Yes, it is a child in the womb.

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Daniel David, Sep 3, 2002.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got sick of the "whether abortion is murder" thread. Basic biology would dictate truth. However, there is the thought that Scripture needs to explicitely say this. I agree. I do not think that a position needs to be held to if the inerrant Scripture doesn't declare it to be so.

    Amos 1:13 -
    Thus says the Lord: "For three transgressions of the people of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they ripped open the WOMEN WITH CHILD in Gilead, That they might enlarge their territory..."

    We have seen the arguments and heard the rhetoric. What does this passage mean?
     
  2. Son of Consolation

    Son of Consolation
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you wish to hear a cryptic answer or plain English? If the latter, then abortion is indeed murder - plain and simple. The above referenced Bible verse refers to plain murder (in this case double murder, because killing a women and her child within the womb). :eek:
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    The Church has always viewed abortion as murder. One early Church author (and I forget which) said it was so horrible a deed that he he didn't even want to call it murder.

    HankD
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks PTW, That other thread was certainly becoming redundant with Post-it simply re-packaging the same defeated arguments.

    One thing kept recurring to me though. Once Post-it said that he sometimes debated just to pick up good arguments rather than to defend his personal opinion. He plays the "devil's advocate" so to speak.

    I'm not sure which would be worse. If he really believes the non-sense he posted or if he was being deceptive all along.
     
  5. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I said was that I will take on arguments that I may not have any real belief or care about either way, then make a case using scripture against “out of context” social promotions by the scripturally challenged.

    I do this since I hate to see the Bible and our Faith raked over the coals by using it in ignorance to promote an stand that can’t be made from verses in context and scripture against scripture.

    I have said that I think abortion is wrong but I didn’t arrive at this view from scripture. If anything, my thoughts on its wrongness is contrary to scripture. I am just making the arguments from within the confines of Scripture. I will and have adjusted it when scripture or understanding of scripture has been presented to support changes to my original stand.

    This is, after all, Theology and Bible Study, not the Baptist Opinion Forum.

    [ September 03, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
  6. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good job Post-it. Way to interact with the passage I posted. The passage clearly says that the women were with child and they were ripped open. That is how a pregnant woman was described.

    You just keep ignoring my posts.
     
  7. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Labeling doesn't establish life. Of course they used the word child, what else are you going to call "it"? There are no other words to describe it, even Fetus means "baby". But "names" don't establish "life."

    Adam was called a "man" before he was given "life". Labels and names only help us understand generalities about an object.
     
  8. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, so maybe life just means moving in general, like how a plant sways in the wind or gets bigger. Kewl.
     
  9. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Post-it, you are truly amazing. You wanted a scripture that plainly says that the unborn is a child.

    I provided it.

    You ignore it.

    Did you read the Scripture? God declared judgment because these cruel people ripped open the pregnant women and caused a double murder.

    You are not looking for truth. You are not looking for reality. Words lose all purpose if we cannot accept words in a normal, plain sense. Are language is distorted and nothing is knowable. This is nothing more than agnosticism.

    You have managed to mix agnosticism with christian terms.

    This Scripture declares the unborn to be a child.

    You say that it means something else.

    Why? What is the justification? Why does that word not mean that word when there is absolutely no reason to take the word for what it means? Context does not demand or even allow for an allegorical interpretation.

    If you are set in your reason on this, then words mean nothing to you and communication of any kind will never make sense to anyone.

    Welcome to the confused world of a liberal.

    [ September 04, 2002, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    Honk! Honk!

    So many geese post-it, so little time [​IMG]

    Please give it up.

    HankD

    [ September 04, 2002, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  11. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe if I go ahead and use your argument in a formal logic equation, you will see why it doesn't support your conclusion.

    p1 Anybody called a child is alive
    p2 A fetus is called a child
    C Therefore, all fetus' are alive

    If p1 and p2 are true (facts) then C is true.
    If either or both of p1 or p2 can be shown not to be a fact (false), then the conclusion can't be a valid conclusion.

    Here was my refute on your premise.
    We also call a child who has just died "a child" too. Therefore p1 is a false premise, while p2 is true, therefore C is an invalid conclusion.

    I hope this helps shows why it is an invalid argument.
     
  12. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it doesn't. It only informs me that you use faulty logic.

    You have superimposed your own ideas on an explicit Scripture and then tried to confine it within your own logic. You have started with the premise that your logic solves the problem and/or that you can decide what is truth based on your logic.

    Let me ask you this: what does Scripture have to say for you to believe that the unborn is an actually person? This might just avoid alot of needless posts.
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Post-it said:
    Preach says:
    Good one. That is informative. The latin term for child is fetus.

    So, your second premise goes like this:
    A child is called a child.

    That is profound.

    Problem for you: a fetus is not anything but a child. They are one and the same. It is the same word in a different language. Hello! Didn't we learn this when we were, 12?
     
  14. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Preach says:
    Good one. That is informative. The latin term for child is fetus.

    So, your second premise goes like this:
    A child is called a child.

    That is profound.

    Problem for you: a fetus is not anything but a child. They are one and the same. It is the same word in a different language. Hello! Didn't we learn this when we were, 12?
    </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't change anything. I used fetus to make it short and clear but here, I will use your exact claim.

    p1 Anybody called a child is alive
    p2 An unborn entity in the Bible is called a child
    C Therefore, all fetus' are alive

    p1 is still false and the conclusion is still false.
     
  15. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then please give me your premises and conclusion, I would like to see this.

    Show me how calling something a child makes it alive.
     
  16. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Post-it, please answer my question about what you need the Bible to say.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Post-it, I had hoped to not start the piling on again but this has to be exposed.

    A "dead child" must always be qualified as "dead" or the assumption is that it is alive.

    Additionally, when we say that a child "died", the phrase has a specific meaning- that its body is no longer functioning in a way to perpetuate its life. This cannot be side of an unborn child.

    On several occasions, you have claimed to just be taking the Bible literally. Yet, when confronted with clear passages like this, the discussion devolves into us trying to convince you that words mean what they mean.

    On the other hand, you post scriptures that neither explicitly nor implicitly support your conclusions and demand that we read between the lines with you to get a different meaning, ie. the discussion about the test for adultery.

    Additionally, you employ escape and evasion tactics when your arguments fall apart. In this case, you cannot accept the very literal meaning of the posted passage so you attempt to switch to "logic." Now, since it has been demonstrated that a dead child cannot be a proper analogy for an unborn child, what will you do? My guess is that you will pull out one of your (already disproven) scriptural arguments and claim victory through your 'literal treatment of scripture.'

    Until you can agree that words mean what their definition says and that a literal interpretation of scripture requires that we not insert a pregnancy into the text when it is neither said nor implied, it will be impossible to have a meaningful debate with you.
     
  18. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    post-it said:
    preach says:
    That would be chasing a trail. If you want to start a thread on presuppositions, do that.

    Briefly I will say this:
    I assume that truth can be known and that you can know when you have arrived at truth. Why do I assume this? First, all people are blind and wander; they are lost. They are stuck in the elephant story. However, One came with the purpose of revealing truth because humanity knew it but then twisted it.

    Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead. Christ embraced the authority and absolute accuracy of the Old Testament (where Amos 1:13 is found). Because of the resurrection, all things prior in the O.T. are true in their totality. Jesus said that the Spirit would lead (those present) into all truth (this would be the N.T. Scripture). Peter alluded to this very thing. Since Christ promised that the future written Scripture would be truth, I can accept what it says at face value.

    So, I always come back to Scripture. I do so because Christ declared it to be absolute truth. So, if Christ says something is truth, and Scripture calls an unborn baby a child, then I believe it.

    p1 - Jesus said all of Scripture is absolute truth
    p2 - Scripture said that an unborn baby is a child
    c - Jesus fully supports the idea that an unborn baby is a child

    I will not argue logical methods. Save it for another thread.
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then please give me your premises and conclusion, I would like to see this.

    Show me how calling something a child makes it alive.
    </font>[/QUOTE]p1- The word "child" unless otherwise qualified means a living child. This is universally true.
    p2- The word "child" in the passage in question is not qualified in such a way as to imply anything other than a normal living child.
    C- The passage refers to a living child.

    p1 Anybody called a child (without qualifying terms such as "dead") is alive
    p2 An unborn entity in the Bible is called a child
    C Therefore, all fetus' are alive


    On several occasions I have noted that you have abused and twisted scripture to support an argument. Now, you are doing the same with the rules of logic.
     
  20. stocksbo

    stocksbo
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Doesn't this scripture provide proof that the unborn is actually a child (babe)?

    _____________
    Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
    _____________
     

Share This Page

Loading...