I keep being told that God objects to abortion...

Status
Not open for further replies.

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So, your argument that all life is precious to God doesn't stand up to Biblical truth in light of the above.
I don't recall saying that all life is precious to God. What I did say is that all human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

1) God killed all the firstborn of Egypt. If all people are created by God and precious to Him, how do you explain this mass murder of children?
Yes, God, the Creator and author of the universe did do this. It is in His authority to do what He wants with His creation. Do you disagree? If you do, how do you as a Christian personally reconcile what God did by killing the firstborn?

2) God permitted Herod to kill all the firstborn males 2 years of age and younger. If every life is precious, why did God allow this to happen?
Sure, God permitted that in the same way that God "permits" anyone on the planet to kill another human being. Are you suggesting that because God permits people to perform immoral acts that God doesn't care about us as His creation? How do you even live as a Christian if you believe that?

3) God let the first generation that left Egypt die in the wilderness without reaching the land promised to them
He sure did, I believe it was as punishment. What is the connection between that and abortion? Is abortion somehow punishment?

3) Stephen was martyred; why didn't God prevent this from happening? Others were also killed for their faith in a similar fashion.
A lot of Christians have been martyred for their faith. Is it your position that God ought to prevent all Christians from being martyred? Are you suggesting that God should intervene and stop abortions?

You bring up a lot of things that pretty much have nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is an act whereby a person, who is not God, is making the purposeful and intentional choice to kill another human being who has done no wrong. This is not analogous to anything you said above.


There is no personhood in a fertilized egg or embryo. It's a vessel of clay (speaking metaphorically) that one day may contain a person.
Again, the distinction between a human being and a human person is made up. It doesn't actually exist. You're stating that there is no "personhood" in a fertilized egg is meaningless. A fertilized egg is a human being, created in the image God, possessing inherent moral worth and value.

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate there is a different between a human being and a human person and that only human person's are created in the Image of God and posses inherent moral worth and value.

If you believe there is an actual distinction between human beings and human persons and that human beings are not morally valuable, then by all means, present an objective argument that supports such a notion. To date, I have yet to see one.

There are no bible verses to present as proof.
Sure there are. That's what we use Biblical principles for. And that's not wrong. We can rightly and confidently say that the 98.5% of abortions that are performed for convenience sake are immoral because these abortions are the intentional and purposeful killing of innocent human beings.

Where in Scripture does God give the individual person such authority? You won't find it. You won't find anything in Scripture that supports the notion that an individual person can rightly kill another human being who has done them no wrong.

Scripture is clear that all human beings are morally valuable as they are created in the Image of God.

The only way you can justify abortion is by subjectively and arbitrarily fabricating a distinction between a human being and a human person, and then asserting that only human persons are morally valuable.

Even arguments based on bible verses are irrelevant when taking into consideration culture as a whole since Christians are in the minority and becoming even more of a minority, and thus most people don't even care what the bible supposedly says about anything, so you're not going to convince non-Christians unless you come up with reasonable arguments that aren't based on religion or personal opinion.
Truth is Truth regardless of how many people believe it. I don't expect to convince any non-Christian that abortion is immoral. I never have.

If I wasn't a Christian, I wouldn't think abortion was immoral. If God didn't exist, then objective morals wouldn't exist. If God didn't exist, the human beings wouldn't be inherently morally valuable.

However, as Christians, you and I know something the world doesn't - we know that God exists, we know that humans are created in His Image, and we know that God considers all of us morally valuable. Why then are you playing along with the world?
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Again, the distinction between a human being and a human person is made up. It doesn't actually exist. You're stating that there is no "personhood" in a fertilized egg is meaningless. A fertilized egg is a human being, created in the image God, possessing inherent moral worth and value.

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate there is a different between a human being and a human person and that only human person's are created in the Image of God and posses inherent moral worth and value.

If you believe there is an actual distinction between human beings and human persons and that human beings are not morally valuable, then by all means, present an objective argument that supports such a notion. To date, I have yet to see one.

Sure there are. That's what we use Biblical principles for. And that's not wrong. We can rightly and confidently say that the 98.5% of abortions that are performed for convenience sake are immoral because these abortions are the intentional and purposeful killing of innocent human beings.

Where in Scripture does God give the individual person such authority? You won't find it. You won't find anything in Scripture that supports the notion that an individual person can rightly kill another human being who has done them no wrong.

Scripture is clear that all human beings are morally valuable as they are created in the Image of God.

The only way you can justify abortion is by subjectively and arbitrarily fabricating a distinction between a human being and a human person, and then asserting that only human persons are morally valuable.

Truth is Truth regardless of how many people believe it. I don't expect to convince any non-Christian that abortion is immoral. I never have.

If I wasn't a Christian, I wouldn't think abortion was immoral. If God didn't exist, then objective morals wouldn't exist. If God didn't exist, the human beings wouldn't be inherently morally valuable.

However, as Christians, you and I know something the world doesn't - we know that God exists, we know that humans are created in His Image, and we know that God considers all of us morally valuable. Why then are you playing along with the world?

A fertilized egg is not a human being or a human person. It is human life, just like any cell of a human body. Just because something is human life does not mean it is also a person (or a being) or every single one of the cells in your body would be a person and then you would be killing people every day just by scratching an itch or any number of other things we do. Your gall bladder would be a whole colony of persons in and of itself and having it removed would be murdering all of those people considering the "logic" that all human life must be preserved at all costs even to the detriment or destruction of other human life.

As for who has authority over the fertilized egg? God gave the woman the authority by giving it to her and her alone. It's in her body, not the body of the man or in a test tube in a government office.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
A fertilized egg is not a human being or a human person. It is human life, just like any cell of a human body.
Actually it is. I'm not sure why you think otherwise, unless you just aren't aware of modern science and biology. I would rather not overwhelm my post with citations, so I'll just provide a few. It's not difficult.

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

Just because something is human life does not mean it is also a person (or a being) or every single one of the cells in your body would be a person and then you would be killing people every day just by scratching an itch or any number of other things we do.
Interesting tactic. You originally were asserting that there is a distinction between a human being and a human person. Now that I have exposed that arbitrary declaration, you're pivoting to replacing human person with human life. Now you're asserting there is a distinction between a human being and a human life, and that only human beings are morally valuable, and that an embryo or fetus is not a human being but a human life.

I already disproved this theory by the above quotes. But here's another one that should help educate you a little bit on this additional misconception:

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.


In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.


As for who has authority over the fertilized egg? God gave the woman the authority by giving it to her and her alone. It's in her body, not the body of the man or in a test tube in a government office.
Where in Scripture does it state that? Where in Scripture does it state that so long as a human being is developing inside a woman that the woman has the authority to kill the human? I can't think of anything in Scripture that would come close to supporting that assertion.

Furthermore, why stop at just inside the womb in that case? Do you have children? I have a handful, and I feel like we lost more sleep, more money, more time after they were born. So why would it be OK to kill them while they're in the womb, but not OK to kill once they vacate the womb? What has changed aside from their location? Newborns are just as dependent upon people for survival as an unborn. left alone, both would die.

Frankly, it sounds like you're just arguing to argue at this point, which is honestly sad when the topic is killing other human beings. Why are you so set on fighting for believing that it's morally acceptable to kill unborn human beings created in God's Image? I don't get it.
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Actually it is. I'm not sure why you think otherwise, unless you just aren't aware of modern science and biology. I would rather not overwhelm my post with citations, so I'll just provide a few. It's not difficult.

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

Interesting tactic. You originally were asserting that there is a distinction between a human being and a human person. Now that I have exposed that arbitrary declaration, you're pivoting to replacing human person with human life. Now you're asserting there is a distinction between a human being and a human life, and that only human beings are morally valuable, and that an embryo or fetus is not a human being but a human life.

I already disproved this theory by the above quotes. But here's another one that should help educate you a little bit on this additional misconception:

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.


In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.


Where in Scripture does it state that? Where in Scripture does it state that so long as a human being is developing inside a woman that the woman has the authority to kill the human? I can't think of anything in Scripture that would come close to supporting that assertion.

Furthermore, why stop at just inside the womb in that case? Do you have children? I have a handful, and I feel like we lost more sleep, more money, more time after they were born. So why would it be OK to kill them while they're in the womb, but not OK to kill once they vacate the womb? What has changed aside from their location? Newborns are just as dependent upon people for survival as an unborn. left alone, both would die.

Frankly, it sounds like you're just arguing to argue at this point, which is honestly sad when the topic is killing other human beings. Why are you so set on fighting for believing that it's morally acceptable to kill unborn human beings created in God's Image? I don't get it.

So your entire argument is based on the fact that what makes us people is our physical bodies and you believe science just goes along with it. Have you considered that since science cannot prove the existence of a soul or spirit or even God that it cannot make an argument that isn't 100% based on the physical? How is it then in any way relevant to someone who believes that our personhood is spiritual and that we would still be a person and still exist even without a physical body? God of course gives us a physical body and we will have a physical glorified body in his kingdom, but we would still exist without it, even if only in the mind of God, which is where we exist in general, for without God, there is no existence.

There is no question that God gave woman the authority to manage any life that may exist inside her body or else he would have placed that authority elsewhere, and sometimes responsibly managing life includes death of life. It's the way creation works.

Newborns depend on *people* for survival. The newborn could be provided for by any number of people. One or more people say "no" (as they have the rightful choice to do) then others can choose "yes". It is your view that the woman who carries an embryo against her will has no right to say "no", that the natural authority given to her by God resides elsewhere, with men or government having that control. Never her.

It might surprise you that people can still be Christian and yet not all think the same about any number of different topics, including this one.

At this point, the only reason I'm still arguing is because you seemed to insist on a response and I decided to be generous and give you one. I'm more than happy to stop responding again and be done with this thread altogether. I've deeply thought about this issue for decades, giving much thought to multiple sides of the issue, both in terms of religion and outside of religion. Unless you are God himself (and I'd require a great deal of proof), you are at least 98.5% unlikely to change my mind.

I am in actuality not particularly pro-abortion in spite of being strongly pro-choice. I would like to see a reduction in abortion in general and I am of the view that the way we do so is not by criminalizing women and/or taking away women's freedom of autonomy in making their own medical choices, but through creating environments that are safe for women (even if a single mother) and their children, environments where women aren't going to be mocked, degraded, or impoverished for choosing to carry a child to term rather than abort, a culture where women and children are highly valued, and in which families do not need to make a choice between caring for their families or working outside of the home. An environment where women and children aren't regularly beaten, diminished, and abused while at home. And also an environment that provides honest sexual education based on medical knowledge versus fundamentalist religious views.

While you may look at a statistic and see 98.5% for trivial reasons of convenience, I see a great many stories involving lives of hardship, poverty, abuse, lack of education, sexual slavery (more often called "sex trafficking"), prostitution, and this list could go on.

So why do you still argue with me? I'd already tried once before to leave this thread (in fact, I'd already unsubscribed well before your responses but unfortunately still received alerts) and you decided to become upset over it, and now you're upset because I have been responding.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Thanks for that reply, and I agree with you completely. For me, I strive to maintain intellectual and spiritual integrity and maintain a belief system that is consistent, and founded first and foremost upon the moral commands and principles found in Scripture.

God is immutable, perfect in character. Morality stems from His character. The only reason we have the capacity to even claim that something is right or wrong is because right and wrong stem from God's perfect character. If man was the measure of morality, morality would be subjective as no man possesses any more inherent authority over another.

So when I look at the topic of abortion, it honestly seems simple to me. Scientifically we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. Biblically, I don't see it as controversial to believe that all human beings are equally created in the Image of God and equally, at all times, possess inherent moral worth and value.

With just those two simple Truths, how can any Christian be OK with the 98.5% of abortions performed for convenience reasons? I think we overly complicate an otherwise clear situation.

If you have any valid basis for stating that 98.5% of abortions are performed for convenience reasons please produce it. If you can't then you're just gossiping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So your entire argument is based on the fact that what makes us people is our physical bodies and you believe science just goes along with it. Have you considered that since science cannot prove the existence of a soul or spirit or even God that it cannot make an argument that isn't 100% based on the physical? How is it then in any way relevant to someone who believes that our personhood is spiritual and that we would still be a person and still exist even without a physical body? God of course gives us a physical body and we will have a physical glorified body in his kingdom, but we would still exist without it, even if only in the mind of God, which is where we exist in general, for without God, there is no existence.
I believe that God created us as both physical and spiritual beings. When Jesus returns, He is returning physically, here. The new heavens and the new earth, where we will live for eternity forward, is on Earth, albeit restored.

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that a living human being does not have a soul from their uttermost beginning. We see David in Psalms declaring that he was sinful from conception. We see John the Baptist in Luke 1 being filled with the Holy Spirit, while still in his mother's womb!

I think when you take what the Bible declares, which is that all human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value, coupled with the scientific fact that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, why would you a person ever even think that the unborn somehow aren't human beings? Why would that not be the default position? Nothing in Scripture indicates otherwise. Nothing.

There is no question that God gave woman the authority to manage any life that may exist inside her body or else he would have placed that authority elsewhere, and sometimes responsibly managing life includes death of life. It's the way creation works.
If there is no question, then you ought to be able to do more than blindly assert that fact. Can you provide any Biblical support? I see Scriptur teaching me that my body is not my own, and that I have been bought with a price. I see Scripture teaching that worship is actually offering my body as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. I don't see Scripture giving me much authority, do you? Where?

I don't see Scripture saying it's OK for us to kill another human being who has done no wrong, do you?

you decided to become upset over it, and now you're upset because I have been responding.
You give yourself a little more credit than you deserve. You're no different to me than other ignorant people who parrot secular society without actually studying the topic and understanding what they're saying. It doesn't upset me, it saddens me.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,120
7,243
Dallas
✟873,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Too bad Christians can't all seem to agree on what is and isn't a sinful act. I don't ask anyone to condone a sinful act. What I am pointing out is that if one is going to condemn using the force of government to make others comply with a religious belief then one should consistently oppose using government force to make others comply with religious beliefs. I do not see such consistency at all among the Christian population. Likewise if one is in favor of using the force of government to enforce one specific religious belief upon the entire populace, one should not then use the argument that using the force of government to enforce a different specific religious belief is inappropriate.

One thing you can certainly count on is that large diverse groups will never agree on many things.
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
You give yourself a little more credit than you deserve. You're no different to me than other ignorant people who parrot secular society without actually studying the topic and understanding what they're saying. It doesn't upset me, it saddens me.

Well then, it seems that my generosity in choosing to respond to you was misplaced.

"Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3)

Moving on.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: parousia70
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Well then, it seems that my generosity in choosing to respond to you was misplaced.

"Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3)

Moving on.
Well I hope for your sake you will work towards educating yourself instead of parroting fallacious, blatantly false pro-abortion arguments.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am in actuality not particularly pro-abortion in spite of being strongly pro-choice. I would like to see a reduction in abortion in general and I am of the view that the way we do so is not by criminalizing women and/or taking away women's freedom of autonomy in making their own medical choices, but through creating environments that are safe for women (even if a single mother) and their children, environments where women aren't going to be mocked, degraded, or impoverished for choosing to carry a child to term rather than abort, a culture where women and children are highly valued, and in which families do not need to make a choice between caring for their families or working outside of the home. An environment where women and children aren't regularly beaten, diminished, and abused while at home. And also an environment that provides honest sexual education based on medical knowledge versus fundamentalist religious views.

While you may look at a statistic and see 98.5% for trivial reasons of convenience, I see a great many stories involving lives of hardship, poverty, abuse, lack of education, sexual slavery (more often called "sex trafficking"), prostitution, and this list could go on.

This stuff. Paying attention to this stuff is the way Christians are to "overcome evil with good." Romans 12
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't see any consistently in Christianity on not using the sheriff's gun to force pagans to act like Christians. From my perspective, just about all Christians have certain things that they will gladly use the sheriff's gun to force pagans into compliance with their particular Christian mores. That they are often likely to contend that their particular agenda item is not a Christian more at all is a rationalization from my point of view.

There are a number of Christian groups who have stepped back from being proponents of using the sheriff's gun to support their beliefs.

Of course, the more mainstream groups consider them cults and heretics.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He ordered the killing of every man, woman, and child.

That means sanctioned infanticide. Which means that there is NO absolute prohibition on abortion (because abortion too is infanticide).

So your attempt at logic equates God wiping out a vile and evil society that He warned for years to repent, with a completely innocent unborn human being slaughtered in the womb, because they are an inconvenience to the mother.

Got it.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well considering that God doesn't address abortion anywhere in the bible, people just decide on God's behalf what they believe he should think of the matter in order to promote whatever agendas they have and behave accordingly. Simple as that. We are really good at creating gods in our own image in the name of religious beliefs.

Sure He does - God hates killing of the innocent - and the baby in the womb is completely innocent.

Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and HANDS THAT SHED INNOCENT BLOOD.

Then there’s this thing called a command to not murder - that’s what ‘thou shalt not kill’ means.

And the premeditated homicide of paying a butcher to slaughter a baby human in the womb because the child is inconvenient, is murder, whether you try to rationalize it away or not - it’s still murder.
 
Upvote 0

Inkfingers

Somebody's heretic
Supporter
May 17, 2014
5,638
1,548
✟160,762.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So your attempt at logic equates God wiping out a vile and evil society that He warned for years to repent, with a completely innocent unborn human being slaughtered in the womb, because they are an inconvenience to the mother.

Got it.

What crime were the children guilty of?

Oh dear....
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
What crime were the children guilty of?

Oh dear....
Inkfingers, in case you haven't picked up on this yet, not a single person has agreed with you that your analogy is actually comparable.

Here's an important verse that is applicable here:

Romans 9:20-23 - On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

It almost sounds like you've forgotten that God is the one that created the universe, and that God is the one that created you and all other humans, and that God is the one with all the authority to determine who lives, who dies, and God is the one who carries out judgment upon sinners. That should be acknowledged first and foremost.

So when we see stories in the OT about God using the Jewish people to carry out His judgment and His will upon other nations, it's God, using His authority, to carry out His will.

Nobody, not a single person is buying into your horrible, fallacy ridden attempt to associate the judgment of God against pagan, sinful nations to a woman, making an independent, self-determined, not God ordained choice, to intentionally kill an utterly innocent and defenseless human being.

Those events are not in any way, shape, or form, analogous. Nobody is buying it, and I honestly can't understand how you've actually convinced yourself to buy into it! That's actually the most dumbfounding thing of all. It's amazing what we can convince ourselves of if we try hard enough.

I get that this is an internet forum, and that for some reason people don't ever like acknowledging they're wrong, and instead will argue to the death about something that everyone knows is obviously not true. But you really should take a step back and think about what you're attempting to equate as analogous. It's absurd, and nobody is buying it. Why are you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What crime were the children guilty of?

Oh dear....

They were part of a completely base and evil city, that was demonic, and evil demonic practices infect many generations with demonic influence.

That’s why the entire culture was to be wiped out, including animals, because as happened when Jesus cast out a legion of demons from a man, they possessed a herd
of pigs.

You cannot excuse the evil practice of abortion on demand, by playing God. You aren’t God, and you can’t second guess the motives or actions of the true judge of the universe.

Those who face God at judgment day, are going to find out their rationalization to commit murder of the unborn, won’t excuse their sin.

You could just as well rationalize murder of already born people, by saying God wiped out entire cities of people, so He wouldn’t object to killing your enemies.

The same fallacious and atrocious logic you are using to excuse murder of the unborn would also apply to murdering those already born.
 
Upvote 0

Inkfingers

Somebody's heretic
Supporter
May 17, 2014
5,638
1,548
✟160,762.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
They were part of a completely base and evil city, that was demonic, and evil demonic practices infect many generations with demonic influence.

Hello, have you seen a liberal society recently?

But that aside, the point is that babies are not guilty of a crime so cannot be judged as such. Meaning that God allows infanticide, as I keep saying.

The same fallacious and atrocious logic you are using to excuse murder of the unborn would also apply to murdering those already born.

You know that chap Moses who brought the law down from the mountain? The law that said "thou shall not murder"? You know what he did when he got down and discovered a heck of a lot of people misbehaving rather badly? He killed THOUSANDS of them.

God is not opposed to killing.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Hello, have you seen a liberal society recently?

But that aside, the point is that babies are not guilty of a crime so cannot be judged as such. Meaning that God allows infanticide, as I keep saying.



You know that chap Moses who brought the law down from the mountain? The law that said "thou shall not murder"? You know what he did when he got down and discovered a heck of a lot of people misbehaving rather badly? He killed THOUSANDS of them.

God is not opposed to killing.
inkfingers, can you provide a summary for us of what you believe based upon your understanding of Scripture as it relates to what is acceptable for us to do in terms of killing other people?

The things you say, if followed to their logical conclusion render some pretty absurd notions.

At this point, I actually want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're trolling and don't actually believe the things you're saying. Because if you do, you have such a skewed understanding of Scripture, I almost don't even know what to say.

Let's get down to what you think is morally acceptable and not based upon these rather unique beliefs about Scripture which you seem to hold.

Here's a scenario I would like to know what you think and why:

A healthy, married, 28 year old woman becomes pregnant from her husband. They both work and each make a high 6 figure income. They were planning on having children, but not for a few more years. The mother decides at 23 weeks that she doesn't want a baby quite yet. There are no health concerns for either mother or fetus. She aborts. Do you believe that's immoral? Why or why not.
 
Upvote 0

WonbyOneanddone

Active Member
Oct 14, 2020
351
169
55
ohio
✟34,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
He ordered the killing of every man, woman, and child.

That means sanctioned infanticide. Which means that there is NO absolute prohibition on abortion (because abortion too is infanticide).
I think you just answered your own question.

God was targeting a group of people for a specific reason. And yes, they were all people.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.