So Jaig -
One simple question:
Should Colorado Christian have the right to determine if they want to refuse the MAP?
And BTW we do care about children
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Colorado Christian- morning after pill
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
So Jaig -
One simple question:
Should Colorado Christian have the right to determine if they want to refuse the MAP?
And BTW we do care about children
How exactly is it that I don't care about children after they are born, jaigner?
Dude, this is a pretty stupid line of argumentation. First, and really the only point, is that you don't actually know anyone around here so it's silly to suggest they don't care about life after birth. I'd apologize right now and save some face
Listen, I can't state, or work out, my position on why I don't believe life begins after (not at) conception because of board policies. So I keep my mouth shut. Maybe it's a good strategy for you to do when making rash judgments aboutthe good people who post here.
>You don't appear to be pro-life, either. You want all children to be born, but you don't give a crap about what happens to them after that.
If you all get what you ask at least half, probably 90% of the new births will spend their first 18 years on welfare. I don't recall any one of you pleading for increased taxes to help single mothers, head start programs, etc.
Does ANY church have a program to help single mothers with day to day costs?
If you all get what you ask at least half, probably 90% of the new births will spend their first 18 years on welfare. I don't recall any one of you pleading for increased taxes to help single mothers, head start programs, etc.
Does ANY church have a program to help single mothers with day to day costs?
Point taken, but what I said was directed to one poster who consistently demonstrates this point of view in his comments. I'm not referring to a larger "pro-life" crowd, of which I consider myself a member.
Why do you say "we?" What I said was not referring to you.
Oh, and nobody is being forced to take it.
I'm not an expert on law, so I wouldn't want to venture out too far here, but I just think it's silly that so many get so up in arms about this.
I was going to recommend we go back to CS 101 - but we may have to go to CS 99
The issue is not about forcing someone to take the Map, it about a Christian college be forced to offer it.
I'm that one poster. Please, tell me how I don't care about children after they are born? You've said I consistently demonstrate this point of view in my comments. Please give me some examples how I don't care about children after they are born.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I don't think I've ever identified myself as such, Matt.
Pro-life, pro-choice are political identifiers that don't even come close to representing my position. Which is:
Christians need to worry more about turning lives to Christ and when that job is done, we won't have to worry about laws to prevent abortion! Until then, why do we believe nonChristians should behave as Christ would have us behave? It isn't going to happen. We are fighting the wrong war.
Yet, unfortunately, many within the church buy into the idea that it's not wrong to abort and will do so instead of facing the music and dealing with the consequences of their sin. It's not just those outside the church who have abortions.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
So we want a political solution to what is an education problem within our churches? I don't think so.
If we want Christians to not abort, then we need to tell them why we believe it's wrong right inside our Sunday School rooms. Many times I heard abortion preached against, but I was supposed to take the speakers word that it was wrong rather than having it explained why it was wrong. How many churches sit their young men down and explain the biologic specifics of pregnancy? How many sit down their young ladies? Not very many.
Nor do we want the bother of discipling young people through the consequences of the original sin. "well, they made their bed, now they have lay in it!" That's the attitude of many many folks in my area. The few who put their beliefs where their mouths are can't keep up with the demand for mercy and compassion!
My Godson? Yeah, his dad didn't want him, thats why I have him. It took the man years before he began to treat the boy as anything other than burden foisted on him by his now, exwife (he believed she got pregnant intentionally). You can't just bring these children into the world and then leave them to their own devices or to the mercies of parents who either don't really want them or simply have no idea how to care for them.
Abortion is not nearly as big a problem as the cultural idea that children are a burden. You have to beat the second idea before you can make a dent in the first.
Interesting, I suppose, to some but, in no manner relevant.
fill, the earth
In your stated scenario, maybe! First of all, let's define, perhaps a bit more clearly for you. Mankind is called to obey, basically, one rule, "Obey God!" If any person, intentionally, disobeys God, they have intentionally sinned! Very early on God commanded us to replenish, to fill the Earth with humans.
By obeying God.
Friend, it all comes down to just one point, will you obey God? You can build all the straw men you wish, trying to divert the issue into Human Reasoning but it will never put a tear of joy in the corner of God's eye. God creates life and to anything other than to obey His dictates is to sin.
And you never will see that from those of us that follow God because we know that Welfare is not the will of God. God teaches thyat those that do not work do not eat either!
But what you said was that attempting to avoid pregnancy at all was sin. So abstaining during ovulation is sin for married couples. You also said, and this is beyond creepy, that allowing a sperm or egg to die was sinful. I think it's clear that you have no exegetical basis for any of this. I just wonder who taught you all these preposterous things.
If you would like, PM me your address and I will send you a solid evangelical theology text at my own expense to help you further flesh out your position on sin and to bring yourself into the realm of evangelical bible interpretations.
You really sound catholic sometimes, friend.
In any event, it's plainly obvious that there are times married couples can exercise their very personal prerogative to avoid pregnancy, and for many reasons. They did so in biblical times, as well. If they choose to do so with the help of prescriptions or other methods, that is their very personal decision that they should make with consensus and much prayer.
It's just not as easy as you're making it. What about the family with children and both parents are out of work? What about the wife for whom pregnancy would be life-threatening? What about the couple that decide they're not ready for children?
When you get a round tu-it, would love to have you answer post 41 & 48
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe?
Since you have previously declared that willingly letting an unfertilized egg or any of the billions of sperm die as equivalent to murder, there should be no "maybe."
But by declaring that willingly allowing sperm and eggs to be die is equivalent to murder, you are essentially condemning every married couple who is not very actively attempting to get pregnant every day as murderers.
Worse yet, you are also condemning anyone who is sexually-mature and unmarried for the double sin of the murder of their genetic material AND the horrible sin of being single and not filling the earth with humans.
Have you considered that the Apostle Paul encouraged singleness AND celibacy (letting one's genetic material die) for those who were in the vocational ministry instead of simply "filling the earth with humans?"
Have you considered that Jesus let all of His genetic material die by not being married and having as many children as possible to "fill the earth with humans?"
Brother, you line of reasoning doesn't hold water at all.
Last edited:
I think it is shameful to see those who name the Name of Christ pushing at the perceived boundaries of what defines "life" by declaring that a fertilized egg does not qualify as such until it has taken hold and met other requirements. What will happen to those who hold to such views if they are wrong? They will answer to Our Lord.
Better to give the little ones the benefit of the doubt.
Better to give the little ones the benefit of the doubt.
>>Does ANY church have a program to help single mothers with day to day costs?
>And you never will see that from those of us that follow God because we know that Welfare is not the will of God. God teaches thyat those that do not work do not eat either!
Thanks for making my point. You want babies born so their souls can go to Heaven. You don't care if they starve to death on the 3rd day.
>And you never will see that from those of us that follow God because we know that Welfare is not the will of God. God teaches thyat those that do not work do not eat either!
Thanks for making my point. You want babies born so their souls can go to Heaven. You don't care if they starve to death on the 3rd day.