My understanding of scripture is that we are not physical beings. We are spiritual. We live a time in a physical state here on this earth in a body created, formed, by God. I am not aware of theology that posits that we are all Adam. Sorry. Decended from Adam? Yes. I suggest that we are created spiritual prior to conception then placed into the formed physical at conception. This is directly in line with the passage I posted prior.
I won't touch on the other points directly, instead focusing on the philosophical and theological points.I personally don't see how philosophy has any say or bearing on when the soul develops. However, the theological is actually very clearly defined.
Jeremiah 1:5 says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
God is speaking specifically of the prophet here, but the same applies to all humans. Before being formed in the womb God knew you and me and each other human. So, clearly a knowable entity is created before being formed in the womb, e.g. this would be the zygote or even before. God has always been clear when life begins. We, in our limited understanding, have been all over the place.
(d) wants to legally declare that life begins at conception
Why is this such a bad thing? Why is it such a fatal ideology to think that all life is precious? Even the unborn? How can the living hate life so much?
Now, to retort to the below response that Ron Paul voted against the constitutional amendment, you are right. He did vote against that. He did so because he believes abortion is a state level issue. He does see that life begins at conception. He is just confused on where the issue should be resolved. Life is a federal issue. Right to life is a federal issue.
I would not vote for Ron Paul for various reasons. I will respond on his behalf though on your curiosity. He thinks women shouldn't be able to choose to ave abortions because as an obstetrician he knows very well that life begins at conception, and he believes in the federal right to life. The unborn cannot speak for themselves, so we must protect them.
You know I started to answer each one of these statements individually. I have decided that is not needed. I don't need to cover the differences in language in tanslations or limitations of culture of the time. This will be labeled as a troll response, but:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And:
Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
These passages tell us God is much smarter than us, and that understanding of His divine Word only comes by Spirit revelation.
The difference is that the one I refer to is an actual human, where your example is a part of a human.
How can someone that was not killed prior to birth even consider advocating for the killing of others prior to birth? It makes that person into a hypocrit.
Sorry, faith in the living God was an completely intrinsic part of life. It was not just a passing thought as you alude to. It also was not just colloquial language as you wish it was. Perhaps you should rethink your language. It would very much be a sign of insanity to continue calling out to God when you don't believe He even exists. Although it could still benefit your situation as He very much does exist and cares about you.
Where did I disregard women as no longer human? I expect the lives of both women and children, even those in the womb, to be equally respected and fought for.
You claim I misinterpreted the use of the word establishment in my reply to someone incorrectly citing the establishment clause. Then you tell me my reply was off topic? Not following.
I certainly agree there is a huge disparity between people that call themselves Christian today and Christians in the days of the country's founding. I'll also agree there was certainly no intention of the US ever becoming a theocracy. And I would not want it to be one. And I tend to agree they had no intention of religion influencing government. They did however have the intention of God's influence. See the dating of the signing of the constitution, "Year of our Lord". See the first amendment proclaimation of Washington praising Almighty God for the drafting. Reference Ben Franklin's, least likely to do this btw, call to the constitutional convention to prayer at the beginning of each day's session for God's guidance in the drafting of the constitution. These men had no reason to invoke God directly in the constitution. They were forming a God fearing nation; a Christian nation using the definition of Christian from that time. But certainly not a theocracy. The idea of being a secular nation was completely foreign to anyone until the mid to late 1800s.
The constitution specifically forbids any state run church. I am in agreement that is the way it should be. The new testament makes it very clear that the local church is the extent of the circle of oversight of any single spiritual leader established by God. I also agree that you are fully free to worship whatever god you choose. Grant me the same freedom. Allow me to be free to worship God. Allow me to teach my children the truth about God and His creation.
I am not disagreeing with the general sentiment against religion here either. Religion is flawed. Religion is made by man. Faith, which everyone here possess, does govern individual mans thoughts and actions. So should it also influence their decisions in running government. The writings of the founding fathers referenced here should be studied by all a little more closely. These fathers did condemn religion of the time and bravo for them. It was flawed. That is why they left England to begin with. But their words are twisted to mean things they did not say. I love how the things that fit with an anti-Christian slant are bolded in reference and the rest of the statement completely ignored. Just as one must rely on the whole counsel of God, the entire bible and not just parts, we also must read the entire writings of the founding fathers, not just parts.
Going specifically to the old legal definition, it specifically has this:
to make (a church) a national or state institution
I agree with that. It is why the people left England. The state run church is not biblical.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of Godt may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Equipped for every good work. So, we should all turn to God in every thing we set forth to do, and do it with His wisdom and guidance. And that absolutely does include governing this nation.
Many here disagree and label these posts as Troll. I am not trolling. I am spreading truth as I am commanded to do. You can ridicule and mock me all you want. As a matter of fact, I thank you for it. I am sad you are following the path of destruction though, and I will pray for you all.
How many of those were actual choices made by healthy women with reasonably viable pregnancies they got themselves into,
Too many! Even if it was 1 it was way too many.
and how many were medical treatments to save the woman's life/health?
Both lives should have been equally fought for. If one did not make it, that is extremely unfortunate, but neither should have been sacrificed for the other. What if that choice had to be made between two adults? Both would be fought for as equally as possible. The child in the womb should be fought for no less equally.
Or unwanted pregnancies forced on them by men who wouldn't take No from a "stupid little chick who should just shutup and take it" (or even worse, "I'm the man of the house, I raised her, she obeys me!")?
I would certainly suggest that neither of those examples represent "men". A man before God would not do such things. In the case of the rape example. Why should the child be killed because the woman was raped? That makes no sense whatsoever.
And how many are from fertilized eggs that never implanted because of morning afters? Or just the pill in general?
I am completely opposed to those options as well for the very reason you mention. Both of those options cause spontaneous abortion done deliberately. In both cases, it is murder.
And to get a goodwin in here, compare how many jewish people were lost in 5 years because the germans decided the jewish religion was inferior to their's?
The nazis killed Jews because of their inferior heritage/geneology, not their religion. I don't agree with what they did.
Nice point though. More people have been killed by way of various dictators over the centuries than even the most flawed organized religion.
I am just certain someone will come along and bring up all the life killed under God's direct orders to the Hebrews when entering the land of Canaan. _I_ cannot explain why that was done other than punishment for the sins of those people. Of course, I do not pretend to think I can even fathom the plans God has for us all.
So, 150 million women killed their unborn children? The numbers of children killed is much larger than Planned Parenthood proclaims. What makes these women slaves? While I agree they probably are slaves, not in the sense you try to claim, I contend with your position that having a child makes them a slave to a man. I know a ton of women that would argue vehemently with you.
I don't see anyone fighting to take away anyone's rights. I believe the rights of both the living woman and the living unborn child are equal under the constitution. The right to life should be equally afforded to all. I never said forsake the woman for the child. And I never would. My wife would force the Dr to fight for both lives if either or both were endangered during pregnancy. As any sensible woman would.
Children. The child's body is within the woman's body. Yes, the child is a human being long before being able to live outside the woman's womb. Should a person dependent on life support not be considered human anymore but just a lump of flesh wasting space? Yes, it should be illegal to terminate through deliberate action. It is murder. Yes, illegal through irresponsible action. Same as DUI homicide or poisoning any other person. Yes, illegal through deliberate inaction. Although your example is not necessarily inaction. It is illegal to starve any other human. A line should not be drawn. All life should be equally protected and fought for. Of course, let's stick with the current definition of homicide since this is the killing of a human being.
Human life starts at conception. Science has proven that repeatedly. Aside from that, a heartbeat is detectable 18 days post conception. So yes, they were children.
The constitution itself would not exist as is is without the dedicated and concerted prayers of the men writing it. They could do nothing but bicker and argue daily until they turn to God in prayer for wisdom.
Very faithful men were the ones that wrote in the freedom guaranteeing that the same thing that happened in the Great Britain, causing them to rebel and break away, could not happen here. Those freedoms are being eroded today. The constituation of these United States in incompatible with the US becoming a non-Christian nation.
I am not talking about religion. See my other comment.
Notice that I said faith and not religion. I am not a fan of organized religion by any means. Neither is my Savior.
If you want to talk about children being killed, you should consider what "religious fanatics" fight against every day. Over 54 million children killed legally under US law since the 60s, in the name of choice.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding of scripture is that we are not physical beings. We are spiritual. We live a time in a physical state here on this earth in a body created, formed, by God.
I am not aware of theology that posits that we are all Adam. Sorry. Decended from Adam? Yes.
I suggest that we are created spiritual prior to conception then placed into the formed physical at conception. This is directly in line with the passage I posted prior.
It was on your radar when you were in the womb. If your mother had chosen abortion, you wouldn't be here to not care.
I won't touch on the other points directly, instead focusing on the philosophical and theological points.I personally don't see how philosophy has any say or bearing on when the soul develops. However, the theological is actually very clearly defined.
Jeremiah 1:5 says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
God is speaking specifically of the prophet here, but the same applies to all humans. Before being formed in the womb God knew you and me and each other human. So, clearly a knowable entity is created before being formed in the womb, e.g. this would be the zygote or even before.
God has always been clear when life begins. We, in our limited understanding, have been all over the place.
(d) wants to legally declare that life begins at conception
Why is this such a bad thing? Why is it such a fatal ideology to think that all life is precious? Even the unborn? How can the living hate life so much?
Now, to retort to the below response that Ron Paul voted against the constitutional amendment, you are right. He did vote against that. He did so because he believes abortion is a state level issue. He does see that life begins at conception. He is just confused on where the issue should be resolved. Life is a federal issue. Right to life is a federal issue.
I would not vote for Ron Paul for various reasons. I will respond on his behalf though on your curiosity. He thinks women shouldn't be able to choose to ave abortions because as an obstetrician he knows very well that life begins at conception, and he believes in the federal right to life. The unborn cannot speak for themselves, so we must protect them.
Rick Santorum is not God, nor does he respresent the inerrant Word of God.
You know I started to answer each one of these statements individually. I have decided that is not needed. I don't need to cover the differences in language in tanslations or limitations of culture of the time. This will be labeled as a troll response, but:
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And:
Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
These passages tell us God is much smarter than us, and that understanding of His divine Word only comes by Spirit revelation.
Not the answer you're looking for, but the truth.
Please feel free to cite what parts of God's Word is wrong when compared to man made "facts".
The difference is that the one I refer to is an actual human, where your example is a part of a human.
How can someone that was not killed prior to birth even consider advocating for the killing of others prior to birth? It makes that person into a hypocrit.
Sorry, faith in the living God was an completely intrinsic part of life. It was not just a passing thought as you alude to. It also was not just colloquial language as you wish it was.
Perhaps you should rethink your language. It would very much be a sign of insanity to continue calling out to God when you don't believe He even exists. Although it could still benefit your situation as He very much does exist and cares about you.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=98
Where did I disregard women as no longer human? I expect the lives of both women and children, even those in the womb, to be equally respected and fought for.
You claim I misinterpreted the use of the word establishment in my reply to someone incorrectly citing the establishment clause. Then you tell me my reply was off topic? Not following.
I certainly agree there is a huge disparity between people that call themselves Christian today and Christians in the days of the country's founding.
I'll also agree there was certainly no intention of the US ever becoming a theocracy. And I would not want it to be one.
And I tend to agree they had no intention of religion influencing government. They did however have the intention of God's influence. See the dating of the signing of the constitution, "Year of our Lord". See the first amendment proclaimation of Washington praising Almighty God for the drafting. Reference Ben Franklin's, least likely to do this btw, call to the constitutional convention to prayer at the beginning of each day's session for God's guidance in the drafting of the constitution.
These men had no reason to invoke God directly in the constitution. They were forming a God fearing nation; a Christian nation using the definition of Christian from that time. But certainly not a theocracy. The idea of being a secular nation was completely foreign to anyone until the mid to late 1800s.
The constitution specifically forbids any state run church. I am in agreement that is the way it should be. The new testament makes it very clear that the local church is the extent of the circle of oversight of any single spiritual leader established by God.
I also agree that you are fully free to worship whatever god you choose. Grant me the same freedom. Allow me to be free to worship God. Allow me to teach my children the truth about God and His creation.
I am not disagreeing with the general sentiment against religion here either. Religion is flawed. Religion is made by man. Faith, which everyone here possess, does govern individual mans thoughts and actions. So should it also influence their decisions in running government.
The writings of the founding fathers referenced here should be studied by all a little more closely. These fathers did condemn religion of the time and bravo for them. It was flawed. That is why they left England to begin with. But their words are twisted to mean things they did not say. I love how the things that fit with an anti-Christian slant are bolded in reference and the rest of the statement completely ignored. Just as one must rely on the whole counsel of God, the entire bible and not just parts, we also must read the entire writings of the founding fathers, not just parts.
Going specifically to the old legal definition, it specifically has this:
to make (a church) a national or state institution
I agree with that. It is why the people left England. The state run church is not biblical.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of Godt may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Equipped for every good work. So, we should all turn to God in every thing we set forth to do, and do it with His wisdom and guidance. And that absolutely does include governing this nation.
Many here disagree and label these posts as Troll. I am not trolling. I am spreading truth as I am commanded to do. You can ridicule and mock me all you want. As a matter of fact, I thank you for it. I am sad you are following the path of destruction though, and I will pray for you all.
How many of those were actual choices made by healthy women with reasonably viable pregnancies they got themselves into,
Too many! Even if it was 1 it was way too many.
and how many were medical treatments to save the woman's life/health?
Both lives should have been equally fought for. If one did not make it, that is extremely unfortunate, but neither should have been sacrificed for the other. What if that choice had to be made between two adults? Both would be fought for as equally as possible. The child in the womb should be fought for no less equally.
Or unwanted pregnancies forced on them by men who wouldn't take No from a "stupid little chick who should just shutup and take it" (or even worse, "I'm the man of the house, I raised her, she obeys me!")?
I would certainly suggest that neither of those examples represent "men". A man before God would not do such things. In the case of the rape example. Why should the child be killed because the woman was raped? That makes no sense whatsoever.
And how many are from fertilized eggs that never implanted because of morning afters? Or just the pill in general?
I am completely opposed to those options as well for the very reason you mention. Both of those options cause spontaneous abortion done deliberately. In both cases, it is murder.
And to get a goodwin in here, compare how many jewish people were lost in 5 years because the germans decided the jewish religion was inferior to their's?
The nazis killed Jews because of their inferior heritage/geneology, not their religion. I don't agree with what they did.
Nice point though. More people have been killed by way of various dictators over the centuries than even the most flawed organized religion.
I am just certain someone will come along and bring up all the life killed under God's direct orders to the Hebrews when entering the land of Canaan. _I_ cannot explain why that was done other than punishment for the sins of those people. Of course, I do not pretend to think I can even fathom the plans God has for us all.
I am pleased you will be sufficiently entertained.
So, 150 million women killed their unborn children? The numbers of children killed is much larger than Planned Parenthood proclaims. What makes these women slaves? While I agree they probably are slaves, not in the sense you try to claim, I contend with your position that having a child makes them a slave to a man. I know a ton of women that would argue vehemently with you.
I don't see anyone fighting to take away anyone's rights. I believe the rights of both the living woman and the living unborn child are equal under the constitution. The right to life should be equally afforded to all. I never said forsake the woman for the child. And I never would. My wife would force the Dr to fight for both lives if either or both were endangered during pregnancy. As any sensible woman would.
Children. The child's body is within the woman's body. Yes, the child is a human being long before being able to live outside the woman's womb. Should a person dependent on life support not be considered human anymore but just a lump of flesh wasting space? Yes, it should be illegal to terminate through deliberate action. It is murder. Yes, illegal through irresponsible action. Same as DUI homicide or poisoning any other person. Yes, illegal through deliberate inaction. Although your example is not necessarily inaction. It is illegal to starve any other human. A line should not be drawn. All life should be equally protected and fought for. Of course, let's stick with the current definition of homicide since this is the killing of a human being.
No, if I had my way, they would all be alive and in loving families.
Human life starts at conception. Science has proven that repeatedly. Aside from that, a heartbeat is detectable 18 days post conception. So yes, they were children.
The constitution itself would not exist as is is without the dedicated and concerted prayers of the men writing it. They could do nothing but bicker and argue daily until they turn to God in prayer for wisdom.
Very faithful men were the ones that wrote in the freedom guaranteeing that the same thing that happened in the Great Britain, causing them to rebel and break away, could not happen here. Those freedoms are being eroded today.
The constituation of these United States in incompatible with the US becoming a non-Christian nation.
I am not talking about religion. See my other comment.
Notice that I said faith and not religion. I am not a fan of organized religion by any means. Neither is my Savior.
If you want to talk about children being killed, you should consider what "religious fanatics" fight against every day. Over 54 million children killed legally under US law since the 60s, in the name of choice.