Life and breath

The whole arument on that verse is null in this situation. You must first determine when life begins (which you know that I think the Bible is saying about 6 months) then you can have and "innocent" LIFE. Not Before!

So shedding innocent blood or whatever doesn't apply to early abortion just as it wouldn't to the killing of an innocent animal (lamb).

You have picked a verse that doesn't kick in until you prove when life begins.

 

Great, I know what you "believe" already. We are looking at what scripture says, not what Grammy says.

 

Grammy, when you say you "know" that something is wrong, how do you know it is wrong if the Bible hasn't clearly established that it is wrong? True, the Bible establishes that some killing is wrong, but it also establishes that some killing is right(war, etc).

I purpose that it is the Holy Spirit that is telling you "in your heart" that it is wrong. If that is the case, I can't argue with it. Because for you it is true, it would be wrong. It could also well be that it is wrong for all mankind to some degree.

Do you think you "know" because of the Holy Spirit pressing your heart that it is wrong? Or is it a combination of "connecting the dots" in scripture (or your interpretation) along with the Holy Spirt. Or is it just the Bible that says it is wrong ( in other words, you and many other people's interpretation of scripture)?

This question applies to all on this thread who cares to answer.

 

I just opened my morning paper Saturday September 28, 2002 and on the front page was this... Fetuses Eligible for Health Insurance... White House Redefines Medical Status of Unborn... by Robert Pear... New York Times News Service... Flash... Washington...

The Bush administration yesterday issued its final rule on allowing states to define a fetus as a child eligible for government-subsidized health care under the Children's Health Care Program.

"'Child' means an individual under the age of 19, including the period from conception to birth," the regulation says.

I hope I didn't derail the discussion... Or did I just add fuel to the fire?... Brother Glen

 

I found the article on line: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/28/MN29660.DTL

Actually, Brother Glen, this is quite germane to the conversation. I remember from post-it's early debates over homosexuality that much of his defense was based on Romans 13. The claim was that if the state sanctioned homosexual marriage then homosexuality was not a sin in that state because of the establishment of governmental heads by God (Romans 13:1).

Now we see that a governmental head, established by God, has said that life begins at conception. This IS an interesting twist and I will be interested to see how post-it defends this position.

If the government is wrong, his early arguments supporting homosexuality are invalid.

If the government is right, then his stance on abortion before six months must alter to accomodate the new position of the White House.

I may wait up and watch this...



Here's a few more news articles on the same subject. I suspect that more will be on the web as the week grows older:

US seeks to include fetuses in health plan

New rule allows `unborn children' to qualify for health benefits

Fetuses eligible for insurance

[ September 29, 2002, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

This is a very clear ruling that the Leaders of the US have mandated that life begins at conception and the unborn be given rights as an individual. These rights will at some point over-ride or balance against it's own mother. This will or should lead to an overturn of Roe vs. Wade.

Since this ruling is the latest and ordained by God at this point. All abortion is wrong and considered a sin.

Under the guidelines of Romans 13, scripture now supports that all abortion is a sin and wrong to carry out.

I will no longer defend it as unscriptural in the 50 States under this new ruling. It is a good ruling and I am glad to see Bush finally get the ball rolling on the issue. Hopefully the Supreme Court will get a case before it soon so they can overturn Roe vs. Wade.

 

I was in the grocery store today with my wife when I read this as the headline in our local Newspaper and just about fell over. I realized in the seconds I read the article that the stand I've taken is now gone.

While my previous arguments on scripture's reference has not changed, the sole reference in Romans 13 slams it home as a sin. It is wrong to abort, but previously not for Biblical reason, but rather the fact that the Holy Spirit may indicate it is wrong or that the prevention of life, so close to becoming a reality, is wrong. However, those "silent" arguments and first breath arguments are now nulled with it being classified as sin under different reasons... in Romans 13.

 

Ok post-it, let me get this straight. It wasn't a sin, and now it is a sin? Does that mean that God is comming up with new sins?

Or is it just possible that it has been a sin all along?

Bill

 

I admire someone who will admit they were in error and step up to the plate. I admire you post it there are very few I believe on here that would do the same compared to the 4,000 plus posters we have!... Brother Glen

 

Sometimes he does away with sin... eating pork comes to mind. Now he has instituted another one. Can something be right one day and wrong the next? It is done all the time in our day to day living. Man's law comes and goes. Rules come and go. Everything has it's cycle. There seems to be absolute right and wrong in the Bible, but a whole lot more in the gray areas. The older I get, the grayer it and myself become. I use to be really black and white and could only see black and white in the Bible, that didn't last but a handful of years.

 

The biblical arguments that were presented were not sound arguments. Scripture against scripture showed just the opposite to be the case on some abortion issues.

I wasn't looking for scientific arguments, nor common sense arguments, they don't justify claiming something is Biblical when it is not.

Common sense says some women are better church leaders than some men, but it still must be decided in scripture, not common sense.

The self serving politicians were placed there by God and are simply follow God's plan dispite themselves and the evils of politics.

 

Yes god does do away with some sins. The dietary laws of the OT are an excellent example. Im far from a biblical scholar, but I don't ever recall were god said something was not a sin and later said it was. You have any examples of that post-it?

As far as laws and rules changing ever day you are certianlly correct. However there are some that are more or less universal, i.e. murder. Ther others are man made rules, and the sin of breaking them is that we disobeyed the leaders God set before us not that we drive 43 mph in a 35 mph zone.

Bill

 

I thought more about what I posted earlier. The sin of not following the dietary laws was once again disobience eating pork in itself was not the sin.

Bill

 

The whole arument on that verse is null in this situation. You must first determine when life begins (which you know that I think the Bible is saying about 6 months) then you can have and "innocent" LIFE. Not Before!

So shedding innocent blood or whatever doesn't apply to early abortion just as it wouldn't to the killing of an innocent animal (lamb).

You have picked a verse that doesn't kick in until you prove when life begins.</font>[/QUOTE]Nice try but you are avoiding the specific wording of the text. On the other hand, you attempt to force a limiting aspect on the phrase "breath of life" when it is not there. You are being inconsistent with your methods of argumentation again. If you are going to assign a limiting authority to the phrase you choose then you must accept other qualifiers to the limitations in their most narrow interpretation also.

For the record, the passage I posted speaks of shedding innocent blood without any type of age qualification. You have yet to disprove the argument that anyone who can bleed human blood ("human", obvious from the context) is protected by this scripture.

You have tried to force an extremely narrow and unreasonable interpretation on the phrase "breath of life." You have tried to say that since the presence of breath is used metaphorically for life that life is limited to only those who inhale and exhale. This argument is equivalent to saying that if a person is not male then they are pregnant. This is of course a possibility but not being male does not limit other people to being pregnant.

The verse I quoted negates your argument unless you can refute it within its context. I know you would like to avoid this conflict but until you deal with it, you have no basis for claiming your "six month" limit from scripture.

...and all of this in the light that you have yet to demonstrate that unborn children from the earliest days after conception do not have an effective method for "breathing". If a living creature has the ability to oxygenate their blood from their environment then they are breathing. The unborn simply have a different mechanism.

 

Well, then you answer this first. When "innocent" is spoken of here, does it mean innocent, as in "sin"? That God hates anyone who kills Christians? or does it mean innocent in any person that doesn't deserve to die?

Because in war there are plenty of innocent people who die, are we not to shed blood in that way? I don't think so.

The problem with this verse is that it is ambiguous in its meaning. We must "assume" what innocent means and the word will change with different times and different culture.

I see abortion as sin only under Romans 13.

[ September 30, 2002, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Well, then you answer this first. When "innocent" is spoken of here, does it mean innocent, as in "sin"? That God hates anyone who kills Christians? or does it mean innocent in any person that doesn't deserve to die?

Because in war there are plenty of innocent people who die, are we not to shed blood in that way? I don't think so.

The problem with this verse is that it is ambiguous in its meaning. We must "assume" what innocent means and the word will change with different times and different culture.</font>[/QUOTE]We don't have to "assume" anything. The OT law is very clear about what sins merit the death penalty as well as the difference between war and other types of killing.

Innocent refers to those who have not violated laws which confer a death penalty. It is not ambiguous, cultural, nor changing in context.

...and as many times before you would be wrong. In this case however you are "right" for the wrong reason. Romans 13 was never intended to place God at the mercy of the whims of men. His laws of morality do not change. Much like our legitimate God given rights, governments either agree with and protect God's way or they attempt to defy Him.

The recent change of opinion in our government did not cause God to agree with man but rather was a case where man agreed with God.

 

It truly is the Spirit who has put it on my heart that it is wrong, Post-it. I also don't believe that some things are wrong for some people, and not wrong for others .... not things like abortion. It's either wrong for everyone or right for everyone. I think it's just a "new age" PC attitude to think otherwise. Of course, we're all free to have our own thoughts and convictions, whether they're right or wrong in anyone or everyone else's eyes.

There IS black and white, we humans just don't see it that way because we don't see things the same way God does.

 

Great, I know what you "believe" already. We are looking at what scripture says, not what Grammy says.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]It's NOT what Grammy says, it's what GOD says.

Why are you so offensive? Were you absent the day they taught "tact"? There ARE nice ways to debate issues without talking "down" to people, Post-it. It's not necessary to belittle PEOPLE when we're debating ISSUES.

(... I feel another shot coming )

[ October 02, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Grammy1013 ]