alabuck Loc: Tennessee

For those of you who want to bring God into your sanctimonious circle jerk about abortion, let me enlighten you to exactly what God’s Word says regarding when it’s acceptable to cause an abortion.

Numbers 5:11-29 New International Version (NIV)

“11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

“16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

“23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

“29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband,”
*************

Now, I ask you: where in this passage of GOD’S WORD are the feelings of the wife taken into account? No one even asks her whether or not she’s guilty or innocent. No one asks the husband why he feels she’s been unfaithful. His jealousy, alone, can be proof enough to bring his wife up on charges of infidelity.

Even if she is found guilty and the poison has caused her belly to swell and the baby to be aborted, where is the logic you “Christians” claim that abortion is “murder” and disallowed by God, Himself? In fact, God claims that this is the right and proper thing to do, toward punishing the wife for being unfaithful.

Where is God’s “love” here, for the innocent and unborn baby, you all so sanctimoniously claim to defend? Where is the example of God you’re claiming to follow? I’m not seeing the first example of it here.

Then, to follow suit, once the child is born, where is your “Christian love and charity” when it comes to helping the child grow and be nurtured? You’re too busy, by then, to be bothered. Plus, you’re not willing to give any monies toward helping the child, either. Why not? Aren’t we tasked, by Jesus, with helping the poor and needy? Aren’t we told by Him to sell all we have and give it to the poor?

You bunch of self-centered hypocrites! You speak about God’s Word, yet have no clue as to what it is or how to live it, yourselves. May God have mercy on your souls! You’ll need every bit He gives you, plus some more.

For those of you who say we are a “Christian nation” and should enforce “God’s laws as our own,” given this “test of an unfaithful woman” are you still certain you’d want to live under a Christian theocracy? Are you and your family members so pure of heart and deed that you don’t fear your own “testing?” You detest Islam and Sharia Law, yet you haven’t read your own Bibles to know the punishments that await those who sin against God, their parents, their rulers, and the priests.

You better pull the logs from your own eyes before you tell others about the splinters in theirs.
BTW, I’m a minister of the Gospel. I just happen to know that God’s grace, forgiveness, love and charity are more important to my salvation than condemning others whose plights you know nothing of, yet judge against.

ExperienceCounts

If you completely read my post, you wouldn't be asking such a question. Why did you take the quote out of context? Why would you consider raising, nurturing and supporting a child you helped create a "punishment for breaking "God's law?" I never implied or said any such thing. Don't you think a child has needs? Foods, housing, health care, emotional support, clothing, toys, etc. Who should provided same except the person(s) who created the child?

I said and I quote, "Secondly, if you play, you should pay. Raise, nurture and support that child. Need a national database with both parents contributing child support. Seeing way too many grandparents raising grandchildren with no parental support payments."

When one has a child, one should contribute for its financial support especially if other family members are housing and giving the emotional nurturing the parent is seemingly incapable of giving. While that child is genetically related to said persons, they did not create the child, the absent parent(s) did. While many family members gladly sacrifice to help other family members, said family members may be on a fixed income and not really be able to afford all the things the child might need. In conclusion, the parent(s) should be financially responsible.

Only if a parent has given up parental rights should the necessity for child support be absolved.

Even parents contributing financial support can abandon their children both emotionally and physically. They distance themselves and don't even avail themselves of their chances to interact with their children. The children are the ones who suffer emotionally from this abandonment.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Roe v Wade is a SCOTUS ruling, it was not legislated through congress and signed into law by the president, nor was the ruling based on an existing statute or law. A SCOTUS ruling can be overturned in three ways. If the ruling was based on an existing statute or law, congress can either restructure or eliminate it altogether. A constitutional amendment can overturn a SCOTUS ruling, and finally, the SCOTUS can overrule its own rulings.

Is George Foxtrot Yankee too big a word for ya, pinhead?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You are posturing, bubba. Your attempt is based entirely on the Old Testament Mosaic laws that down through time were reduced to just 11. Then came Jesus.

Think not that I come to abolish the law and the prophets, I come not to abolish, but to fulfill.

There is no mention of abortion in the New Testament. Jesus in fact revered children.

Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.
Mark 10: 14-16

bahmer

Amen and Amen

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

alabuck: Have you checked your on eyes lately?

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Your post is accurate.
And the leftist/proggies are worried about the NRA....

boofhead

What an out-of-context, out-of-date and evil post. A priest supporting abortion? The quotes are for a specific condition that at the time was an acceptable reason to break the Do Not Kill commandment. I saw nothing in there to support abortion on demand or the use of MY MONEY to pay for it. Abortion is murder. Maybe at times justified but not for convenience.

Mankind is spinning around the drain.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

———————-

Well, well. Blade, it looks like we get to bump heads again.

One of the tenemos of Christianity is that the Old Testament is just as valid as the New Testament; that BOTH are valid and considered to be God’s INSPIRED WORD. One cannot take the New Testsment and say it is more in line with modern Christianity than the Old Testament.

You quoted Christ as saying, “Think not that I come to abolish the law and the prophets, I come not to abolish, but to fulfill.” In that, He’s saying the Old Testament has NOT lost its place in God’s Word. As such, the “Test of an unfaithful wife” still holds sway in God’s laws.

As such, just because abortion isn’t mentioned in the New Testament doesn’t mean it’s validity is lost to us, today. God uses the “test” to say that if a woman becomes pregnant by a man, other than her husband, His (God’s) law states that the unborn child must die, or aborted, by her drinking the potion made by the priest.

My point was to show people that there IS Biblical validity to abortion, since so many think that abortion is un-Biblical. Well, it’s not! It’s VERY Biblical, as I’ve pointed out. Now, it may go against what so many preachers are saying and want people are believing because their preachers are saying it, but, what they’re saying is wrong. I’ve just proved it.

If you think that this passage isn’t valid in today’s world. You’re just “cherry-picking” to support your own point of view. This passage gets little to no mention within the church, today, because it goes against the “political” viewpoints of the church. There’s no way they can say abortion is bad as long as God is seen to sanction it in any way, shape or form, as quoted in God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible. Or, if you’re a Biblical literalist, God’s own and perfect Word.

Again, I’ve just shown you where abortion IS part of God’s Word and even demanded to be done. Whether or not you want to argue against the passage as being valid, you’ll have to take that up with God, Himself. Those are His Words, not mine.

Personally, I don’t believe abortion should be used as a means of birth control. I do believe that it is okay if the life of the mother is in danger. It could also be used if the child was found to have a devastating deformity they would not allow it to live even a quasi-normal life. I feel I t’s okay to have an abortion in cases of rape and/or incest, too.

But, in any case, as I’m not a woman, I don’t feel I can dictate to any woman how she must use her body. If a woman becomes pregnant and didn’t want to, she should be given any option she wants, within the first trimester, to decide what she wants to do. Beyond that time, I’d encourage her to carry the baby to full term, give birth and, then, give the baby up,for adoption, should she not change her mind and decide to raise the child, herself.

We’re never going to stop people from having sex. We’re never going to stop women from getting pregnant who don’t have access to birth control. Forcing women to become “incubators” for kids they nor the “father” want is silly, too. The child will be neglected and other horrible things could happen to it. In any case, it becomes a burden on society most conservatives say they don’t want to deal with, either. So, the kid looses, any way it turns. Had the mother been allowed to abort the child, that would save the conservatives a lot more money down the road by not having to pay to raise, then, most likely, incarcerate the kid, once it become older.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

————-

ld, is that all you can respond with, personal insults? How about responding with facts you can prove?

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Here are some facts that you cannot disprove.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

alabuck: All your puking is theory! You wouldn't know fact if it hit you in the ass! Libs are into strictly agenda!....Truth has no agenda! All the left can to is pump out half-truths! Is the attached article theory or truth?

Contrary to liberal beliefs, entitlement programs were not invented by FDR during the Great Depression. Their true origin is so ancient that historians argue about when they were first enacted by a government in power. What isn’t in question is whether or not the programs ever worked.

One of the earliest accounts of widespread entitlement dates back to ancient Athens. The city state was one of the first places to ever incorporate democracy into their government, and the rule of the masses eventually ran into problems.

As the state grew wealthier and more powerful, the populous demanded more from their government. Called ochlos, the masses called for redistribution of wealth, higher taxes on the wealthy and government-funded programs to provide food to all. This seems too eerily familiar to be real, yet it is well-documented history.

It is, in fact, the dangers of the ochlos that made the founding fathers of America so afraid of true democratic rule. There are more defenses built into our government structure against democracy than monarchy or dictatorship.

Athens was one of the earliest examples, but it wasn’t the most prolific. The original Roman republic was established specifically to counteract the mob rule of liberal Greeks. Their reluctance to engage in entitlement programs was the source of their strength and enabled their long reign, but there were several points in Roman history that saw entitlement lead to catastrophe.

One of the most famous examples was during the reign of Commodus. His history is loosely adapted in the film Gladiator, but it misses the finer points. Commodus used games and handouts to win the heart of the Roman mob. His entitlement programs led to growing demand for more, and it culminated in several governors being overthrown in revolt and the assassination of Commodus himself.

While Rome did recover from Commodus’ failures, the dangers of liberal ideology returned like a plague. When Rome finally fell, it was because the coffers had been bankrupted through entitlement programs designed to appease an insatiable mob. Without the funds to maintain the military, Rome was easy pickings for the Goths, Barbarians and Huns.

Entitlements are not the entirety of failed liberal ideology. In fact, many historians attribute the fall of Rome to moral decay. While the entitlement programs had a direct impact on Rome’s military potency, it is the underlying philosophy of liberalism that lends itself to such damaging policy. We often complain that the left is morally bankrupt today, but history shows that modern liberals are not revolutionary thinkers. They are following an ancient tradition.

Once again, we can look at ancient Greece as an example. The demand for redistribution of wealth is what undermined Athenian dominance during the peak of the Hellenic period. Politicians became so embattled with internal strife that they were unable to amass a resistance to the Macedonians. In fact, the Macedonians had large stakes in Athenian politics long before they invaded. When it came to the decisive battles, the Athenians barely participated. Once conquered by Macedonia, Athens was never free again.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia