMN anyone???

I showed where Jesus said do NOT condemn!
Show me where he changed his mind!
Scripture reference please rather than 'traditions' of men!

 

[Servo]

You pointed to HUMAN teachings and have not quoted anywhere that JESUS said YOU can CONDEMN anyone!

Can I condemn an abortion doctor? Yes or no?

 

[PyramidHead]

Since the child is completely dependent on the mother while in the mother's womb, the mother has every right to decide what to do with it. Technically, this child is more of a parasite than anything else (I do not believe that it is a parasite; while it drains physical needs, it also bring unsurpassed joy to ones life), so the woman can choose to get rid of it if she does not want it.

This is simply my ignorant opinion, however.

 

[Servo]

Since the child is completely dependent on the mother while in the mother's womb, the mother has every right to decide what to do with it. Technically, this child is more of a parasite than anything else (I do not believe that it is a parasite; while it drains physical needs, it also bring unsurpassed joy to ones life), so the woman can choose to get rid of it if she does not want it.

This is simply my ignorant opinion, however.

Are children dependent on their mother outside of the womb? Would it be ok to kill a one year old since the baby is kind of like a parasite and using up resources?

And by getting rid of it, what do you mean by that? Could you describe exactly what an abortion doctor does to "rid" of a baby? Can you give us an overview?

 

[PyramidHead]

Are children dependent on their mother outside of the womb? Would it be ok to kill a one year old since the baby is kind of like a parasite and using up resources?

And by getting rid of it, what do you mean by that? Could you describe exactly what an abortion doctor does to "rid" of a baby? Can you give us an overview?

1) No, because it can live outside of the womb--but not for a sustained amount of time without help from the mother. Inside the womb, it can't be transplanted to another womb, like a baby can be adopted once born (I hope I'm clearly communicating here, I'm sort of tired), so it is the mothers burden only.

2) It is disgusting and I don't like to describe it. If you'd like to know, you can google it.

 

[Stripe]

Wow Red. Some of your latest comments are mind-boggling. I don't think Eggo could make ANYTHING that waffles more than you do!

You seem to take one position and then you seem to take another. You contradict yourself at practically every turn, and you have no clue you are doing it. I really do pity you in a way, except you have chosen to be this way because you reject clear teachings in the Scriptures for your own interpretations and views.

Turbo has done a brilliant job bringing all of this out, and I think should be commended for his level-headedness. It takes someone with a level head to discuss issues with Red and stay on topic.

I can't stay on topic with Red. I always wind up talking about how stupid he is instead of throwing more facts at him to turn into slime.

 

[Glenda]

Can I condemn an abortion doctor? Yes or no?

Can you answer my question yes or no??????
I asked first

Red and I have been following the teachings of Jesus by NOT CONDEMNING a rape victim's actions!

Jesus commanded we CONDEMN NOT!
Do you embrace the teachings of Jesus or do you reject them?
ie do you love Jesus or not?????????
(ONLY those who love him keep his teachings according to Jesus!)

Something else to chew on ... when David and Bathsheba had unlawful sex, God killed the resultant baby rather than the adults!

Neither Red nor I condone killing anyone! Neither Red nor I approve of abortion. Neither Red nor I CONDEMN actions of a rape victim!!!!!!! This is in agreement with the teachings of Jesus!!!!!!!!
If you love Jesus then you keep his sayings and obey him.

However ... back to the issue and question you have not yet answered:
The CLEAR teachings of Jesus we MUST embrace IF we LOVE Jesus:

LK 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

JN 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
JN 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
JN 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Where does Jesus ever change his mind and suddenly APPROVE or CONDONE condemning anyone for doing the wrong thing ????????

Jesus did NOT condone adultery, yet he did NOT condemn the adulteress!!!!!

Who considers thay should reject the teachings and example of Jesus by condemning the wrongs of others?????????????

Show me where Jesus gives you the right to condemn others in opposition to his clear teachings and example!

 

[Delmar]

I'll try AGAIN!
You keep trying to justify yourself with verses about JUDGING!
I did NOT ask about JUDGING!

We are discussion CONDEMNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOW ... back to condemnation issue!
I notice you failed to show where JESUS gave you the right to CONDEMN anyone!

You pointed to HUMAN teachings and have not quoted anywhere that JESUS said YOU can CONDEMN anyone!
MT 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
MK 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
MK 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Again I ask you, where does JESUS command YOU to CONDEMN anyone???

I showed where Jesus said do NOT condemn!
Show me where he changed his mind!
Scripture reference please rather than 'traditions' of men!

Jesus did say not to judge "until you have removed the plank from your own eye"!
Here is the message He sent through His servant Paul.

1 Corinthians 6
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!