Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Kylie]

Yes we chopped down too many trees and started doing the same to our young.

Are you REALLY going to inform my local council that I destroyed an acorn and insist they punish me?

 

[redleghunter]

Are you REALLY going to inform my local council that I destroyed an acorn and insist they punish me?

Are you talking about a baby now or literally an acorn? It was your analogy.

 

[Kylie]

Are you talking about a baby now or literally an acorn? It was your analogy.

You're the one claiming there's a difference. In both cases we are talking about something that has the potential to grow into something important, but is not yet important.

 

[ecco]

They were not reading the words in those Bibles. They were carrying their King James Versions, and God's law of slavery in the Torah are clear there. Jesus was also just as clear: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

They followed the words of god. It doesn't matter that you don't like their interpretations, or that you think they were wrong.

What matters is that they justified their actions with the holy scripture of your bible.

The slavers did with slavery what the Germans did with Jews,

I don't want to derail this thread but: What Christian Germans did with Jews was based on centuries of anti-semitic Christian attitudes coupled with the writings of Protestant reformer Martin Luther.

You are my cousin. I'd rather not see my cousin destroy herself. Come on, snap out of it. You're addicted to evil here. You don't want to be addicted. It makes you dark and relentless, and you can't win. Change your mind. Change your life.

I am not your cousin
It's ecco, not ecca
I don't believe in the Christian concept of Evil
I am actually quite cheery
My mind hasn't changed in many, many years.
My life is just fine, thank you.

 

[ecco]

AH, yes, CARM and Matt Slick. I am very familiar with CARM, having had considerable correspondence with Matt Slick. I find it to be a travesty of justice as far as providing accurate, unbiased information goes. According to Matt Slick, he got the boot out of the Presbyterian Church over an issue concerning speaking in tongues. However, I don't even truth that. I am Presbyterian myself and contacted headquarters and they told me they never heard of him or his case, which normally they would have. If you like CARM, go to it. But I would far prefer something more on the ball.

I know it's easier for you to ignore the gist of my comments which is that all Christians do not agree with you or all other Christians. You all want to interpret your chosen translations in whatever way you choose. At the same time each of you claim that you are the ones who are correctly interpreting "God's Objective Truth".

 

[ecco]

By guiding our Nation's laws to abolish slavery, they preferred those secular laws to the biblical laws regarding the buying, selling and treatment of slaves. That, according to Vicomte13, is idolatry (see 1st quote above). If you disagree with him, discuss it with him.

I actually read all of @Vicomte13 comments. He said no such thing.

Obviously, you did not actually read all of Vicomte13's comments. At least not correctly.

English and the Common Law did not exist in Biblical times. Killing - Ratsach - phoneis - they existed since Cain, and God forbade them, and still does.
Our Common Law often departs from the law of God. American abortion law is a good example. We allow killing on demand under Roe. This is forbidden by God's law. When we prefer our own law over God's, we practice idolatry, serving a work of our own hands while eschewing service to God.

The serpent speaks to us in terms we prefer. God said "don't kill or I'll throw you into the fire." That's what he meant.
Abortion is killing, and if you do it, you burn.
If you don't want to burn, don't commit abortion.

 

[ecco]

There is objective morality.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral,uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral​

It's not objective if it's open to biased interpretation. If Christians can interpret same same scripture differently, and come to different conclusions, there is no "Objective Morality".

 

[ecco]

Hitler infused the master race mentality and how Jews were sub human.

Based in no small part on the teachings of Martin Luther.

Slavers treated slaves as subhuman.

Based in no small part on the teachings of the bible.

 

[redleghunter]

Obviously, you did not actually read all of Vicomte13's comments. At least not correctly.

Sure you twisted what @Vicomte13 stated and applied it out of context with me. You did so in many posts. I just called you on your use of subterfuge in my case.

 

[redleghunter]

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral,uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral​

It's not objective if it's open to biased interpretation. If Christians can interpret same same scripture differently, and come to different conclusions, there is no "Objective Morality".

Exactly. The words and commands of God are quite clear. Those that wish to read in their own interpretations are fooling no one.

 

[redleghunter]

Based in no small part on the teachings of Martin Luther.

Based in no small part on the teachings of the bible.

Neither is accurate.

What Luther raged on about had nothing to do with Christianity or Christ.

You were already told American slavery had nothing to do with the Israelite theocracy.

Yet you still repeat the error.

I'm sorry if you had some iron clad polemics stored on your computer and now are exposed as specious and false.

That's why it's a lot better to not believe in the ideologies of other people and focus on what God actually says.

 

[Ratjaws]

'

What definition of person do you use?

Belk,

The classic definition comes from Boethius: "De persona et duabus naturis" or an individual substance of a rational nature. Simply put a person is an individual being possessed of a mind capable of thought and all this implies. A mind is spiritual (immaterial) compromised of four faculties: intellect, will, imagination and memory. No animal has these powers because they are completely material in compostion unlike human beings who are a body/soul composite. While animals have sense cognition human beings possess that plus intellectual cognition. Therefore persons are capable of abstraction, rational thought (ratiocination) and inferencial judgment, and conscience (moral discernment) while animals simply act according to what their senses "feed" them. So there is an infinite leap from an animal's nature to that of person's who possess spiritual powers animals don't. And note here contrary to what some may teach human beings are not complete without their body as indicated by the fact the Jesus resurrected and ascended into heaven with a glorified (yet essentially the same) body. 011016

 

[Ratjaws]

oops! how do we delete posts???

 

[Ratjaws]

oops! how do we delete posts???

 

[Vicomte13]

SO are you going to inform the authorities to let them know I destroyed an oak tree when it is against the law to do so without permission?

Of course not. You are a human being, and as such you have dominion over the plants. If you want to destroy an oak tree, even a towering one in your yard, that is your right. If some local law says that you need permission, I don't recognize any actual authority behind that law. It is just men dominating men, which they do not have the right to do, because God did not give men dominion over other men.

So, if you destroyed an oak tree, whether as an acorn or as a great tree, it was your right to do so under the law of God. If some human law says otherwise I don't care. Human law doesn't interest me much. It is not a sin to break some human statute. God gave you the oak trees to use, and destroy if you wish. Men have no authority to take that right away from you.

So, will I call the authorities on you, if there is some local statute against it? Of course not. Nor will I call them if you are growing opium poppies in your backyard. I do not recognize the dominion of the "authorities" over you, and I will never call them unless there is a life or death situation in which manpower and special equipment and training is needed. And then I'm calling them for the response and the equipment and training, not because I recognize that they have any real authority other than that which is derivative by the fact they have guns are are willing to use them.

So no, I will not call "the authorities" on you for crushing an acorn, because:

(1) There are no "authorities" other than the angels and God. There are men who CLAIM to have authority. They do not. The only reason I listen to them is because they have guns and will kill me or cage me if I don't. So I outwardly comply with their orders when I have to, to survive, just like anybody else does under an occupying army. I don't recognize their authority as LEGITIMATE, so I'm certainly not going to call them out on YOU.

(2) God gave you the plants. You have dominion. You can eat them. Or plant them. You can tend them. Or destroy them. He did not give "the authorities" dominion over you, and he didn't give me dominion over you anyway, but he DID give you, and me, and everybody else, dominion over the plants. You may do with them whatever you please, and nobody has the authority to stop you, as long as you're doing it to plants that YOU own. If you come onto my yard and start crushing acorns...I still probably won't do anything, because it's just an acorn, squirrels eat them, and they make a mess of my yard. An acorn is a living thing, but it's a toy, a low order thing that belongs to you, and when its on my property, to me. Even a great towering oak has no sense. If you kill it, I will be offended because I like looking at it. It's value is that it is pleasing to ME, not that it has INHERENT sacredness. It's a plant. A lowly plant. Plants are food. God didn't give them nerve endings to sense pain. An oak tree is a giant asparagus, nothing more.

 

[Vicomte13]

And look how well it's turned out, giving humans dominion over the world. Haven't we done a brilliant job.

No, we haven't done a brilliant job. But it is our right nevertheless, used or misused. However, the God who gave us the world never gave us dominion over other men, and commanded us not to kill, on pain of damnation. So yes, we DO have the right to use the environment foolishly. We pay a price when we do, because then we have to live with the consequences. But no, we don't have the right to kill other people, including babies in the womb.

 

[Vicomte13]

God gives instructions telling people to kill others lots of times in the Bible, so you're wrong there.

No, he doesn't. God gives a generic rule: don't kill.

For one SPECIFIC tribe - Hebrews - for one SPECIFIC purpose - to take the land of Canaan - God uses the Hebrews themselves as his means for bringing justice, through execution of the race, to the Canaanites. He does so because the Canaanites, among other things, sacrificed their children to Molech. He pronounced their doom, as divine justice, and he used the Israelites as the means to carry out that sentence.

He never gave the Israelites carte blanche to slaughter people.

And outside of the peculiar situation of Israel vis a vis Canaanites, he didn't command people to kill other people.

When the Israelites abused their inheritance and became brutal and lawless, God used other people to conquer them and humble them, to punish them and strip them of what he had given them, as the price of their disobedience. God inflicts death for disobedience of his laws. He gave a lot of laws to the Hebrews, specifically.

The only general laws he gave to mankind in general before Jesus were don't kill (this he gave explicitly), don't commit adultery (this he demonstrated), and don't make idols to worship. He commanded men to shed the blood of those who shed blood. But other than that, no, God didn't command that men kill other men outside of the context of Israel - and there, the deaths were the result of a divine judgment against an entire culture.

God himself destroyed comparable cultures with his own hand: the first born of Egypt, and Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Vicomte13]

Because humans are somehow special. We're at the top of the ladder. Religious privilege for you...

Yes, that's right. We're made in God's image. We're given dominion over the animals and the plants. One day we will judge angels for how they assisted - or tormented - us.

 

[Vicomte13]

This in no way is an approval or acceptance of abortion. It is a statement of fact about God's Mercy.

True. Even Hitler may have repented in the end. (I doubt it, but only God knows.)

 

[pat34lee]

Hi,
Can, you not see mercy in allowing girls who will do it anyway and at any costs to themselves, an allowance to do it legally to forego, our then hardships placed on them, by us, the so-called loving compassionate public?

People will do drugs anyway, so we should legalize them.

People will kill, steal and assault each other, no matter what
the law says, so we should just let them.

Why bother with the law, just do whatever we feel like doing?