Who is my neighbor?

[disciple1]

Disciple, first of all, you need to remove the foot you just shoved deep in your mouth. If you would take a minute and actually browse over the recent abortion discussions you would find that I'm involved in virtually every single one of them. And what do I argue in every single one of them? Well, since apparently your reading comprehension level is sub-elementary school, I'll tell you - abortion is always morally wrong. All humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

I accept your apology for ignorantly calling me a hypocrite. Unfortunately, it's "Christians" like you that come trolling into these forums and only end up doing more harm than good.

ignorantly calling me a hypocrite

You've given no bible verses, is your word worth more than Gods, you act like it is, I've given you many verses, but your not listening, I guess your a foolish teacher, who likes to listen to his own words rather than Gods.

 

[SPF]

You've given no bible verses, is your word worth more than Gods, you act like it is, I've given you many verses, but your not listening, I guess your a foolish teacher, who likes to listen to his own words rather than Gods.

I honestly don't even know what you're talking about. What have I said that you actually disagree with? What from Scripture are you looking for me to defend? I'm utterly lost and confused. Do you know what you're talking about?

Also, could you answer me this? - If I were to ask you to explain to me the rules of baseball, would you do so from Scripture? Does Scripture answer every question we have?

 

[disciple1]

I honestly don't even know what you're talking about. What have I said that you actually disagree with? What from Scripture are you looking for me to defend? I'm utterly lost and confused. Do you know what you're talking about?

Also, could you answer me this? - If I were to ask you to explain to me the rules of baseball, would you do so from Scripture? Does Scripture answer every question we have?

Nothing matters but the bible and love.
1 Peter chapter 4 verse 8
Love covers a great many sins.

1 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 6
Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.


You don't know the bible from what you've said.

Look at what it says in verse 6 here "Do not go beyond what is written."

No one knows if abortion is right or wrong, not you not me.

But you people who oppose it set your selves up like God, when your all a bunch of hypocrites.

If I were to ask you to explain to me the rules of baseball,

 

[SPF]

Nothing matters but the bible and love.

First off, if you actually believed this, your speech would look different. You are not speaking in love. You're rude and judgmental in your speech.

You don't know the bible from what you've said.

Clearly you're the one who does not know the Bible.

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

This applies the lex talionis or "law of retribution" to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, compared to the much greater retributions that had been common before, such as life for eye, life for tooth, lives of the offender’s family for one life).

The lex talionis would already have been applied to a woman who was injured in a fight. The distinguishing point in this passage is that a pregnant woman is hurt "so that her child comes out"; the child is the focus of the lex talionis in this passage. Aborted babies must have justice, too.

Look at what it says in verse 6 here "Do not go beyond what is written."

I don't think your interpretation of this passage is actually correct. Paul is actually referring to what he has written about himself and Apollos. Paul was a humble man, and essentially what he is saying here is that Christians should regard themselves as brothers, and as all on the same level. You've totally missed the purpose of this passage. I suspect you're reading the ESV version, which is a good version, but sometimes a little study and commentary are useful. Here are a few other translations that are a little closer to the mark:

NASB - Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

KJV - And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

CEV - Friends, I have used Apollos and myself as examples to teach you the meaning of the saying, "Follow the rules." I want you to stop saying that one of us is better than the other.

Scripture doesn't expressly forbid me from using heroin, but based upon the principles taught in Scripture, would you not agree that we can make a good case that using heroin might be wrong?

 

[disciple1]

First off, if you actually believed this, your speech would look different. You are not speaking in love. You're rude and judgmental in your speech.

Clearly you're the one who does not know the Bible.

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

This applies the lex talionis or "law of retribution" to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, compared to the much greater retributions that had been common before, such as life for eye, life for tooth, lives of the offender’s family for one life).

The lex talionis would already have been applied to a woman who was injured in a fight. The distinguishing point in this passage is that a pregnant woman is hurt "so that her child comes out"; the child is the focus of the lex talionis in this passage. Aborted babies must have justice, too.

I don't think your interpretation of this passage is actually correct. Paul is actually referring to what he has written about himself and Apollos. Paul was a humble man, and essentially what he is saying here is that Christians should regard themselves as brothers, and as all on the same level. You've totally missed the purpose of this passage. I suspect you're reading the ESV version, which is a good version, but sometimes a little study and commentary are useful. Here are a few other translations that are a little closer to the mark:

NASB - Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

KJV - And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

CEV - Friends, I have used Apollos and myself as examples to teach you the meaning of the saying, "Follow the rules." I want you to stop saying that one of us is better than the other.

Scripture doesn't expressly forbid me from using heroin, but based upon the principles taught in Scripture, would you not agree that we can make a good case that using heroin might be wrong?

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

That's about law, we're not under law but grace.


Psalm 139 verse 16
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.


Matthew chapter 23 verse 4
They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.


You say I'm rude, I would say look at your own posts, but you blind.



No one knows if abortion is right or wrong.

As far as drugs your talking about, I don't know it's not written, but we both know we're better off not doing it, but living for God.

1 Peter chapter 4 verse 8
Love covers a great many sins.


And the more you love the greater your reward.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

He didn't keep it out of the NT .. e.g. Mark 10:19 .. "do not kill" Nothing else needed to be said.

But you have to assume, first, you're right about even a single fertilized egg being a person, and then apply this verse, to use it in the abortion debate. But if you understand that a fetus is not a person until the brain can support personhood, then this verse does not apply for those earlier stages. So your citing of this verse does not apply to the debate.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What Paul is doing here is attempting the fallacious argument from silence.

What SPF is doing here is attempting the fallacious argument that people in earlier times speaking their opinion were necessarily wiser and more right than people in these days.

 

[-V-]

But if you understand that a fetus is not a person until the brain can support personhood,

Why should we assume that "understanding" to be correct?

 

[SPF]

But if you understand that a fetus is not a person until the brain can support personhood, then this verse does not apply for those earlier stages.

I've seen you assert this a number of times, but I have yet to see you make an objective argument as to why this is actually the case.

We know scientifically that human life begins at conception. We know Biblically that we are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth. But what I don't see is on what basis you assert that there are some humans that possess moral worth and some humans that don't possess moral worth. Can you provide that argument?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why should we assume that "understanding" to be correct?

Our only guides are our knowledge of scripture, our knowledge of the world, our ability to reason, our closeness to God. SCRIPTURE on the issue of abortion is mostly silent, but there are a few passages that seem to indicate the status of the unborn is not yet that of a person. Of course, those who fanatically oppose all abortions choose to interpret those scriptures otherwise. In the case of the first man Adam, scripture indicates his flesh alone did not make him a living soul, but rather when he took his first breath.

We know that there are many spontaneous abortions most of which the woman does not even realize occurred. This seems to be a built in feature of the natural world God created and He doesn't seem to mind that He made the world that way.

We know that the brain is the seat of personality, and nobody is truly dead until the brain dies. Let the heart stop, and restart, the person never really died. Let other organs fail, and be replaced, the person never really died. Let the brain die and all the other organs live, and we feel no qualms about harvesting the other organs for saving the lives of others.

Some believe the soul is an emergent phenomenon of the brain; I am one of those. This understanding leads naturally to the idea that before the brain is developed enough to be called a "soul" it is not yet a person and it is not a murder to terminate such a pregnancy. Some believe a soul is issued from heaven to inhabit the physical body. But then the question comes up, when is such a soul issued? There is no scriptural statement about that, it is sheer speculation that such a soul is issued at any time before the baby is born and takes its first breath, as in the case of Adam, who is a picture of every human coming into being.

Reasoning can support the right to abortion, but others reason differently. As for the spiritual guidance from God, we also have different reports.

We can agree that any mother who wants to continue to carry her child to birth should be allowed to do so. I would further say she should be entitled to medical care for that birth regardless of ability to personally pay for such medical care. I freely suggest our tax dollars and insurance payment dollars should go towards helping all such women. I hope you agree.

 

[-V-]

Our only guides are our knowledge of scripture, our knowledge of the world, our ability to reason, our closeness to God. SCRIPTURE on the issue of abortion is mostly silent,

Except for Exodus 21:22-23, which says to punish injury to an unborn child with "life for life". There's nothing in there limiting it to injuries sustained by the mother.

but there are a few passages that seem to indicate the status of the unborn is not yet that of a person.

You'll need to cite them.

Of course, those who fanatically oppose all abortions choose to interpret those scriptures otherwise. In the case of the first man Adam, scripture indicates his flesh alone did not make him a living soul, but rather when he took his first breath.

No, it says he was alive when God breathed life into him. The unborn are alive, and they do breathe. Further, Adam was a special, singular act of creation that is vastly different than conception. So, you're comparing apples & oranges.

We know that there are many spontaneous abortions most of which the woman does not even realize occurred. This seems to be a built in feature of the natural world God created and He doesn't seem to mind that He made the world that way.

Lol, by that logic, murder is ok, because people are going to die eventually of natural causes anyway.

We know that the brain is the seat of personality, and nobody is truly dead until the brain dies.

How do you know it's not the soul, rather than the brain? Are you arguing that God the Father or the Holy Spirit don't have personalities because they don't have physical brains?

Some believe the soul is an emergent phenomenon of the brain; I am one of those. This understanding leads naturally to the idea that before the brain is developed enough to be called a "soul" it is not yet a person and it is not a murder to terminate such a pregnancy. Some believe a soul is issued from heaven to inhabit the physical body. But then the question comes up, when is such a soul issued? There is no scriptural statement about that, it is sheer speculation that such a soul is issued at any time before the baby is born and takes its first breath, as in the case of Adam, who is a picture of every human coming into being.

Exactly as you just said - "sheer speculation". If we're going to be slaughtering the unborn, I think we're going to need a better justification than speculating. And, as already shown, Adam is NOT representative of human conception. That he was never conceived naturally nor spent a single second in a womb quite obviously disqualifies Adam from being such a representative.

Reasoning can support the right to abortion,

... which has yet to be demonstrated.

We can agree that any mother who wants to continue to carry her child to birth should be allowed to do so. I would further say she should be entitled to medical care for that birth regardless of ability to personally pay for such medical care. I freely suggest our tax dollars and insurance payment dollars should go towards helping all such women. I hope you agree.

No, I can't give a blanket agreement to that. If a woman gets pregnant by choice, there's no way I should be legally obligated to pay for it, unless I were the actual father.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Except for Exodus 21:22-23, which says to punish injury to an unborn child with "life for life". There's nothing in there limiting it to injuries sustained by the mother.

As I said, you came up with an alternate interpretation from the plain reading of the text. Here's the verses:

Ex 21:22-24 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
KJV

See, if the woman loses her unborn, that's not enough to call a killing. Rather, worthy of punishment, of course, but not murder. The part about "life for life" is hypothetical, afterwards, and is generic, not specifying whose life is lost, which could easily be the hurt mother. So your reading is skewed towards your interptreation, as I stated it would be.

You'll need to cite them.

Job wished he had never been born. It wouldn't even have been a death . . . he would simply not be.

Job 3:16
6 "Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be,
As infants that never saw light.
NASU

No, it says he was alive when God breathed life into him. The unborn are alive, and they do breathe. Further, Adam was a special, singular act of creation that is vastly different than conception. So, you're comparing apples & oranges.

The unborn don't get their oxygen from the movements of their lungs. Indeed, their very hearts transform from three chambers to four chambers at birth, a dramatic moment in which they begin to receive the breath of life from the air.

Lol, by that logic, murder is ok, because people are going to die eventually of natural causes anyway.

Your twisted use of logic is duly noted.

How do you know it's not the soul, rather than the brain? Are you arguing that God the Father or the Holy Spirit don't have personalities because they don't have physical brains?

More twisted use of logic, duly noted. Since you reason so poorly why should we listen to your reasoning?

No, I can't give a blanket agreement to that. If a woman gets pregnant by choice, there's no way I should be legally obligated to pay for it, unless I were the actual father.

God forbid you should actually participate in helping human life that's already born. Just make sure they get born, that's your only concern. Well, I deplore your cold, uncaring preferences in this regard. Sometimes a mother with an unborn child needs medical care to keep the baby, but can't afford it. In that case, the loss of the baby is, to you, ok to allow to happen. I stand amazed to see this kind of thinking.

 

[samir]

rather than change the argument tell us how you show mercy to a mother considering abortion? I did not say to be supportive of her right to make a choice I said to be supportive of her to make the right choice. Perhaps on the surface it's just reordering the words but there is a big difference.

Abortion is murder. How would you show mercy to a man who is considering murdering his daughter?

 

[DamianWarS]

Abortion is murder. How would you show mercy to a man who is considering murdering his daughter?

you didn't answer the question and changed the argument again but i'll answer your question.

it's against the law for a man to kill his daughter. so there is a cultural and legal precedence, as well as an ethical responsibility to act if a man or woman admitted to wanting to kill their child. A simple phone call probably will initiate an investigation and the child would be removed from the home if discovered they were in danger. The man/woman wanting to kill their child however still would need help and mercy can still be given regardless what the law does with the person.

Abortion however is legal in areas of the US (assuming we are talking about those areas) or completely legal in Canada so if a woman is contemplating abortion we no longer have cultural and legal precedence to act and although we still have an ethical obligation our method of acting is going to change. jimmyjimmy suggested a "slap" on the face should be the reaction but I disagree. It's a case by case scenario that requires someone sensitive and who is respected by the individual to know how to act but condemnation or discipline I don't see as an effective method.

If they are in fact contemplating abortion then most definitely they will be going through some sort of emotional distress and its in that distress we can show them mercy. What they deserve perhaps is a "slap" in the face or something harsher but what they will respond to is a friend and someone who gives them respect. This is where the mercy is demonstrated because the "slap" is being withheld and in return you are giving them respect and a needed friend. This is not to support a sinful act but rather to help them in a time of crisis to make the right choice in a way that doesn't belittle or disrespect them.

 

[Neogaia777]

Abortion is murder. How would you show mercy to a man who is considering murdering his daughter?

We are only wondering if there a minor amount of cases where exceptions can or should be made, when, the "woman" only should be allowed to abort a child, regardless of our our moral discomfort about it...

But, not in the majority of cases, no, should be illegal...

God Bless!

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread will remain closed due to far too much flaming and goading.
MOD HAT OFF​