Yes, it is a child in the womb.

If I am not mistaken, they also said that God knew them then. Something that is not a living soul cannot be known.
</font>[/QUOTE]God also knows every hair on your head, also not living. Rest my case.

This sounds good on the surface but it is another faulty analogy for many reasons.

First, a baby grows of its on accord using the resources provided by its mother. It is alive and developing. A house will not build itself no matter how many building supplies you dump on the foundation. </font>[/QUOTE]A fish grows on its own and does not house a spirit either. It can't be said to have a soul.

Second, the house will obviously never be alive.

Third, a human being is not a shell that contains life. Humans are living systems. Take the humans out of a house and it is still the same house aging by the same rules of science. Take life from a human and aging/maturation ceases and decomposition begins.
[/QUOTE] I think the analogy can hold for now. A fish is living but has no "real life" "soul" which would make it murder, to kill it.
There are others but this should suffice.

[/QUOTE]

[ September 04, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

to all who are involved in this thread.........
Scriptural harmony is clear; why defend a roaring lion, it can defend itself. Do not any longer entertain certain individuals by casting your pearls before the swines? This discussion is moot. No edification is being accomplished here.
I say (my opinion of course...But I love ya, so I'm telling ya) it's time to move on past this silliness.

 

No problem here for me since you have basically taken my post out of context by omitting the parts where I address comparison/contrast and the fact that it does not limit either object.... as well as the fact that the word specifically means a "sucking child" to the exclusion of other ages of the child.

In what way? I am not attempting to do anything of the sort. The passage simply does not define an unborn child any more than it does a teenager or a young adult or a middle aged person.

 

We understand some would rather live in denial than deal with scripture. Your opinion is what caused Roe vs. Wade. Let's go hide our heads in the sand, and just pray it to change. It takes Christians who know how to argue a case to win before the Supreme Court. They don't learn how to win by ignoring a subject and assuming the God will handle it for them.

You don't have to post if this is upsetting to you. But this is the Theology and Bible Study forum.

 

Post-it,
What is upseting to me is watching you spew this chronic *dung* at my brothers and sisters. Can you not see that they are upset? Is this edifying?

Tell me something, why is it that *typically*, you are on the other side of the orthodox fenceline in most conversations? Do you believe you are doing us a favor by enlightening us to views that are un-orthodox or not typical?

I have been in very few exchanges with you Post-it, but I have watched many. You call this theology? Where is God in this?

 

If you speak for others here, I will stop. I don't want scripture or Theology upsetting anyone.
If you don't want me saying anything, don't make a claim that the Bible says abortion is murder in every circumstance.

If you want this thread to end stop posting comments. It will end. I don't talk to myself.

[ September 04, 2002, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

AAAAAAYYYYYYEEEEEMEN!!!!!!

 

AAAAAAYYYYYYEEEEEMEN!!!!!!</font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, I didn't know Theology and Bible Study must be edifiying to everyone under every circumstance. I thought it was about Theology and the Study of scripture. I will suggest that someone change the name of the forum to "Edification with a little Theology." That will keep out all questions that may cause disharmony among the 100% agreement that should be going on in Theology.

Can someone redefine Theology for me in which there is 100% agreement and understanding? I'm really puzzled now.

Or did I finally hit a nerve in scripture that needs to be swept under the rug?

Silence, Silence says the Pope, I will tell you what it means.

[ September 04, 2002, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Post-it: NO, this verse was never refuted.

Isaiah 65:20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,

Not only implied, but stated!

Gina: yeah it was. You never replied. There's nothing to really refute, except the fact that you're adding illogical meaning to it which you still haven't dealt with as you didn't complete the other thread.

 

The possiblility of life as thus far supported by scripture is 5-6 months (at the point that the lungs can take in breath.) It is murder to abort after this point.

 

God doesn't change post-it. Our technology today is what provides for premature babies to survive and at that young usually if they take that first breath or not, or at least if it's sufficient enough for life to continue. (or in your belief start)
So with more learning on infant development and or/more technology have the rules changed?
Gina

 

God changes, that is a well documented fact in scripture. When the Bible speaks of God being the same, today and forever, never used the word change, it say he is the same, meaning in attributes, in abilities, in person. Of course he changes, he let Gentiles in didn't he? He won't be wiping out mankind like the flood anymore?

When a baby can survive has changed. We must then adjust the Bible's meaning to today's standards.

 

post-it: [bold]When a baby can survive has changed. We must then adjust the Bible's meaning to today's standards. [/bold]

You've dug yourself deep enough on your own with that one, I'll just let it stand, but I will make this comment.
God always knew.
Gina

 

Can we finally label this guy as a heretick and move on?

 

I've heard that before, that the Bible needs to change with the times. It usually means the heretic can only win his argument by changing the Bible.

Yes, please, let's move on. WAY on.

 

Some don't read, or I'm not clear enough. I didn't say to change the Bible. I said adjust understanding of the Bible to today's world.
For example we must consider Computer Hacking a sin even though it doesn't mention computer hacking in the Bible. That is a very simple adjustment of not stealing(do unto others as you...) The point that Chrys was having a hard time understanding that I was indicating that we must make an adjustment for is breathing. In Biblical times, as per Ecc. 21 murder charges were brought if the baby could breath on its own. Which would have been at about 7-8 months. But since in today's world we can place the baby on a ventilator, we must scale back the time it could be considered murder to 5-6 months.

This has nothing to do with adjusting scripture, rather adjusting meanings of scripture to today's world. But I understand some of you missed that fine difference. Because you are reading my post with preconceived biased opinion not grounded in scripture.

 

Can we finally label this guy as a heretick and move on? </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying God can't change? An omnipotient God, can do what every he wants, there are no limits to God unless God himself purposly puts limits on himself.

Now we know he has put limits on himself by the fact he gave us free will. That means HE CAN'T DECIDE FOR US. If he can decide for us our life, or the out come of it, then we don't have free will. Now, he may know what we are going to decide already, but that still doesn't take away free will.

Here is the classic example of just one of the many times God changed his mind. At one time he could at any time he chose, wipe out mankind. This was his mindset pre-Noah. After Noah, he promised never to wipe out mankind again. So his mindset prevents him from doing so now.

This is the type of change I'm talking about. What doesn't doesn't change are only the attributes of God, for example he is always omnipotient even when he limits (changes) his power. He can always take it back because his is always omnipotient.

I hope this clears up the false understanding that abounds about "God never changes" vs "God is the Same."

 

Post-it

I understand what you're saying. My belief is that in matters like this, God already knew what technology would be and our later understanding would be. I don't think that He would have considered something like this not a sin then but changed it later based on the advancement of technology.
It doesn't make sense.
It reminds me of this IQ test I took once. The rules changed, only you wouldn't know when...you'd be goin' along and all of a sudden what you'd been doing wasn't working anymore. After a few beeps indicating you gave the wrong answer, you would come to the conclusion that the rules changed, and you'd continuing giving wrong answers until you figured out for yourself what the new rules were.
I just can't see any basis for believing this is God's method.
Gina

 

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. We do not change our understanding of the bible to fit today's world, we test today's world and culture against what the bible proclaims to see if we can accept were we are going. This may not seem like a big difference to you, but the first allows us to accept the following list: Homosexuality, divorce, premarital sex, abortion, affairs, pornography and many others. The second approach won't allow these STILL (they were once a bad thing for Christians and they STILL are a bad thing for Christians (or anyone)).

Don't think so? Why do you think it is ok for someone to be a practicing homosexual? Probably because you bought into the whole "it's genetic thing". Well, the first approach would mean we would have to throw out the bible or reinterpret what it means to fit with today's culture and "science" on the issue.

Pornography? Men are visual right? We need visual stimulation to reach our sexual peaks so we can properly please our wifes. That is today's society. Porn is acceptable. Do you want this?

We already know how you feel about abortion.

Now, back to your computer hacking point (which was actually a point I originally made in another thread to prove you wrong...but hey...). We don't adjust our understanding of the bible for today's world to know this is wrong...we need to reevaluate what we do in today's world based upon the SAME biblical principles we have ALWAYS had. Is stealing wrong? Yeah. That didn't change. Nor did our interpretation of what stealing was change. What changed? The list of things that was stealing....we didn't adjust our understanding of the bible...we adjusted our understanding of today.

To put this another way; You can never, NEVER change what the bible says. You cannot, all of the sudden, say murder is ok. However, you can ADD to the ALREADY defined meaning of a word in the bible. Ex. Stealing then meant something (for instance: takins someone's gold, sheep, cattle etc etc), now stealing means the same thing it meant back then plus more stuff (ie: stealing someone's gold, sheep or cattle. computer hacking, insider trading etc etc). In essense, we are making the list more restrictive, more well defined. But, we are not changing our interpreation of the bible. Rather, we are changing our attitude about the present. HUGE difference.

What does this mean ultimately? You cannot, must not, change what the bible says. You can only adjust your present attitude to be more in line with the bible.

If you do not see the difference(is is subtle, but significant), I would be more than willing to go over this again.

In Christ,
jason