Yes, it is a child in the womb.

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</font>[/QUOTE]I hope you are wrong because if you are right, then abortion is not murder until about the 8th month according to Ecc.21. And I'm not saying your wrong with this argument, you could be right. If one wishes to take scripture literally with no adjustments for our understanding or advancements in science, then you could be right.

 

Why would you "hope" she is wrong? According to your morals, you don't care one way or another which month it is...abortion is all well and good as long as it "can't breath on its own". No, you don't hope she is wrong...you don't care...nor can you (according to your position).

BTW. ECC 21 isn't enough for me to look it up. Can you give the full reference?

jason

 

No, what I'm getting at is that we have been interpreting these scriptures wrong since homosexuality back then verse today are two different things. Back then it was not the norm that same sex can marry and live together in a society that accepted them. Instead, there were perversion going on such as homosexual prostitution, one night stands, etc. These are clearly sins. The NT referred to unsaved homosexual at the unrighteous, so we can assume that they were "acting" in sin, but that doesn't mean the "orientation" is sin. Here is another example. Prostitution is a sin, but the orientation of a woman who desires a man is not brought up as being immoral. It is the act of taking money and adultry that will occur and having sex outside of marriage that is the sin.

[ September 06, 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

No, what I'm getting at is that we have been interpreting these scriptures wrong since homosexuality back then verse today are two different things. Back then it was not the norm that same sex can marry and live together in a society that accepted them. Instead, there were perversion going on such as homosexual prostitution, one night stands, etc. These are clearly sins.
</font>[/QUOTE]No. Flatly, no. At this same time, hetero's were doing the VERY same thing. And yet, the bible clearly and emphatically proclaims the goodness of man-woman marriage. According to you, this would have to be a double standard and the bible would have to be wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Did you happen to notice the word I used? 'Practicing'? I said that for a reason. I don't feel the orientation is wrong...I feel acting on that orientation is wrong. Just as it is not wrong for me to be attracted to a woman...heck she is attractive...but it is wrong for me to lust after her or to actually go after her in an impure manner (whatever that may be depending on my sitation). I do not condemn homosexuals, I condemn the action. Just as I also condemn my own sinful actions. Please don't built this strawman argument any futher.

 

Why would you "hope" she is wrong? According to your morals, you don't care one way or another which month it is...abortion is all well and good as long as it "can't breath on its own". No, you don't hope she is wrong...you don't care...nor can you (according to your position).

BTW. ECC 21 isn't enough for me to look it up. Can you give the full reference?

jason</font>[/QUOTE]I do care, if babies are "persons" in the womb with rights of a person entitled to live, then they should be protected and laws should be written to protect them. We could then say the Bible says it is murder and really have a basis for backing it. But that isn't the facts. Scripture is very limited on information about this subject and the words and scripture against scripture doesn't support a life for life penalty until very, very late term.

_________________________________________
Sorry, I meant Exodus 21

Exodus 21:
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The Septuagint appears to say the child.
However, and to be honest the LXX applies it only to the extent of the development of the child.

Torah Translation:
LXX Exodus 21
22 And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.
23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

 

But once you are married to the woman, it is not a sin any longer. Same thing with homosexuals.

[ September 06, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

A life penalty isn't invoked for accidentally killing a full grown man either. But it was invoked for sexual sin.
??
Gina

 

Post-it. Come on. This is silly. You cannot care if you hold to your position that babies aren't babies until they take their first literal breath. You simply can't care one way or the other. Remember, this is in regards to when, according to your twisted logic, the bible says a baby is a baby. You said you "hope you[Chrysoprasus] are wrong" in regards to the month at which a fetus becomes a baby? Why? What would it matter to you? If it was just a mass of flesh before X month, it would still just be a mass of flesh at X + Y month. It CANNOT matter to you according to your position. Don't you see you are being contradictory to your own position. This is not logical and it shows you are letting emotion sway your decision/position. This approach (using emotion) to determine something will not lead to the ultimate answer, it will simply leave you with a "this is the answer for right now" theology.

This also shows that your "logical" opinions are not to be trusted as they are most likely influenced by the world and its emotional pleas.

jason

 

So...lets see if I can get your theology correct.

You say that:
1. Sex before/outside of marriage is wrong

2. The only reason homosexuality is labeled wrong in the bible is because it was socially unacceptable at the time the bible was written

3. Sin is only that which convicts an individuals heart, therefore there is no universal right or wrong.

and...

4. There is no universal right or wrong (again)

5. And finally....homosexuality is ok as long as they are married

Wow. That's pretty messed up. You know why? You don't have a leg to stand on. Here...let me show you something.

1. You are contradictory. If the only reason homosexuality is labeled wrong (see definition of wrong in other thread...you still have yet answer those questions BTW) was because of the society at the time..and now because Homosexuality is accepted it is ok. That means premarital sex is ok...multiple premarital relations are ok. Do you know why? Because you have no basis for determing what is right or wrong. Everything is subjective to the individual in question and the conviction of their heart. Not to mention that society today ACCEPTS premarital sex AND having multiple sex partners before marriage. According to you, this makes it ok. You cannot claim that something is wrong...you can't even accuse someone of being wrong. You have nothing.

2. Secondly, there is no such thing as "sin" in your theology. If I am a christian who is not convicted of the heart by the holy spirit to stop sleeping around, it is not a sin according to your theology...and yet...you say it is a sin. Why? You can't say this because you clearly state that for a homosexual, if they are not convicted of the heart, it can't be wrong (btw, you use the word wrong here...do you know what it means. You clearly asked me to define it for you before).

This leaves you with a little dilema. Hmmm..what is sin and what is not sin. You very clearly state that cheating is wrong as is premarital sex (#1), and yet you very clearly state that sin is only a conviction of the heart. Which is it? This is called "Oops...I have no idea what I am talking about" theology.

Do you completely grasp this? It is not mind boggling, but it might take some time to get it all. What happens when you realize that all of these contradictory positions leave you with nothing...you start to realize that certain things are wrong just because they are (IE God said so)! You have to accept this. You can try and avoid it, you can try to weasel your way around it...but you will get caught everytime because you are, quite frankly, wrong. There is no defending something which is patently false...it takes more smarts than either you or I posses.

Remember also, I did not trick you, I did not attack you and I didn't misquote you. These are your words which did all the incriminating. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Think about it. Get back to me when you have. You can also email me (in profile) if you want to discuss this further outside of this board without all the prying eyes.

In Christ,
jason

[ September 06, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

But once you are married to the woman, it is not a sin any longer. Same thing with homosexuals.</font>[/QUOTE]How about the verse in Romans that tells us that man is not to lie with man as with womankind? Homosexuality would then be wrong. The verse says, in essence, that you are not to "lie" or have sex with, another person of the same sex.

God created man and woman. He created sexual organs. Why did He? It's called he has created a system, now if something goes against the system it would have to be invalid, because it is not functioning.

Before you ask for the direct reference, I will tell you now that I am running behind schedule, so when I get back from my appointment I will post the scripture.

Now, I have read, every single post, and done it through sociological means, meaning that I did not read with my own opinion on my mind. I read each one without taking sides.

Homosexuality is wrong, because the scripture says its wrong. If you say its right, can you provide the scripture that allows it?

In Christ's gracious love,
Teresa

 

Post-it. Come on. This is silly. You cannot care if you hold to your position that babies aren't babies until they take their first literal breath. You simply can't care one way or the other. Remember, this is in regards to when, according to your twisted logic, the bible says a baby is a baby. You said you "hope you[Chrysoprasus] are wrong" in regards to the month at which a fetus becomes a baby? Why? What would it matter to you? If it was just a mass of flesh before X month, it would still just be a mass of flesh at X + Y month. It CANNOT matter to you according to your position. Don't you see you are being contradictory to your own position. This is not logical and it shows you are letting emotion sway your decision/position. This approach (using emotion) to determine something will not lead to the ultimate answer, it will simply leave you with a "this is the answer for right now" theology.

This also shows that your "logical" opinions are not to be trusted as they are most likely influenced by the world and its emotional pleas.

jason</font>[/QUOTE]I know you haven't followed the entire thread on this subject in which you would have learned that I do think abortion is wrong. My arguments are from scripture not my personal opinion. My argument has always been that we should not be making a claim that all abortion is murder and that it says so in the Bible. Or God is against all abortions. One can't make that claim unless the Bible has shown in some unambiguous stand or example that it is in fact murder.

 

Ok...humor me. If it is not murder, how it wrong? What sin is it?....

Wow, we're back here again. SIGH (BTW for those who haven't been following my discussions with post-it, this logic was refuted several times in the post about abortion being murder)

Post-it, please show me biblically how computer hacking is wrong. Please show me biblically how mail fraud is wrong. Please show me biblically how insider trading is wrong. Please show me biblically how stealing cable tv...specifically cable tv...is wrong. Remember, each one of these has to be EXPLICITLY laid out in scripture for it to be wrong. Not to mention, the terms insider trading, cable tv and mail fraud have to be properly defined in context so we can be absolutely sure. If not, sweet, free cable right?

In Christ,
jason

 

Post-it, You are wrong on two accounts.

1- Explicit scripture. Romans 1:24-27, I Corinthians 6:9-11, and I Timothy 1:9-10 are NT references that list homosexuality among other sins... at least once with murder. Added to this, there is no NT scripture that overturns the condemnation of homosexuality in the OT.

2- The Bible affirms male-female marriage from beginning to end. Not once is homosexual marriage ever even addressed as a legitimate possibility. If one way is affirmed to the complete and total exclusion of the other way then it is completely legitimate to interpret that only the affirmed way is acceptable. (What happened to the "if scripture doesn't say it, we can't demand it" approach?)

The ancient Mediterranean cultures were ever bit as diverse and sophisticated as ours. To say that Paul, much less God the Holy Spirit, would not have been aware if there had been a need for qualifying the forbiddance of homosexuality is without merit. The Bible condemns divorce but clarifies by make allowances in special cases. If any conditions could legitimize a homosexual relationship of any kind or duration, God would have given us the exception... He didn't, like it or not.

 

[/QUOTE]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.[/QB][/QUOTE]

And what scripture do you base this upon?

 

So...lets see if I can get your theology correct.

You say that:
1. Sex before/outside of marriage is wrong

2. The only reason homosexuality is labeled wrong in the bible is because it was socially unacceptable at the time the bible was written

3. Sin is only that which convicts an individuals heart, therefore there is no universal right or wrong.

and...

4. There is no universal right or wrong (again)

5. And finally....homosexuality is ok as long as they are married

Wow. That's pretty messed up. You know why? You don't have a leg to stand on. Here...let me show you something.

1. You are contradictory. If the only reason homosexuality is labeled wrong (see definition of wrong in other thread...you still have yet answer those questions BTW) was because of the society at the time..and now because Homosexuality is accepted it is ok. That means premarital sex is ok...multiple premarital relations are ok. Do you know why? Because you have no basis for determing what is right or wrong. Everything is subjective to the individual in question and the conviction of their heart. Not to mention that society today ACCEPTS premarital sex AND having multiple sex partners before marriage. According to you, this makes it ok. You cannot claim that something is wrong...you can't even accuse someone of being wrong. You have nothing.

2. Secondly, there is no such thing as "sin" in your theology. If I am a christian who is not convicted of the heart by the holy spirit to stop sleeping around, it is not a sin according to your theology...and yet...you say it is a sin. Why? You can't say this because you clearly state that for a homosexual, if they are not convicted of the heart, it can't be wrong (btw, you use the word wrong here...do you know what it means. You clearly asked me to define it for you before).

This leaves you with a little dilema. Hmmm..what is sin and what is not sin. You very clearly state that cheating is wrong as is premarital sex (#1), and yet you very clearly state that sin is only a conviction of the heart. Which is it? This is called "Oops...I have no idea what I am talking about" theology.

Do you completely grasp this? It is not mind boggling, but it might take some time to get it all. What happens when you realize that all of these contradictory positions leave you with nothing...you start to realize that certain things are wrong just because they are (IE God said so)! You have to accept this. You can try and avoid it, you can try to weasel your way around it...but you will get caught everytime because you are, quite frankly, wrong. There is no defending something which is patently false...it takes more smarts than either you or I posses.

Remember also, I did not trick you, I did not attack you and I didn't misquote you. These are your words which did all the incriminating. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Think about it. Get back to me when you have. You can also email me (in profile) if you want to discuss this further outside of this board without all the prying eyes.

In Christ,
jason</font>[/QUOTE]Post-it:

It's been three days and you have posted quite a bit in that time frame. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just "missed" this post, but then I look down this very page and see you respond to another of my posts a whole hour after this one was posted.

I know this is hard for you to twist, but I would still like you to answer the questions and position presented within the post. Or, as I have said in the past, you can always email me (in profile) and we can discuss without everyone seeing.

jason

[ September 09, 2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

Exodus 21

[ September 09, 2002, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

This thread is off topic and I have started a debate on the subject on Homosexuality and Scripture. So I won't address anything else here off topic.