So, when does life begin?

[Barang]

i'm not good in articulating my thoughts so to clarify what i've said regarding "we follow God and not man," i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it.

yes! people are responsible for their actions and the romans verses are good examples of free will and God will not force himself to those who reject Him.
abortion is different from romans because it involves killing of a child that is why the gub (not corrupt) must protect an innocent life.
Exodus 21:22-23 nkjv
22 ?If men [a]fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that [b]she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman?s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

if abortion was just about proclivity for bed defilement then it will fall under romans but when taking a life of an innocent baby, then it's the gub's role to protect that child.

[BigStiCK]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

Maybe you're too young to grasp this but if you conceive a child and your woman is thinking about an abortion, you screwed up somewhere big time long before that moment. Own it & let it go.

Take off your tinfoil hat. Abortion wasn't created in America. It has been around longer than civilization itself.

Never said abortion was created in America. I said the institution of abortion IN America was created by Evil people to eradicate minorities. Please educate yourself on Margaret Sanger, the founder of what is today Planned Parenthood.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Barang

i'm not good in articulating my thoughts so to clarify what i've said regarding "we follow God and not man," i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it.

yes! people are responsible for their actions and the romans verses are good examples of free will and God will not force himself to those who reject Him.
abortion is different from romans because it involves killing of a child that is why the gub (not corrupt) must protect an innocent life.
Exodus 21:22-23 nkjv
22 ?If men [a]fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that [b]she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman?s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

if abortion was just about proclivity for bed defilement then it will fall under romans but when taking a life of an innocent baby, then it's the gub's role to protect that child.

This is one of the problems I was alluding to when I said that I don't begin by throwing Bible verses out. You're going to end up in arguments over it being laws set forth for a specific nation at a particular point in History. Not to mention finding yourself defending other punishments detailed in Exodus 21 as being applicable in today's society.

In short, as I indicated in my previous, long-ish post, imposing what you, personally believe as a societal law or expounding upon it as God's will isn't going to get you too far with anyone who doesn't already see things as you do. That was part of my earlier point; i.e., that you need to get them to see things differently than they already do. If you can do that, then you will have your opportunity to present your testimony and aid them in seeing things 'your' way. Why? Because if you can't get them to see things differently than they already do, you are unlikely to persuade them to see things as you understand them.

Remember, decisions regarding abortion involve more than 'bed defilement' or 'murder.' They typically involve many considerations, some of which many believers would 'sanction' as appropriate and doing so does not make them 'so-called Christians.' But, that's the problem I was speaking to.

Just like... "i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it." There are those who believe that such an attitude is part of the scourge which must be eliminated for it 'allows' abortions to happen. Many of those same individuals would point to Exodus 21 and cry that the punishments cited must be implemented as they were "God's will" in much the same way you are using verses from that chapter to bolster your argument.

That is why we offer testimony which is defined as relating your experience with God. The Holy Spirit takes care of their 'understanding' as it relates to them. As I said earlier...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...Serving God out of zealousness and self-righteousness is an 'occasion of the flesh,' not 'serving one another' out of love. And while God 'forgives' zealousness for His sake and was known to 'reward' it (Numbers 25:10-13)...

Remember...

Such is why we are not the ones who are to make judgment of an individual, for we do not know all the factors in play; but, God knows the heart or 'the factors in play.'

[2761377]

Holy Scripture makes clear the gift of a child is a blessing from God.

even as the result of the sin of fornication. maybe especially so in that case, as a way to be redeemed of that sin.

to kill that child is also clearly condemned in Scripture.

to argue that there are any circumstances where abortion is up to the judgment of an individual is un-Christian.

when standing for my particular judgment I will have answers for my Accuser when he asks my Judge "What did this sinner do to protect the lives of your unborn servants?"

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

This is one of the problems I was alluding to when I said that I don't begin by throwing Bible verses out. You're going to end up in arguments over it being laws set forth for a specific nation at a particular point in History. Not to mention finding yourself defending other punishments detailed in Exodus 21 as being applicable in today's society.

my last post was not to argue or persuade you. from one christian to another, that verse was included to to show where i based my stand. the last post was just to clarify what i meant when i said "we follow God and not man."

In short, as I indicated in my previous, long-ish post, imposing what you, personally believe as a societal law or expounding upon it as God's will isn't going to get you too far with anyone who doesn't already see things as you do. That was part of my earlier point; i.e., that you need to get them to see things differently than they already do. If you can do that, then you will have your opportunity to present your testimony and aid them in seeing things 'your' way. Why? Because if you can't get them to see things differently than they already do, you are unlikely to persuade them to see things as you understand them.

in christian country like america, most know that there's life in the womb (baby) but pro-abort just blow past that common knowledge. even with 3-d and 4-d pictures of babies in different stages, they have no interest in taking a second to look at them and consider.

now, the non-activists and non-political, sure. the can be persuaded with science and Biblical views if necessary. i've seen reports and stories about their conversion from protesters outside planned parenthood as an example so no argument there.

Remember, decisions regarding abortion involve more than 'bed defilement' or 'murder.' They typically involve many considerations, some of which many believers would 'sanction' as appropriate and doing so does not make them 'so-called Christians.' But, that's the problem I was speaking to.

Just like... "i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it." There are those who believe that such an attitude is part of the scourge which must be eliminated for it 'allows' abortions to happen. Many of those same individuals would point to Exodus 21 and cry that the punishments cited must be implemented as they were "God's will" in much the same way you are using verses from that chapter to bolster your argument.

That is why we offer testimony which is defined as relating your experience with God. The Holy Spirit takes care of their 'understanding' as it relates to them. As I said earlier...



Such is why we are not the ones who are to make judgment of an individual, for we do not know all the factors in play; but, God knows the heart or 'the factors in play.'

i am not against mothers who had an abortion to save her life. there's a big difference between killing a baby in the womb due cumbersome/inconvenience or hurdle to their career. the latter are where the pro-abort are coming from, my body my choice except the baby has no choice but to be killed!

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...Remember, decisions regarding abortion involve more than 'bed defilement' or 'murder.' They typically involve many considerations, some of which many believers would 'sanction' as appropriate and doing so does not make them 'so-called Christians.' But, that's the problem I was speaking to.

Just like... "i didn't mean to forcibly prevent a woman to kill her child (although i'd do it if i was living in old testament) but rather speak out against it." There are those who believe that such an attitude is part of the scourge which must be eliminated for it 'allows' abortions to happen. Many of those same individuals would point to Exodus 21 and cry that the punishments cited must be implemented as they were "God's will" in much the same way you are using verses from that chapter to bolster your argument.

That is why we offer testimony which is defined as relating your experience with God. The Holy Spirit takes care of their 'understanding' as it relates to them...

As an example, the post which followed mine...

Originally Posted by 2761377

...to argue that there are any circumstances where abortion is up to the judgment of an individual is un-Christian...

Then you posted...

Originally Posted by Barang

...in christian country like america, most know that there's life in the womb (baby) but pro-abort just blow past that common knowledge. even with 3-d and 4-d pictures of babies in different stages, they have no interest in taking a second to look at them and consider...

i am not against mothers who had an abortion to save her life. there's a big difference between killing a baby in the womb due cumbersome/inconvenience or hurdle to their career. the latter are where the pro-abort are coming from, my body my choice except the baby has no choice but to be killed!

So... What is the individual looking to decide supposed to hear? That abortion is, sometimes, 'acceptable,' even among Christians; but, that considering it 'acceptable' is 'un-Christian?' Such creates dissonance and confusion, on many levels.

It's not a neat and tidy argument/discussion and never will be. Not everyone who is pro-Choice thinks of it as a form of birth control. In fact, the term "pro-Choice" is, at least in the abstract, befitting of the position you describe yourself as being in. You favor the choice being 'Life,' but allow for other choices in given circumstances. How does that jibe with your earlier declarations?

Originally Posted by Barang

imagine mary was pro abortion and murdering Jesus in the womb! let that sink in, pro abort "christians."

Originally Posted by Barang

...we don't condone killing of babies whether 1st trimester, 2nd or 3rd and up to birth! God's word is what we follow and not humans' who knows it all opinion.

Originally Posted by Barang

...an no! we cannot overlook the killing of unborn children when innocent life are taken by human hands. we follow God and not man!...

There's a reason why pro-Life was chosen as the nomenclature. However, pro-Choice has been misleadingly applied as simply 'pro-abortion,' regardless of context. In other words, just those two category titles demonstrate why it's not a neat and tidy discourse. One can be simultaneously pro-Choice and pro-Life without being 'un-Christian;' but, there are those who simply won't accept that and the language relied upon reinforces the 'unacceptable' or 'un-Christian' point of view rather than recognizing and/or acknowledging that nuance is often involved.

Do I feel abortion is an 'acceptable' form of birth control? Not in the sense most reference 'birth control.' In fact, stories of women who initially wanted to utilize it as such, then later changed their mind abound. That facet alone indicates its inappropriateness as a 'birth control measure' given the definitiveness of the choice.

Yet, to move that 'inappropriateness' to a 'forbidden' or 'sinful' status is also inappropriate for the very reasons discussed. Being 'pro-abortion' isn't the same as being 'un-Christian,' nor is it simply about being a murderer who defies God's will. It's about exactly what the label implies, which is exactly what God allowed... the ability to choose. Without that ability to choose, we mitigate or eliminate God's ability to forgive based on the choices we make. In a sense, it obviates righteousness by faith and demands righteousness by works.

That is why we need be careful when engaging in these arguments/discussions. We come to it with 'loaded language' and 'preconceived notions' which we, sometimes, don't even agree with ourselves. Well, at least not fully or in the manner in which we come across. Choice is not a frivolous option anymore than Life is an absolute position for most given that 'allowances' are often acknowledged/made.

That means the question which titles this thread is a bit misleading as "When does Life begin?" isn't what we are arguing over. Instead, the criteria utilized to determine 'acceptability' of the act is what causes the discord. Thus, the 'removal' of the support system many use to justify or rationalize their beliefs and contentions is the place to start, for both sides, when it comes to the discourse. Just like seeking 'alternatives' to those support systems via various labels as they too reek of justification/rationalization. What results is a removal of many of the 'hurdles' which impede actual discourse/persuasion.

Put another way, adamantly extolling what you believe is not necessarily the best form of persuasion. Patiently explaining why you believe the way you do and demonstrating how those beliefs are not necessarily antithetical to the other person's Life or the choices they are confronted with is and happens to be what 'testimony' is all about. Bridging the gap that remains is the Holy Spirit's job.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

As an example, the post which followed mine...

Then you posted...

So... What is the individual looking to decide supposed to hear? That abortion is, sometimes, 'acceptable,' even among Christians; but, that considering it 'acceptable' is 'un-Christian?' Such creates dissonance and confusion, on many levels.

it's disingenuous not to be able to discern between the two. one (1st) mother aborting baby for selfish reason is not the same level as saving another (2) mother's life or the baby.
1st mother's life and the baby are not at risk . 2nd mother's life is in jeopardy so a decision has to be made to save one life only.
a person who's not mentally retarded has no problem separating the two unless that person is selfish, corrupt and no respect for life.

It's not a neat and tidy argument/discussion and never will be. Not everyone who is pro-Choice thinks of it as a form of birth control. In fact, the term "pro-Choice" is, at least in the abstract, befitting of the position you describe yourself as being in. You favor the choice being 'Life,' but allow for other choices in given circumstances. How does that jibe with your earlier declarations?


There's a reason why pro-Life was chosen as the nomenclature. However, pro-Choice has been misleadingly applied as simply 'pro-abortion,' regardless of context. In other words, just those two category titles demonstrate why it's not a neat and tidy discourse. One can be simultaneously pro-Choice and pro-Life without being 'un-Christian;' but, there are those who simply won't accept that and the language relied upon reinforces the 'unacceptable' or 'un-Christian' point of view rather than recognizing and/or acknowledging that nuance is often involved.

much like the word "liberal" no longer means what it used to be to most people. pro-choice is now associated with pro-abort. so at present time, we know the difference between pro-life and pro-abort.

Do I feel abortion is an 'acceptable' form of birth control? Not in the sense most reference 'birth control.' In fact, stories of women who initially wanted to utilize it as such, then later changed their mind abound. That facet alone indicates its inappropriateness as a 'birth control measure' given the definitiveness of the choice.

Yet, to move that 'inappropriateness' to a 'forbidden' or 'sinful' status is also inappropriate for the very reasons discussed. Being 'pro-abortion' isn't the same as being 'un-Christian,' nor is it simply about being a murderer who defies God's will. It's about exactly what the label implies, which is exactly what God allowed... the ability to choose. Without that ability to choose, we mitigate or eliminate God's ability to forgive based on the choices we make. In a sense, it obviates righteousness by faith and demands righteousness by works.

That is why we need be careful when engaging in these arguments/discussions. We come to it with 'loaded language' and 'preconceived notions' which we, sometimes, don't even agree with ourselves. Well, at least not fully or in the manner in which we come across. Choice is not a frivolous option anymore than Life is an absolute position for most given that 'allowances' are often acknowledged/made.

it's not complicated but people make the choice complicated to justify their selfish decision. we can argue when the life begins but the pro-abort completely disregard that there's a baby in the womb up to 9 months and some even after birth! so we know that they don't care about the life of the baby and not interested in any debate. it's all about getting rid of the "baggage" so that they can freely do what they want without the baby slowing them down.
And yes, we show our faith through works. Jesus himself said, "you will know them by their fruits" and james talked about "faith without works is dead."

That means the question which titles this thread is a bit misleading as "When does Life begin?" isn't what we are arguing over. Instead, the criteria utilized to determine 'acceptability' of the act is what causes the discord. Thus, the 'removal' of the support system many use to justify or rationalize their beliefs and contentions is the place to start, for both sides, when it comes to the discourse. Just like seeking 'alternatives' to those support systems via various labels as they too reek of justification/rationalization. What results is a removal of many of the 'hurdles' which impede actual discourse/persuasion.

Put another way, adamantly extolling what you believe is not necessarily the best form of persuasion. Patiently explaining why you believe the way you do and demonstrating how those beliefs are not necessarily antithetical to the other person's Life or the choices they are confronted with is and happens to be what 'testimony' is all about. Bridging the gap that remains is the Holy Spirit's job.

the Holy Spirit can only work in someone's life if he/she is open to hearing the truth. no amount of persuasion and evidence will make one accept the truth if the heart and mind are not willing. if you remember Jesus telling His disciples "if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town."

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Barang

it's disingenuous not to be able to discern between the two. one (1st) mother aborting baby for selfish reason is not the same level as saving another (2) mother's life or the baby.
1st mother's life and the baby are not at risk . 2nd mother's life is in jeopardy so a decision has to be made to save one life only.
a person who's not mentally retarded has no problem separating the two unless that person is selfish, corrupt and no respect for life.

I'm not real up on abortion and privacy laws, but I'll assume, since it's a medical procedure, that there is some protection. As a result, sitting in the cheap seats, how do you know what the motivation is for the abortion? Is that a fact or are they what you have decided is the case? If the latter, how have you established the veracity of your judgment? Even if it is what the mother told you, how do you discern that such is the 'all' of it? Do you want laws which force medical personnel to have to differentiate between motivations and deny service on that basis; i.e., the basis of your judgment?

Originally Posted by Barang

much like the word "liberal" no longer means what it used to be to most people. pro-choice is now associated with pro-abort. so at present time, we know the difference between pro-life and pro-abort.

That's avoiding the point I was making. What we know is that you are advocating for a 'pro-Choice' (with limitations) mindset, not an 'anti-abortion' one...

Originally Posted by Barang

...i am not against mothers who had an abortion to save her life. there's a big difference between killing a baby in the womb due cumbersome/inconvenience or hurdle to their career. the latter are where the pro-abort are coming from, my body my choice except the baby has no choice but to be killed!

There are those who would demand that the mother 'sacrifice herself' for the sake of the unborn. Some will only become 'sick' during pregnancy, occasionally being relegated to 'bedrest,' some becoming outright ill, and others making it to delivery, but not beyond. In some cases, doctors cannot discern which is the most likely outcome. Again, do you desire laws which force the medical profession to differentiate?

Originally Posted by Barang

it's not complicated but people make the choice complicated to justify their selfish decision. we can argue when the life begins but the pro-abort completely disregard that there's a baby in the womb up to 9 months and some even after birth! so we know that they don't care about the life of the baby and not interested in any debate. it's all about getting rid of the "baggage" so that they can freely do what they want without the baby slowing them down.

As I just showed, it's more complicated than you will concede on a pragmatic level. There's a reason the Bible warns us not to judge what's in a man's heart for we have no way of truly knowing. You keep referring to their 'selfish' decision; but, what about those who honestly have or desire the abortion for the 'good' of the baby's future? No compromise, birth 'em and let someone else care for them? Does that always work out?

You keep pointing to extremes to justify your position and what I'm telling you is that there is considerable 'in between' which you are neither recognizing or allowing for. Not all who go for an abortion for non-medical reasons do so out of selfishness, murderous intent, lack of interest in the debate, getting rid of the 'baggage,' etc. Again, I don't favor abortion as birth control, but neither can I be brought to a point where anything non-medical is unacceptable and simply viewed as 'callous disregard' for the unborn. In fact, as I have pointed out, some even hold that legitimate, medical reasoning is unacceptable insofar as a rationale for abortion.

It's just like...

Originally Posted by Barang

And yes, we show our faith through works. Jesus himself said, "you will know them by their fruits" and james talked about "faith without works is dead."

Go back and read what I said...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...In a sense, it obviates righteousness by faith and demands righteousness by works...

"In a sense" is the caveat and you've turned to a defense of 'works.' Since this is a bit of a different discussion, suffice to say that there is some debate over exactly what James was indicating. Does it apply to non-believers you are trying to convert and believers equally or does it only apply once converted or is it an indication of how we are supposed to behave as a Christian, but our 'righteousness' still comes from faith and our faith leads us to do good works or does it... There are a number of interpretations. Once again, are you attempting to impose your, personal interpretation on everyone or is there allowance for other views? Either one opens a panoply of potentialities which make for more complex discourse.

Originally Posted by Barang

the Holy Spirit can only work in someone's life if he/she is open to hearing the truth. no amount of persuasion and evidence will make one accept the truth if the heart and mind are not willing. if you remember Jesus telling His disciples "if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town."

So... God can only perform His works... IF...

Uh... That'll lead you to a sticky wicket. Remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23...

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Which, in effect, is what I was saying about starting with something other than Biblical references. The Holy Spirit opens the door, plants the seed, whispers in the ear... pick your expression. Not closing that door or turning a deaf ear or whatever is when the individual chooses to become open to what comes next and that is where you have the beginning of 'acceptance.' Even in your own, chosen passage, note that they are told "will not welcome you or heed your words." First comes the 'message,' then the audience is free to choose to accept or reject that message. But, what happens after that?

Once again, that brings us back to offering testimony and aid. You offer the testimony and offer the aid in helping with understanding (among other things). You are not necessarily to be the judge of the timing of acceptance; i.e., you offer testimony, but it may not be the sole factor in the audience's acceptance of the message. That is what Jesus was saying. Spread the word. If the audience is not open to or accepting of it in that moment, move on and continue spreading the word.

A number of scholars have observed that it was as much, if not more of a measure of the disciples' devotion to spreading the word than a condemnation of their audience. Note verse 13, the one which immediately precedes what you quoted from Matthew 10...

13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

The idea was not to let the audience's lack of receptiveness or failure to immediately convert discourage you from your duty to spread the testimony and aid they were offering. What was being laid out were the difficulties which lay ahead for the disciples and those who proffered testimony and aid, with an allusion to who would bring about ultimate judgment of those who present 'problems' for them. Again, note verse 20...

20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

They were being told that the disciples were not the ones being rejected because of who they were, but what they represented...

22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Even Christ himself noted that he was a 'messenger'...

40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

This is why you have to be careful not to allow 'zeal' to become more than simply enthusiasm in delivering the message. It's not about you being right and everyone else is wrong, thus being condemned or not receiving a reward. It's about delivering your testimony and offering your aid. In doing that, your reward is found in Matthew 25:23...

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Their reward is found in the chapter we've been quoting from, Matthew 10...

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

At that point, their duty now turns to providing testimony and aid; but, the level of that will depend on the individual and God's plan.

That has been the ultimate purpose of our exchange in this thread. What I have been attempting to do is deliver what I feel to be a message of caution in terms of how you present your argument(s) and the premises you appear to hold. How you receive that message and what happens as a result isn't up to me.

In one sense, you are correct. The message is a simple one. However, acceptance is a bit more complicated as it involves more than simply an acceptance of the message, but actions based on that acceptance and actions can bring about a measure of risk. That risk can manifest itself physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, or in some combination. That was what Matthew 10 was speaking to.

One needs to be cautious in turning that into a rationale for 'zealousness' which distracts from the "still, small voice" God often uses. Fire and brimstone, thunder and lightning, the pounding of hooves all have their place. Just remember 1 Kings 19...

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

Just more thoughts to ponder.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

I'm not real up on abortion and privacy laws, but I'll assume, since it's a medical procedure, that there is some protection. As a result, sitting in the cheap seats, how do you know what the motivation is for the abortion? Is that a fact or are they what you have decided is the case? If the latter, how have you established the veracity of your judgment? Even if it is what the mother told you, how do you discern that such is the 'all' of it? Do you want laws which force medical personnel to have to differentiate between motivations and deny service on that basis; i.e., the basis of your judgment?

pro-abort go to planned parenthood clinics to kill their babies. their only intention is to get rid of the "baggage." these are the people that insist "it's my body it's my choice." you listen to them when they're interviewed or when they are out there protesting, and what are they demanding? abortion with no restrictions! they only have one thing in mind that is to get rid of the inconvenience! now, do i need to know their motivation by asking each one of them when they are loudly saying it?

That's avoiding the point I was making. What we know is that you are advocating for a 'pro-Choice' (with limitations) mindset, not an 'anti-abortion' one...

not abortion with limitation. when a mother's life is in jeopardy, then a decision has to be made for the greater good of the family. if the mother has another child/ren then it is obvious that the older children needed their mother to care for them.

There are those who would demand that the mother 'sacrifice herself' for the sake of the unborn. Some will only become 'sick' during pregnancy, occasionally being relegated to 'bedrest,' some becoming outright ill, and others making it to delivery, but not beyond. In some cases, doctors cannot discern which is the most likely outcome. Again, do you desire laws which force the medical profession to differentiate?

that's the mother's decision if life is at stake. the medical profession are there to provide care for the patients not differentiate what to do between the two.

As I just showed, it's more complicated than you will concede on a pragmatic level. There's a reason the Bible warns us not to judge what's in a man's heart for we have no way of truly knowing. You keep referring to their 'selfish' decision; but, what about those who honestly have or desire the abortion for the 'good' of the baby's future? No compromise, birth 'em and let someone else care for them? Does that always work out?

You keep pointing to extremes to justify your position and what I'm telling you is that there is considerable 'in between' which you are neither recognizing or allowing for. Not all who go for an abortion for non-medical reasons do so out of selfishness, murderous intent, lack of interest in the debate, getting rid of the 'baggage,' etc. Again, I don't favor abortion as birth control, but neither can I be brought to a point where anything non-medical is unacceptable and simply viewed as 'callous disregard' for the unborn. In fact, as I have pointed out, some even hold that legitimate, medical reasoning is unacceptable insofar as a rationale for abortion.

if you think that it's justified to get an abortion other than the life of the mother is at risk then that is your stand. i will not debate you on that because you are not ignorant of the Bible, you have verses that support your view.
stillbirth miscarriages for examples are a far cry from selfish reason that the pro-abort are all about.

"In a sense" is the caveat and you've turned to a defense of 'works.' Since this is a bit of a different discussion, suffice to say that there is some debate over exactly what James was indicating. Does it apply to non-believers you are trying to convert and believers equally or does it only apply once converted or is it an indication of how we are supposed to behave as a Christian, but our 'righteousness' still comes from faith and our faith leads us to do good works or does it... There are a number of interpretations. Once again, are you attempting to impose your, personal interpretation on everyone or is there allowance for other views? Either one opens a panoply of potentialities which make for more complex discourse.

James 2:14-26 nkjv
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

it's clear to me that james was addressing believers (mentioning brethren, abraham, isaac, rehab, brother, sister) so i don't interpret what the Bible say but read it as what it says.

So... God can only perform His works... IF...

Uh... That'll lead you to a sticky wicket. Remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23...

Which, in effect, is what I was saying about starting with something other than Biblical references. The Holy Spirit opens the door, plants the seed, whispers in the ear... pick your expression. Not closing that door or turning a deaf ear or whatever is when the individual chooses to become open to what comes next and that is where you have the beginning of 'acceptance.' Even in your own, chosen passage, note that they are told "will not welcome you or heed your words." First comes the 'message,' then the audience is free to choose to accept or reject that message. But, what happens after that?

Once again, that brings us back to offering testimony and aid. You offer the testimony and offer the aid in helping with understanding (among other things). You are not necessarily to be the judge of the timing of acceptance; i.e., you offer testimony, but it may not be the sole factor in the audience's acceptance of the message. That is what Jesus was saying. Spread the word. If the audience is not open to or accepting of it in that moment, move on and continue spreading the word.

isn't that what i said, that if their heart and mind are not willing to hear? maybe later but at the moment they are not able to accept what's shared to them. so i don't know where the disagreement is.

A number of scholars have observed that it was as much, if not more of a measure of the disciples' devotion to spreading the word than a condemnation of their audience. Note verse 13, the one which immediately precedes what you quoted from Matthew 10...



The idea was not to let the audience's lack of receptiveness or failure to immediately convert discourage you from your duty to spread the testimony and aid they were offering. What was being laid out were the difficulties which lay ahead for the disciples and those who proffered testimony and aid, with an allusion to who would bring about ultimate judgment of those who present 'problems' for them. Again, note verse 20...



They were being told that the disciples were not the ones being rejected because of who they were, but what they represented...



Even Christ himself noted that he was a 'messenger'...



This is why you have to be careful not to allow 'zeal' to become more than simply enthusiasm in delivering the message. It's not about you being right and everyone else is wrong, thus being condemned or not receiving a reward. It's about delivering your testimony and offering your aid. In doing that, your reward is found in Matthew 25:23...



Their reward is found in the chapter we've been quoting from, Matthew 10...



At that point, their duty now turns to providing testimony and aid; but, the level of that will depend on the individual and God's plan.

That has been the ultimate purpose of our exchange in this thread. What I have been attempting to do is deliver what I feel to be a message of caution in terms of how you present your argument(s) and the premises you appear to hold. How you receive that message and what happens as a result isn't up to me.

In one sense, you are correct. The message is a simple one. However, acceptance is a bit more complicated as it involves more than simply an acceptance of the message, but actions based on that acceptance and actions can bring about a measure of risk. That risk can manifest itself physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, or in some combination. That was what Matthew 10 was speaking to.

One needs to be cautious in turning that into a rationale for 'zealousness' which distracts from the "still, small voice" God often uses. Fire and brimstone, thunder and lightning, the pounding of hooves all have their place. Just remember 1 Kings 19...

Just more thoughts to ponder.

i know that the rejection of Gospel is not us getting rejected but it's Jesus. He already warned us that we will be persecuted and will have tribulation because Him as our master went through it so we as His slaves will also suffer it.

I'm judging the pro-abort based on what they say. they are not hiding it but gladly doing it while blaspheming God fearlessly!

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Barang

pro-abort go to planned parenthood clinics to kill their babies. their only intention is to get rid of the "baggage." these are the people that insist "it's my body it's my choice." you listen to them when they're interviewed or when they are out there protesting, and what are they demanding? abortion with no restrictions! they only have one thing in mind that is to get rid of the inconvenience! now, do i need to know their motivation by asking each one of them when they are loudly saying it?

Does every abortion happen via Planned Parenthood? Does every abortion done via Planned Parenthood the result of wanting to get rid of 'baggage' or avoid 'inconvenience' or have 'no restrictions?' Do you need to know their 'motivation' to 'judge' them? Well, according to 1 Samuel 16...

7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

It seems to me that we were being warned that we can only judge based on what we 'see' and that we have a series of 'blind spots' in that regard. It is why, in Matthew 7...

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Once again, you are going to the extremes and using them to bolster your point. What about the in-betweens who, as I said, aren't necessarily doing it out of selfishness, murderous intent, lack of interest in the debate, getting rid of the 'baggage,' etc.? What if the 'Life' of the mother isn't in question, but her overall health is? What if... A whole lot of 'What If's?'

In short, you are attempting to be an absolutist, but allowing 'exceptions' based on self-selected criteria. That's kind of a contradictory position.

Originally Posted by Barang

not abortion with limitation. when a mother's life is in jeopardy, then a decision has to be made for the greater good of the family. if the mother has another child/ren then it is obvious that the older children needed their mother to care for them.

So... Abortion is permissible to you when a mother's life is in jeopardy or if her children need her. Such is another way of saying 'abortion, but with limitations.'

Originally Posted by Barang

that's the mother's decision if life is at stake. the medical profession are there to provide care for the patients not differentiate what to do between the two.

Uh... The medical profession, by definition and practice, make such decisions as an on-going and ever present part of their jobs. How is the mother to 'decide' without medical input beyond the obvious; bearing in mind that, in such situations, it's not always obvious? Again, you are attempting to draw a bright line in the sand and it's not working for you.

Originally Posted by Barang

if you think that it's justified to get an abortion other than the life of the mother is at risk then that is your stand. i will not debate you on that because you are not ignorant of the Bible, you have verses that support your view.

Now we're getting to the heart of the problem. Having 'verses that support' a particular view is another way of saying that the Bible is open to interpretation. Such interpretation can be literal, symbolic... near ad infinitum. Where the trouble begins is when someone becomes selective in pointing to verses that support their contention, but ignore other guidance provided by the Bible. We see this constantly in the abortion debates and it is a major part of the reason I suggest steering clear of throwing verses at someone to begin the discussion.

Just as you have realized, someone who is, somewhat, conversant in the Bible can often give as good as they get and neither protagonist often looks to context in terms of the verses they cite. Take, for instance...

Originally Posted by Barang

James 2:14-26 nkjv
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, ?Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,? but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, ?You have faith, and I have works.? Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe?and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ?Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.? And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

it's clear to me that james was addressing believers (mentioning brethren, abraham, isaac, rehab, brother, sister) so i don't interpret what the Bible say but read it as what it says.

That's reading it without acknowledging what many would observe is the context of timing in terms of where that fell in the progression of covenants. Just off the top of my head, there are... Pre-Deluge, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, the New or New Testament. Clearly, James is referencing Abrahamic, but also New Testament. Well, what does that mean? Didn't Christ say in Matthew 5...

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Then in Matthew 21...

22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

The only required 'act' is to have faith in what you believe. The 'acts' you are referencing aren't done to achieve righteousness, but because of your faith. It's why the expression is: "God called me to act." Taking the action stems from your faith in God.

Think about a recurring theme throughout the Bible. What are the first 4 words in Genesis? In the beginning, God...? When Moses asked who he should say sent him, the reply was... I Am...? Right on down the line. It is belief that God exists and faith in that which brings righteousness, not actions.

Believing in and having faith in God is what causes you to want to act in a 'righteous' manner. What is a 'righteous' manner? That is where many, many, many of the 'debates' occur and why Christ spoke of the two 'greatest' commandments, from which then flowed the 10 Commandments. But, it is there when you start to get into discourse over when and to whom the subsequent 'laws' applied and whether they were God's intent for all of humanity or a specific group of people or the 'Church' and what constitutes the 'Church,' etc. As I said, it's both simple and complex. The trick is not to let the complexities drown out the simple message... first faith, then actions stemming from the faith.

That seems to be what Jesus was critiquing in terms of the Pharisees and their placing emphasis on 'the rules' rather than on "the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith" (see Matthew 23:23). Remember Romans 1:17...

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Works flow from faith. Thus, 'righteousness' isn't found in works, but as a result of faith. Actions which stem from faith is what God requires of his followers; but, even that is tempered with caveats such as 'ability' and 'means.' Recall the widow and her two mites (Luke 21)...

21 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

Put another way, it's not about what you do, but the spirit in which you do it. Do you present 'testimony' and offer 'aid' simply to be obedient, as you see it, or to 'tally points' or to actually achieve something? Remember the Parable of the Three Servants (Matthew 25:14-30) where both the one who made 5 talents and the one who made 2 talents received the same 'reward' given that it wasn't how much they earned, but based on to every man according to his several ability. Which brings us to...

Originally Posted by Barang

isn't that what i said, that if their heart and mind are not willing to hear? maybe later but at the moment they are not able to accept what's shared to them. so i don't know where the disagreement is.

The 'disagreement' is in how you present the message so that they might listen or 'hear.' As I said, 'acceptance' is not the messenger's responsibility or role. Neither is getting them to actually listen. Your job is the present the message in a manner which allows them to 'swallow' and 'digest' it.

Originally Posted by Barang

i know that the rejection of Gospel is not us getting rejected but it's Jesus. He already warned us that we will be persecuted and will have tribulation because Him as our master went through it so we as His slaves will also suffer it.

I'm judging the pro-abort based on what they say. they are not hiding it but gladly doing it while blaspheming God fearlessly!

Actually, what you are doing is assigning the motives of some to all, then judging all based on the motives of some.

In the context of what we were discussing, you were tying their 'unwillingness' to 'leaving them behind' or, at least, that's how it came across. What I was doing was illuminating the idea that it was tantamount to Jesus saying: "Acceptance is not your responsibility, so focus on your job of testifying and don't become discouraged if their acceptance isn't immediate."

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Does every abortion happen via Planned Parenthood? Does every abortion done via Planned Parenthood the result of wanting to get rid of 'baggage' or avoid 'inconvenience' or have 'no restrictions?' Do you need to know their 'motivation' to 'judge' them? Well, according to 1 Samuel 16...

It seems to me that we were being warned that we can only judge based on what we 'see' and that we have a series of 'blind spots' in that regard. It is why, in Matthew 7...

of course not! there are places that provide abortion other than pp. i didn't think i have to include that in my reply. for motivation, i have to repeat what i've already said earlier that the pro-abort are already telling the world when they are out protesting and when interviewed. there is no guessing necessary because they are already spilling their guts out.

Once again, you are going to the extremes and using them to bolster your point. What about the in-betweens who, as I said, aren't necessarily doing it out of selfishness, murderous intent, lack of interest in the debate, getting rid of the 'baggage,' etc.? What if the 'Life' of the mother isn't in question, but her overall health is? What if... A whole lot of 'What If's?'

So... Abortion is permissible to you when a mother's life is in jeopardy or if her children need her. Such is another way of saying 'abortion, but with limitations.'

Uh... The medical profession, by definition and practice, make such decisions as an on-going and ever present part of their jobs. How is the mother to 'decide' without medical input beyond the obvious; bearing in mind that, in such situations, it's not always obvious? Again, you are attempting to draw a bright line in the sand and it's not working for you.

tim tebow is a great example. her mother was told by several doctors to abort tim due to health risks associated with her pregnancy. the doctors also said that it could cost her life but she didn't listen to them but carry the pregnancy to the full.
tim tebow is alive today due to mom's Godly fear and obedience.

Now we're getting to the heart of the problem. Having 'verses that support' a particular view is another way of saying that the Bible is open to interpretation. Such interpretation can be literal, symbolic... near ad infinitum. Where the trouble begins is when someone becomes selective in pointing to verses that support their contention, but ignore other guidance provided by the Bible. We see this constantly in the abortion debates and it is a major part of the reason I suggest steering clear of throwing verses at someone to begin the discussion.

Just as you have realized, someone who is, somewhat, conversant in the Bible can often give as good as they get and neither protagonist often looks to context in terms of the verses they cite. Take, for instance...

i was merely agreeing to disagree since we can't get an agreement. it's better to move on because neither one of us is changing his mind.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

That's reading it without acknowledging what many would observe is the context of timing in terms of where that fell in the progression of covenants. Just off the top of my head, there are... Pre-Deluge, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, the New or New Testament. Clearly, James is referencing Abrahamic, but also New Testament. Well, what does that mean? Didn't Christ say in Matthew 5...



Then in Matthew 21...



The only required 'act' is to have faith in what you believe. The 'acts' you are referencing aren't done to achieve righteousness, but because of your faith. It's why the expression is: "God called me to act." Taking the action stems from your faith in God.

Think about a recurring theme throughout the Bible. What are the first 4 words in Genesis? In the beginning, God...? When Moses asked who he should say sent him, the reply was... I Am...? Right on down the line. It is belief that God exists and faith in that which brings righteousness, not actions.

james was referencing abraham and rehab to show what active faith looks like. they showed their faith through their works/obedience that's why james said that "faith without works is dead." it's not complicated. very simple admonition to followers of Christ.

Believing in and having faith in God is what causes you to want to act in a 'righteous' manner. What is a 'righteous' manner? That is where many, many, many of the 'debates' occur and why Christ spoke of the two 'greatest' commandments, from which then flowed the 10 Commandments. But, it is there when you start to get into discourse over when and to whom the subsequent 'laws' applied and whether they were God's intent for all of humanity or a specific group of people or the 'Church' and what constitutes the 'Church,' etc. As I said, it's both simple and complex. The trick is not to let the complexities drown out the simple message... first faith, then actions stemming from the faith.

That seems to be what Jesus was critiquing in terms of the Pharisees and their placing emphasis on 'the rules' rather than on "the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith" (see Matthew 23:23). Remember Romans 1:17...

the Ten Commandments are there to define sin. giving us direction and what to do and not to do for our benefit. acts like a traffic light and similar to manual book that brings order, unity and harmony. it's what makes stable family, community and nation.

[QUOTE}
Works flow from faith. Thus, 'righteousness' isn't found in works, but as a result of faith. Actions which stem from faith is what God requires of his followers; but, even that is tempered with caveats such as 'ability' and 'means.' Recall the widow and her two mites (Luke 21)...



Put another way, it's not about what you do, but the spirit in which you do it. Do you present 'testimony' and offer 'aid' simply to be obedient, as you see it, or to 'tally points' or to actually achieve something? Remember the Parable of the Three Servants (Matthew 25:14-30) where both the one who made 5 talents and the one who made 2 talents received the same 'reward' given that it wasn't how much they earned, but based on to every man according to his several ability. Which brings us to...
[/QUOTE]

Jesus said, "you will know them by their fruits." so by their works, you can tell if they are acting righteous or not. you can faith all you want but if the fruits is rotten, that faith cannot save him going back to what james is saying.
Matthew 7:20-23 nkjv
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

The 'disagreement' is in how you present the message so that they might listen or 'hear.' As I said, 'acceptance' is not the messenger's responsibility or role. Neither is getting them to actually listen. Your job is the present the message in a manner which allows them to 'swallow' and 'digest' it.

Actually, what you are doing is assigning the motives of some to all, then judging all based on the motives of some.

In the context of what we were discussing, you were tying their 'unwillingness' to 'leaving them behind' or, at least, that's how it came across. What I was doing was illuminating the idea that it was tantamount to Jesus saying: "Acceptance is not your responsibility, so focus on your job of testifying and don't become discouraged if their acceptance isn't immediate."

each person is accountable to what they do with the Gospel whether they reject it or not. i speak out against abortion unapologetically and if it sounds harsh then so be it.
sharing scriptures (sharing photos of babies in different stages of development when necessary) is abrasive to those who oppose it but not to willing and open heart/mind like those pregnant women who later changed their mind about killing their babies after witnessing to them.
for those who rejected the message previously but accepted it later, i will rejoice and thank God for that decision.

[2761377]

Ezekiel 3:17-21

17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

This is the kind of reply I've been talking about...

Originally Posted by Barang

of course not! there are places that provide abortion other than pp. i didn't think i have to include that in my reply. for motivation, i have to repeat what i've already said earlier that the pro-abort are already telling the world when they are out protesting and when interviewed. there is no guessing necessary because they are already spilling their guts out.

You note the 'pro-abort' people as if they are the problem when you actually mean the activists, not those who are 'pro-abortion;' which includes yourself. It's not that you favor abortion or see it as a viable alternative; but, you still 'allow' for it under certain circumstances which others would not consider tenable. Like it or not, that makes you 'pro-abortion' if we bear in mind that such is actually a range rather than a singular spot.

Originally Posted by Barang

tim tebow is a great example. her mother was told by several doctors to abort tim due to health risks associated with her pregnancy. the doctors also said that it could cost her life but she didn't listen to them but carry the pregnancy to the full.
tim tebow is alive today due to mom's Godly fear and obedience.

One (or even a dozen) examples don't make the rule. Again, you speak in 'absolutes,' but use 'non-norms.' As you say, it is an example highlighting a possible outcome, but it doesn't 'prove' or 'justify' what you claimed...

Originally Posted by Barang

that's the mother's decision if life is at stake. the medical profession are there to provide care for the patients not differentiate what to do between the two.

Again, the medical profession is much more 'involved' than that, particularly today. You are attempting to draw a bright line in the sand where one doesn't and shouldn't exist. Ultimately, it is the mother's decision, in many/most cases. However, without the medical input, how does she know if her Life is at stake? Faith? I'm not sure you're going to win your point with 'non-believers,' the doubting, the dubious, etc. on that basis. In fact, as was my original point, starting that way is likely to cause them to not listen.

Originally Posted by Barang

i was merely agreeing to disagree since we can't get an agreement. it's better to move on because neither one of us is changing his mind.

This is what I meant by the 'heart of the problem.' You feel I have been trying to get you to 'change your mind.' That's not what I've been doing. What I have been doing is attempting to get you to see that your own assertions/arguments don't necessarily hold together and it's something you 'unintentionally' acknowledged when you said...

Originally Posted by Barang

i will not debate you on that because you are not ignorant of the Bible, you have verses that support your view.

If I have verses which 'support my view,' then it becomes a matter of interpretation rather than an 'absolute.' As I indicated, simply throwing verses out there which supports a viewpoint and deliberately ignoring both the context of those verses, as well as the verses/context which support a differing point of view is hazardous to your argument. A good example...

Originally Posted by Barang

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Did you note verses 4 - 7 of the same chapter?

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

How does that jibe with calling anyone 'pro-abortion' by a truncated name and indicating they are 'blaspheming God,' 'murderers/killers,' seek to eliminate 'baggage' and avoid 'inconvenience,' etc. when speaking of anyone you deem as 'pro-abortion;' which, again, I remind you, includes yourself as you 'allow' for it as an acceptable (even 'favored') alternative under certain circumstances?

Originally Posted by Barang

...we can argue when the life begins but the pro-abort completely disregard that there's a baby in the womb up to 9 months and some even after birth! so we know that they don't care about the life of the baby and not interested in any debate. it's all about getting rid of the "baggage" so that they can freely do what they want without the baby slowing them down...

As I said, you're using 'extremes' as if they are 'norms' and then rationalizing your assertions using what you claim to be 'norms.' Is what you say 'true' in certain instances? Certainly. But, those instances don't necessarily represent the motives of many or even most who undergo an abortion. As the expression goes, "there are 8 million stories in the naked city," yet you are selecting a small percentage and presenting them as if they are "THE" story.

Originally Posted by Barang

james was referencing abraham and rehab to show what active faith looks like. they showed their faith through their works/obedience that's why james said that "faith without works is dead." it's not complicated. very simple admonition to followers of Christ.

Exactly. Such is the result of faith, not justification or salvation by faith, the latter being the talking point being addressed...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...Yet, to move that 'inappropriateness' to a 'forbidden' or 'sinful' status is also inappropriate for the very reasons discussed. Being 'pro-abortion' isn't the same as being 'un-Christian,' nor is it simply about being a murderer who defies God's will. It's about exactly what the label implies, which is exactly what God allowed... the ability to choose. Without that ability to choose, we mitigate or eliminate God's ability to forgive based on the choices we make. In a sense, it obviates righteousness by faith and demands righteousness by works...

Again, context...

Originally Posted by Barang

the Ten Commandments are there to define sin. giving us direction and what to do and not to do for our benefit. acts like a traffic light and similar to manual book that brings order, unity and harmony. it's what makes stable family, community and nation.

Up to a point, you are repeating what I said...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Believing in and having faith in God is what causes you to want to act in a 'righteous' manner. What is a 'righteous' manner? That is where many, many, many of the 'debates' occur and why Christ spoke of the two 'greatest' commandments, from which then flowed the 10 Commandments...

But, you are ignoring the rest of it...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...The only required 'act' is to have faith in what you believe. The 'acts' you are referencing aren't done to achieve righteousness, but because of your faith. It's why the expression is: "God called me to act." Taking the action stems from your faith in God.

Think about a recurring theme throughout the Bible. What are the first 4 words in Genesis? In the beginning, God...? When Moses asked who he should say sent him, the reply was... I Am...? Right on down the line. It is belief that God exists and faith in that which brings righteousness, not actions.

Believing in and having faith in God is what causes you to want to act in a 'righteous' manner. What is a 'righteous' manner? That is where many, many, many of the 'debates' occur and why Christ spoke of the two 'greatest' commandments, from which then flowed the 10 Commandments. But, it is there when you start to get into discourse over when and to whom the subsequent 'laws' applied and whether they were God's intent for all of humanity or a specific group of people or the 'Church' and what constitutes the 'Church,' etc. As I said, it's both simple and complex. The trick is not to let the complexities drown out the simple message... first faith, then actions stemming from the faith.

That seems to be what Jesus was critiquing in terms of the Pharisees and their placing emphasis on 'the rules' rather than on "the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith" (see Matthew 23:23). Remember Romans 1:17...

Works flow from faith. Thus, 'righteousness' isn't found in works, but as a result of faith. Actions which stem from faith is what God requires of his followers; but, even that is tempered with caveats such as 'ability' and 'means.' Recall the widow and her two mites (Luke 21)...

This is precisely what I have been 'testifying' about. In some respects, it could be said that you have a parsimonious approach in 'cherry-picking' to support your point. In other respects, you are interpreting things and using acontextual quotations to rationalize or justify the positions you espouse. While we all do that to a degree, it is particularly pronounced in your case.

Originally Posted by Barang

...Works flow from faith. Thus, 'righteousness' isn't found in works, but as a result of faith. Actions which stem from faith is what God requires of his followers; but, even that is tempered with caveats such as 'ability' and 'means.' Recall the widow and her two mites (Luke 21)...



Put another way, it's not about what you do, but the spirit in which you do it. Do you present 'testimony' and offer 'aid' simply to be obedient, as you see it, or to 'tally points' or to actually achieve something? Remember the Parable of the Three Servants (Matthew 25:14-30) where both the one who made 5 talents and the one who made 2 talents received the same 'reward' given that it wasn't how much they earned, but based on to every man according to his several ability. Which brings us to...


Jesus said, "you will know them by their fruits." so by their works, you can tell if they are acting righteous or not. you can faith all you want but if the fruits is rotten, that faith cannot save him going back to what james is saying.
Matthew 7:20-23 nkjv
21 ?Not everyone who says to Me, ?Lord, Lord,? shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ?Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?? 23 And then I will declare to them, ?I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!?

'Fruits' is a result, not an 'action.' Even your own verse speaks to results which stems from acts. What that verse is speaking to isn't the 'fruits' (results), but the motivations behind the actions. Read it again. What is being said is that people will claim 'success' as 'proof' they should enter the Kingdom of Heaven and the response will be that such 'success' doesn't 'prove' they were doing it for the right reasons; i.e., God's will.

It's the same with the Parable of the Three Servants. I noted the first two servants. Did you note what was said to the third?

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

The third servant's argument boils down to the idea that he didn't 'lose' what he'd been given and, therefore, should also be given a 'blessing.' The reply was that he didn't actually do what he was supposed to, for the reasons he was supposed to, caring more about what might happen to him if he was 'unsuccessful' than actually 'trying to be successful' and, thus...

Originally Posted by Barang

each person is accountable to what they do with the Gospel whether they reject it or not. i speak out against abortion unapologetically and if it sounds harsh then so be it.
sharing scriptures (sharing photos of babies in different stages of development when necessary) is abrasive to those who oppose it but not to willing and open heart/mind like those pregnant women who later changed their mind about killing their babies after witnessing to them.
for those who rejected the message previously but accepted it later, i will rejoice and thank God for that decision.

It's not about 'rejecting the Gospel.' As I have indicated, it's about having a different interpretation and, thus, a different frame of reference than YOU. Your contention is that the 'shock value' of 'unpleasant imagery' coupled with scripture is showing them 'the Gospel.' Really? In a sense, it is 'witnessing,' but is it based on God's agenda or your own? How often did Jesus use 'shock' vs. 'gentler' approaches which allowed those he was messaging to an opportunity to perceive the error(s) of their way?

This is what I have been trying to get across to you. Remember 1 Corinthians 13 where faith, love, and charity are spoken of and charity is declared to be the greatest of these? It's not about prophesy or works, but about 'compassion' in an effort to 'lift up.' It is why I suggest not starting with such an approach and, instead, take note of 1 Corinthians 3...

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

As I said earlier, one needs to be cautious not to distract from the "still, small voice" God often uses. Fire and brimstone, thunder and lightning, the pounding of hooves all have their place. Just remember 1 Kings 19...

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

Just more thoughts to ponder.

[plinker202020]

For those that believe men should have no vote on the abortion issue because it doesn?t affect them:

At what point after conception can a man establish that he wants zero financial obligations to the fetus should its host decide to carry to term?

Last comment. I was in Poland recently and saw a surprising number of people with Downs Syndrome. There were kids and adults, all living a regular life and just part of the fabric of society. I finally realized it was because there are very strict laws around abortion. No selective abortions, basically. Just rape, actual danger to the mother (not mental health/anxiety/BS). I don?t know what my stance is exactly, but I can tell you that when the reason for the number of DS individuals dawned on me, it made me feel like I was in an actual caring society.

Think about it, how often do you see someone with DS? Unless you have a person in your family or a neighbor, I bet it?s not often. For all the liberals yelping about tolerance, they sure love to pass judgment on the worth of certain individuals lives.

[CVShooter]

Cue up the music!

"Every sperm is sacred..." How far do we really want to take this?

God knew me before I came out of the womb? Okay. Guess he knew my mom wasn't going to have an abortion then too. So what? So if a kid is aborted, then God is caught by surprise?

For my part, I couldn't give a rip about what stance is Christian or not. I'm not a Christian anymore. But I am definitely an American. I like the 2nd Amendment. But I really like the 1st. Freedom of religion and it's partner, Freedom FROM religion. If you're pro-life. Cool. Don't have an abortion. Isn't that easy? But leave other people alone in their choices. If other people want to kill off their young, what's it to you? People like you will out-breed people like them and the problem will work itself out. You'll get to be holy & righteous in the eyes of your god and they'll be evil. They'll get god's stink-eye while he'll smile on you and your goody-goody self. What's the problem here?

We don't have a Christian nation. We have a secular nation that happens to have a lot of Christians. Let's keep it that way. I thank all the gods that we don't have a theocracy! No Sharia (or Biblical or Kashrut) law here, thank you very much. That would truly be the death of America.

[DEVOREGUNNER]

Life begins when the dog dies and the kids move out........ free at last..

[Nor Cal Scot]

10 days. Get ma DNA code and I'm legit human.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

This is why I noted earlier...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...In short, as I indicated in my previous, long-ish post, imposing what you, personally believe as a societal law or expounding upon it as God's will isn't going to get you too far with anyone who doesn't already see things as you do. That was part of my earlier point; i.e., that you need to get them to see things differently than they already do. If you can do that, then you will have your opportunity to present your testimony and aid them in seeing things 'your' way. Why? Because if you can't get them to see things differently than they already do, you are unlikely to persuade them to see things as you understand them...

Originally Posted by plinker202020

...For all the liberals yelping about tolerance, they sure love to pass judgment on the worth of certain individuals lives.

Originally Posted by CVShooter

...If you're pro-life. Cool. Don't have an abortion. Isn't that easy? But leave other people alone in their choices. If other people want to kill off their young, what's it to you?...

It's not about 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' or about moral relativism. It's about how you engage in the conversation.

CVShooter is correct to the degree that God allows humans to make their choice and simply condemning and proselytizing isn't the same as persuasion. Plinker is correct in that there is considerable... well... some would call it 'hypocrisy' and others 'blind spots.' Whatever it is, there is a certain amount of... 'inconsistency'... in the arguments presented or, at least, there appears to be.

It is this very 'inconsistency' that I referenced in my first post to this thread and have, repeatedly, come back to. Barang and I are closer than we appear in terms of what we agree on; whether he perceives it that way or not. We agree that abortion is a 'permissible' thing, under certain circumstances. Where we differ is in the approach we promote in terms of how to persuade as to what those circumstances are. As I already stated...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...That means the question which titles this thread is a bit misleading as "When does Life begin?" isn't what we are arguing over. Instead, the criteria utilized to determine 'acceptability' of the act is what causes the discord...

It's the very thing we see in the quotes from CVShooter, plinker202020, and even Barang. What is being reacted to, the condemnation, isn't even the topic, which is abortion. CVShooter doesn't want to be 'preached' to. Plinker abhors the 'inconsistency.' Barang wants the fire and brimstone, but resists when it is observed that he is more accommodating than he wants to come across.

Where do you find an opportunity for discourse and persuasion in that if you 'preach' (start with the fire and brimstone Bible verses), appear to be inconsistent with what the Bible itself teaches (as I have demonstrated), and don't or refuse to recognize how what you just said comes across?

That's the real starting point and topic of discussion when speaking about abortion. Things like when Life begins, what is considered acceptable/unacceptable to the Lord and to you, personally, etc. come later. Otherwise, all you end up with is what we've seen in this thread... discord. As I also observed... Patiently explaining why you believe the way you do and demonstrating how those beliefs are not necessarily antithetical to the other person's Life or the choices they are confronted with is and happens to be what 'testimony' is all about.

There are no two lives which are identical, yet there is no new thing under the sun. It's not so much about 'finding common ground' as it is about accepting that 'common' isn't represented by the extremes we often see or are consistently shown. As such, we should look to address the 'middle' and work outward. Put another way, you don't 'cure' a disease by killing the patient.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

One (or even a dozen) examples don't make the rule. Again, you speak in 'absolutes,' but use 'non-norms.' As you say, it is an example highlighting a possible outcome, but it doesn't 'prove' or 'justify' what you claimed...

Again, the medical profession is much more 'involved' than that, particularly today. You are attempting to draw a bright line in the sand where one doesn't and shouldn't exist. Ultimately, it is the mother's decision, in many/most cases. However, without the medical input, how does she know if her Life is at stake? Faith? I'm not sure you're going to win your point with 'non-believers,' the doubting, the dubious, etc. on that basis. In fact, as was my original point, starting that way is likely to cause them to not listen.

pam tebow was informed by different doctors about the health risks and possible death if carried the pregnancy to full term but chose to ignore their input. she didn't know what's going to happen to her but she's stayed true to her belief. what this mother demonstrated is her faith and obedience to God.
she's not the only one who made the same decision when faced with similar fate.

This is what I meant by the 'heart of the problem.' You feel I have been trying to get you to 'change your mind.' That's not what I've been doing. What I have been doing is attempting to get you to see that your own assertions/arguments don't necessarily hold together and it's something you 'unintentionally' acknowledged when you said...



If I have verses which 'support my view,' then it becomes a matter of interpretation rather than an 'absolute.' As I indicated, simply throwing verses out there which supports a viewpoint and deliberately ignoring both the context of those verses, as well as the verses/context which support a differing point of view is hazardous to your argument. A good example...

this is what we're both exactly are doing. i'm quoting verses, you're quoting verses.

How does that jibe with calling anyone 'pro-abortion' by a truncated name and indicating they are 'blaspheming God,' 'murderers/killers,' seek to eliminate 'baggage' and avoid 'inconvenience,' etc. when speaking of anyone you deem as 'pro-abortion;' which, again, I remind you, includes yourself as you 'allow' for it as an acceptable (even 'favored') alternative under certain circumstances?

do you deny these large group of people who are out there protesting not blaspheming God, you never read some of their signs or heard their own words? they keep repeating the mantra "my body my choice"?

As I said, you're using 'extremes' as if they are 'norms' and then rationalizing your assertions using what you claim to be 'norms.' Is what you say 'true' in certain instances? Certainly. But, those instances don't necessarily represent the motives of many or even most who undergo an abortion. As the expression goes, "there are 8 million stories in the naked city," yet you are selecting a small percentage and presenting them as if they are "THE" story.

there's a huge percentage in 60 million aborted babies due to "unplanned = not ready to have a baby, promiscuity, adultery, in the way of career, in the way of no burden, in the way of having fun or whatever selfish reasons."

This is precisely what I have been 'testifying' about. In some respects, it could be said that you have a parsimonious approach in 'cherry-picking' to support your point. In other respects, you are interpreting things and using acontextual quotations to rationalize or justify the positions you espouse. While we all do that to a degree, it is particularly pronounced in your case

i disagree but that's how you see and that is your right.

'Fruits' is a result, not an 'action.' Even your own verse speaks to results which stems from acts. What that verse is speaking to isn't the 'fruits' (results), but the motivations behind the actions. Read it again. What is being said is that people will claim 'success' as 'proof' they should enter the Kingdom of Heaven and the response will be that such 'success' doesn't 'prove' they were doing it for the right reasons; i.e., God's will.

It's the same with the Parable of the Three Servants. I noted the first two servants. Did you note what was said to the third?


The third servant's argument boils down to the idea that he didn't 'lose' what he'd been given and, therefore, should also be given a 'blessing.' The reply was that he didn't actually do what he was supposed to, for the reasons he was supposed to, caring more about what might happen to him if he was 'unsuccessful' than actually 'trying to be successful' and, thus...

the third servant didn't do anything productive with what was entrusted to him. he was fearful of his master but didn't put it in a bank (so to speak) so that at least it earned some interest.
similar to what james is saying.
James 2:14-17 nkjv
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, ?Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,? but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

It's not about 'rejecting the Gospel.' As I have indicated, it's about having a different interpretation and, thus, a different frame of reference than YOU. Your contention is that the 'shock value' of 'unpleasant imagery' coupled with scripture is showing them 'the Gospel.' Really? In a sense, it is 'witnessing,' but is it based on God's agenda or your own? How often did Jesus use 'shock' vs. 'gentler' approaches which allowed those he was messaging to an opportunity to perceive the error(s) of their way?

This is what I have been trying to get across to you. Remember 1 Corinthians 13 where faith, love, and charity are spoken of and charity is declared to be the greatest of these? It's not about prophesy or works, but about 'compassion' in an effort to 'lift up.' It is why I suggest not starting with such an approach and, instead, take note of 1 Corinthians 3...



As I said earlier, one needs to be cautious not to distract from the "still, small voice" God often uses. Fire and brimstone, thunder and lightning, the pounding of hooves all have their place. Just remember 1 Kings 19...



Just more thoughts to ponder.

Matthew 13:41-42 nkjv
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:49-50 nkjv
49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.?

Matthew 23:27-33 nkjv
27 ?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men?s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 ?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and [a]adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ?If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.?

31 ?Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers? guilt. 33 Serpents, brood[b] of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

John 8:44 kjv
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Matthew 3:7 nkjv
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, ?Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

as you can see, Jesus and john are direct and clear, no reservation in mentioning hell. it's not a shock value but truth!
only people who rejected God will call it shock value but for those who are open to hearing the Gospel are receptive to it.

ray comfort has lots of conversion who are receptive and those who are against God from the start said that "it was offensive!" it's not really a shock value but it is use to make christian tone down their message.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Barang

pam tebow was informed by different doctors about the health risks and possible death if carried the pregnancy to full term but chose to ignore their input. she didn't know what's going to happen to her but she's stayed true to her belief. what this mother demonstrated is her faith and obedience to God.
she's not the only one who made the same decision when faced with similar fate.

And, I repeat...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...As you say, it is an example highlighting a possible outcome, but it doesn't 'prove' or 'justify' what you claimed...

Again, the medical profession is much more 'involved' than that, particularly today. You are attempting to draw a bright line in the sand where one doesn't and shouldn't exist. Ultimately, it is the mother's decision, in many/most cases. However, without the medical input, how does she know if her Life is at stake? Faith? I'm not sure you're going to win your point with 'non-believers,' the doubting, the dubious, etc. on that basis. In fact, as was my original point, starting that way is likely to cause them to not listen...

Exemplars are not necessarily the norm.

Originally Posted by Barang

this is what we're both exactly are doing. i'm quoting verses, you're quoting verses.

The difference is that you are presenting your position as an 'absolute' (when it is self-admittedly not one) and doing so, in many instances, acontextually.

Originally Posted by Barang

do you deny these large group of people who are out there protesting not blaspheming God, you never read some of their signs or heard their own words? when they keep repeating the mantra "my body my choice"?

So, you know what everyone in those 'large groups' is protesting, not to mention what's in their hearts because of "some of their signs" and the words of some??? As I said...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

As I said, you're using 'extremes' as if they are 'norms' and then rationalizing your assertions using what you claim to be 'norms.' Is what you say 'true' in certain instances? Certainly. But, those instances don't necessarily represent the motives of many or even most who undergo an abortion. As the expression goes, "there are 8 million stories in the naked city," yet you are selecting a small percentage and presenting them as if they are "THE" story.

Just like...

Originally Posted by Barang

there's a huge percentage in 60 million aborted babies due to "unplanned = not ready to have a baby, promiscuity, adultery, in the way of career, in the way of no burden, in the way of having fun or whatever selfish reasons."

According to FOX News last year... Over 63 million abortions have occurred in the US since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. If you read the article, that's based on an analysis by The Right To Life Committee, which automatically means it can be questioned in terms of just the numbers in that even they acknowledge that the number is an estimate. Then there's the fact that the report doesn't speak to the 'motivations' behind the abortions, just the idea that technology has made abortions 'easier.' It is the FOX News piece which throws out some statistics, then lets readers infer the motivations.

On the other hand, The Washington Post, also last year... No, there are not 63 million abortions a year in the U.S. Okay. That's not what FOX News said, it's what one of the 'personalities' said...

...Sometimes people even make mistakes on national television. As was the case with Fox News host Jeanine Pirro on Tuesday.

"My stats, that I have," she said, "are that there are 63 million abortions a year in this country. Those are the stats that I heard. That?s a little too much."...

The reason I point to that piece isn't the 'correction' it is issuing, but because it too doesn't deal with motivation, but also because...

One thing is clear: The country will not go from 890,000 abortions a year (much less 63 million) to zero.

Which is something I also noted and that's without differentiating between 'legal' abortions done with proper, medical assistance and 'illegal' abortions with all the problems which stem from them.

Originally Posted by Barang

i disagree but that's how you see and that is your right.

I've shown it in a number of cases. You are the one who simply refuses to recognize it.

Originally Posted by Barang

the third servant didn't do anything productive with what was entrusted to him. he was fearful of his master but didn't put it in a bank (so to speak) so that at least it earned some interest.

Which is repeating what I said, but ignoring the point...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

...The third servant's argument boils down to the idea that he didn't 'lose' what he'd been given and, therefore, should also be given a 'blessing.' The reply was that he didn't actually do what he was supposed to, for the reasons he was supposed to, caring more about what might happen to him if he was 'unsuccessful' than actually 'trying to be successful' and, thus...

It's not so much about what the servant DID (or didn't do), but WHY he did it.

Originally Posted by Barang

Matthew 13:41-42 nkjv
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:49-50 nkjv
49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.?

Matthew 23:27-33 nkjv
27 ?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men?s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 ?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and [a]adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ?If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.?

31 ?Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers? guilt. 33 Serpents, brood[b] of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

John 8:44 kjv
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Matthew 3:7 nkjv
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, ?Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

as you can see, Jesus and john are direct and clear, no reservation in mentioning hell. it's not a shock value but truth!
only people who rejected God will call it shock value but for those who are open to hearing the Gospel are receptive to it.

Again, context, context, context...

He's using 'extremism' to address 'extremists;' i.e., Pharisees and Sadducees. He's recounting the deeds of the Devil and where they are headed on that basis. Particularly in those days, the Pharisees and Sadducees were hardly the 'norm' or the 'common people.'

Originally Posted by Barang

ray comfort has lots of conversion who are receptive and those who are against God from the start said that "it was offensive!" it's not really a shock value but it is use to make christian tone down their message.

I never said to tone down the message. I've been advising that you tone down the delivery of your testimony, particularly at the beginning. Come on too strong and they are unlikely to hear the testimony, only the tone.

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

This is why I noted earlier...







It's not about 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' or about moral relativism. It's about how you engage in the conversation.

CVShooter is correct to the degree that God allows humans to make their choice and simply condemning and proselytizing isn't the same as persuasion. Plinker is correct in that there is considerable... well... some would call it 'hypocrisy' and others 'blind spots.' Whatever it is, there is a certain amount of... 'inconsistency'... in the arguments presented or, at least, there appears to be.

It is this very 'inconsistency' that I referenced in my first post to this thread and have, repeatedly, come back to. Barang and I are closer than we appear in terms of what we agree on; whether he perceives it that way or not. We agree that abortion is a 'permissible' thing, under certain circumstances. Where we differ is in the approach we promote in terms of how to persuade as to what those circumstances are. As I already stated...



It's the very thing we see in the quotes from CVShooter, plinker202020, and even Barang. What is being reacted to, the condemnation, isn't even the topic, which is abortion. CVShooter doesn't want to be 'preached' to. Plinker abhors the 'inconsistency.' Barang wants the fire and brimstone, but resists when it is observed that he is more accommodating than he wants to come across.

Where do you find an opportunity for discourse and persuasion in that if you 'preach' (start with the fire and brimstone Bible verses), appear to be inconsistent with what the Bible itself teaches (as I have demonstrated), and don't or refuse to recognize how what you just said comes across?

That's the real starting point and topic of discussion when speaking about abortion. Things like when Life begins, what is considered acceptable/unacceptable to the Lord and to you, personally, etc. come later. Otherwise, all you end up with is what we've seen in this thread... discord. As I also observed... Patiently explaining why you believe the way you do and demonstrating how those beliefs are not necessarily antithetical to the other person's Life or the choices they are confronted with is and happens to be what 'testimony' is all about.

There are no two lives which are identical, yet there is no new thing under the sun. It's not so much about 'finding common ground' as it is about accepting that 'common' isn't represented by the extremes we often see or are consistently shown. As such, we should look to address the 'middle' and work outward. Put another way, you don't 'cure' a disease by killing the patient.

@Trapped -- you are an extremely patient and articulate person. I'm here mainly for entertainment purposes. But you are taking this very seriously and doing a fine job at expressing your thoughts. Kudos to you, my friend. Share my campfire anytime.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

@Trapped -- you are an extremely patient and articulate person. I'm here mainly for entertainment purposes. But you are taking this very seriously and doing a fine job at expressing your thoughts. Kudos to you, my friend. Share my campfire anytime.

Thanks.

I've got a supply of hot dogs in the freezer which have been there long enough that they're verging on 'freezer burn.' They might just need to be cooked over a fire rather than boiled in a pot so as to induce a proper texture. I'm gonna have to think about that.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

So, you know what everyone in those 'large groups' is protesting, not to mention what's in their hearts because of "some of their signs" and the words of some??? As I said...

the answer is the same. they're out there protesting, giving interviews, signs and mantra "my body my choice." no guessing required.
how many have you heard from that group that they have other reason than selfishness. i am yet to hear one but maybe after reading this thread they'd start including that in their mantra to make it look like their just normal people.

According to FOX News last year... Over 63 million abortions have occurred in the US since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. If you read the article, that's based on an analysis by The Right To Life Committee, which automatically means it can be questioned in terms of just the numbers in that even they acknowledge that the number is an estimate. Then there's the fact that the report doesn't speak to the 'motivations' behind the abortions, just the idea that technology has made abortions 'easier.' It is the FOX News piece which throws out some statistics, then lets readers infer the motivations.

On the other hand, The Washington Post, also last year... No, there are not 63 million abortions a year in the U.S. Okay. That's not what FOX News said, it's what one of the 'personalities' said...



The reason I point to that piece isn't the 'correction' it is issuing, but because it too doesn't deal with motivation, but also because...



Which is something I also noted and that's without differentiating between 'legal' abortions done with proper, medical assistance and 'illegal' abortions with all the problems which stem from them.

even if you slash the number 63 million to 30 million, the number of those who wants to kill their babies is overwhelmingly high. it doesn't diminish the staggering number of selfish people who aborted their babies due to:
1- too young to have a baby.
2- one night stand.
3- promiscuity.
4- adultery.
5- burdensome.
6- in the way of career.
7- unplanned.
8 - selfishness.
that's a lot of women with lots of reasons to kill their unwanted babies.

He's using 'extremism' to address 'extremists;' i.e., Pharisees and Sadducees. He's recounting the deeds of the Devil and where they are headed on that basis. Particularly in those days, the Pharisees and Sadducees were hardly the 'norm' or the 'common people.'

both. some addressed to pharisees and some to common people.

Mark 9:42-48 nkjv
42 ?But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me [a]to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life [b]maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to [c]hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched? 44 [d]where

?Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.?

45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into [e]hell, [f]into the fire that shall never be quenched? 46 where

?Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.?

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into [g]hell fire? 48 where

?Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.?

Matthew 13:40-42 nkjv
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I never said to tone down the message. I've been advising that you tone down the delivery of your testimony, particularly at the beginning. Come on too strong and they are unlikely to hear the testimony, only the tone.

it's not abrasive, it is direct, truthful and from the source (Bible).
i will defend the babies in the womb unabashed and unapologetic.
what's more innocent than a baby in the womb.
Proverbs 6:16-19 nkjv
16
These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to [a]Him:
17
A[b] proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Barang

the answer is the same. they're out there protesting, giving interviews, signs and mantra "my body my choice." no guessing required.
how many have you heard from that group that they have other reason than selfishness. i am yet to hear one but maybe after reading this thread they'd start including that in their mantra to make it look like their just normal people.

Ever hear of the 'Silent Majority' on our side? The bottom line is that the media goes by their own mantra of "If it bleeds, it leads" - a sensationalist approach to creating headlines to induce readers/views/clicks. As a result, you are going to be presented with extremes/extremism rather than the average.

Oh, by the way, what have I repeatedly advised about hubris? "Maybe after reading this they'd start including...???" Gimme a break.

Originally Posted by Barang

even if you slash the number 63 million to 30 million, the number of those who wants to kill their babies is overwhelmingly high. it doesn't diminish the staggering number of selfish people who aborted their babies due to:
1- too young to have a baby.
2- one night stand.
3- promiscuity.
4- adultery.
5- burdensome.
6- in the way of career.
7- unplanned.
8 - selfishness.
that's a lot of women with lots of reasons to kill their unwanted babies.

Remember, the time frame presented was 50 years. So, on an annual basis, that's just over 1 million per year. Now, how many can you, definitively, place under each of the 'limited number' of rationale labels you provide? How many might be or are placed under other rationale headings? The truth is, you have no way of knowing and neither do I. Such is the very essence of why we've been told to "Judge not."

That's without even addressing the idea that many of your own categories - selfishness, unplanned, adultery, promiscuity, etc. - are indicative of human behavior and not 'murderous intent' or 'laziness' or many of the other epithets you use on a near continuous and near universal basis. Perhaps, if you want to lessen the number of abortions, rather than blaring the anti-abortion trumpet and denouncing such things as (bed) defilement, un-Christian, et al., you might focus on educating them in better, alternative ways of living/acting.

Originally Posted by Barang

both. some addressed to pharisees and some to common people.

Mark 9:42-48 nkjv
42 ?But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me [a]to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life [b]maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to [c]hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched? 44 [d]where

?Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.?

45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into [e]hell, [f]into the fire that shall never be quenched? 46 where

?Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.?

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into [g]hell fire? 48 where

?Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.?

Matthew 13:40-42 nkjv
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Where is abortion mentioned in the versus to which you are inferring applicability? Causing a child to 'falter' or 'stumble' in their faith through inappropriate teachings or exhibited behaviors is a far cry from abortion of a child before it is born. Likewise, many of your previous passages were directly addressed to Pharisees and Sadducees; not to mention the rest noting what would happen in the End Times. Do you consider yourself an 'avenging angel' in the End Times? Living life with an infirmity being better than living a sin filled life is, again, not a reference to abortion or a 'righteous superiority' in raising a child born with a physical deformity.

Such is the very definition of acontextualism; i.e., taking things out of context to bolster a point unrelated to the actual text or saying or event. Worse. It's not taking and applying what God said. It's taking what God (and others) said and 'spinning' it to fit an agenda unrelated to the point being made. It's something I have been regularly warning you about.

Originally Posted by Barang

it's not abrasive, it is direct, truthful and from the source (Bible).
i will defend the babies in the womb unabashed and unapologetic.
what's more innocent than a baby in the womb.
Proverbs 6:16-19 nkjv
16
These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to [a]Him:
17
A[b] proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

Rather than an honest and humble servant attempting to offer testimony and aid, you continue to attempt representing yourself as a zealot at war. Not abrasive?! We've seen in this very thread responses indicating that it is that and more. Further, we've seen at least one example of how your approach 'closes avenues of communication' by offending the sensibilities needlessly and, as I have indicated, ill-advisedly by declaring certain extremes to be the norm while failing to acknowledge the more prevalent reasons women seek abortions. Worse. You then proceed as if they should be condemned or will meet everlasting fire as a result of various epithets you use to describe their motives, despite not being able to accurately ascribe those motives to other than the 'loudest' and most publicly visible.

As I have suggested, you are likely not accomplishing the purpose intended and, in fact, your chosen methods could very well be counterproductive to that purpose. As with the Third Servant, it's not about what you do, but why you do it. It is one thing to be zealous for God. It is something else to allow that zealousness to become zealotry used to skewer those you deem to be in error when we have been given instruction on doing it other ways due to a specific role we have in relation to spreading the Word.

You see, there is a difference in being 'zealous for the Lord' where you have an abundance of enthusiasm and zealotry where you cast yourself as being 'superior' in the beliefs you espouse (which, as you have demonstrated earlier in the thread, are not as 'absolute' as you attempt to portray them), demanding that all who hear you apply them or reap the punishments of defiance and sinfulness with no allowance of forgiveness.

At this juncture, as we've discussed, I have not been suggesting you change the message that abortion is not a good thing. I have been suggesting a needed change in your delivery. I have testified and offered aid in understanding. It is up to you to 'hear' it and apply it to what you are doing. If you choose not to, that is not within my control and it is not my responsibility to force you to. As I have said...

Just some thoughts to consider and if you deem them not worthy of consideration, ultimately, that's between you and someone with a bit higher rank than I have. (ahem)

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Thanks.

I've got a supply of hot dogs in the freezer which have been there long enough that they're verging on 'freezer burn.' They might just need to be cooked over a fire rather than boiled in a pot so as to induce a proper texture. I'm gonna have to think about that.

Eh, keep your hotdogs or save them for the canines. I just put some venison in the freezer and have half a steer on the way. Much better table fare & fantastic over a hardwood fire. Death bringing life -- the first sacrament is the hunt

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Ever hear of the 'Silent Majority' on our side? The bottom line is that the media goes by their own mantra of "If it bleeds, it leads" - a sensationalist approach to creating headlines to induce readers/views/clicks. As a result, you are going to be presented with extremes/extremism rather than the average.

there's no silent majority in abortion group much like no silent majority in pro-life group. each group represents what they're fighting for openly.
there's a silent majority in america as a whole, yes! but not when it comes to organizations/groups/ministries.

*** i don't include mothers who are at risk of dying during pregnancy. they are not the same as the selfish abortion group ***

Oh, by the way, what have I repeatedly advised about hubris? "Maybe after reading this they'd start including...???" Gimme a break.

that's why i added the wink at the end to lighten up the debate.

Remember, the time frame presented was 50 years. So, on an annual basis, that's just over 1 million per year. Now, how many can you, definitively, place under each of the 'limited number' of rationale labels you provide? How many might be or are placed under other rationale headings? The truth is, you have no way of knowing and neither do I. Such is the very essence of why we've been told to "Judge not."

when they are out there shouting "my body my choice" and demanding no restrictions on abortion. are you gonna tell me that they're concern about them dying giving birth? or is it selfishness?

[QUOTE]
That's without even addressing the idea that many of your own categories - selfishness, unplanned, adultery, promiscuity, etc. - are indicative of human behavior and not 'murderous intent' or 'laziness' or many of the other epithets you use on a near continuous and near universal basis. Perhaps, if you want to lessen the number of abortions, rather than blaring the anti-abortion trumpet and denouncing such things as (bed) defilement, un-Christian, et al., you might focus on educating them in better, alternative ways of living/acting.

the murderous intent is when the baby is in the picture by killing it due to selfish reasons.
i let you "educate them in better, alternative ways of living/acting." i wish you good luck.

Where is abortion mentioned in the versus to which you are inferring applicability? Causing a child to 'falter' or 'stumble' in their faith through inappropriate teachings or exhibited behaviors is a far cry from abortion of a child before it is born. Likewise, many of your previous passages were directly addressed to Pharisees and Sadducees; not to mention the rest noting what would happen in the End Times. Do you consider yourself an 'avenging angel' in the End Times? Living life with an infirmity being better than living a sin filled life is, again, not a reference to abortion or a 'righteous superiority' in raising a child born with a physical deformity.

Such is the very definition of acontextualism; i.e., taking things out of context to bolster a point unrelated to the actual text or saying or event. Worse. It's not taking and applying what God said. It's taking what God (and others) said and 'spinning' it to fit an agenda unrelated to the point being made. It's something I have been regularly warning you about.

that was a different subject. those verses showed how Jesus dealt with pharisees and common people with "strong words."

Rather than an honest and humble servant attempting to offer testimony and aid, you continue to attempt representing yourself as a zealot at war. Not abrasive?! We've seen in this very thread responses indicating that it is that and more. Further, we've seen at least one example of how your approach 'closes avenues of communication' by offending the sensibilities needlessly and, as I have indicated, ill-advisedly by declaring certain extremes to be the norm while failing to acknowledge the more prevalent reasons women seek abortions. Worse. You then proceed as if they should be condemned or will meet everlasting fire as a result of various epithets you use to describe their motives, despite not being able to accurately ascribe those motives to other than the 'loudest' and most publicly visible.

As I have suggested, you are likely not accomplishing the purpose intended and, in fact, your chosen methods could very well be counterproductive to that purpose. As with the Third Servant, it's not about what you do, but why you do it. It is one thing to be zealous for God. It is something else to allow that zealousness to become zealotry used to skewer those you deem to be in error when we have been given instruction on doing it other ways due to a specific role we have in relation to spreading the Word.

You see, there is a difference in being 'zealous for the Lord' where you have an abundance of enthusiasm and zealotry where you cast yourself as being 'superior' in the beliefs you espouse (which, as you have demonstrated earlier in the thread, are not as 'absolute' as you attempt to portray them), demanding that all who hear you apply them or reap the punishments of defiance and sinfulness with no allowance of forgiveness.

At this juncture, as we've discussed, I have not been suggesting you change the message that abortion is not a good thing. I have been suggesting a needed change in your delivery. I have testified and offered aid in understanding. It is up to you to 'hear' it and apply it to what you are doing. If you choose not to, that is not within my control and it is not my responsibility to force you to. As I have said...

Just some thoughts to consider and if you deem them not worthy of consideration, ultimately, that's between you and someone with a bit higher rank than I have. (ahem)

i'd like to reiterate my position before the end of the line.
Genesis 9:6 nkjv
?Whoever sheds man?s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Exodus 21:22-23 nkjv
22 ?If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman?s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

Exodus 23:7 nkjv
7 Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.

Psalm 127:3 nkjv
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.

Psalm 139:13 nkjv
For You formed my inward parts;
You [a]covered me in my mother?s womb.

Proverbs 6:16-19 nkjv
16 These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to [a]Him:
17 A[b] proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

what is more innocent than a helpless baby in the womb.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Barang

there's no silent majority in abortion group much like no silent majority in pro-life group. each group represents what they're fighting for openly.
there's a silent majority in america as a whole, yes! but not when it comes to organizations/groups/ministries.

*** i don't include mothers who are at risk of dying during pregnancy. they are not the same as the selfish abortion group ***

Okay. You know the motive for everyone of the over 1 million per year average and it's represented by those who protest. Got it. They're just all selfish, blasphemers, intent on murdering the innocent, and wanting to practice bed defilement wantonly. Going back through the thread, that appears to be your assessment. (Meanwhile, you continue to play down the fact that you do make 'allowances' for some abortions; despite, as I noted before, that there are those who claim a mother 'saving' her Life at the cost of her unborn child's, for whatever reason, is an inherently 'selfish' act.)

Originally Posted by Barang

when they are out there shouting "my body my choice" and demanding no restrictions on abortion. are you gonna tell me that they're concern about them dying giving birth? or is it selfishness?

First, you're ducking the point, which is that neither you nor I have any way of knowing the motivation/rationale for over 1 million abortions per year. In a very real sense, you are simply and 'arbitrarily' assigned a motivation based on the 'loudest' and 'most visible' when we know that there are many others with myriad motivations which, ultimately, are not always 'selfish.' Second, as I have said a number of times now, you are ascribing the motives of a few to all and then denouncing the group's actions based on what readers know to be a false attribution of motivation being ascribed to all. It's the very definition of creating a stereotype, then playing against the stereotype to justify your own attitudes/actions.

Originally Posted by Barang

the murderous intent is when the baby is in the picture by killing it due to selfish reasons.
i let you "educate them in better, alternative ways of living/acting." i wish you good luck.

Finally. We have an admission that you have no interest in 'testimony and aid.' Put another way, you have no interest in 'educating' them (and yourself) in the ways of the Lord. You simply want to condemn the vast majority of them as 'murderous, selfish sinners' and stop what you deem to be wanton killing. Such is why I have asked you things like whether you consider yourself to be an 'avenging angel' and similar. It's another way of demonstrating whether you are motivated by His glory or your own. The problem is that you are so blinded by your own zealotry, you can't see or even perceive it.

Originally Posted by Barang

that was a different subject. those verses showed how Jesus dealt with pharisees and common people with "strong words."

As I pointed out, the exemplars you chose are not analogous. You are 'reaching' in an attempt to justify your own approach and it ain't working. When Jesus addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees with 'strong language,' he did so due to their extreme positions and behaviors. Like you, they pushed a standard which, in many respects, even they did not adhere to strictly or consistently; yet, they were in a position of 'authority' to 'punish' those who did not tow their mark. Yet, to illustrate the problem to the 'common people,' Jesus used 'gentler' language and exemplars.

Not everyone requires Fire and Brimstone remonstration. Not everyone will be responsive to it either. But, as you said above, you have no interest in 'educating' them. Condemnation is your bag and to do it, you use the Word acontextually and selectively; infusing your own 'thinking' into God's message rather than adhering to what He wanted relayed.

Don't see it that way? Well... It's not my problem to force you to see the obvious. It was simply my duty to point it out. I have done so. As I indicated, the rest is up to someone with a bit higher rank, power, and authority than I. My peace remains with me and, while I don't favor sandals, my boots are on and I'll...



By the way, the same artist who came up with that also did... 'Genesis': R. Crumb Illustrates The Bible.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Okay. You know the motive for everyone of the over 1 million per year average and it's represented by those who protest. Got it. They're just all selfish, blasphemers, intent on murdering the innocent, and wanting to practice bed defilement wantonly.

get real! how many of those protesting regarding their pregnancy are life threatening? how many of them give a hell about the baby's life when they are proudly screaming "my body my choice!"
even by observation, from childhood to present, i didn't know anyone who had problem giving birth except for two people.
those who are affected by health risks associated with pregnancy are in tiny minority

abby johnson who used to worked for planned parenthood quit because she couldn't stand the killing of the babies anymore! these women go to pp to dump their unwanted babies!

Going back through the thread, that appears to be your assessment. (Meanwhile, you continue to play down the fact that yo u do make 'allowances' for some abortions; despite, as I noted before, that there are those who claim a mother 'saving' her Life at the cost of her unborn child's, for whatever reason, is an inherently 'selfish' act.)

i don't know what to tell you if you cannot see the difference between women who are killing their babies because of (selfish) unwanted pregnancy and mother whose life is threaten by pregnancy.

First, you're ducking the point, which is that neither you nor I have any way of knowing the motivation/rationale for over 1 million abortions per year. In a very real sense, you are simply and 'arbitrarily' assigned a motivation based on the 'loudest' and 'most visible' when we know that there are many others with myriad motivations which, ultimately, are not always 'selfish.' Second, as I have said a number of times now, you are ascribing the motives of a few to all and then denouncing the group's actions based on what readers know to be a false attribution of motivation being ascribed to all. It's the very definition of creating a stereotype, then playing against the stereotype to justify your own attitudes/actions.

you're telling me that it's possible to have an equal amount of abortion between pro abort women and mother's with life threatening pregnancy since we don't know the motivation/rationale?

if you have eyes and ears, you can see the women in the pro abort group who are demanding "my body my choice" and i don't see sickly mothers who are demanding abortion due to their life threatening condition because that group are all about me!me!me!

Finally. We have an admission that you have no interest in 'testimony and aid.' Put another way, you have no interest in 'educating' them (and yourself) in the ways of the Lord. You simply want to condemn the vast majority of them as 'murderous, selfish sinners' and stop what you deem to be wanton killing. Such is why I have asked you things like whether you consider yourself to be an 'avenging angel' and similar. It's another way of demonstrating whether you are motivated by His glory or your own. The problem is that you are so blinded by your own zealotry, you can't see or even perceive it.

you go ahead and witness to them and then try witnessing to lgbtqwxyz group. come back to tell us your story.
these people are not stupid and retarded. they knew what want and they have no interest in hearing the other side except theirs because they are selfish! it's all about me!me!me!

As I pointed out, the exemplars you chose are not analogous. You are 'reaching' in an attempt to justify your own approach and it ain't working. When Jesus addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees with 'strong language,' he did so due to their extreme positions and behaviors. Like you, they pushed a standard which, in many respects, even they did not adhere to strictly or consistently; yet, they were in a position of 'authority' to 'punish' those who did not tow their mark. Yet, to illustrate the problem to the 'common people,' Jesus used 'gentler' language and exemplars.

Not everyone requires Fire and Brimstone remonstration. Not everyone will be responsive to it either. But, as you said above, you have no interest in 'educating' them. Condemnation is your bag and to do it, you use the Word acontextually and selectively; infusing your own 'thinking' into God's message rather than adhering to what He wanted relayed.

that's you opinion and you are entitled to it. you call it fire and brimstone i call it direct from the Bible verses.

Don't see it that way? Well... It's not my problem to force you to see the obvious. It was simply my duty to point it out. I have done so. As I indicated, the rest is up to someone with a bit higher rank, power, and authority than I. My peace remains with me and, while I don't favor sandals, my boots are on and I'll...



By the way, the same artist who came up with that also did... 'Genesis': R. Crumb Illustrates The Bible.

you go your way and i'll go my way. stay off the broad way and stay on the narrow path. peace, brother.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Holy wall of text Batman! 😳

[viragoman]

https://www.hli.org/resources/what-p...lly-necessary/

There is really no such thing as a medically necessary abortion.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[cyphr02]

? And one who sows discord among brethren.

what is more innocent than a helpless baby in the womb.
Last edited by Barang; 09-20-2023 at 11:25 AM..?

And who sows more discord amongst brothers than a men who sling scripture at each other, about abortion, on a gun forum? 😂

Just for fun though? since every life and soul is precious and spilling blood is an abomination? we can all agree to be consistent and have the same position on execution that we do on abortion, right? 🫣

[Barang]

Originally Posted by cyphr02

? And one who sows discord among brethren.

what is more innocent than a helpless baby in the womb.
Last edited by Barang; 09-20-2023 at 11:25 AM..?

And who sows more discord amongst brothers than a men who sling scripture at each other, about abortion, on a gun forum? ��

duh! your in "Faith forum."

Just for fun though? since every life and soul is precious and spilling blood is an abomination? we can all agree to be consistent and have the same position on execution that we do on abortion, right? ��

another duh! do you even know the difference between innocent and guilty. better yet, do you even know what the Bible says about capital punishment?

[Wordupmybrotha]

^^^This

[cyphr02]

I must have missed the part in the 2nd half where the people were told that they were to be the arbiters of vengeance. The irony is how many cling to lines and phrases from OT to justify their condemnation like democrats cling to dicta to support their own tyrannical rules? completely ignoring the command (you know, the NT text in the red font).
If you aren?t of the chosen people and live by The Law, you are to live a life full of love? and there is no room for true brotherly love to reside in a heart that is so prepared to judge.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by cyphr02

I must have missed the part in the 2nd half where the people were told that they were to be the arbiters of vengeance. The irony is how many cling to lines and phrases from OT to justify their condemnation like democrats cling to dicta to support their own tyrannical rules? completely ignoring the command (you know, the NT text in the red font).
If you aren?t of the chosen people and live by The Law, you are to live a life full of love? and there is no room for true brotherly love to reside in a heart that is so prepared to judge.

typical liberal deflection. why even have police to arrest looters, arsonists, rapist, murderers, thieves, child molesters because hey! that's not brotherly love!
christians must exhibit love all the time because that's what nt teaches. you can't judge criminals because that's hateful and vengeful!

[CVShooter]

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

[CVShooter]

Originally Posted by cyphr02

? And one who sows discord among brethren.


Just for fun though? since every life and soul is precious and spilling blood is an abomination? we can all agree to be consistent and have the same position on execution that we do on abortion, right? 🫣

Yea, I had some pastors in the family (all dead, last I heard) that used to say similar stuff about the death penalty. Got to hand it to them -- at least they were consistent.

The law should be consistent and fair. I certainly prefer liberty & tolerance over firm rules that make one person submit to the values and beliefs of another.

For me & my opinions, I have no such rule about consistency. I can prefer apples to oranges, oranges to pears and pears to apples. Consistent logic need not apply. Most people do too, they just won't admit it or don't even know it. The mind is great at creating strange, back-fit logic to fit pre-determined beliefs.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Originally Posted by cyphr02

and there is no room for true brotherly love to reside in a heart that is so prepared to judge.

Aren't you judging the people in this thread?

[2761377]

Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha

Aren't you judging the people in this thread?

he laid out exactly what he's doing-

" The mind is great at creating strange, back-fit logic to fit pre-determined beliefs."

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Subotai

Life begins once the egg is fertilized.

So are you saying that the sperm is not alive or that the egg is not alive? Is the growing leaf on a tree no alive?