-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do aborted babies go to heaven?
- Thread starter chucko10af
- Start date
Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Not relevant to abortion.
Note it says first born - it was born (the firstborn) - I wonder if anyone called it "firstborn" in the womb, perhaps but it would have been inaccurate. In a sort of almost obvious way.
I know "church of the Firstborn" means of Christ, but does it also give hints about anything else?
Not relevant to abortion.
Note it says first born - it was born (the firstborn) - I wonder if anyone called it "firstborn" in the womb, perhaps but it would have been inaccurate. In a sort of almost obvious way.
I know "church of the Firstborn" means of Christ, but does it also give hints about anything else?
There is nothing in Samuel 12:23 about what is in wombs - it was a real born child, who got sick and died. Of no relevance to this discussion, except to be part of a demonstration that the Bible is concerned about real actual born human beings when it comes to life eternal, without any comparisons or references to or confusions about what has not been born, what does NOT have God's breath of life.
Upvote
0
To build on that, it seems very apparent that God uses what a person knows about Him in consideration of His judgment. Yes, that verse is relevant: "If you were blind you would have no sin."
Also, in the book of Jonah the specific rationale God makes for refusing to destroy Nineveh was their ignorance of Him: "They do not know their right hand from their left."
In Romans 1, Paul says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (Psalm 19), so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him..."
What is it that removes their excuse? The fact that "Although they knew God, For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him..."
And to this, Paul lists "Therefore,...." and "Because of this,..." and "Furthermore,...." actions God takes against those who know from creation two things--God's existence and His character--but refuse to acknowledge them.
And on the other side of the same coin, we see that the thing that condemned Jericho, from Rahab's confession, is that the residents of Jericho absolutely knew the power of the Israelites' God--they were convinced of it--yet Rahab was the only one who responded.
We don't have a verse that explicitly addresses whether God chooses to save those who die as infants, but we do have multiple scriptural witnesses that God does not destroy the ignorant. Infants may not be spiritually innocent, but they are definitely ignorant--they haven't even had a chance to contemplate creation.
Upvote
0
Say David, can you indicate how it is that "in sin did my mother conceive me," that claim, means the sin is resident in what is conceived, and not in the conceiver, the mother"?
Actually now I am noticing this is a strange way to try to prove what is aborted is somehow sinless and hence NOT in need of accepting Christ. If it is as you claim, if that is what, "in sin did my mother conceive me," means, then might it not more likely be grounds for thinking "aborted babies" do NOT go to heaven?
Whereas the alternative understanding, that it is the mother who lives in the depths of sin, (when engaged in conceiving - I wonder if we should be allowed to even notice that?), does not say anything about the nature of what is in the womb.
Perhaps the Psalmists mother's copulation was particularly sinful? Perish the thought, I suppose is the next thing to say. Much more likely original sin (of the mother) is what is being pointed to, the sinful nature that all born human beings possess. Are there not a few passages where it is indicated we are born with that nature, i.e. have it from the beginning of our existence as human beings?
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 28,110
- 45,779
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi Douglas, as I said above, Far Side of the Moon's comment about 2 Samuel 12:23 concerned babies of ALL ages and what happens to them when they die. An unborn child in his/her mother's womb IS a real child, because Biblically, scientifically, and legally, they are 'living' members of the species homo sapiens, IOW, they are beings with their own life, not just a bunch of living cells that the mother's body is keeping alive.
We know that an unborn baby's body functions (down to the cellular level), not because his/her mother is alive but, specifically, because the baby in her womb is alive (has "life" in him/herself). The mother supplies the needed oxygen and nutrients that her baby needs to continue to live, but her baby is a completely separate, living being inside her, and no amount of oxygen and nutrients from the mother will be able to sustain her unborn child if her baby dies. It's the "life" of the baby that does that, not the life of the mother.
Your "breath of life" argument is an empty, out-of-context eisegesis which makes no sense Biblically, scientifically or legally, but I suppose if I was a pro-abort like you are I'd be looking for something to help me justify my support of and/or participation in the deaths of the most innocent among us, at least in my own mind.
Why do you have this incessant need to try to convince Christians to believe the lie about the nature of unborn children that you have chosen to believe? You continue to put forth the same evidence and make the same shoddy arguments again and again. Why?
--David
Upvote
0
Dear David,
The reason I feel impelled to share my views is because I have studied the matter quite a lot over a long period of time and am pretty convinced Christians in general, that is many Christians, are the one's perpetuating the lie with their constant "unborn child" motif, and it actually brings discredit on Christianity. To my mind "unborn child" is about the most blatant contradiction there could be, and some of what you just said illustrates that contradiction. At the very least you are begging the question in constantly using "unborn child" in the context of the dispute about abortion, for to adopt that terminology is to HAVE one conclusion to the argument, not to argue for it. If you consider what I just said to be a shoddy argument and to be summarily dismissed as one, I doubt we could have a rational discussion, for surely it is very much to the point what I have just said.
When you say "babies of ALL ages," I think that illustrates my point about the contradiction. Surely what you are talking about and what this thread is about is "babies of NO age," to use your question-begging term "babies." Have you not noticed how the age of a baby is calculated?
Now I ask you to point out how what I have just said is a "shoddy" argument - is it not all true, and that your "babies of ALL ages" is made up to include fetuses and is just your fabrication (and that of many others perhaps).
You are just repeating the claim that 2 Sam. 12:23 is also about fetuses but can point to nothing in 2 Sam. 12 to demonstrate that that is so.
I do not see you actually coming to terms with actual arguments I make about 2 Sam. 12.
I expect to respond to a couple of other points you make soon, but will try to limit postings to one point since I think it is up to you to show that my arguments are shoddy, and not merely say so. Can you please respond to one point at a time and try to say things directly relevant to what I actually say? Thank you.
(I do find these discussions engaging, and think they are much about truth and discovering/sharing truth so it seems to me very much in THE HOLY SPIRIT OF CHRIST to pursue them.)
Upvote
0
- Jun 9, 2016
- 4,856
- 5,105
- 33
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
Unborn babies have heartbeats.
I suppose something not living can have heartbeats can it?
You're literally the only person I've ever encountered that believes babies, full-grown babies, in the mothers womb aren't alive. Even secular people believe the babies alive after a certain amount of months.
Mothers. know. their. children.
I suppose something not living can have heartbeats can it?
You're literally the only person I've ever encountered that believes babies, full-grown babies, in the mothers womb aren't alive. Even secular people believe the babies alive after a certain amount of months.
Mothers. know. their. children.
Upvote
0
OF COURSE it is not the case that something not living can have heartbeats. (And of course I never said it could.)Unborn babies have heartbeats.
I suppose something not living can have heartbeats can it?
You're literally the only person I've ever encountered that believes babies, full-grown babies, in the mothers womb aren't alive. Even secular people believe the babies alive after a certain amount of months.
Mothers. know. their. children.
If you want to discuss reasonably you might quote me, you might respond to what I actually say.
Fetuses (to NOT BEG THE QUESTION of the human being nature of what is in a womb), fetuses, or to be equally neutral, the contents of a gestating womb, a lot of the time have heartbeats, though not early on of course when there is nothing that might be called a heart.
I would never say what is in the gestating womb is not alive (unless it has died, of course). So I certainly never say the contradiction of something not living having heartbeats.
But please note that to say it is alive is not to prove it is a human being that should be protected from destruction - it is only to notice that it is like unto a cancer tumor in that it consists of alive cells. That's what it means to be "alive," nothing more.
Mice have heartbeats, but should we outlaw cats on that basis?
Better never step on an ant?
Note to David ("Saint Worm"),
it may be seen how much clarification of basic understanding is needed in some cases. Do you not agree?
Upvote
0
- Jun 9, 2016
- 4,856
- 5,105
- 33
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
When I said alive, I meant a life-form, a being, a human being.
It has a heart man. A beating heart. I just don't see how you don't see it as a human. Every mother does, yet you cannot.
Mothers love their unborn babies. They are in love with their unborn babies. They talk to and sing to their unborn babies. And your going to tell them, that when their 8 month old fully grown baby in the womb dies, that it was never a real human? That their love was just emotional responses? A couple weeks old fetus is perhaps deniable as a human (although I believe at the very point of conception), but to deny when you can feel it even move and kick in the womb, I don't understand, all for a belief that is based on 1 verse, that just because Adam, a being formed out of the dust, was given a breath of life to make him alive, that all babies need to take a breath of air in order to be alive. Just blows my mind how you can be so strong in an opinion based soley on that.
Upvote
0
You don't really quite notice what I say - it is perhaps even harder to notice what I don't say. Anyway, I doubt I have ever said "all babies need to take a breath of air in order to be alive," although that is of course true. Not true the way you mean it when you beg the question and call a fetus a "baby," but true of real babies in that if they stop taking breaths of life they die. That is true and I agree with that of course.
Notice that I tried to point out that a fetus is indeed alive, (a small point you must have missed). So of course I would not say a fetus needs breath to be alive - what is gestating in a womb is alive from the moment of conception, it is first ONE ALIVE CELL, then it is many alive cells. So it is alive.
Got it - can you grasp that point?
Of course there is no mother until there is an actual child, but some pregnant women think of themselves as mothers when they are only gestators, and some realize they are only "prospective mothers," likely to be mothers, hoping (or not) to be a mother. (They may have given birth before and therefore are already mothers.)
Btw, you don't seem to notice that I pointed out an alive mouse has a beating heart. It has a heart man. A beating heart. But not even you I expect would therefore "see it as a human."
My "opinion," as you call it, is based on more than "the breath of life." I will expand on that in a reply to Saint Worm soon.
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 28,110
- 45,779
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
You need to think ... better
Babies have their ages measured first in days, then in months, then in years from their DOB. Unborn children's ages are measured in weeks and months from their DOC (we never speak in terms of a countdown to their DOB, rather, we speak of how old they are and/or how far along the mother's pregnancy is, by using their DOC as a reference point).
Also, we calculate our age based upon our DOB here in the west, but that's not always true in countries such a China, where age is calculated from the DOC instead. In the end, it doesn't matter which method is used since it is of no particular concern to a discussion such as this.
The terminology isn't a fabrication, it's the common terminology that's used by everyone to describe the human life living inside a pregnant mother, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice folks alike (well, except in your case
)I never said that 2 Samuel 12:23 is talking about an embryo or a fetus, it's not (but the same principle can be applied to an embryo or a fetus). It concerns a child who died at too young of an age to have understood and believed the Gospel, and what the Bible points to as the eternal destination of such children. The same "if --- then" argument applies equally to unborn children who die (whether they die of natural causes or are killed by the hand of a "doctor") concerning their eternal destinations.
Douglas, the Holy Spirit has already spoken quite clearly concerning abortions. He said, "Thou shalt not kill". And since God is the same yesterday, today and forever, I don't believe you will find Him rescinding that commandment anytime soon
Yours and His,
David
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Go back to Genesis. Read a few of the genealogy chapters. A human life begins with "begat." The only function the father has in procreation.
You keep insisting on the breath of life. That was for Adam the first created human being from scratch. God established procreation for future human beings.
Do you consider the first woman Eve to not be a person? Did she have the breath of life like Adam?
Where do we see Eve have the breath of life like Adam. We don't. By your reasoning Eve was not a human when first presented to Adam.
Upvote
0
Thanks David,Douglas, the Holy Spirit has already spoken quite clearly concerning abortions. He said, "Thou shalt not kill". And since God is the same yesterday, today and forever, I don't believe you find Him rescinding that commandment anytime soon
Yours and His,
David
I'm sure you realize "Thou shalt not kill" is correctly understood to be "Thou shalt not kill human beings." It does not apply to the mouse and the ant that I mentioned in another post, right?
So you understand that the Holy Spirit has only spoken quite clearly concerning abortions IF it is true that fetuses are human beings, right? And if we can be quite clear about that, I suppose?
Whether they are is the question of abortion, and I know of no convincing arguments for that to be so. Most claims I come across seem pretty poor, and in total prove little. (Your merely saying "Biblically, scientifically, and legally, they are 'living' members of the species homo sapiens" does not make that so - I hope to respond to that unsubstantiated claim tomorrow.)
I'm afraid I find the major argument of "pro-life" to be the constantly begging the question by repeating "unborn baby" or equivalent at every opportunity. Has fooled a lot of people, I think - of course I need to think better !
Yours in Christ, Douglas
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Btw, you don't seem to notice that I pointed out an alive mouse has a beating heart. It has a heart man. A beating heart. But not even you I expect would therefore "see it as a human."
IF you read that comment before you posted it, did it strike you that you were really great to notice that for us?
CodyFaith claimed that if something has a beating heart we should see it as a human. "Every mother does."
So it follows from that if a mouse has a beating heart, we should see it as a human. I indicated I thought he would be able to see the truth of that, (that a mouse with a beating heart is NOT a human, and therefore his theorem fails).
You seem to not have followed the argument.
Btw, you don't seem to notice that I pointed out an alive mouse has a beating heart. It has a heart man. A beating heart. But not even you I expect would therefore "see it as a human."
You are exactly correct in your first claim, of course. A mouse is not a human. Good of you to tell us that.
IF you read that comment before you posted it, did it strike you that you were really great to notice that for us?
CodyFaith claimed that if something has a beating heart we should see it as a human. "Every mother does."
So it follows from that if a mouse has a beating heart, we should see it as a human. I indicated I thought he would be able to see the truth of that, (that a mouse with a beating heart is NOT a human, and therefore his theorem fails).
You seem to not have followed the argument.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is a little funny - are you saying that Eve didn't breath?
I think both you and I know Eve was a living person, and therefore she breathed. As every living person who ever lived has - we all have the breath of life from God!
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Why wait until tomorrow to pose your already refuted claims? Just as reminder :
Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69092147
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...n-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page-10#post-69082245
Abortion: Biblical exegesis of Exodus 21:22ff
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098322
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...r-for-the-babies.7922364/page-3#post-68987259
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-34#post-69060024
Abortion: The Mind of God on our humanity; How TaNaKh Jews viewed conception
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69090685
Is abortion Ethical for seculars:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/it-should-be-murder.7925104/page-33#post-69118203
Bitter water explained:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/pro-life-or-pro-choice.7934246/page-98#post-69342499
Kill and Murder: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...rs-of-euthanasia.7936568/page-7#post-69372766
Upvote
0
Similar threads
