Human spirit life is at Conception Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/11/2001 8:37 am  
To:  ALL   (1 of 68)  
 
  63.1  
 
When does human life begin? The debate is often centered around the human physical body as a description of viable life. Yet the Bible tells us that the true life of an individual is the spirit life.
The Human spirit life exists before conception.

The Bible indicates that the Physical realm is a representation of the spiritual realm. God creates then gives spiritual life first then the physical body is formed by God in the womb around the existing spirit life of a person.

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I (God) knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God knew Jeremiah and had a relationship with Jeremiah as a viable spirit person Before conception, During the womb, and also After his physical birth. 

We use our physical body to express our spiritual nature. If we didnt smile, talk, write, or interact in the physical realm others would not know how we feel. When our body through age, disease, or tragedy can no longer accurately represent our spiritual nature we suffer physical death and our spirit and soul depart our physical body and go directly into the presence of God.

The spirit of a person is created by God to last forever, the spirit lives on after the body has died and the spirit is alive before the body in the womb.

*Of course meaning that Abortion kills a fully viable living spiritual person. But also meaning that the body is dead but the spirit goes into the presence of God.






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/11/2001 8:39 am  
To:  ALL   (2 of 68)  
 
  63.2 in reply to 63.1  
 
Some people quote this verse as a defense for abortion, wrongly saying that God does not call a child in the womb a viable life. Even though the very word child {same word for inside and outside of the womb} is used. Exodus21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall surely be punished, according as the womans husband will lay upon him; and he will pay as the judges determine.
This verse is about two or more men fighting and with no intention of harming the child in the womb the woman is injured and the baby dies. This is considered a death. It is also considered an accidental death. Abortion is not considered an accidental death. If mischief follows the man is to be put to death. The Bible has the concept that from an accidental death the person can be forgiven, but a murder cannot be forgiven.

This concept that a murder cannot be forgiven effects each of us and the death of Jesus. On the cross the first words that Jesus spoke were Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus Father forgive them for they know not what they do. And it is true had people understood the Glory of God and that Jesus is God in physical form people would not have reject their maker. This act of ignorance make us eligible for forgiveness. Those of us who acknowledge the Glory of God, and that Jesus is God in All His Glory and that Jesus died for us are forgiven. Those who do not acknowledge Jesus as God and His death for us are still murders and are not forgiven.






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/23/2001 3:02 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (3 of 68)  
 
  63.3 in reply to 63.1  
 
Yes, this is well said. And really points out a part of the matter rarely considered--the child's soul. 
Homily: The Lazarus of the 20th Century (Lk. 16:19-31) 

Fr. Frank Pavone 

We learn many lessons from those who go to heaven. In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, we learn a lesson from one who went to hell. 

Why was the Rich Man condemned? Was it because he had so much? Was there something inherently sinful about the purple and linen in which he dressed, or the feasts in which he indulged? No. The rich man went to hell because he ignored the other man. He was not condemned for what he did, but for what he did not do. He did not recognize or treat Lazarus as his equal, his brother. Instead, he thought that because Lazarus' possessions were less valuable than his, that Lazarus was less valuable than he. The beggar's cries went unheeded. 

The story causes us to wonder what we would do if we were there. Brothers and sisters, we are there. You and I have an appointment with Lazarus today, and we will be judged on how we respond. The Lazarus of the 20th century is in our midst. He is in our midst in the poor, the troublesome, the annoying, the person who is smaller and weaker than we are, and the person who seems different and less valuable. 

In particular, the Lazarus of the 20th century is our preborn brother or sister. This is the person rejected by society, the person who begs for help to live but whose cries are rejected 4400 times a day in our country. This is the person torn apart and thrown away by abortion. 

The rich man was condemned for not treating Lazarus as his brother. We also will be condemned if we do not treat the preborn as our brother and sister. Many oppose abortion and would never have one, but they then ask, "Who am I to interfere with a woman's choice to abort?" Today, I will tell you who you are. You are a brother, a sister of that child in the womb! "Who am I to interfere with her choice?" You are a human being who has enough decency to stand up and say "NO!" when you see another human being about to be killed. "Who am I to interfere with her choice?" You are a person who has enough wisdom to realize that injustice to one human being is injustice to every human being, and that your life is only as safe as the life of the preborn child. "Who am I to interfere with her choice?' You are a follower of the One who said, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to Me." Do we not believe that if we allow a person to die of starvation, that we are allowing Christ to die of starvation? Do we not believe that if we leave the sick untended, that we are leaving Christ untended? Must we not then also believe that whenever a child in the womb is ripped apart, burned, crushed, and then thrown away, that Christ is ripped apart, burned, crushed, and thrown away! It is Christ in the womb! When we stand up for life we stand up for Him! 

If abortion is not wrong then nothing is wrong. If we cannot be stirred to respond as individuals, as a Church, and as a nation, to the plight of the preborn children, then we have lost our soul. Indeed, the Lazarus of the 20th century is knocking at our door. God, have mercy on us and help us to respond! Amen! 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/23/2001 9:21 pm  
To:  wknight001   (4 of 68)  
 
  63.4 in reply to 63.3  
 
Brilliant Post!!! 
I couldnt have said it better myself. 

Im going to e-mail your post to some Pro-Life friends. 

God Bless You, 
Your Brother in Jesus, 
David 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   6/24/2001 9:28 am  
To:  wknight001   (5 of 68)  
 
  63.5 in reply to 63.3  
 
Then does God take three of evey four of your brothers and sisters before they are ever born? I wouldn't think God was wasteful, yet it is a medical fact that three out of evey four fertalized human 'embrios' don't even plant themselves on the wall of the uteral lining. If they already have souls does that make the mother a murder for not accepting the embrio unto her body even though she did nothing concious to stop it? 
Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/25/2001 6:09 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (6 of 68)  
 
  63.6 in reply to 63.4  
 
Dear David, 
I've already saved a copy of your own to remember. :) 

Yes, Fr. Frank Pavone really hits the nail on the head sometimes. I've always liked his bi-weekly homilies on the Pro-Life cause. 

It's a free thing I've signed up for, low spam level (only the column really) once every other week. Here's the latest, in case you like it enough or anyone else does to want to sign up. 

Dear Friends, 
Following is my regular column. Please feel free to use it in whole or in part for your 
educational efforts on behalf of life. Any questions you may email us at 
publications@priestsforlife.org. 

Please also find this and other resources on our website. 

Blessings, 
Fr. Frank Pavone 

The Unwilling Audience 
Fr. Frank Pavone 
National Director, Priests for Life 

If you read carefully the Acts of the Apostles, you see a basic principle at work: we must bring 
the message to those unwilling to hear it. Paul and the other apostles did not wait to be invited 
to proclaim the Gospel. Their "permission" to preach it came from the command of our Lord, and 
their audience was pre-determined: all the nations. Naturally, preaching the Gospel is most 
pleasant when the hearers are willing, eager, and have already knocked on our door asking for the 
good news. But if we preach only to those who ask us to, we fail to reach multitudes who need to 
hear the message, and may not even realize that they have this need. The message itself tells us 
of our deepest needs. 

Don't get me wrong -- I am not one who despises "preaching to the choir." The "choir" needs 
preaching, too. After all, if the choir does not do the singing, who will? Preaching to the choir is a 
particular form of preaching, consisting of nurturing the commitment of those already committed, 
deepening the conversion of those already converted, and guiding the activity of those already 
active. 

But we must reach the far greater audience who will never come looking for the message we 
have. 

This is especially urgent in regard to the sanctity of life, because in this arena, not only does a 
message have to be believed, but lives have to be saved. Not only do viewpoints have to be 
changed, but victims have to be protected. Perhaps the most important principle, then, for the pro- 
life movement to adopt at this point in time, is that pro-life activity which relies on the voluntary 
consent of the audience is insufficient. This is not to say that such activity is unnecessary, nor 
is this to say that such activity is without value. 

It is, however, to say that the amount of time and energy our movement spends on such activity is 
out of all proportion to the amount of time and energy that is spent on reaching the unwilling 
audience. 

To put it rather bluntly, effective social reform requires forcing the message on an unwilling 
audience. It means confronting the culture with what it does not want to hear. For example, along 
with preaching the pro-life message inside the Church, where people freely go, we need to 
proclaim the pro-life message on the public sidewalk outside the Church, where people can hear it 
whether they want to or not. This can take the form of prayerful life chains with effective posters, 
or literature distribution, or even special parades and motorcades. 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that what is protected by the First Amendment is 
precisely our freedom to speak a message to an audience that is opposed to it and even offended 
by it. It is part of the greatness of America that the unpopular message need not retreat only to 
the secret places where those who want it know how to find it. 

Contact Priests for Life at PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; Tel: 888-PFL-3448, 
718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980-6515; email: mail@priestsforlife.org; web: 
www.priestsforlife.org 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/25/2001 6:15 am  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (7 of 68)  
 
  63.7 in reply to 63.5  
 
I do not know your statistics, though I do know the birth control pill causes this problem to occur much more often. 
Our children's deaths are often not our fault but a result of our state as fallen beings. When God takes away a life, it is the right time--When we do IT IS NOT. 

Because HE IS GOD. And YOU ARE NOT. 

Have to remember that. He is God. I am not. I say it to myself, it helps when I want to control more than I should, from the littlest to the largest matters. 

Remember that your life is a gift, and each life is a gift to the person who has it--And only He is the one who has the right to give or take it away, and determine the time. 

All of the restrictions he places upon us the Devil tells us to look at in the light of the negative---The loss of the 'good' mixed with the evil that is there. But the good, the good unmixed with evil is ALWAYS there. Sin.. evil is ALWAYS a choice, you never -have- to do evil. 

And that is the way. Because He is with us. And the rules of reality are intervened by His miracles when he desires, and also, He allows us to be martyrs. But even when He allows us to be martyrs the fault of the sin of the murderer is NOT UPON HIM. He simply works within our free will and makes good out of the evil. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffrey Thomas 
+AMDG 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/25/2001 10:39 am  
To:  wknight001   (8 of 68)  
 
  63.8 in reply to 63.3  
 
If abortion is not wrong then nothing is wrong. 
Well, that is an opinion, and one that is not shared by the God of the Bible. Let's not forget that there are EXPLICIT instructions for performing an abortion (inducing miscarriage) in the Bible, performed by the priests, in cases when a woman needs only be SUSPECTED of being pregnant. If one were to take the Bible as God's word, then one would have to accept the fact that the "wrongness" of abortion is absolutely conditional.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/25/2001 1:12 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (9 of 68)  
 
  63.9 in reply to 63.8  
 
))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SEABREN) wrote:
Let's not forget that there are EXPLICIT instructions for performing an abortion (inducing miscarriage) in the Bible, performed by the priests, in cases when a woman needs only be SUSPECTED of being pregnant.
  I've never heard this claimed before.  If this is true, then I take it you can supply an exact reference, so that we can see for ourselves?


  I didn't think so.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   6/25/2001 1:22 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (10 of 68)  
 
  63.10 in reply to 63.8  
 
Dear ))))====ffft!!=====-__@__(SEABREN), 
Mind if i shorten it to ). It seems highly unlikely that when God says "I knew you in the womb, that the Jews were to then turn around and abort children. As far as the explicit instructions, where are they? 
Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   6/25/2001 9:43 pm  
To:  wknight001   (11 of 68)  
 
  63.11 in reply to 63.7  
 
Well, to start, nice job of the attempt of mind control with the caps lock on small phrases, that is actually at the top of the list. 
Now, as for the discussion, I will state my personal opinion on abortion. 

I think abortion is abused as a form of birth control and that itself is a crime of sloth. As for the Pill, Depo Shot, the hook and any other number of ways to cause fertility rates to go down, I don't think they are criminal but responsable in a day and age when people don't seem to be willing to wait, those who find the SUMMO method of birth control to be unfeasable (And yes, I practice SUMMO Birth Control, try and prove it's wrong unless you are quoting St. Francis and there prove to me it was God speaking there since it was based on a complete scientific falacy.) 

Now, past my personal view on abortion and the birth control method, there are posts on this board in which it is indirectly admonished having an abortion for health reasons or in cases of insest and rape. Well, statistically the rape rarely produces a child from it anyway, but is it right for a man to try and force a child upon a woman... oh wait, that there is the conception of your Christ. 

As for the opinion of it being murder to take a pill that alters the hormonal balance slightly, I do hope you know it has been done for years, from the older practice of women using berries (And yes, this was done in the time of Jesus) to the more recent use of the pill, try to remember this quote... 
Genisis 
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 
3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 

God gave man dominion over all plants and animals upon the earth, deadly or not, the birth control pill comes from plants and animals, heck I can cause a woman to have a natural abortion with celery as well as quite a few other plants that can be found in the super market and likely in your refridgerator. Does that mean that the people who grow those plants are responsable for murder as well? 

Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 6:00 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (12 of 68)  
 
  63.12 in reply to 63.9  
 
I've never heard this claimed before. If this is true, then I take it you can supply an exact reference, so that we can see for ourselves?
I didn't think so.

Just what does that mean? Isn't it normal to wait for an answer before you call someone a liar? A little jumpy, aren't we?

It was a trial by ordeal where a woman was given the ingredients ("bitter water") that would induce a forced miscarriage. This was a known method of termination of pregnancy of the times using readily available ingredients, but it would make the woman very sick. Regardless, it IS in the bible.

Anyway, here is this little-known and often denied passage out of that embarassment of books (to christians), Numbers 5:21-28...

[Num 5:21] Then the priest will put the oath of the curse on the woman, and say to her, May the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, sending on you wasting of the legs and disease of the stomach;

[Num 5:22] And this water of the curse will go into your body, causing disease of your stomach and wasting of your legs: and the woman will say, So be it.

[Num 5:23] And the priest will put these curses in a book, washing out the writing with the bitter water;

[Num 5:24] And he will give to the woman the bitter water for drink; and the bitter water causing the curse will go into her.

[Num 5:25] And the priest will take from her hand the meal offering of doubt, waving it before the Lord, and will take it to the altar;

[Num 5:26] And he will take some of it in his hand, burning it on the altar as a sign, and then he will give the woman the bitter water.

[Num 5:27] And it will be that if the woman has become unclean, sinning against her husband, when she has taken the bitter water it will go into her body, causing disease of the stomach and wasting of the legs, and she will be a curse among her people.

[Num 5:28] But if she is clean she will be free and will have offspring.

The final line, of course, meaning that she didn't miscarry and will have the child. That would be the only way that she could prove herself innocent against the accusations and not have bastard offspring. This, BTW, was probably just as successful at determining innocence as the method that was used on the women accused of being witches in Salem in the 17th century. 






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 6:01 am  
To:  Corkybob   (13 of 68)  
 
  63.13 in reply to 63.10  
 
See my post to Bob.



"Tell me what you BELIEVE. I NEED a good LAUGH." 
Godawful Friends' Outhouse Forum -
2nd Assistant Deputy Moderator in charge of Flushing



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   6/26/2001 6:16 am  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (14 of 68)  
 
  63.14 in reply to 63.11  
 
Hi Al.... 
Don't know where you got the idea God forced Himself upon Mary. A very blasphemous notion...and quite demeaning of women. Scripture states Mary was willing to be the mother of Jesus and only after that did God overshadow her. 
R/C 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 6:17 am  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (15 of 68)  
 
  63.15 in reply to 63.14  
 
Wouldn't that make her an aldulterer, since she was with Joseph? 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/26/01 9:20:03 AM ET by SEABREN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   6/26/2001 6:20 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (16 of 68)  
 
  63.16 in reply to 63.15  
 
Nope, the marriage wasn't consumed and old testament law did state that under such conditons she was not guilty of adultery. 
R/C 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/26/2001 10:25 am  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (17 of 68)  
 
  63.17 in reply to 63.11  
 
God gave mankind the plants for food in Genesis 1:29. The fall and sin occurred later in Genesis Chapter 3. The Entire Creation suffers the effects of sin, this includes our food system which is also corrupted. With the fall came the Knowledge of evil, it is now possible to use some plants for evil, like poison and mind altering drugs. 
You are trying to imply that Killing with Plants is acceptable, to God and man. Not so!!! 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/26/2001 11:13 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (18 of 68)  
 
  63.18 in reply to 63.12  
 
))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SEABREN) wrote:
[Num 5:28] But if she is clean she will be free and will have offspring.

The final line, of course, meaning that she didn't miscarry and will have the child. That would be the only way that she could prove herself innocent against the accusations and not have bastard offspring.
  I do not know what translation of the Bible you are using.  This verse, as you quoted, is not really explicit on this point.  You are assuming that this passage deals with a woman who is pregnant and suspected of so being as a result of an adulterous affair, and that the effect of the curse invoked is to cause her to miscarry.  I would have to admit that, based on the way this version is written from which you are quoting, this is a valid interpretation of this text, though not the only possible interpretation.

  The King James Version renders this verse rather differently than what you have cited, in a way which seems to make very clear a meaning that is at odds with your interpretation.
And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
  A woman who is pregnant has already conceived, and cannot do so again until her current pregnancy is concluded.

  The KJV rendition of this verse does not appear to support at all your assertion that this is a process to abort a bastard child who was conceived in adultery.  Rather, this merely describes a curse of sickness, and possibly barrenness, to be put upon the adulterous woman (keep in mind that in this culture, barrenness was seen as a great curse), and verse 28 seems to offer an assurance, to a woman who was falsely accused of adultery by way of this procedure, that she will not be barren.



This, BTW, was probably just as successful at determining innocence as the method that was used on the women accused of being witches in Salem in the 17th century.
  The concept is often known as trial by ordeal  the accused is exposed to some dangerous condition, or compelled to perform a dangerous task, on the assumption that God will either protect him from the danger, or else allow him to be harmed by it, according to his innocence or guilt.  It's a perfectly good concept, so long as you are assured that God is cooperating with it, as I would assume to have been the case with the ancient Israelites.

  Interestingly, there was rather a reverse form of this concept applied in the Salem witch trials.  It was presumed that witches were immune to water  that because of their dealings with Satan, he would protect them from water.  So suspected witches were held under water to see if they would drown.  If it became absolutely clear that the accused was, in fact, drowning, then she was judged to be innocent.  Of course witches were thought to be very clever, and quiet capable of faking symptoms of drowning, so they had to hold a suspected witch under long enough to make absolutely certain that she really was drowning, sometimes with the result that those finally judged to be innocent could not be revived.  I guess the witch-hunters had more confidence in Satan to protect his own than they had in God.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/26/2001 2:23:54 PM ET by DAVIDABROWN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 1:07 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (19 of 68)  
 
  63.19 in reply to 63.16  
 
Nope, the marriage wasn't consumed and old testament law did state that under such conditons she was not guilty of adultery. 
That's awfully convenient. I wonder, since these stories came about long after Joseph's death, if HE felt that way. Having your "virgin" girlfriend suddenly pop up pregnant would be hard to deal with.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   6/26/2001 1:23 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (20 of 68)  
 
  63.20 in reply to 63.19  
 
Hi: 
Well, since you don't believe the written accounts of the Gospels as to what Joseph did feel what is your question? 
There have been lots of men (outside of Bible characters )that have faced such a situation with their wives or girlfriends. Generally speaking you either chose to forgive her indiscretions or you get out of the relationship. (divorce) 
R/C
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/26/2001 1:39 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (21 of 68)  
 
  63.21 in reply to 63.19  
 
))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SEABREN) wrote:
[Quoting RACHELSCHILD]
Nope, the marriage wasn't consumed and old testament law did state that under such conditons she was not guilty of adultery.
That's awfully convenient. I wonder, since these stories came about long after Joseph's death, if HE felt that way. Having your "virgin" girlfriend suddenly pop up pregnant would be hard to deal with.
  I believe RACHELSCHILD is mistaken.  Mary was espoused to Joseph, meaning that, although they were not completely married, they were sufficiently committed to one another that for Mary to have sex with another man would have constituted adultery.  The culture of the time gave a man in Joseph's position, with his bride-to-be turning up pregnant, three choices:
He could publicly accuse her of adultery, and if the accusation stood, she might be stoned to death.

He could quietly divorce her, without making any public case of the matter.

He could claim the child as his own, and continue with the marriage.
  As we learn in , Joseph had decided he would take the second of these options, to divorce her in private, and not make the matter public.  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.  But an angel appeared to him, explained the situation, and convinced him to keep Mary and the child.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/26/01 4:46:44 PM ET by DAVIDABROWN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/26/2001 1:48 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (22 of 68)  
 
  63.22 in reply to 63.18  
 
  HmmmIt looks like David is censoring my links again.  Take a look at <http://www.delphi.com/BasicChristian/messages?msg=63.18>; the links in that message used to go to the relevant passage in the King James version of the Bible.  Certainly, these would meet any reasonable definition of Christian links.  They were even posted in support of a position where I think David and I would be in agreement.  Yet he chose to censor these links.  What sense does this make?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/26/2001 1:54 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (23 of 68)  
 
  63.23 in reply to 63.21  
 
  He censored the links in this message too, less than ten minutes after it was posted.  Again, the links he censored were to passages in the KJV Bible.  David is censoring things now which I see no reason at all for him to find objectionable.  This does not make sense, not even for Davidian values of sense.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/26/01 5:14:53 PM ET by BOB_BLAYLOCK 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/26/2001 1:54 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (24 of 68)  
 
  63.24 in reply to 63.22  
 
Bob, 
Please do not place LDS links on this forum. 

Currently I have been editing them out of your posts, most of your posts contain 3 or more links to LDS sites. 

Since I do not have the time (nor the desire) to continually edit each of your posts, I will start deleting the entire post with LDS links. 

I know that you work long and hard on your posts and I dont want to have to delete them, so please stop linking. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 1:56 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (25 of 68)  
 
  63.25 in reply to 63.18  
 
And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
A woman who is pregnant has already conceived, and cannot do so again until her current pregnancy is concluded.

While I can see your point, we have to remember that all of these ARE interpretations of other texts and meanings, and the common denominator is that the "method" they described (using "bitter water") WAS a common means of inducing miscarriage. I don't think that it is just mere coincidence that the bible happens to relate this use to the success of childbearing. Another point is that people of that time weren't sure exactly WHEN a woman was pregnant if the woman was not admitting to BEING pregnant. Think about it. Then the husband and priest would not know at the time of the "trial". So what they were actually testing was whether or not the child was HIS or the adulterous lover's, since paternity tests were not available. If she passed the test and didn't miscarry, then she was EITHER pregnant with the husband's child or she was NOT pregnant (and therefore could get properly impregnated in the future). If she miscarried, she was guilty of adultery, period.

With this explanation, your quote above makes perfect sense.

The KJV rendition of this verse does not appear to support at all your assertion that this is a process to abort a bastard child who was conceived in adultery. Rather, this merely describes a curse of sickness, and possibly barrenness, to be put upon the adulterous woman (keep in mind that in this culture, barrenness was seen as a great curse), and verse 28 seems to offer an assurance, to a woman who was falsely accused of adultery by way of this procedure, that she will not be barren.

This method of induced miscarriage often resulted in a woman becoming VERY sick, sometimes dying. And I don't think that it is too improbable that after such a trauma her ability to reproduce WOULD be in jeopardy.

But even if you discount the obvious references to induced miscarriage, it would not make sense to simply curse a woman with sickness after the accusation, since 100% of the women would fall sick and the trial would be discarded after a while. And if barrenness were a result of this trial by the priests, then this trial is a means of permanent CONTRACEPTION, which is another can of worms that can be debated. 

But it looks like you would then have to accept the fact that the bible EITHER endorses CONTRACEPTION or ABORTION within these verses, but you'll have to pick one. In my opinion I think there is more evidence that they are referring to induced miscarriage, but I won't discard the possibility that they are giving instructions for forced contraception either.

ps. In a book that gives explicit instructions on how to kill, dismember and burn a body for a proper sacrifice, why is it so hard to believe that it might also give instructions on how to abort an unwanted, bastard child? Bastard children were considered WORSE than a barren female.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/26/2001 1:58 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (26 of 68)  
 
  63.26 in reply to 63.24  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
Please do not place LDS links on this forum.

Currently I have been editing them out of your posts, most of your posts contain 3 or more links to LDS sites.

Since I do not have the time (nor the desire) to continually edit each of your posts, I will start deleting the entire post with LDS links.
  The links you have censored are to The Holy Bible, the very Bible that you yourself claim to revere.  It is the Bible that you are censoring, not any LDS-specific text.  Even for you, this is ridiculous.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 2:06 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (27 of 68)  
 
  63.27 in reply to 63.20  
 
Well, since you don't believe the written accounts of the Gospels as to what Joseph did feel what is your question? 
I never said that. I take it all in the context that it was written. Since Joseph never wrote anything that is in the bible, your guess is as good as mine as to how he felt. None of the people who wrote the books knew or even met Joseph, so they were just making assumptions too. I simply wondered if Joseph was all that forgiving when his 13 year-old wife to be turned up pregnant.

And that brings me to my question: All "heroes" of the time were supposedly born of "virgin" mothers. Julius Ceasar was allegedly born of a virgin mother. History is full of these accounts. So if there were all of these traditional virgin births going on, just how can anyone separate Jesus' birth out of the masses and claim that his was of god? There is an awful lot of assuming going on here, and as far as most of the world is concerned, it is just another "virgin birth" story.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 2:11 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (28 of 68)  
 
  63.28 in reply to 63.21  
 
Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. I will keep that bit for further reference. 
BTW, did you notice that David has edited your post somewhere? What did he do? 

That is a pretty low thing, and for future reference, unless I break a rule somewhere, if my posts' content gets changed for any reason I will immediately withdraw from this forum (much to some people's delight). It won't be a victory, except for those who wish to control other's thoughts and perceptions.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/26/2001 2:23 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (29 of 68)  
 
  63.29 in reply to 63.28  
 
))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SEABREN) wrote:
BTW, did you notice that David has edited your post somewhere? What did he do?

That is a pretty low thing, and for future reference, unless I break a rule somewhere, if my posts' content gets changed for any reason I will immediately withdraw from this forummuch to some people's delight). It won't be a victory, except for those who wish to control other's thoughts and perceptions.
  Yes, I noticed.  I hope you won't withdraw; as you point out, that would only be a victory for those who wish to control other's thoughts and perceptions.  We may not agree on much, but unlike certain people (David) whose names (David) I will not mention (David), I believe firmly that Truth can stand up against opposition, and I see no value or virtue in censoring opposing views, and that any person (David) who (David) feels a need to engage in such censorship (David) must not have any confidence (David) in the truth of his (David) own position.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 2:35 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (30 of 68)  
 
  63.30 in reply to 63.29  
 
We may not agree on much,
Funny you should put it that way. I've read a few of your posts as I'm sure you have mine and I find that we have similar views on a LOT of things, just on different sides of the "theistic" fence. We only butted heads on one topic so far and I really don't find your position too unreasonable, I just think the particular book is capable of being more harsh in its acts and descriptions than you might be willing to give it.

Other than that, I have enjoyed reading most of what you've posted and your theistic views of evolution are enlightening.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   6/26/2001 2:37 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (31 of 68)  
 
  63.31 in reply to 63.21  
 
Bob... 
Not to nitpick but any virgin turning up pregnant was in trouble with the law until it could be determined what indeed did happen. Being the espoused wife of Joseph allowed him to bring up the charges IF he desired to rather then the responsibility being left to Mary's father. 
R/C  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   6/26/2001 2:41 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (32 of 68)  
 
  63.32 in reply to 63.27  
 
Well at least you have the honesty to say it's the Virgin Birth you are questioning. Hey, if you can't believe it, you can't. No problem there but again what does that have to do with Joseph and Mary? 
R/C 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 2:53 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (33 of 68)  
 
  63.33 in reply to 63.32  
 
No problem there but again what does that have to do with Joseph and Mary? 
It leads to the next question that is asked by historians and non-christians:

If Joseph wasn't the father, then who was Jesus' real father? This of course can never be answered, but the conclusion for all those who are NOT christians is that Jesus was an illegitimate child.

That's all.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   6/26/2001 3:49 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (34 of 68)  
 
  63.34 in reply to 63.33  
 
Hi: 
If you don't believe what the Bible says about how Jesus was concieved why would you choose to believe Jesus was illigitimate? It's the Bible in the first place that tells us that little tidbit of information. So you believe some of the Bible story but not all? 
R/C 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   6/26/2001 6:17 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (35 of 68)  
 
  63.35 in reply to 63.13  
 
Dear ), 
Its not a matter of interpatation. It is a matter of oral tradition and history. There is a story Joshua where the Isrealites were preparing to fight the I believe Hitties. The King of the City went up to the wall with his child and sacraficed him in front of the Isrealites. It must of worked because the Isrealites turned around in disgeussed. The point is that the Isrealites believed that the child in the womb was a human being that God knew already as being a person. Women who lost children felt it was a course, yet you say that they preformed abortions. If this was so then the Isrealites would not have felt this way nor would there be an absentence of memory over abortions. Whats more, this believe (if it indeed was Jewish) would have come down in Christian thought and dogma. Teh reality is that it just isn't. As a matter of fact early Church documents testify to exactly the opposite. 

didache (140-160 AD) Preported to be the teachings of the Apostles. Probablly are for it matches the teachings of the Christian Church. What is legand is that there are 12 sections and supposably each section was written by one of the Apostles. This idea of apostolic authorship is not looked upon as realistic. 

"... The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultry. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not fornicate. You shall notsteal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. YOU SHALL NOT PROCURE ABORTIONS, NOR DISTROY A NEW-BORN CHILD. You shall not covet your neighbors goods. ..." 

Thus from a church that came out of judism, a clear and umbirguous answer to the question of can Christian teach or procure an abortion and still be without sin. 
Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/27/2001 8:13 am  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (36 of 68)  
 
  63.36 in reply to 63.34  
 
So you believe some of the Bible story but not all? 
Yup. I believe the bible is what it is: a book that was written by many people and different cultures over many centuries. In this respect, it is a book that can be a window to historical and cultural events of the past but is also subject to error and contradiction, especially since many of the writings were just first attempts to record in written form stories that had been passed by mouth for decades and centuries. This puts issues such as Jesus' birth and parentage up for scholarly and philosophical debate, which is what we are doing.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/27/2001 8:20 am  
To:  Corkybob   (37 of 68)  
 
  63.37 in reply to 63.35  
 
I had trouble making sense of your post. That is not an insult, you just wrote it in such a way that it was difficult to understand what you meant. 
If I got it right, you are stating what you believe are the christian views on abortion, which I never doubted. The issue was whether or not the bible SOMEWHERE gave some kind of instruction for the method and purpose of abortion. So far Bob and I have determined that AT THE LEAST the bible gives instruction for contraception, while abortion is still a possibility (and likely, in my opinion.)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/27/2001 7:44 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (38 of 68)  
 
  63.38 in reply to 63.37  
 
On the contrary, the Bible proscribes against contraception numerous times. It is the 'Sin of Onan' historically. Childlessness is a punishment. Bearing children is the natural function of a woman. Contraception gets in the way of that, and prevents total submission to God's will. 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   6/27/2001 8:17 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (39 of 68)  
 
  63.39 in reply to 63.37  
 
Dear ), 
You cannot seperate abortion from contraception. Tis is the point that I was trying to make. In Jewish tradition, from which Christianity sprung, to bare children was a blessing from God. In other words God delights when A man and woman, who pledge themselves, as God is there witness, to live together for as long as both should live, love each other. The ultimate expression of this love is the bringing into the world children. This mimics Gods action in that he loved the world so much that he brought us into the world. When we cooperate and bring cildren into the world we are cooperating in Gods plan. The use of contraception blocks Gods plans thus we are particapating in sin, which is going against Gods will. Abortion is much clearer in its presentation in that it actually murders children. The point I was trying to make is that Jews believed that a "fetus" was a human while it was still in the womb. God says that he knew Jeremia while he was still in the womb. You know people, not parts of people, or lower forms of life. God was saying that even before you were born I knew you as a person. Thus killing the one in the womb would be murder. This is why it is illogical that the Jews practiced either abortion of birth control. I used Christian refernces that were close to the time of Christ to show that the Christians, that believed many Jewish beliefs, believed that Abortion was murder from the start, thus the Jews believed this. If they believed that contraception and abortion was sinful, then there would not be a practice, nor would their be a Jewish writting that would show how to do it. 
Pax 
John 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/27/01 11:24:43 PM ET by CORKYBOB 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/27/2001 8:56 pm  
To:  wknight001   (40 of 68)  
 
  63.40 in reply to 63.38  
 
WKNIGHT001 write:
On the contrary, the Bible proscribes against contraception numerous times. It is the 'Sin of Onan' historically.
  Onan was commanded by the Lord to marry the widow of his brother, and to give seed to her that his dead brother, Er, might have an heir.  Onan disobeyed this commandment, and for this he was slain.  See Genesis 38:710.

  I dug out my copy of the Catholic version ofthe Bible (The New American Bible) and looked up this passage, expecting to find, as I sometimes do, that the text has been tweaked and altered to support a distinctly Catholic spin on the story.  I did not find it in this case.  Perhaps you'll be interested in what I found in the footnotes.
38, 8:  Preserve your brother's line; literally, raise up seed for your brother.  The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate or brother-in-law marriage;In the present story, it was Onan's violation of this law, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God's displeasure.
  So it seems that even your own church (or at least whomever your church hired to write these footnotes) agrees, not with your interpetation of this verse, but with mine.  I know that this passage has often been interpreted as a general proscription against masterbation or against contraception (indeed, the term onanism has come to mean either masterbation, or a form of contraception in which one withdraws before the seed is transferred), but these interpretations require interpolating into the passage much meaning that simply isn't there.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/27/2001 9:53 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (41 of 68)  
 
  63.41 in reply to 63.40  
 
Bob, What is your point? 
You are a Mature Mormon, probably an Elder in your church. If you cannot discuss the tenants of Mormonism then who can? 

Cults need to refer others to the cult base for the Official cult version. 

Either make posts according to your own ability or dont post. 

I thank you for refraining from posting a link back to the LDS site. And I will also thank you to not continue the linking games as they hardly serve a point except to demean the topics. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/28/2001 4:35 am  
To:  wknight001   (42 of 68)  
 
  63.42 in reply to 63.38  
 
What about birth control that is used for medical problems? For example, some diabetics and former cancer patients could die from pregnancy. Likewise, some women are anemic and thereby put on the depo shot by their doctor to stop ministration.


-The Mad Dr. Shock 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/28/2001 5:02 am  
To:  wknight001   (43 of 68)  
 
  63.43 in reply to 63.38  
 
You missed the point. It may well advise against abortion and contraception, but it ALSO gives instructions on how and when to use it as well. So you have another contradiction. Surprising.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/28/2001 5:16 am  
To:  Corkybob   (44 of 68)  
 
  63.44 in reply to 63.39  
 
You cannot seperate abortion from contraception.
Well, there you have it. You have solved Bob's and my disagreement with one statement. The bible gives instruction for BOTH abortion and Contraception. Thanks.

to bare children was a blessing from God.

God blesses pedophiles? (Maybe you meant "to bear" children...")

;0)

This is why it is illogical that the Jews practiced either abortion of birth control.....If they believed that contraception and abortion was sinful, then there would not be a practice, nor would their be a Jewish writting that would show how to do it. 

What you have then, is a contradiction. And if one insists that the bible is literal, homogenous, and the product of a single mind and culture, you will continue to have these contradictions that need masterful literary manipulation to reconcile. Otherwise you have to conclude JUST what you stated above: the bible is illogical.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/28/2001 5:48 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (45 of 68)  
 
  63.45 in reply to 63.41  
 
And I will also thank you to not continue the linking games as they hardly serve a point except to demean the topics.
I disagree. But it is your sandbox.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/28/2001 6:20 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (46 of 68)  
 
  63.46 in reply to 63.40  
 
Dear Bob, 
The Church does not write the NAB or its footnotes. Moreover the footnote is only 'primarily'. As I have said, historically it is the 'Sin of Onan'. And I left you plenty of other scriptures emphasizing this. Dt 23:1, Lv 21:17-20, 

Dt 25:5-10 esp. shows that the penalty for defying the Leverite law is not death. But it was Onan's sin that brought him death. 

(for the other fellow:) 

As for the cases of dangerous pregnancies, there are plenty of means besides artificial contraception to be taken care of through this or mitigate its changes while being open to God. Try www.ccli.org for further info. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffrey Thomas 
+AMDG 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/28/2001 7:53 am  
To:  wknight001   (47 of 68)  
 
  63.47 in reply to 63.46  
 
WKNIGHT001 wrote:
As I have said, historically it is the 'Sin of Onan'. And I left you plenty of other scriptures emphasizing this. Dt 23:1, Lv 21:17-20,

Dt 25:5-10 esp. shows that the penalty for defying the Leverite law is not death. But it was Onan's sin that brought him death.
  If you left me plenty of other scriptures emphasising your account of the sin of Onan, then someone else must have edited them out of your message.  However, I see no overt signs of Davidian censorship of your message.  Of you rmost recently-posted references, I don't see that Leviticus 21:1720 has anything whatsoever to do with the topic.  Perhaps you meant a different passage?

  As for Genesis 38:710, I think the meaning here is quite clear.  God gave Onan a specific and direct commandment, and Onan disobeyed it, so God struck him down.  To interpret Onan's sin as anything other than this direct and specific disobedience to God is to impose man-made interpolations upon God's word.

  Since I seem to have missed it, what other references are there in the Bible that specifically prohibit contraception?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/28/2001 11:52 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (48 of 68)  
 
  63.48 in reply to 63.47  
 
Ah. My apologies! I have not time to go back through the thread to see if I left part of the list. I will get my list out for you next reply. 
Sincerely, 

Jeffrey Thomas 
+AMDG
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/28/2001 12:27 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (49 of 68)  
 
  63.49 in reply to 63.41  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) whined:
I thank you for refraining from posting a link back to the LDS site. And I will also thank you to not continue the linking games as they hardly serve a point except to demean the topics.
  There is nothing I have done, nothing I would do, and nothing I could do (at least not in this forum) which would be as demeaning to the topics under discussion, or as destructive to the course of open and honest discussion, as the Davidian censorship which you insist on imposing.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   6/29/2001 6:40 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (50 of 68)  
 
  63.50 in reply to 63.44  
 
Dear ), 
There are not passages in the bible that give instruction for abortion or contraception. 

"... bear children ..." Those are called cubs. Guess I am not a master at english. 

You overstep yourself in assuming what I believe. I do not believe, nor does really any christian, that you must take the bible literally (even though some do argue this yet argue against literal interptation at other times.) It is a collection of several books and letters that expand over 4000 years or there about. The styles are differant but it leads one to the conclusion that it is of one mind. What you fail to realize is that if it had been as you say, showing the Jews how cause an abortion or have a contraceptive act, then those books would not have been included in Christian Canon. The Bible didn't fall from the sky. It came into Canon in 384 AD. 

Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   6/30/2001 11:04 am  
To:  Corkybob   (51 of 68)  
 
  63.51 in reply to 63.50  
 
There are such passages and they have been sighted, if you choose to disregard them, please bring about proof of such. 
Al Kupone 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/2/2001 6:16 am  
To:  Corkybob   (52 of 68)  
 
  63.52 in reply to 63.50  
 
There are not passages in the bible that give instruction for abortion or contraception. 
Making that statement does not make it true. You'll have to do a little better and back it up with reason/research.

You overstep yourself in assuming what I believe. I do not believe, nor does really any christian, that you must take the bible literally (even though some do argue this yet argue against literal interptation at other times.)

Was that an excuse built into a claim? What kind of christian would claim to believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god and then deny that same claim at another time when it is convenient? Sorry, I don't buy your excuse. I personally know christians who ABSOLUTELY believe in the inerrancy of the bible, but they have difficulty (pronounced "DEE-NI-AL") resolving the contradictions when faced with them.

It is a collection of several books and letters that expand over 4000 years or there about.

This is a known and accepted fact.

The styles are differant but it leads one to the conclusion that it is of one mind.

This is NOT a known and accepted fact.

What you fail to realize is that if it had been as you say, showing the Jews how cause an abortion or have a contraceptive act, then those books would not have been included in Christian Canon. The Bible didn't fall from the sky. It came into Canon in 384 AD. 

And what you fail to realize is that circa 384 AD the issues of abortion and contraception were not an issue. They were little-known concepts and were not issues of contention. Contraception became a CATHOLIC issue later in history, but since the ancient practices of such were basically lost and forgotten, it probably wasn't even considered when the Bible was "assembled". Present-day christians are dealing with all sorts of policy conflicts that their predecessors left them with centuries ago.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  MAYFLY (RozMarija)    7/2/2001 10:47 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (53 of 68)  
 
  63.53 in reply to 63.1  
 
Quite a few years ago I was watching a panel of scientists on TV, including Carl Sagan (the only name I remember) and at that time among those people (who were discussing abortion in thaty segment) the agreement was that HUMAN life beings when the FOREBRAIN develops. 
.

~ ~ ~ "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   7/7/2001 11:29 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (54 of 68)  
 
  63.54 in reply to 63.52  
 
Dear ), 
Uhhhhh? What does the belief that the word of God being inerrant have to do with literal or symbolic nature of the scriptures? Christ gave many parables that were not to be taken as literal but to make a point in his teachings. 

Those that do not accept the fact that the many books and scriptures do not lead to a singular conclusion are non-believers which is ok but they also do not wish to accept items in the Old Testiment that reveal things in the New Testiment. Things such as Psalms 22 that was written by David, or Issiah 51. Things such as most of the Prophets write of the messia riding in to Jerusalem on a stalion, where as Malichi writes of the messia riding in on a donkey. Jewish theologians pondered this discrepency and came to the conclusion that if Isreal was ready for the messia then he would come in on a Stalion, but if he was not he would come in on a donkey. All of the Old Testiment books wrote with one thing in mind, the comming of the messia. All of the New Testiment books and letters were written for one purpose, to show that Jesus of Nazerith was that messia. From that veiw point allone one can without even reading the scriptures formulate that all of the books have one thing in common, that is the coming of the messia. 

Oh contrare. Abortion was an issue in 384 AD. The didache was accepted as the teachings of the Apostles. It was written in 160 AD at the latest. It specifically states that one is not to procure an abortion nor cause the death of young children. If it states this this early in Christianity, you can bet that it was still an issue 224 years later. Christianity has not changed from the time of Christ. 
Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/9/2001 11:46 am  
To:  Corkybob   (55 of 68)  
 
  63.55 in reply to 63.54  
 
Christianity has not changed from the time of Christ. 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

(*wipes single glistening tear of laughter from his swollen, disbelieving eyes*)

I was actually going to respond to the different points you made, until I came across this last line. At this point it made all the rest of it kinda trivial.

That was a good one! Cheers!






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/10/2001 12:10 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (56 of 68)  
 
  63.56 in reply to 63.55  
 
))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SEABREN) wrote:
[Quoting CORKYBOB]
Christianity has not changed from the time of Christ.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

(*wipes single glistening tear of laughter from his swollen, disbelieving eyes*)

I was actually going to respond to the different points you made, until I came across this last line. At this point it made all the rest of it kinda trivial.
  Indeed.  I think everyone can agree that the sect that is closest to being a direct-line descendant of the church founded by Christ is the Catholic church, which claims an unbroken chain of leadership going back to Peter.  I think everyone, including Catholics, will have to agree that the Catholic church, as it currently exists, in terms of its doctrines and practices, is very, very far removed from anything that existed in Jesus' time, or in the time shortly thereafter  that it has changed so much in the 2000 odd years since the time of Christ as to be virtually unrecognizable as being the same organization founded by Christ.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/10/2001 12:22 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (57 of 68)  
 
  63.57 in reply to 63.56  
 
I am still chuckling. I don't know of a single scholar OR Christian theologian that would be willing to make a statement like that. 
*giggle*






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   7/11/2001 2:32 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (58 of 68)  
 
  63.58 in reply to 63.56  
 
Dear Bob, 
You would loose. Catholics still contend that both in doctrine and dogma, the Catholic Church has not changed from the time of the Apostles teachings. The only thing that has changed is form. Eastern Rite Catholics have a differant way of expressing the same truths as the Western Church. An example is the Filioque. 

Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/11/2001 2:54 pm  
To:  Corkybob   (59 of 68)  
 
  63.59 in reply to 63.58  
 
Just two points here on the Catholic Church... 
Constantine! 

Vatican 2! 

Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Corkybob   7/12/2001 6:24 am  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (60 of 68)  
 
  63.60 in reply to 63.59  
 
Dear Al, 
What did Constantine have to do with the Catholic Church? Don't you know that he was unbaptizeds until his death bed then he was baptized by an Arian Bishop? Constantine was never a Christian in that he would have had to have been baptized by a Christian? Arians did not believe that Jesus was God, or at best a "lesser God". 

Here's also a big surprise. nothing changed at Vatican II. It only wanted the church to be more involved with interacting (evangilizing) the world. The Church had become very isolated and needed a direction in which to go and evangilize the world. 

Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/12/2001 1:37 pm  
To:  Corkybob   (61 of 68)  
 
  63.61 in reply to 63.58  
 
What about the new Catechism(sp)?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   7/13/2001 12:56 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (62 of 68)  
 
  63.62 in reply to 63.61  
 
Dear ), 
The "New Catachism" and the Baltimore Catachism (the American catachism of Trent) You will find that they teach the same thing, only the "New" is brought up to date. One could use the Baltimore Catachiism now and teach authentic Catholicism. they both teach the trinity, the Pope as the sucessor to Peter, the head of the Church. Both teach the real presence in the Holy Eucharist, and both teach that salvation can ony come from through the Catholic Church. What is differant is that the "New" better explains things such as salvation being through the Catholic Church means that its through its teachings and not through membership of such where as the Baltimore Catachism was more of memerizing the differant doctrines and dogmas that make up the Catholic Church. So one could say that the "New Catachism" is a theological refernce book that explains in theological terms where the Baltimore Catachim is a memorizatioon book that asks questions and gives answers. 

Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  bbqdrooster   7/13/2001 4:40 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (63 of 68)  
 
  63.63 in reply to 63.1  
 
To say that the human spirit existed before physical birth causes you to sound like Scientologist or Mormons. Everything is naked and open before him with whom we have to do. Nothing is hidden from God. Adams spirit did not exist until God breathed into his nostrils according to Genesis. If the human spirit exists before physical life takes place, where does it exist? Is it possible for the spirit to come into being at a moment in time as does the physical life? 
Just a few thoughts. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/13/2001 6:29 pm  
To:  Corkybob   (64 of 68)  
 
  63.64 in reply to 63.60  
 
<<nothing changed at Vatican II>> 
WOW! Even the catholics admit there was a lot of change in Vatican II! For one, they stopped accepting money to get out of purgatory faster, they changed the bible from only being allowed to be in latin, to being in any language of the people (The same goes for sermons that were in latin only until the ealy 20th century).. 

I don't even need to mention the Madonna cult of spain that was accepted and started the 'virgin mother worship' this is where the prayer, Hail Mary comes from. 

<What did Constantine have to do with the Catholic Church? Don't you know that he was unbaptizeds until his death bed then he was baptized by an Arian Bishop? Constantine was never a Christian in that he would have had to have been baptized by a Christian? Arians did not believe that Jesus was God, or at best a "lesser God".> 

What happened at Byzanthanium? Funny, he named it Constantanople... something about a dream... crosses? The Hebrew God? 

Al Kupone 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/13/2001 6:46 pm  
To:  bbqdrooster   (65 of 68)  
 
  63.65 in reply to 63.63  
 
Hi, 
Thanks for insisting that I clarify my position. 

I should have been more careful on my wording. I realized after I posted it that some would then want to claim, spirit existence without a body. I think they happened simultaneously at conception. 

Genesis 2:7 
Adam "and man became a living Soul" Adam being the first of creation is unique. Notice God did not breath a soul & spirit into the woman when He formed her out of the side of Adam. 

2 Corinthians 5:1-10 
Also the Bible says that the spirit desires to be clothed that is dwell in a body. It is not natural to have a spirit w/o a body. 

When a Christian physically dies we will Immediately go into the presance of God and we will Immediately receive a New Spiritual body. A body that is similar to the resurrection body of Jesus, so we will always have a body. 

The non-Christian will not get a new body and they will remain forever unclothed in an unnatural condition. 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   7/13/2001 11:59 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (66 of 68)  
 
  63.66 in reply to 63.64  
 
Dear Al, 
Indulgences are still valid. Money is but one way. Prayer and fasting are another. The point to indulgences is sacrifice ones comfort for the reperations of sin by the world. It sounds as if you think Catholics think that all must go to purgatory first. Couldn't be farther from the truth, although I dare say the majority of saved may indeed go to purgatory for a while. Also once in Purgatory one gets out eventually to go to heaven, they are but "cleansed by fire" according to 1 Cor 3. All prayer does is help them along the way. 

As far as Latin, not all Catholic Churches said latin. The Eastern Catholic Church never said Mass (they call it litergy) in Latin but in mostly Greek, and in some cases their own language. More, the Roman Rite started out saying it in Latin (49 AD - circa 100 AD), then said mass in Greek until 384 AD where they went back to Latin until 1968. Vatican II only allowed those bishops if they wanted to, to have their litergy in the vulgar (common) language. These were not changes of theology but of disapline. 

My understanding was that the sermon was always in the vulgar. I may be wrong but still, regaurdless, this is not a change in theology. 

Actually the Madonna cult was put down by the Catholic Church. The Hail Mary did not come from it, but from Luke 1 for the first half, and a plea to pray for use sinners for the last half. Here may be a blow to you, Gods or Goddessess do not pray. To pray before God is humbling ones self. A God or Goddess would not do this. Catholics do not pray to the Saints as in adoration, but using the term Prayer in the old definition, to ask. Catholics ask their brothers that are united with the Lord to ask the Lord. 

You have your history crossed. Constantine had a dream of a vitory if he displayed the sign of the Christians while he did battle. His mother was already a Christian, St Helena. The sign of the Christians in this case was Phi Chi, the X imposed on the P. His being baptised an Arian may have been a way in which the two sects would not fight. Both he and his mother asked the church to keep the peace between both beliefs. He had become Empiror for a few years, then he moved the empire to Byzanthanium renaming it Constantinople. This is where the Greek Patriarch resided and here is where the Greek Patriarch apostisized to Arianism. I really do not think that Constantine knew the differance between the 2 sects nor do I think he really cared. 

Pax 
John 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
Message 67 of 68 was Deleted 

From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/20/2001 10:05 am  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
From: The Pro-Life Infonet www.prolifeinfo.org 
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org 
Subject: Wesley Smith on When Life *Really* Begins 
Source: National Review; July 19, 2001 
A Post-Modern Cell: When life begins. 
By Wesley J. Smith 

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Attorney and consumer advocate Wesley J. Smith is 
the author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in 
America." You can purchase his books online in the books section of 
www.roevwade.org 

I oppose federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR). As I have 
argued repeatedly on NRO and in many other venues, federally funding ESCR 
is wrong because it would give the imprimatur of the people of the United 
States to treating human life as a mere natural resource, a crop, ripe for 
the harvest As I see it, once human embryos are viewed as being akin to a 
corn field, such stark utilitarianism will spread like a cancer to other 
areas of human medical concern. 

I have also noted that we are not faced with the stark choice of either 
destroying embryos for their cells or turning our backs on medical 
advances. Happily, it appears that alternative sources of stem cells offer 
at least equivalent potential to embryonic cells. Yes, embryonic stem 
cells may be more flexible, that is, easy to turn into any human tissue, 
but at least one published study has found that stem cells from bone 
marrow may provide equivalent potential for transformation. Yes, embryonic 
stem cells seem more active, but that may actually make them less 
desirable for use in human medical therapy since this aspect of their 
biology may be impossible to control and could lead to embryonic stem cell 
therapy causing tumors. Moreover, alternatives are already healing some 
human illnesses. For example, stem cells from umbilical cord blood have 
restored the immune systems of children whose cancer had previously 
destroyed their abilities to fight infection and disease. Indeed, it is a 
political triumph that opponents of ESCR have been able to transform the 
paradigm of the debate from one in which adult/alternative stem cells were 
damned with very faint praise to the point where a just published National 
Institutes of Health study proclaims their awesome potential. 

Unfortunately, these crucial issues, which should be the bases of deciding 
whether or not to federally fund ESCR, have been all but subsumed in the 
politics of abortion. This is truly disheartening. ESCR has absolutely 
nothing to do with abortion. Whatever one thinks of Roe v. Wade, the 
reason the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion was to 
prevent women from being forced by law to use their bodies to gestate and 
give birth. But stem-cell research does not involve a pregnant woman being 
required by law to do anything. Thus the issue should be irrelevant. That 
is one reason why the United Methodist Church, which institutionally 
supports abortion rights, has just issued a proclamation urging President 
Bush's to continue the current suspension of federal funding for ESCR. 

Of course, logic and politics rarely inhabit the same space. The reality 
is that abortion touches almost every important issue this country has 
faces. It was at the heart of the impeachment imbroglio. It impacts 
foreign policy. It is certainly the crucial lynchpin in the appointment 
and confirmation of federal judges. It is thus hardly surprising that 
abortion politics has become symbiotically intertwined with the decision 
whether to federally fund embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). 

The immersion of abortion into the politics of ESCR has not proved 
beneficial to the pro-life movement. Whatever one thinks of their cause, 
it is clear that the power and momentum of the movement -- which remains 
vital despite media and legislative hostility -- is founded upon the 
fervent belief that human life begins at the point of conception and that 
all humans possess a right to life from that point through natural death. 
But now, several pro-life senators have abandoned this foundational 
principle. Senators Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) and Gordon Smith (R., Ore.), 
recently opined that life begins in a mother's womb, not a Petri dish or 
refrigerator. 

When I first heard the Hatch/Smith argument, I almost laughed out loud. 
While such sentiments might reflect the senators' deeply held metaphysical 
concepts, they surely are not biologically sound. After all, a blastocyst 
(a one-week gestational embryo) is a blastocyst, is blastocyst. If we were 
somehow able to take a one that had been fertilized within it's mother's 
body and place it next to a lab-fertilized blastocyst, there would be no 
biological difference between them. Both would reflect the same state of 
human life, as it exists after one week of embryonic development. 

I am laughing no longer. I have appeared recently on several talk-radio 
shows to express my opposition to federal funding of ESCR. I certainly 
expected a good give and take from those who support ESCR about the 
empirical and ethical issues involved in the debate. What I was not 
expecting was for listeners who fervently claimed they oppose abortion to 
declare, in their next breath, support for federal funding because, as one 
caller put it, "the soul does not enter the body unless it is in the 
mother's womb." Another caller expressed an even more surprising view. "I 
oppose abortion but God would not have permitted these embryos to be made 
unless he wanted them used for medical research." In other words, these 
callers believe that destroying an embryo at one week in woman's womb is 
the moral equivalent of murder. But take the same embryo and destroy it in 
a Petri dish and they proclaim themselves -- and God -- unconcerned. 

How does one argue with such perspectives? In such a milieu, biological 
facts are meaningless. The pros and cons of the different types of cell 
research are irrelevant. The potential for alternatives to ESCR to provide 
medical breakthroughs don't matter. The very real potential that embryonic 
research leads directly to cloning -- even the biotech industry says so -- 
makes not a dent. 

I am not sure what to make of all of this. But it seems to me that 
whatever side one is on in the great stem-cell debate, we should all be 
concerned that when prominent United States senators proclaim with a 
straight face that human life does not begin in a Petri dish but only in a 
womb and the argument works, post modernism has triumphed. If we don't 
like the scientific facts, we simply create our own narratives. In such a 
milieu, anything is justifiable. 

-- 
You can help the Pro-Life Infonet with a donation to: Women and Children 
First, PO Box 4433, Helena, MT 59604-4433. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
