Colorado Christian- morning after pill

[menageriekeeper]

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.

Here is the flip side of that coin, an equal danger:

Mat 23:23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightiermattersof the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

There is little enough evidence in scripture to define the concept of "conception". We humans have defined the word and then decided we must be right. Then you threaten the wrath of God on any who dare disagree and that leads to exactly what Christ warned about in this verse.

>>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.

Mercy and compassion don't seem to be among th1bill's vocabulary.

 

[Arbo]

There is little enough evidence in scripture to define the concept of "conception". We humans have defined the word and then decided we must be right. Then you threaten the wrath of God on any who dare disagree and that leads to exactly what Christ warned about in this verse.

And if those whom I have earlier mentioned are in fact wrong, do you think they will not answer for it before Him? Better, I say again, to give the benefit of the doubt to the little ones.

...And I think it interesting that I should be held as a hypocrite for voicing my opinion.

 

[annsni]

I just came from the pharmacy in my supermarket and I saw that they carry no oxycodone medications. We had a shooting in a pharmacy in a nearby town back in the summer, I believe it was, and 5 people were killed so that this man would get some oxycodone. So my pharmacy has made the choice to not sell it. I believe that a pharmacy also has the right to choose to not sell a medication that goes against the beliefs of the pharmacist or the owner of the pharmacy.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I believe that a pharmacy also has the right to choose to not sell a medication that goes against the beliefs of the pharmacist or the owner of the pharmacy.

Or is necessary for the safety of the community or just because the owners don't like the manufacturer! My personal belief is they can sell or not whatever they want. We don't need Nanny Fed making laws such as this. (see we agree on this!)

...And I think it interesting that I should be held as a hypocrite for voicing my opinion.

Where did you get this idea? I simply pointed out that forcing your definition on others as "scriptural" by threatening them with God's wrath had potential consequences of their own.

Now lets talk about "these little ones" and the warnings about harming one. (since you brought it up) Two questions:

Was Christ speaking at any time about the unborn or about a fertilized egg?
or
Was Christ giving warning about what would happen to child abusers (of children who survived the womb)?
or
Was Christ using a child as an object lesson to warn about discouraging those who harm, discourage or otherwise interfere with the spreading of the gospel?
or
Was Christ using a child as an object lesson to warn about discouraging those who were new to the faith?

The first couple are popular (out of context imo), but the second two both have points in their favor (and are more in line imo with the context of the passage)

 

[Arbo]

Where did you get this idea? I simply pointed out that forcing your definition on others as "scriptural" by threatening them with God's wrath had potential consequences of their own.

Now lets talk about "these little ones" and the warnings about harming one. (since you brought it up) Two questions:

Was Christ speaking at any time about the unborn or about a fertilized egg?
or
Was Christ giving warning about what would happen to child abusers (of children who survived the womb)?
or
Was Christ using a child as an object lesson to warn about discouraging those who harm, discourage or otherwise interfere with the spreading of the gospel?
or
Was Christ using a child as an object lesson to warn about discouraging those who were new to the faith?

The first couple are popular (out of context imo), but the second two both have points in their favor (and are more in line imo with the context of the passage)

The idea came from your seemingly strong implication.

The notion that I am able to "force" my opinions on anyone else is laughable. I do not hold such power or influence.

As to the use of the term little ones, it is of my own choosing. It is not a reference to anything in Scripture.

 

[Arbo]

And if those whom I have earlier mentioned are in fact wrong, do you think they will not answer for it before Him? Better, I say again, to give the benefit of the doubt to the little ones.

Menageriekeeper- Do you disagree with this post? If so, with what specifically?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Yes, I disagree with the concept of "giving the benefit of the doubt" in matters that God isn't specific on. "the benefit of the doubt" leads to calling sin such things that are personal preference. Such as T1bill's stance against birth control.

In like manner the Early Church was concerned about consuming meat from animals sacrificed to idols. We have to have some moderation and some wisdom before we define as sin something God hasn't said was sin.

As far as answering to God? Well, my sins are forgiven, covered under the blood of Christ's sacrifice. I may not get a ruby in my crown for my position on this subject (who knows? maybe I will!), and I'm sure God will let me know eventually where I'm wrong. But forgiven means forgiven. The only ones who will "answer to God" are those who have rejected Christ as Savior.

And this is a split I see a lot among Christains (Baptist or not). There is little confidence in the promise of salvation. Did Christ say His burdern was light or did he give us a list of law like rules that we must follow implicitly and explicitly or we haven't earned/will somehow not qualify/will just plain lose (take your pick) our salvation?

So while one who holds to a more, liberal, view of one issue or another might earn God's chastening, God's wrath has already been appeased.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Very early on God commanded us to replenish, to fill the Earth with humans.

...be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it;...

Somehow your statement and God's don't exactly line up. From what I can tell, God is giving a list of instructions:
1. Be fruitful
2. Multiply
3. Replenish the Earth
4. Subdue the Earth

Mankind has indeed been fruitful, and multiplied. We've obeyed the command. Then, we are to replenish the earth and subdue it. Seems like farmers obey this all the time. I would like to point out one very interesting thing that was said, but ignored earlier:

Jesus let all of His genetic material die by not being married and having as many children as possible

Jesus didn't have one single child. Did he sin by not obeying the command "Be fruitful and multiply"?

As to the OP (which was derailed by the second post), I support them in not selling what they believe to be sin. If they don't believe in it, they shouldn't have to sell it.

My opinion of the derailed portion of the thread: I personally am of the opinion that human life begins at fertilization. As such, me and my wife do not use any form of birth control that keeps the fertilized egg from implanting.

I also think that Gina had a good point:

Wonder why they don't call it conception control if it really prevents conception instead of birth.

Could be simply semantics, but it does make one wonder.

 

[Salty]

Mankind has indeed been fruitful, and multiplied.

Sapper,
This is a bit off OP, but this reminded me of what a Chaplain once told a young single solider who was, lets say he was trying to being very fruitful.

So the Chaplain told him, "the Bible says 'Go ye and multiply' not 'multiply and Go' " !

 

[th1bill]

Somehow your statement and God's don't exactly line up. From what I can tell, God is giving a list of instructions:
1. Be fruitful
2. Multiply
3. Replenish the Earth
4. Subdue the Earth

Mankind has indeed been fruitful, and multiplied. We've obeyed the command. Then, we are to replenish the earth and subdue it. Seems like farmers obey this all the time.

Man has been fruitful but just as you point out to another, you allow God to open and to close the womb, that is obeying God and all else is disobedient. God has not resended nor has He countermanded this point.

I would like to point out one very interesting thing that was said, but ignored earlier:


Jesus didn't have one single child. Did he sin by not obeying the command "Be fruitful and multiply"?

I see where you´re going and I´ll let be.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I see where you´re going and I´ll let be.

I am not going anywhere with it. It is rather simple. Either it is not a sin to "let your genetic material die", or Christ sinned. You can't have it both ways.

 

[th1bill]

I am not going anywhere with it. It is rather simple. Either it is not a sin to "let your genetic material die", or Christ sinned. You can't have it both ways.

Okay then, letś begin. First off, we must look at the historical implication. A male was not a considered marriageable until he was thirty and of was not married until 35 and sometimes 40. Now, about the genetic material, that is, indeed a slippery slope. I am having a problem with this question in the first place because it is a trick question, normally asked by an atheist but every person on the earth has their genetic material from Adam and Eve and even more recently, we all share the same genetic foundation from Noah and his wife. This being true, no genetic material is lost.

Yes, I know, I just set foot on the precipice but, Iḿ also trusting that your a serious Christian and not some pretender that tends to nit-pick. It is always important to remember that we are here to discuss and if it becomes a fight, I will leave what was a conversation. This is and always will be about what we believe and why we elieve it.

 

[th1bill]

And if those whom I have earlier mentioned are in fact wrong, do you think they will not answer for it before Him? Better, I say again, to give the benefit of the doubt to the little ones.

...And I think it interesting that I should be held as a hypocrite for voicing my opinion.

Arbo, certainly not by me.

 

[Arbo]

Arbo, certainly not by me.

Thanks, Th1bil. This was in reply to a post by another with whom I disagreed.

 

[jaigner]

I believe that a pharmacy also has the right to choose to not sell a medication that goes against the beliefs of the pharmacist or the owner of the pharmacy.

To be honest, that's my belief, as well.

I do think, if we're talking about a university pharmacy, that there would be a difference between a private institution and a state school. The private institution should have the right to choose the products they carry. The public, if it is legal and people want it, should not be able to object due to their own personal preferences.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Okay then, letś begin. First off, we must look at the historical implication. A male was not a considered marriageable until he was thirty and of was not married until 35 and sometimes 40. Now, about the genetic material, that is, indeed a slippery slope. I am having a problem with this question in the first place because it is a trick question, normally asked by an atheist but every person on the earth has their genetic material from Adam and Eve and even more recently, we all share the same genetic foundation from Noah and his wife. This being true, no genetic material is lost.

Yes, I know, I just set foot on the precipice but, Iḿ also trusting that your a serious Christian and not some pretender that tends to nit-pick. It is always important to remember that we are here to discuss and if it becomes a fight, I will leave what was a conversation. This is and always will be about what we believe and why we elieve it.

I am not trying to nit-pick in any way. I am simply pointing out that you said that God gave us a command to replenish the earth. Christ did not have any children, and thus would have failed that command. Either you are wrong in assuming that it is a command to have children and replenish the earth, or Christ sinned. You cannot hold onto both sides.

To, intentionally, kill that egg or that sperm, joined or separately is not only murder, it is also intentional disobedience to Father God, His Son and the Holy Spirit

Christ intentionally did not get married and have children. By your assertion, he disobeyed the command, and therefor sinned.

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.

Again, Jesus did not replenish the earth. Did He sin? You can't have it both ways.

Again, I am not nit-picking at all. I am only pointing out the obvious. Either it is not a sin to not have kids at every opportunity, or Christ sinned. You are making assertions that are contradictory.

 

[billwald]

Defective DNA should (be permitted to) die else the human race becomes weaker every generation. Until the last 50 years most people with defective DNA didn't live long enough to reproduce.

 

[annsni]

Defective DNA should (be permitted to) die else the human race becomes weaker every generation. Until the last 50 years most people with defective DNA didn't live long enough to reproduce.

I'm afraid to ask but what does that mean in practical life?

* Abort any child that is less than perfect?
* Definitely abort any child with chromosomal defects?
* Kill or sterilize anyone who doesn't prove to be good enough?
* Allow those who are born with any sort of defect to die instead of caring for them?