So, when does life begin?

[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...

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

Then you posted...

...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?

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

...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.

...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]

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]

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?

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...

...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?

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...

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...

...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.

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]

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]

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.

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.'

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.

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...

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...

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.

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]

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...

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.

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...

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.

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...

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...

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?

...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.

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...

...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...

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...

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...

...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)...

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.

...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...

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...

...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...

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

...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...

...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]

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]

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...

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

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...

Exemplars are not necessarily the norm.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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...

...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.

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.'

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.