Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Abortion Biblical?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
This would support the idea that the fetus life is not equivalent to a born human's life.

That's how you interpret the passage.
"support the idea"
Supports your idea and his.

Is abortion intentional or accidental?
The motive is being judged.
Vehicular manslaughter is accidental. If I intentionally run a guy over that's murder. So manslaughter means the dead guy's life had less value? Because that's exactly what he saying by the judgment passed.
I'm not buying into that logic.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp? ... love%7C%7C
Vehicular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor (minor crime with a maximum punishment of a year in county jail or only a fine)

But murder can get the death penalty or life in prison. Thus, if I get one year for killing a guy by vehicular manslaughter the guy's life didn't mean much. Not compared to being condemned to death because I meant to kill him by running him over which would mean the guy's life was worth a whole lot more simply because a much stiffer penalty was handed down by the judge.

You just can't determine value by the judgment passed. And that's what he's doing. It's a good ploy but under scrutiny it doesn't work.
 
quath said:
I believe the point is that God gives all life including animal life to human life. Giving life does not mean it is necessarily sacred.

I don't think many lead a sacred life much less have one. Well, Christ did. But that certainly doesn't minimize the value of a human life in any case.
There's a lot of talk from pro-abortionists about rights and "person". Mr McKinley claims to know scripture but while the bible makes no such distinctions he does. He uses scripture then he uses the ideas/words that come from the pro-abortion stance, "person", "rights" etc. He needs to stick with one side rather than mixing the two to come up with what he wants. But then, he can't stick solely with scripture for his terms and their usage for that would make him a fundementalist. And he can't stick with a total secular view for that would make him a non-believer. So he mixes the two as he sees fit. A little of this and a little of that. He's playing both sides and wants to liberalize the Word of God.
 
Potluck said:
Is abortion intentional or accidental?
I think McKinley's stance is that the Bible doesn't really address this. The closest is when an accidental death of a woman (which may be accidental) is compared to the death (which is a byproduct of violence) of her fetus. What he tries to draw from this the the relative worth of one death verses another.

Now if he topic of abortion were brought up back then, then maybe God would have said that it was wrong to purposefully kill a fetus. But that direct question is never asked nor answered. So all you can do is look at similar scripture.

So I do agree with you that intent is important. However, if intent is not directly addressed, what can you do?

He uses scripture then he uses the ideas/words that come from the pro-abortion stance, "person", "rights" etc. He needs to stick with one side rather than mixing the two to come up with what he wants. But then, he can't stick solely with scripture for his terms and their usage for that would make him a fundementalist. And he can't stick with a total secular view for that would make him a non-believer. So he mixes the two as he sees fit. A little of this and a little of that. He's playing both sides and wants to liberalize the Word of God.
I don't know how he came to his stance. Maybe he saw someone try to justify pro-life with verse that logically didn't fit. So maybe he went looking for one that would fit and didn't find one. Maybe that search led him to believe that pro-life movement is not found in the Bible. He could feel passionate about people misusing the Bible for political purposes. I don't know how he came to his beliefs, but I don't think he had to start from a secular view and tried to justify it.

Another example I have seen is racism. I remember my grandmother saying that blacks were suppose to be in a lesser position to whites because of Noah's curse. This was not an uncommon view. But then someone comes along and say they are misusing Bible verses to justify a political and social belief. They say that Noah's curse does not have to apply to all black people.

So maybe McKinley feels he is doing something similar.
 
Pedophilia isn't directly addressed either. By his logic then it could be right.
I don't agree with his logic.
 
Potluck said:
Pedophilia isn't directly addressed either. By his logic then it could be right.
I don't agree with his logic.
I agree that pedophillia is not directly addressed. So you would have to look at related verses and see if those shed a light. You could say that rebellious children were beaten or killed, so that would be a point for pedophillia. However, girls were killed for pre-maritial sex, so that is a point against.

I think in the end, you would find that girls were married off young, which would be pedophillia by today's standard. But they did not approve of sex outside of marriage except for an occasional prostitute or with a slave/servant. So they were probably against sex with really young children, but not with older children (or ones we would consider children).

But maybe this further addresses the issue: should we really try to get our morality from books written by people thousands of years ago?
 
Lewis W said:
Yup' I just took a look' it was 12. Here is some stuff on that.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-trad.html
Wow. Very interesting link. One thing that shocked me was in the United States section:

Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most states was 10 years old. In Delaware it was seven.

Twelve states, as late as 1930, allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry with parental consent.


:o
 
Quath said:
Wow. Very interesting link. One thing that shocked me was in the United States section:

Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most states was 10 years old. In Delaware it was seven.

Twelve states, as late as 1930, allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry with parental consent.


:o
Yeah Quath' in todays time' it would be a perverts delight.
 
christian_soldier said:
I didn't wade through all the entries.

Did anyone mention THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER?

'nuff said.
Yes, that was addressed. You should read the article. It may interest you.
 
Quath said:
should we really try to get our morality from books written by people thousands of years ago?

Morality does not come from books, but from God Almighty.

Those who deny God have no basis for morality at all. Everything becomes purely relative.

The only restraints an atheist can be expected to have are those imposed by the legal system.
 
christian_soldier said:
Morality does not come from books, but from God Almighty.

Those who deny God have no basis for morality at all. Everything becomes purely relative.

The only restraints an atheist can be expected to have are those imposed by the legal system.
The article was written by a Christian.
 
Quath said:
The article was written by a Christian.

Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God.

Anyone can brandish the Christian label. They can even believe they are followers of Christ. But if they ignore God's Word, they are not followers of Christ, hence, they are not Christians.

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

35Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

36And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

39He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

43The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

46And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

48Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

49Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

50Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

51And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
 
Anyone can brandish the Christian label.
Isn't it something that even though there are masses and masses of people claiming to be christians that Jesus asks in Luke 18:8 asks if He would find any faith on the earth when he comes.

It's not as it seems out there.
 
christian_soldier said:
Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God.

Anyone can brandish the Christian label. They can even believe they are followers of Christ. But if they ignore God's Word, they are not followers of Christ, hence, they are not Christians.
Right. So the guy who wrote the article took the same stance as you. He decided he wanted to really understand the word of God and go directly to the source (i.e. the Bible). When he read it, he determined that the Bible was silent on abortion. And he believes the Bible shows that issues relating to abortion shows the Bible has a pro-choice type of stance.

The guy also is upset at people who just say the Bible is against abortion by taking verses out of context to justify whatever their preacher told them to believe.
 
Quath said:
Right. So the guy who wrote the article took the same stance as you. He decided he wanted to really understand the word of God and go directly to the source (i.e. the Bible). When he read it, he determined that the Bible was silent on abortion. And he believes the Bible shows that issues relating to abortion shows the Bible has a pro-choice type of stance.

The guy also is upset at people who just say the Bible is against abortion by taking verses out of context to justify whatever their preacher told them to believe.

*sigh*

Quath, who made the statement I quoted earlier from one of your posts, you or the author of the article?

should we really try to get our morality from books written by people thousands of years ago?
 
christian_soldier said:
Quath, who made the statement I quoted earlier from one of your posts, you or the author of the article?
I made that statement as a result of some of the discussions. For example, we should not use the Bible as a morality guide in determining if we should kill nonvirgin brides or if sex with 12 years olds are ok. So in a sense, I am disagreeing with author

However, I doubt you will agree with the author either since he suggests that abortion does not go against the Bible (and may be supportive of it).
 
Quath said:
I made that statement

To which I replied:


Morality does not come from books, but from God Almighty.

Those who deny God have no basis for morality at all. Everything becomes purely relative.

The only restraints an atheist can be expected to have are those imposed by the legal system.

Therefore, I consider your response of:

The article was written by a Christian.
to be a red herring. Or, just plain nonsensical.

Do you merely frequent this forum looking for an argument?

If so, I suggest you practice. You aren't very good at it.

Quath said:
However, I doubt you will agree with the author either since he suggests that abortion does not go against the Bible (and may be supportive of it).

I rebutted the author with one phrase. The bible is clear on MURDER.
 
christian_soldier said:
Therefore, I consider your response of:

The article was written by a Christian. to be a red herring. Or, just plain nonsensical.
It wasn't clear what you were objecting to. You disagree with the author and with me. Your disagreememts with me imply that you agree with the author, but you disagree with that.

I rebutted the author with one phrase. The bible is clear on MURDER.
If you had read the article, you would see that wasn't a rebuttal at all. The author says

Ask most anti-abortion Christians to support their view, and they'll give you a couple of verses. One, quite obviously, is the Commandment against murder. But that begs the question of whether or not abortion is murder, which begs the question of whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term human person.

He then goes on to show that the Bible does not really support the idea that a fetus is a person. I think you should read the article, even if you disagree. It may help understand how others interpret the Bible.
 
Back
Top