User Tag List

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 165

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

  1. #91
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    God's earth
    Posts
    89
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Glenda, I will not presume to argue with the Lord concerning His Torah. Thank you for posting these scriptures. I do not know how you read them, but I am quite familiar with the two ways in which they are read. One person sees these as applying to abortion and miscarriage, another sees these as applying to premature birth, and or miscarriage, depending upon whether or not the baby, her fruit departed her body alive, and stayed alive. Or whether her fruit departed, stillborn, or died shortly after her premature birth.


    Are you aware of this common controversy over these scriptures and, if so, have you made a decision on which is the correct view?

    If not, let me explain why I think that these passages do not refer to abortion. Abortion is a deliberate and intentional act. The men who were striving were not intended to hurt the woman and certainly not the baby. Why do I say this? The Torah has just explained the penalties for premeditated murder, and unintentional manslaughter, and the cities of refuge.

    If it was the woman who died, from the accidental attack, the husband would become the avenger of blood, and within his rights to kill the man or men involved, unless they fled to the city of refuge in time.

    Thus I think the Torah is explaining what to do in the case where men unintentionally cause a miscarriage, or premature birth resulting in death or injury to the baby in the womb. I think these passages are "all" about the baby, and none about the wife. We already know what to do if a man accidentally kills another person, or causes them bodily harm. I don't think the Torah is being redundant here.

    The penalty, for the "baby's" person, is also life for life, and eye for eye, etc, just as it would be for manslaughter, except there is no provision for a city of refuge, when you take the life and the heritage of a man and his pregnant wife. Thus it is actually more severe punishment, and not less, as I read it.

    In the best case scenario, the baby survives the premature birth, completely healthy, and the husband decides the fine for the traumam and potential danger and extra expense, now needed to survive and "cope"!

    Does this make sense to you? You are of course free to disagree, and assume it is only talking about the woman, in the other "regards", as many interpret.

    The one thing that seems very obvious to me, is that we can not compare an intentional abortion, chosen by a mother and performed by a "doctor", to this clear case of unintentional, and accidental, premature birth, or miscarriage at worst, as plainly described.

    Do you at least agree with me on this point, and see it in a new way perhaps?

    Shalom!
    Peace to you

    Thank you for alternative possibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Be blessed

  2. #92
    Over 4000 post club rexlunae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The high desert
    Posts
    4,602
    Thanks
    761
    Thanked 1,677 Times in 1,073 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    689815
    Would anyone here support compulsory adoption? Some government official could just knock on your door, and inform you that you have a new son/daughter who you will have to care for and raise, and you can't refuse it.

    It seems like there is a strong parallel to cases of rape.

    So, what do you think? For or against compulsory adoption and why?

  3. #93
    Your powers are weak, old man. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,570
    Thanks
    210
    Thanked 1,275 Times in 670 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    969440
    Quote Originally Posted by rexlunae View Post
    Would anyone here support compulsory adoption? Some government official could just knock on your door, and inform you that you have a new son/daughter who you will have to care for and raise, and you can't refuse it.

    It seems like there is a strong parallel to cases of rape.

    So, what do you think? For or against compulsory adoption and why?
    How do you adopt your own child?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  4. #94
    Over 4000 post club rexlunae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The high desert
    Posts
    4,602
    Thanks
    761
    Thanked 1,677 Times in 1,073 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    689815
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    How do you adopt your own child?
    Not quite the point....Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not talking about adopting your own child, but some child who simply needs to be adopted.

    Here's what I mean. If compulsory adoption were legal, you would be essentially handed a child for whom you would have to care, spending your own resources, and compromising your own life. You might have to change whatever plans you have for your life, and instead support someone else, when you have done nothing to deserve such a thing. This is similar in many ways to the situation a woman would be in if she were raped and the rape produced a pregnancy. The question, in either case, is if it is right to expect that people will take on that responsibility and should not be given the option to refuse it.

    Does a dependent's need of a guardian automatically trump the rights of a potential guardian?

    I'm trying to frame a similar moral dilemma to see if people still answer the same sort of question the same way. The abortion issue is very emotionally charged, and that makes the discussion over it rather difficult to make headway in.

  5. #95
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1010
    Quote Originally Posted by rexlunae View Post
    Would anyone here support compulsory adoption? Some government official could just knock on your door, and inform you that you have a new son/daughter who you will have to care for and raise, and you can't refuse it.

    It seems like there is a strong parallel to cases of rape.

    So, what do you think? For or against compulsory adoption and why?
    Rape victims can put their children up for adoption if they want to. There is no shortage of parents willing to adopt. There is a shortage of kids to adopt, because so many mothers choose to kill their kids instead.

    We are not saying that women cannot forfeit their children to others. We're merely saying that they can't murder them.


    Do you realize that a rape victim's child is just as much her biological child as any child could ever be?

  6. #96
    Over 4000 post club rexlunae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The high desert
    Posts
    4,602
    Thanks
    761
    Thanked 1,677 Times in 1,073 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    689815
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    Rape victims can put their children up for adoption if they want to.
    Sure, but that's still missing the point. The woman can't put the kid up for adoption until after it's born. She has to go through 9 months of pregnancy, during which she is responsible for all the extra food, extra clothes, doctor visits and the resulting bills, the pain of birth, the physical and emotional changes that accompany pregnancy, and the social consequences. Some of these costs can be recovered or compensated. Some of them cannot.

    So I think we're back to the same question: Does the need of a dependant for a guardian trump the rights of the potential guardian?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    We are not saying that women cannot forfeit their children to others. We're merely saying that they can't murder them.
    You're trying to make the issue more black-and-white than it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    Do you realize that a rape victim's child is just as much her biological child as any child could ever be?
    Yes. And so...?

  7. #97
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    God's earth
    Posts
    89
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by ebenz47037 View Post
    Yes, Glenda, the child will have to face all of that. But, it is the parents' job to protect and, if need be, stand up for the child in cases like this.



    The attempted suicide thing is one reason that I'd be against my daughter having an abortion. I know too many women/girls who had abortions and later felt so much guilt about killing their unborn children that they attempted suicide. Several succeeded. The ones who felt the most guilt (at least of those who told me about it) were rape victims. They wished that they had waited before making the decision to abort the children. With hindsight being 20/20, they knew that at the time of the rape they were not mentally stable enough to make such a decision. I don't think it's a wise thing for a woman who is already dealing with mental and physical pain of rape, including self-blame, to make a decision to abort her child because of the ones I've known who did so and later regretted it so much that they couldn't live with themselves.
    There is no good side to rape for the victim.
    I realise that you and your daughter are different to the general population, so I checked statistics from NEUTRAL sources (neither pro or anti abortion) and they are alarming. I'll share some here and links for verification:

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
    http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajog/ab...195629!8091!-1
    http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php

    Only 19% of rape is reported
    Only 2 to 3% of reports are false
    22% of raped females are under 12 years old

    Consequences 'statistically' commonly include:

    Pregnancy (over 5%)
    Gynecological and pregnancy complications
    Migraines and other frequent headaches
    Chronic pelvic pain
    Gastrointestinal disorders
    Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
    Eating disorders
    Substance abuse
    Sleep disturbance
    Depression
    Attempted or completed suicide (13x more likely than general population and 6x more likely than victims of other crimes)
    Alienation
    Post-traumatic stress disorder
    Less emotional support from friends and family
    Less frequent contact with friends and relatives


    These are just some of the statistics just for the rape!
    There is likelihood of suicide simply from the rape, without any pregnancy or statistically LIKELY pregnancy complications.
    Statistically it is sad that not many people have the supportive family situation that your daughter has.

    All I have been saying, is that the victim needs compassion more than condemnation for any desperate action they may commit.

    I wish everyone was blessed with supportive family and love as your family enjoys, but sadly this is a statistical rarity.
    It's horrid to think of a child under 12 being violated and COMMONLY lacking support and on top of that being condemned BY STRANGERS for her probable desperate actions. I'd just want to hug her and take her home and not to condemn her!

  8. #98
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenda View Post
    Peace to you

    Thank you for alternative possibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Be blessed


    Glenda, thank you for your thought-through answer. I certainly agree that parents and children do not have equal rights, and that there is financial compensation, at first, when Oxen gore people. However there are further examples given. There is no scripture that adresses directly....thou shalt not abort a baby in the womb.....if there were, no two "reasonable" Christians would have to debate opposing viewpoints.

    There is however a priority given to life, and against intentional murder, which can be extrapolated to cover instances of willful abortion. There is also a case to be made for the 'spirit' of the law, when the written Torah does not cover, each and every, possible scenario.

    I can remember that our Church has an excellent teaching on the bird's nest scripture, that may contradict your "reading' of it, but due to my birthdate, listed on my driver's lisence, I suppose that is why I can't remember what it is.


    At any rate I will have to ponder some of the scriptures, in my mind, at work tomorrow, and ask an elder at Church, in our evening study, for "our" take on Deu 22:6.

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

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

    You be Blessed, as well.

  9. #99
    Proverbs 31:10 ebenz47037's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    southeastern Indiana
    Posts
    6,790
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 849 Times in 629 Posts

    Blog Entries
    8
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)





    Rep Power
    706516
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenda View Post
    All I have been saying, is that the victim needs compassion more than condemnation for any desperate action they may commit.
    Yes. I know that, Glenda. But, advising a rape victim who finds herself pregnant by her attacker/s is not the best thing to do. That's all I've been saying. I just used my own experience with friends who have had abortions (most of them were not raped) to say what I felt needed to be said.

    I wish everyone was blessed with supportive family and love as your family enjoys, but sadly this is a statistical rarity. It's horrid to think of a child under 12 being violated and COMMONLY lacking support and on top of that being condemned BY STRANGERS for her probable desperate actions. I'd just want to hug her and take her home and not to condemn her!
    Oh. I know this as well. I know that one reason my daughter would have such support is because I have been raped and had no one to help me get through it. Because of what I went through, I've helped other women who have been raped and know a lot of what my daughter would need to get through it herself.

    One thing, though. You weren't talking about a 12 year old girl being condemned by strangers. You asked me what I would advise my daughter to do. I told you. I would give the same advice to any victim of rape. And, I would offer the same support that I would offer to my own daughter. Knowing what it's like not having any support, I would be more willing to support someone who has to suffer through that. More than likely, aborting the unborn child would add to that woman's problems, though.
    They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They shall mount up with wings as eagles. -- Isaiah 40:31

    Vegetarian - Indian word for lousy hunter



  10. #100
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    God's earth
    Posts
    89
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by ebenz47037 View Post
    Yes. I know that, Glenda. But, advising a rape victim who finds herself pregnant by her attacker/s is not the best thing to do. That's all I've been saying.
    Agreed. Sorry I misunderstood and thought victims may be advised what choice they should make. Thanks and I agree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebenz47037 View Post
    I just used my own experience with friends who have had abortions (most of them were not raped) to say what I felt needed to be said.
    That's fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebenz47037 View Post
    Oh. I know this as well. I know that one reason my daughter would have such support is because I have been raped and had no one to help me get through it. Because of what I went through, I've helped other women who have been raped and know a lot of what my daughter would need to get through it herself.
    You are qualified from personal experience to do this and it's good you use your knowledge and love to help others. Honestly, I'm impressed and wish everyone had access to someone like you. You are rare, so sadly statistics show suffering of the majority in lack of access to someone like you. Even your daughter said that she knows she could not cope alone and would rely on you if this had happened to her so I look at other children who don't have you at home to turn to because these children certainly can't cope.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebenz47037 View Post
    One thing, though. You weren't talking about a 12 year old girl being condemned by strangers. You asked me what I would advise my daughter to do. I told you.
    My apologies ebenz47037, 2 seperate issues got mixed and I agree I asked you about your daughter and you responded and I appreciate your answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebenz47037 View Post
    One thing, though. You weren't talking about a 12 year old girl being condemned by strangers. You asked me what I would advise my daughter to do. I told you. I would give the same advice to any victim of rape. And, I would offer the same support that I would offer to my own daughter. Knowing what it's like not having any support, I would be more willing to support someone who has to suffer through that.
    Here there are 2 seperate issues ... your daughter and then 'any victim of rape'. I'm glad you would offer them the same support as your daughter. It sure wouldn't be easy for you bringing up so many possible babies of victims if they all accepted your offer though, to take care of the baby until the mother was old enough if she could cope by then. You could end up with hundreds of babies if word got out! I don't think I would be game to make such an offer. You are rare.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebenz47037 View Post
    More than likely, aborting the unborn child would add to that woman's problems, though.
    Sadly statistics show that in lack of support from people like you, coping with and surviving the rape without attempting or managing suicide is hard enough. Aborting or not, is kind of incidental when the pregnant victim is suffering beyond her means of coping and since complications are common in child rape pregnancies, the focus should be on the welfare and survival of the rape victim since she may not even live.

    This is general post from here and not personal for you ebenz47037

    I think everyone on this thread agrees that aborting is undesirable killing. I think everyone agrees that a child being raped and her welfare suffering is also undesirable. I think the thing that has been overlooked by many, are the clear teachings of Jesus.

    Jesus told us to obey God's law. Jesus told us to get logs from our own eyes rather than worry about sight problems of others. Jesus told us to NOT judge or condemn and then we get to see Jesus demonstrate this important command.
    A woman caught doing a capital offense (adultery) is brought to Jesus and it is confirmed that Jesus knows and agrees with the law of Moses that adultery is wrong and worthy of death sentence. No disagreement.
    OK.
    Jesus tells the judgmental religious people that they may only judge her IF they are sinless!
    Jesus IS sinless and has the right to judge and condemn!
    The non-sinless judgmental religious people walk off because they have no right to pick on anyone else.
    Jesus does NOT condone adultery ... but what does sinless Jesus do? He tells the woman that he is refraining from condemning her!

    Jesus, who has the right to judge and pick and point the finger, refrains from condemning someone who has broken a serious law of Moses that should result in the death penalty!

    Like Jesus, nobody here is denying the righteous law or denying that killing is a capital offense! Nobody is disagreeing with that.
    What does matter is that those who love Jesus OBEY him and Jesus said to NOT judge or condemn and yet people who claim to be 'Christ'ian often refuse to obey Jesus and seem to desire to judge and condemn those who commit capital offenses!
    All I'm saying is that we should refrain from judging and condemning as Jesus commanded and demonstrated. That is NOT approval of a crime. It IS loving obedience to Jesus! It shows who we follow!

    There are many capital ofenses in the law eg breaching sabbath etc and Jesus assured us that we will be judged and condemned as we judge and condemn others. It is time to promote heeding Jesus and show mercy and compassion to broken hearted raped children and to NOT judge or condemn how such a physically, mentally and emotionally damaged child deals with her situation. We are all guilty of death sentence offenses before God. It's time to take log out of our own eye and recognise how compassionate God is to us and share that compassion with others who also breach capital offense laws of God! No more pointing the finger at others, but fix oursleves. Neither God nor our countries made us judges so how dare we even begin to poke the finger at others when we should be on death row in God's eyes! Looking at sins of others simply distracts us from fixing our own sins and gives a false sense of pride in blindly considering others may be worse and more guilty than us! Big mistake ... HUGE! If we cleaned up our own act then we would be the loving compassionate lights in this dark world that Jesus commanded we be. Jesus did NOT say we would be known by our self-righteous finger-pointing! Satan is the accuser and NOT Jesus!

    People rejected heeding Jesus in the past, but I hope they begin heeding him now. No harm in hoping.
    God bless

  11. #101
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    God's earth
    Posts
    89
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Sorry i can't give a more complete response now. Busy busy!

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

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

  12. #102
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenda View Post
    Peace to you

    Thank you for alternative possibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Be blessed


    Glenda, I'm bacK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gotta go again

    Be Blessed, in Him!

  13. #103
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    God's earth
    Posts
    89
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Glenda, I'm bacK.
    Will be going to Bible study shortly, and ask about nest verse, but my understanding is that yes, eggs and even the young birds may be killed and eaten, and so may female birds. The command is to not take "both" mother and young together.
    Glad you are back Jeremiah
    Sincere apologies for my doing a confusing post
    Only point about the bird with young is that God gives priority to keep parental creature alive because it can breed again. A young without an adult to support it will die anyway, so survival of a parent takes priority in God's plan when it is needless that all should die.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    If you are trying to make the point that God gives greater rights to adult birds then young, then what about animal sacrifices he commanded, especially concerning adult birds.
    No that was not the point sorry. It's not about adult vs young. The point was parental priority in God's eyes. Sacrificed animals are not about being 'adult' or 'young' either. Many sacrifices are 'first-borns' so will be young, while other sacrifices are stipulated to be 'a year old' or 'never having worked or bred'. The point was simply about priority of a parental bird's survival over that of eggs or young.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    If you are making point that the eggs are equivalent to fertilized egg in human??? then this verse would also "justify" killing newborn babies, and I know you are not going there.
    You 'know' absolutely correctly thankfully.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Clean animals are human food. Humans are not food for anyone; therefore I am not sure where your point, of parental rights is leading us, in this particular verse?
    Parental survival priority vs eggs and young survival. It's not right for all to needlessly die so ensure the parent lives to breed again.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    I am not confused about the ox goring verses. It seems clear to me that in plain English. NASB version is stating, that if a known dangerous Ox is not confined by its owner, the owner is guilty of causing the death of other human beings. Verse 31 concerning son or daughter, to me, says clearly the same penalty is exacted for them as for an adult. Whether it be his death, or if the "court" has decided upon a monetary judgment rather than death. Some commentaries include both; Death penalty {from God} and monetary judgment from owner's estate.
    Ok, if it's ok we'll focus on scripture and not worry about any commentaries, because there is a very distinct difference with the ox goring situation that highlights that death of offspring results in financial compensation while death of an adult results in capital punishment. That was the point I was making ... loss of a child attracts financial compensation because children are the future source of financial security for parents! Death of a parent is a capital offense! Death of an offspring isn't!
    Look again:
    Exo 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
    When it comes to offspring, financial compensation is the outcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    I also read verses 22 thru 24 differently as I explained earlier, and gave my reasons. The rabbis almost unanimously agree with your reading of them. Monetary compensation for a miscarriage, further penalties for harm to wife.
    That agrees with all scripture where loss of offspring results in financial compensation.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Also did you agree with my point that even this case of two men fighting and causing a miscarriage, can not be compared to a woman conciously taking her baby in womb, to a doctor, and paying him to deliberately kill her baby?
    I totally agree with you Jeremiah.
    There is no comparison between deliberate and accidental.
    The only point I was making is that many people on this forum have made the unscriptural errant assumption that the life of a parent and the life of a fertilized egg or unborn are equal in God's eyes and they aren't. All are valuable and none should be killed, but the life of the parent has priority scripturally. I'm not promoting killing anyone and I'm not approving or promoting that. I was simply stating a scriptural truth that is often overlooked because of errant traditional assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    I am completely confused about your reasoning concerning the verses from Mark, you will have to explain it to me, please.

    Even grown children are to still honor their parents and care for them. By announcing something as Corban, the Pharisses denied the ability of grown adults to provide that, particular "gift to God" to their needy parents. Please explain, I'm just not getting it? .
    I was only showing how Jesus did not change the law about offspring being the source of financial security for their parents which is why financial compensation is due to parents on loss of any offspring. The laws of Moses were not changed by Jesus, who verified parents were entitled to financial security from their offspring.

    Truly sorry to have confused you.

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

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

    However, thou shalt NOT kill!

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    The verses that came to my mind while at work today, is that "we" are to leave Egypt behind, and, not to take up the practices of those who are inhabiting the land, the Caananites. They were being dispossessed because of their abominable ways. Some of those abominations included infanticide, child sacrifice, and I do believe both physical and chemical abortions. Though my memory fails me where I read that......Need to reresearch, Egyptian and Phoenician et. al. ancient birth control.
    Jeremiah, I TOTALLY agree! Thou shalt not kill ... not physically or verbally.
    I think everyone here agrees with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Just as I admitted there is no verse saying "thou shalt not commit an abortion," neither are there any verses that say "thou shalt" or that even regulate it.
    Again 100% total agreement. Abortion is deliberate killing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Gotta go again

    Be Blessed, in Him!
    Hope you have a great bible study
    Be blessed
    peace to you

  14. #104
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenda View Post
    Glad you are back Jeremiah


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


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


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

    However, thou shalt NOT kill!

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Shalom!

  15. #105
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    God's earth
    Posts
    89
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Yes, we had a great Bible Study. However we found out the Church Building we have been renting from a defunct Church of God, has been sold, and the "Baptists" who bought it are "kicking us out."

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Now back to topic. I have left your quotes from post, regarding the inequality of parents- adults, compared to children and the unborn. I will simply agree with that principle.
    That's all I do too. I accept God's rulings on God's priorities.

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    However you also stated the fertilized egg {human of course}and the unborn, is not equal, to the life of a parent, in God's eyes. What you need to establish is when that inequality, allows for the parent, or someone else? the ability to decide to take the life of the lesser, to save the greater.
    Thankfully, no I don't need to decide. I have not been placed in that position by God enabling me to be a surgeon. It is not for me to know or decide such things. The medical profession are often faced with tubal pregnancies and they prioritise saving the mother rather than have the mother and tubal fertilized egg both die needlessly. This seems to agree with the parent bird not needlessly dying with the chicks or eggs. Minimise loss of life.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    In the Torah I see no "grant" given by God for the taking of innocent life, by another individual under any circumstances.
    So we lack agreement on saving the mother in the case of tubal pregnancy since it involves the death of a fertilized egg. I accept your views and mine are different. I don't know how pleased God would be that a mother died needlessly by such a choice, but I'm not God.



    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Are you aware of any?........
    I thought part of Torah was to save life ... Jesus spoke of saving life.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    You are trying to define a case and a circumstance, where killing an "innocent" is an indivual parent's choice and decision. I do not think that inequality, nor, "quality" of life for the greater one, rises to the "occasion."
    I accept we don't see things the same way so that I believe loss of one life is better than needless loss of 2 and you believe otherwise. I accept people see things differently but I'm saddened it could needlessly cost an extra life.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    Only if one "must" die, that another may live, does a choice like that, "have" to be made. That is the choice that Yeshua made. The greater one, died for the lesser. That would, by example, be the choice that mothers used to, and could, and did, make.
    But a fertilzed egg cannot live without the mother so there is no point in the 'greater' dying needlessly for the 'lesser' since a tubal pregnancy or other such fatal complication is going to cost the life of the fertilsed egg. If you think the mother should die as well then I accept this is what you believe. That seems to be promoting needless death and saddens me but I accept this is what you believe.

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

    If only one can live, then yes, the baby "should" die.
    Now I'm the one who is really really confused sorry.
    I thought the discussion was that you see no allowance ever for terminating an innocent life yet this is what surgeons often must do to save a mother.

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah View Post
    If she were a full grown woman, who had wanted the baby, she would possibly, choose the other way around? But she is not forced to do so, nor condemned, for not doing so.
    I'm sorry but I'm still at a loss. So you would not condemn an endangered child?
    Is this your point?

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

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

    That is the very lesson that those who mocked Yeshua on the cross, "missed" and are still missing today. It is, what the one thief on the cross, did not miss.
    Thank you for explaining this. I appreciate it.

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

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

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

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

    Shalom!
    Thanks for this on lashon hara too.
    Peace to you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us