What is a person?

[Hugh B]

Here is an interesting discussion. What is a person? When did you become a person?

I will leave that question open to those who want to give an opinion and chime in later if there is interest. This question is actually very important and has vast implications.

[air2spare]

It depends on what your definition of "is", is....





dude, you're a freak

[cehs]

I became who I am when my fathers sperm and my mothers egg formed a FERTILIZED EGG.
That is when I began to grow and take in food.
Ever since I have been growing and changing....
.

[Hugh B]

It depends on what your definition of "is", is....





dude, you're a freak

I may be a freak but that is not the topic of this post. :)

Actually, this question has both practical and philosophic implications that are very important. How one answers this question makes a very important basis for one's world view.

For example. In Hitler's germany jews were not considered persons. Not human persons.

[corny]

person is a legal term.....for one thing....

When your daddys sperm hit your mommys egg......the combo became a human being....

When someone put their john hancock, giggidy, on your birth certificate you became a person. At least thats how it is in the US of A.

[Hugh B]

person is a legal term.....for one thing....

When your daddys sperm hit your mommys egg......the combo became a human being....

When someone put their john hancock, giggidy, on your birth certificate you became a person. At least thats how it is in the US of A.

In that case taking the life of an innocent unborn human being, a person can be legal but immoral. Therefore murder can be legal yet is immoral. That makes the law an immoral law.

[printer2]

In that case taking the life of an innocent unborn human being, a person can be legal but immoral. Therefore murder can be legal yet is immoral. That makes the law an immoral law.

But who decides what is moral and what is not?

[voodoo]

you are talking about abortions i take it? Is that the point of what is a person?

[Hugh B]

But who decides what is moral and what is not?


Oh what an excellent question! That is yet another topic for discussion! You tell me how you determine what is moral.

Is murder a moral act? On what basis do we decide that killing someone is immoral? Who says?

[Hugh B]

you are talking about abortions i take it? Is that the point of what is a person?

If the unborn is not a living human person then it seems that taking its life is not an issue. However, if the unborn is a living human person then it seems reasonable to conclude that taking its life is an immoral act and ought to be illegal.

So, the definition of a person becomes pretty important. If you don't know what it is that you are killing then you had better not kill it.

[printer2]

Oh what an excellent question! That is yet another topic for discussion! You tell me how you determine what is moral.

Is murder a moral act? On what basis do we decide that killing someone is immoral? Who says?

If your God asks you to murder someone is it a moral act?

[Hugh B]

If your God asks you to murder someone is it a moral act?


The question is irrevelent since he has not given me such an order or request. What does this have to do with abortion?

[printer2]

The question is irrevelent since he has not given me such an order or request. What does this have to do with abortion?

From some opinions morality comes from God. Since some people's god calls them to murder people there might be some parallel between the two.

[Hugh B]

From some opinions morality comes from God. Since some people's god calls them to murder people there might be some parallel between the two.

I have no idea what your point is here. I posed the question, what is a person, when does a human become a human person. Since we all seem to agree that taking the life of an innocent human person is wrong then if the unborn is an innocent human person it is reasonable to take the positon that abortion is immoral.

If the unborn is not an actual living human person than taking its life is not an issue.

I have no idea how your comment fits the current discussion.

[voodoo]

:deadhorse:

[Hugh B]

From some opinions morality comes from God. Since some people's god calls them to murder people there might be some parallel between the two.

Again, I ask what this has to do with abortion?

[Hugh B]

:deadhorse:

This issue is not a dead horse. This is a current issue. Our government is considering using my tax dollars to pay for something I consider immoral.

[Hugh B]

Once we determine what constitutes a person, a human being then we know when human life begins. Since we seems to agree that taking the life of an innocent human being is wrong then we know when it is immoral to kill that life.

This question was never addressed by the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade. Therefore, the moral issue was never addressed regardless of what the law currently says.

[voodoo]

I think the war in Iraq was immoral... My tax money is long gone!

[Hugh B]

I htink the war in Iraq was immoral..Give back my $$


We both have the right to protest, speak our minds, petition our government and post such issues in places such as this one in an effort to change minds and make our opinons known.

Change starts with people speaking our minds in a free society. The tea parties are an example, the anti war protests another and anti abortion protests yet another.

American blood has been shed for this right to free expression of opinon. This right to free speech is a very important right not won nor maintained easily.

Calling any such issue a dead horse is an effront to free speech and the blood shed for that very freedom.

[voodoo]

What in your mind woiuld it be o.k. to get one? Never ? Rape and such? More to it than the person angle.

[Hugh B]

What in your mind woiuld it be o.k. to get one? Never ? Rape and such? More to it than the person angle.

Why would we take the life of the unborn child because of the crime of her father? Murder the unborn child because the child's father is a rapist? Does that make sense?

[geerair]

Here is an interesting discussion. What is a person? When did you become a person?

I will leave that question open to those who want to give an opinion and chime in later if there is interest. This question is actually very important and has vast implications.Another homework assignment for your continuing ed philosophy class?

[geerair]

Why would we take the life of the unborn child because of the crime of her father? Murder the unborn child because the child's father is a rapist? Does that make sense?Because we value the mental and physical health of a victim over that over a few undifferentiated cells.

[geerair]

From some opinions morality comes from God. Since some people's god calls them to murder people there might be some parallel between the two.All things come from Hugh's version of god. This would be the same god who ordered the massacre of men, women, children, innocent babies and animals. The same god who destroyed all life, save a few, including innocent babies, born amd unborn. The same god who condoned slavery.

This is the authority from whom Hugh dervies his sense of morality.

[geerair]

Here is an interesting discussion. What is a person? When did you become a person?

I will leave that question open to those who want to give an opinion and chime in later if there is interest. This question is actually very important and has vast implications.We are much more interested in your definition of a person. So far you have given little but a vague interpretation tailored to assist your standard abortion rant.

[bootlen]

I think the war in Iraq was immoral... My tax money is long gone!

You mean as opposed to a moral war?

[acmanko]

one definition


a grammatical category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms according to whether they indicate the speaker, the addressee, or a third party; "stop talking about yourself in the third person"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[coolwhip]

All things come from Hugh's version of god. This would be the same god who ordered the massacre of men, women, children, innocent babies and animals. The same god who destroyed all life, save a few, including innocent babies, born amd unborn. The same god who condoned slavery.

This is the authority from whom Hugh dervies his sense of morality.

And the same God that always needs money for some damn reason or another! All wise, all powerful, all knowing.....but he just cant handle money.:eek2:

[RoBoTeq]

We become a person after living at least 18 years and registering Republican.

[acmanko]

We become a person after living at least 18 years and registering Republican.

which means you are no different than a registered Democrat or a registered or a registered Communist

[acmanko]

I think the war in Iraq was immoral... My tax money is long gone!

there never was a war in Iraq, the fighting in Iraq was and still is an Executive decision. Congress has not approved a declaration of war since 1942

[coolwhip]

Morality is based on a consideration of circumstances, not principles.

[RoBoTeq]

which means you are no different than a registered Democrat or a registered or a registered Communist
I'm sorry, but I cannot discuss this with a non-person.

[acmanko]

I'm sorry, but I cannot discuss this with a non-person.

You don't have to apologize for any short comings you may have.

But when one registers for the ideals of a particular political party, they are no different from members of other political parties

[Hugh B]

I did not bring God or religion into this discussion and I can defend my anti abortion position without appealing to God or religion. My position is based upon science and common sense.

Taking the life of an innocent human being born or unborn is morally wrong. If the unborn is actually an innocent human person then taking its life is unjustified under any circumstances.

I claim that the unborn is innocent, human and a real person!

This is hardly a rant when millions of lives have been lost to abortion and our government may be using my taxes to do so.

[Hugh B]

Morality is based on a consideration of circumstances, not principles.

Really? That is a good topic for yet another post. Why not begin another one? I totally disagree with you.

[Hugh B]

We are much more interested in your definition of a person. So far you have given little but a vague interpretation tailored to assist your standard abortion rant.

Ok, a person is a living human being, born or unborn and begins to exist at conception. All humans are persons.

[netsalt]

Our activist Supreme Court has ruled a corporation has the same free speech right as a human so the legal definition of a person appears to be rather broad.

[timebuilder]

This is how God puts it, in Jeremiah, 1:5:

5 “ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”


So, you are a person that God created before your conception, and therefore, AT conception.

[RoBoTeq]

This is how God puts it, in Jeremiah, 1:5:

5 “ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”


So, you are a person that God created before your conception, and therefore, AT conception.
In context, this is God speaking to and of Jerimiah specifically. There is nothing indicating that God is saying anything about the general issue of when we are considered to be living persons. Not even the ancient Jews beleived that the soul entered the fetus until a few months after conception.

More passages about this in scripture would be in Genesis with the forming of Adam the man. Adam was fully formed before God breathed life, and presumably a soul, into Adam. In Zechariah it is stated that God "forms the spirit of man within him", indicating again that man is fully formed before the spirit enters the body.

Before our spirit has entered our bodies, we are but another species of animal. Yes, our bodies are alive, but are we yet a person? Many believe that, according to the Genesis 2 accounting of Adam, we become spiritually a person when we take our first breath outside of the womb as Adam's first breath as a fully formed man was given to him by God.

[daytonafan]

Not real sure about this one. As far as I can tell we become human beings when Geer's science book says we are. It's just a few chapters behind his latest findings on glacial demise.

[Hugh B]

Our activist Supreme Court has ruled a corporation has the same free speech right as a human so the legal definition of a person appears to be rather broad.

This is not about what the law claims, this is about what can be evidenced from science as well as sound reasoning from basic logic.

I believe I can prove that the unborn is a human person from the moment of conception. If I am right then taking the life of the unborn human person is an immoral act regardless of the current law.

[acmanko]

This is not about what the law claims, this is about what can be evidenced from science as well as sound reasoning from basic logic.

I believe I can prove that the unborn is a human person from the moment of conception. If I am right then taking the life of the unborn human person is an immoral act regardless of the current law.

your stance would be fortified if you used the word preborn instead of unborn.

preborn human life begins at conception, the moment two distinct individual cells become one.

Unborn sounds like some hellion from the undead

[air2spare]

I'm just waiting to see how all this rhetoric concludes

:munching:

[RoBoTeq]

I may have misunderstood the question. I actually answered "when" is a person rather then "what" is a person.

I would say that a person is a human with a soul. I cannot think of how a human could be without a soul, unless a souless person would be someone who evil has completely destroyed what we refer to as a soul. Then again, maybe soul's can be evil. Ahhh, more points to ponder.

[sline-dawg]

I believe I can prove that the unborn is a human person from the moment of conception. If I am right then taking the life of the unborn human person is an immoral act regardless of the current law.



I know you love to hear yourself type, but you need to convince the Justices.....Not your HVAC acquaintances... I believe the first Monday in October....every year..... sign up early...

[Hugh B]

I know you love to hear yourself type, but you need to convince the Justices.....Not your HVAC acquaintances... I believe the first Monday in October....every year..... sign up early...

Others seem to be interested in this topic. If you are bored with the topic you can choose not to respond.

[timebuilder]

In context, this is God speaking to and of Jerimiah specifically. There is nothing indicating that God is saying anything about the general issue of when we are considered to be living persons. Not even the ancient Jews beleived that the soul entered the fetus until a few months after conception.

More passages about this in scripture would be in Genesis with the forming of Adam the man. Adam was fully formed before God breathed life, and presumably a soul, into Adam. In Zechariah it is stated that God "forms the spirit of man within him", indicating again that man is fully formed before the spirit enters the body.

Before our spirit has entered our bodies, we are but another species of animal. Yes, our bodies are alive, but are we yet a person? Many believe that, according to the Genesis 2 accounting of Adam, we become spiritually a person when we take our first breath outside of the womb as Adam's first breath as a fully formed man was given to him by God.

The simple answer is that if He knew Jeremiah, He knew you and me, too. Jeremiah being a prophet did not imply that only Jeremiah was known by God before being formed in the womb.

Adam was never a baby, so since he was formed as an adult, he could not have received his spirit sooner. We are alive long before we are adults. Since God can know one of us before we are formed in the womb, it is therefore "likely" that He can know ALL of us before we are formed.
The passage in Zechariah does not imply at all that the man is fully formed.

[sline-dawg]

Others seem to be interested in this topic. If you are bored with the topic you can choose not to respond.



So this whole spiel is to make you feel morally superior..... Not trying to change any laws....


I, personally, find your obsession with my daughters reproductive rights kinda creepy.... I'm sure we can manage without your input.

[Hugh B]

So this whole spiel is to make you feel morally superior..... Not trying to change any laws....


I, personally, find your obsession with my daughters reproductive rights kinda creepy.... I'm sure we can manage without your input.

You are making an assumption about me and you are wrong. If the unborn is actually a living human being unable to defend herself then it is the responsibility of those who can speak up on the behalf of those who are unable to defend themselves to do so. Pretty simple.

Perhaps others reading these posts will start to think differently when they read the position of those who have given this issue more thought. Some here actually have not heard the reasoned position from science and logic without resorting to religion.

[acmanko]

You are making an assumption about me and you are wrong. If the unborn is actually a living human being unable to defend herself then it is the responsibility of those who can speak up on the behalf of those who are unable to defend themselves to do so. Pretty simple.

Perhaps others reading these posts will start to think differently when they read the position of those who have given this issue more thought. Some here actually have not heard the reasoned position from science and logic without resorting to religion.

Oh good grief, thousand of born children die daily from lack of clean water, food and overall putrid living conditions. Theirs would be a cause to champion.

[timebuilder]

So this whole spiel is to make you feel morally superior..... Not trying to change any laws....


I, personally, find your obsession with my daughters reproductive rights kinda creepy.... I'm sure we can manage without your input.

I, for one, am more concerned about the rights of your yet to be born grandchildren.

Aren't you?

Oh, and do you need a law in order to lead your family to a moral life?

[Hugh B]

Oh good grief, thousand of born children die daily from lack of clean water, food and overall putrid living conditions. Theirs would be a cause to champion.

I am interested in that cause as well. I guess this particular topic makes you uncomfortable.

[Hugh B]

The key question regarding abortion is What is the unborn?

The most common objections to the prolife position are as follows;

1) Women have the right to privacy with their doctors. The facts are that we all have a right to a measure of privacy within limits. No privacy argument allows us to do harm to another innocent human being. The law regularly invades or privacy when another human being’s welfare is at stake. Privacy is not the issue in abortion. The real issue is what is the unborn? If it is another human being then it is no longer just the mother’s health but another living person.

2) But women should have the right to choose. No one has unrestricted freedom to choose. The freedom depends upon what kind of choice one has in mind. Choice is not the real issue, but rather whether a choice harms another human being or not.


3) Women shouldn’t have to continue a pregnancy that is the result of a rape. Carrying a child when the pregnancy was the result of rape can be emotionally devastating. But why should the child pay with his own life for the father’s crime? Would we allow the woman to execute the rapist because of the emotional relief it gives her? If not, why should she be allowed to execute her innocent child for the same reason?
So again, the real question is what is the unborn? If the unborn is not a human person then do whatever you want. But, if the unborn is an actual human person then killing him is just not right. We just don’t go around killing people because they are unwanted, inconvenient or an economic hardship. Unless we don’t value life.

[timebuilder]

The key question regarding abortion is What is the unborn?

The most common objections to the prolife position are as follows;

1) Women have the right to privacy with their doctors. The facts are that we all have a right to a measure of privacy within limits. No privacy argument allows us to do harm to another innocent human being. The law regularly invades or privacy when another human being’s welfare is at stake. Privacy is not the issue in abortion. The real issue is what is the unborn? If it is another human being then it is no longer just the mother’s health but another living person.

2) But women should have the right to choose. No one has unrestricted freedom to choose. The freedom depends upon what kind of choice one has in mind. Choice is not the real issue, but rather whether a choice harms another human being or not.


3) Women shouldn’t have to continue a pregnancy that is the result of a rape. Carrying a child when the pregnancy was the result of rape can be emotionally devastating. But why should the child pay with his own life for the father’s crime? Would we allow the woman to execute the rapist because of the emotional relief it gives her? If not, why should she be allowed to execute her innocent child for the same reason?
So again, the real question is what is the unborn? If the unborn is not a human person then do whatever you want. But, if the unborn is an actual human person then killing him is just not right. We just don’t go around killing people because they are unwanted, inconvenient or an economic hardship. Unless we don’t value life.

Conspicuously absent is the right of the baby to not be aborted. They are the silent victims. So far, a holocaust of over 30 million since the 1970's.

[Hugh B]

Conspicuously absent is the right of the baby to not be aborted. They are the silent victims. So far, a holocaust of over 30 million since the 1970's.


Absolutely right! And it is interesting that I get castigated for bringing this issue to ARP. Someone needs to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Reagan made the remark that he found it interesting that those who favor choice are already born. I ask those who are alive if they were given the choice to not exist what would they choose?

[timebuilder]

Absolutely right! And it is interesting that I get castigated for bringing this issue to ARP. Someone needs to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Reagan made the remark that he found it interesting that those who favor choice are already born. I ask those who are alive if they were given the choice to not exist what would they choose?

In fact, the only ones having a discussion are those who were not aborted.

I think that makes abortion the ultimate dictatorship.

[Hugh B]

In fact, the only ones having a discussion are those who were not aborted.

I think that makes abortion the ultimate dictatorship.

It is also interesting that some here are more interested in discovering my motive than discussing the issue itself.

[sline-dawg]

I think it comes down to a quality of life decision.
Would a life of poverty and starvation in a public housing project, with a single parent who would sell you for a crack pipe bowl really be living?
I guess being John Edwards illegitimate offspring might be a different scenario.:couch:




Who will pay for the education and clothing of these unwanted masses? They must be cared for in order to survive.True..?

[RoBoTeq]

The simple answer is that if He knew Jeremiah, He knew you and me, too. Jeremiah being a prophet did not imply that only Jeremiah was known by God before being formed in the womb.I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but scripture alone does not imply what you believe about Jeremiah. Scripture implicitly states that this is God speaking one on one to Jeremiah in a personal context.


Adam was never a baby, so since he was formed as an adult, he could not have received his spirit sooner.True, at least about Adam, who was not created. What about those of mankind that God created in Genesis 1? Were they, male or female, ever babies? The Bible does not say. Genesis 1 simply states that mankind was created, both male and female. Even if these created persons were created as babies, their soul would not have entered them while they were in the womb. This would indicate as with Adam, that the spirit of God, out souls, is not in us until after we are out of the womb.
We are alive long before we are adults. Since God can know one of us before we are formed in the womb, it is therefore "likely" that He can know ALL of us before we are formed. By this reasoning, it is just as likely that God could just create all of us without our needing to go through conception, fetus and birth just as God did when God formed Adam, made Eve or created mankind, male and female. However, scripture tells us that God told Jeremiah, personally, that he...not anyone else, but that he, Jeremiah, was known by God before he entered the womb. It would make sense that this would be something for scripture to point out because it was a unique situation. The Bible is vague or completely neglegent about things that were very common to the time period of each of the stories.

The passage in Zechariah does not imply at all that the man is fully formed.
Maybe it does not state emphatically, but it certainly does imply;
"The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him...."

[RoBoTeq]

Conspicuously absent is the right of the baby to not be aborted. They are the silent victims. So far, a holocaust of over 30 million since the 1970's.
Abortions in one way or another have been done since the time of recorded history. There was a plant that induced abortion that went extinct in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago.

Then you have full term pregnancies where the baby is delivered and just left for dead because there were no practical means of abortion. In the Middle Ages of Europe, even nunneries had secret places where these born but left to die babies were buried or just left in catacombs.

I am not saying that abortion is right or wrong. My base instinct tells me that it is a medical alteration of the body that is not natural and therefore is wrong. How someone could actually go full term and let the born baby just die is completel beyond me. I have way more questions about this subject then answers, but if religion is the reason for being 100% against abortion, that issue needs to be kept in the specific context of the religion and persons of that religion and not made into law.

[acmanko]

I asked why you were so interested in abortionbecause I know others like you who carry the agenda for the same reason you seem to. And I believe you are not being completely honest as to why and chose a more cavalier line of reasoning

[timebuilder]

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but scripture alone does not imply what you believe about Jeremiah. Scripture implicitly states that this is God speaking one on one to Jeremiah in a personal context.True, at least about Adam, who was not created. What about those of mankind that God created in Genesis 1? Were they, male or female, ever babies? The Bible does not say. Genesis 1 simply states that mankind was created, both male and female. Even if these created persons were created as babies, their soul would not have entered them while they were in the womb. This would indicate as with Adam, that the spirit of God, out souls, is not in us until after we are out of the womb.By this reasoning, it is just as likely that God could just create all of us without our needing to go through conception, fetus and birth just as God did when God formed Adam, made Eve or created mankind, male and female. However, scripture tells us that God told Jeremiah, personally, that he...not anyone else, but that he, Jeremiah, was known by God before he entered the womb. It would make sense that this would be something for scripture to point out because it was a unique situation. The Bible is vague or completely neglegent about things that were very common to the time period of each of the stories.
Maybe it does not state emphatically, but it certainly does imply;

I stand by my previous assertions on this topic.

[Hugh B]

I think it comes down to a quality of life decision.
Would a life of poverty and starvation in a public housing project, with a single parent who would sell you for a crack pipe bowl really be living?
I guess being John Edwards illegitimate offspring might be a different scenario.:couch:




Who will pay for the education and clothing of these unwanted masses? They must be cared for in order to survive.True..?

I see what you are saying. If the quality of someone's life does not meet your standard for quality (whatever that may be) you figure we can kill that individual.

So I guess you believe in killing people depending on some quality of life standard of your making. What is that standard and who makes that decision?

[hearthman]

Progressives believe in retro-active abortion.

No liberal progressive has ever been able to make a lucid arguement why an unborn fetus is not a human being and that abortion is not murder. That's because they refuse to accept the simple truth of life: life begins at the moment of conception. Instead, these monsters want to desperately find some meager justification for their evil lifestyle choices. These people who mock God Jehovah and Jesus Christ will stand in judgement one day and they won't be wearing that silly smirk that permeates their little quips on this site.

Hearthman

[timebuilder]

I think it comes down to a quality of life decision.
Would a life of poverty and starvation in a public housing project, with a single parent who would sell you for a crack pipe bowl really be living?
I guess being John Edwards illegitimate offspring might be a different scenario.:couch:




Who will pay for the education and clothing of these unwanted masses? They must be cared for in order to survive.True..?

The simple answer is that we must replace that defective culture by overwhelming involvement in it. That is not politically correct, but it is the truth.

Those projects exist because of liberal guilt, and the bigotry of low expectations. Martial law for the "bad" neighborhoods. Check everyone, all vehicles checked coming in for drugs and weapons and outstanding warrants.

90 days would be enough to fix it, but no one has the guts.

[Hugh B]

Women have the right to privacy with their doctors.
Women should have the right to choose.
A Woman should not have to continue a pregnancy that is the result of rape.
The baby is unwanted.
Having the child would be an economic hardship.

Are these actually sound reasons for killing a person? I think not!

We now know scientifically that the unborn is an actual human person. So, there are no justifiable reasons for killing another innocent human person. None. Unless you have no problem with murder that is.

[RoBoTeq]

Women have the right to privacy with their doctors.
Women should have the right to choose.
A Woman should not have to continue a pregnancy that is the result of rape.
The baby is unwanted.
Having the child would be an economic hardship.

Are these actually sound reasons for killing a person? I think not!

We now know scientifically that the unborn is an actual human person. So, there are no justifiable reasons for killing another innocent human person. None. Unless you have no problem with murder that is.
Whether others agree or disagree with your viewpoint on this subject is irrelevant without law to determine. As it is, abortion is not a killing of a person simply because the law does not determine that it is. Not everyone has the same theological ideals or the same viewpoint of biology.

To keep saying that abortion is murder or the killing of a person is simply wrong under the current laws. I would rather see a dramatic change in our understanding of why there is a perceived need for abortion in order to simply take away that need. This would be so much more proactive then our continued arguing over when a fetus becomes a person.

[bootlen]

It is also interesting that some here are more interested in discovering my motive than discussing the issue itself.

Likely because the recognize they will lose the argument before they engage.

[bootlen]

Abortions in one way or another have been done since the time of recorded history.

The second recorded sin was murder. So should murder be acceptable since it is older than abortion?

[bootlen]

Progressives believe in retro-active abortion.

No liberal progressive has ever been able to make a lucid arguement why an unborn fetus is not a human being and that abortion is not murder. That's because they refuse to accept the simple truth of life: life begins at the moment of conception. Instead, these monsters want to desperately find some meager justification for their evil lifestyle choices. These people who mock God Jehovah and Jesus Christ will stand in judgement one day and they won't be wearing that silly smirk that permeates their little quips on this site.

Hearthman

Very sad and very true.

[Pneuma]

I copied the below definition from some website. You can have this procedure "PGD" done right now at major cities in the US. I just throw this out there because the idea of what is a person goes beyond natural conception. When does a person have the right to be natural, i.e. what if it becomes possible to genetically adjust a person. Say an egg is fertilized, it is then adjusted genetically to become taller, disease free, blonde hair, whatever. This seems far out but technologically we are heading on this path. But if aparent can adjust a baby, then who owns that babies life? Can his fate of natural selection be over ridden by the parents? When Mom injects her own insecurites about body shape or Dad about the size of certain body parts where does society make a stand and say this is an individual, quit monekying around with it, or does society say, the parents are the owners and can do what they want.

Now take this to the religous extreme and if we arer made in God's image, then perhaps what we will eventually be able to do is be so much more like God that we can create people, people healthier, with lower propensity for crimes, etc. We coud even create animals, new species. anyway...getting off track a little.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD):
This is the most effective technique in sex selection. With nearly 100% accuracy and the ability to select not only sex but a healthy embryo makes it very popular. Though this is a costly and intensive method of sex selection that uses in vitro fertilization and does biopsies on the embryos before they are returned to the uterus.

[bootlen]

To keep saying that abortion is murder or the killing of a person is simply wrong under the current laws. I would rather see a dramatic change in our understanding of why there is a perceived need for abortion in order to simply take away that need. This would be so much more proactive then our continued arguing over when a fetus becomes a person.

Now THAT is a narrow view. It is temporal in nature by virtue of the fact that law to which you refer is less than 50 years old. There is a law that is some 6,000 years old that states that human life begins at conception.

I realize you won't see it that way but it only proves my point about your narrow view of this issue.

[RoBoTeq]

The second recorded sin was murder. So should murder be acceptable since it is older than abortion?
This is not a relevant argument. I personally will follow what I believe to be truth from scripture, but not everyone in society follows scripture. The United States is not a country governed by any religious order, it is a country where citizens can be free to follow whatever religion they want but the government is free from any religious doctrine. I wouldn't want to sacrifice our freedoms in order to appease any particular religious ideal.

As long as abortion is defined by law to be legal because a fetus is not a person, abortion is not legally murder. If any of us feel that abortion is murder by our theological standards, we may view it that way, but may not legally act on our belief other then to shun a person who we may believe committed murder. We have the legal right to not support a doctor who does abortions or to not speak to someone who has had an abortion. We do not have the legal right to physically confront these people because they have the legal right to abortion.

[RoBoTeq]

Now THAT is a narrow view. It is temporal in nature by virtue of the fact that law to which you refer is less than 50 years old. There is a law that is some 6,000 years old that states that human life begins at conception.

I realize you won't see it that way but it only proves my point about your narrow view of this issue.
This has nothing to do with how I see this issue. It has to do with messing with one of the main factors that differentiates the U.S. from other countries; freedom of and from religion. We are a country of societal laws which may be influenced by religious laws but is not governed by any religious laws.

For this reason, I am 100% against abortions being objected to or promoted by our government. I am against insurance coverage for abortions other then for specific health or criminal determinations. In other words, if a person wants to live a life where an abortion is justified by them, then they will need to bear the responsiblity for paying for such an operation.

I do not believe that any doctor who refuses to perform an abortion should in any way be adversely affected by our government. If a person does not want to be treated by any doctor who will perform abortions, that should be their absolute right as well. But unless our governments laws make an absolute determination as to when a fetus is a soulful person, abortion is not murder under the law.

[Hugh B]

This is not a relevant argument. I personally will follow what I believe to be truth from scripture, but not everyone in society follows scripture. The United States is not a country governed by any religious order, it is a country where citizens can be free to follow whatever religion they want but the government is free from any religious doctrine. I wouldn't want to sacrifice our freedoms in order to appease any particular religious ideal.

As long as abortion is defined by law to be legal because a fetus is not a person, abortion is not legally murder. If any of us feel that abortion is murder by our theological standards, we may view it that way, but may not legally act on our belief other then to shun a person who we may believe committed murder. We have the legal right to not support a doctor who does abortions or to not speak to someone who has had an abortion. We do not have the legal right to physically confront these people because they have the legal right to abortion.

Execpt we do now know that a fetus is a person. We know when human life begins and it begins at conception. This is now a bioligical fact. Perhaps I need to post the evidence.

[RoBoTeq]

Execpt we do now know that a fetus is a person. We know when human life begins and it begins at conception. This is now a bioligical fact. Perhaps I need to post the evidence.
Can we actually say that human life begins at conception? What do we have to support this notion? Does a chicken egg contain a liquid chicken? What does it mean to be "born"? Is birth not when what developing entities actually become that entity?

[Pneuma]

Can we actually say that human life begins at conception? What do we have to support this notion? Does a chicken egg contain a liquid chicken? What does it mean to be "born"? Is birth not when what developing entities actually become that entity?

A concieved child is actually continuation of two lives, the genetic parents. So life does not begin at conception it continues. What is new is the merger of two lives into one. This merger happens at conception.

[bootlen]

This is not a relevant argument. I personally will follow what I believe to be truth from scripture, but not everyone in society follows scripture. The United States is not a country governed by any religious order, it is a country where citizens can be free to follow whatever religion they want but the government is free from any religious doctrine. I wouldn't want to sacrifice our freedoms in order to appease any particular religious ideal.

As long as abortion is defined by law to be legal because a fetus is not a person, abortion is not legally murder. If any of us feel that abortion is murder by our theological standards, we may view it that way, but may not legally act on our belief other then to shun a person who we may believe committed murder. We have the legal right to not support a doctor who does abortions or to not speak to someone who has had an abortion. We do not have the legal right to physically confront these people because they have the legal right to abortion.

Then what has this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoBoTeq
Abortions in one way or another have been done since the time of recorded history.

to do with this issue?

[RoBoTeq]

A concieved child is actually continuation of two lives, the genetic parents. So life does not begin at conception it continues. What is new is the merger of two lives into one. This merger happens at conception.
So, spilled seed and monthly blood disposal is essentially murdering part of a human? This is the kind of slippery slope we go down with these discussions.

[Hugh B]

So, spilled seed and monthly blood disposal is essentially murdering part of a human? This is the kind of slippery slope we go down with these discussions.


No, Pneuma is wrong on this. Close but wrong. Robo, you are correct the sperm or the egg alone are not a human person. Conception must take place first.

[Hugh B]

Biological Fact: Life begets life. Life does not arise from non-life. Spontanious Generation was proven to be false long ago via biological attempts to bring life from non-life.

All life comes from previous life.


A new life begins at the moment of fertilization when an egg containing 23 of the mother's chromosomes unites with a sperm with 23 of the father's chromosomes creating a new individual human being. This is unrefuted biological science.

The new conceptus has its own unique DNA fingerprint totally different from its parents and any other human who has ever lived or will ever live. That DNA contains the uniqueness of the new person and will remain his or her DNA fingerprint from conception to death. The new individual begins to exist from that moment onward until death.

The new person will go thru development stages from that point onward but begins to exist at the moment of conception. The fact that the new child must be biologically sustained by it's mother is irrelevant to the child's identity and value. It is a living human being and unlike a parasite or growth. It is a real person.

There is no later point that the fetus becomes a human. It is fully human at conception. No does it gradually become a person. You don't all your body parts nor full physical functionality to be human. If I removed your arms, legs and put out your eyes you would not be less of a human person or become something less than human.

The newly conceived human will go thru stages of physical development before it is delivered but that does not make it less than human. After all, we all continue to develop after birth, become toddlers, eventually teens, then adults and later old folks. Human development continues long after birth. All the time we are fully human not developing into humans.

You see, we do know that we begin to exist at conception. Two living human beings come together and when conception takes place a third new individual comes into existance. There is no other possible point in the process where this could take place.

Therefore, taking the life of the unborn is actually taking the life of an innocent human being. There are all sorts of justifications for doing this but not one of them hold up as a good excuse for killing another human being.

[RoBoTeq]

A new life begins at the moment of fertilization when an egg containing 23 of the mother's chromosomes unites with a sperm with 23 of the father's chromosomes creating a new individual human being. This is unrefuted biological science.

The new conceptus has its own unique DNA fingerprint totally different from its parents and any other human who has ever lived or will ever live. That DNA contains the uniqueness of the new person and will remain his or her DNA fingerprint from conception to death. The new individual begins to exist from that moment onward until death.

The new person will go thru development stages from that point onward but begins to exist at the moment of conception. The fact that the new child must be biologically sustained by it's mother is irrelevant to the child's identity and value. It is a living human being and unlike a parasite or growth. It is a real person.

There is no later point that the fetus becomes a human. It is fully human at conception. No does it gradually become a person. You don't all your body parts nor full physical functionality to be human. If I removed your arms, legs and put out your eyes you would not be less of a human person or become something less than human.

The newly conceived human will go thru stages of physical development before it is delivered but that does not make it less than human. After all, we all continue to develop after birth, become toddlers, eventually teens, then adults and later old folks. Human development continues long after birth. All the time we are fully human not developing into humans.

You see, we do know that we begin to exist at conception. Two living human beings come together and when conception takes place a third new individual comes into existance. There is no other possible point in the process where this could take place.

Therefore, taking the life of the unborn is actually taking the life of an innocent human being. There are all sorts of justifications for doing this but not one of them hold up as a good excuse for killing another human being.
Not agreeing with or disputing your belief here, but what you are claiming about a zygote, embryo and fetus being a living human being is not supported by all experts in biology. So, this is not a known fact, it is your opinion. If an embryo is to be considered a human being, then so should a large cyst. Then again, this may explain leftists.

[Hugh B]

Not agreeing with or disputing your belief here, but what you are claiming about a zygote, embryo and fetus being a living human being is not supported by all experts in biology. So, this is not a known fact, it is your opinion. If an embryo is to be considered a human being, then so should a large cyst. Then again, this may explain leftists.

A fetus in nothing like a cyst. A cyst has the identical DNA of the carrier. The fetus has its own unique DNA like all other people have. Actually, most biologists agree that the fetus is a unique human.

The first question you have to ask when you are going to kill something that is alive is What is it? If you are unsure it is a human and it may be then how could you proceed to kill that which may be another human person?

[RoBoTeq]

A fetus in nothing like a cyst. A cyst has the identical DNA of the carrier. The fetus has its own unique DNA like all other people have. Actually, most biologists agree that the fetus is a unique human.

The first question you have to ask when you are going to kill something that is alive is What is it? If you are unsure it is a human and it may be then how could you proceed to kill that which may be another human person?
Once again, despite whether others agree or disagree, by the laws of our nation, abortion up to a certain point is legal. If we think back to when abortion was illegal in some states, such as was the case in Maryland when I was growing up, you may remember young women dying from hack abortions or women having to travel to DC to get a legal abortion. At least with abortion being legal, women who feel they cannot carry full term can have their abortions done safely.

[TB]

A concieved child is actually continuation of two lives, the genetic parents. So life does not begin at conception it continues. What is new is the merger of two lives into one. This merger happens at conception.


So, spilled seed and monthly blood disposal is essentially murdering part of a human? This is the kind of slippery slope we go down with these discussions.


No, Pneuma is wrong on this. Close but wrong. Robo, you are correct the sperm or the egg alone are not a human person. Conception must take place first.

No, Pneuma's not wrong, Robo's conclusion of what he said is a non-sequiter. Pneuma said nothing about the individual egg or sperm, except that each brings to the fertilized egg life from each parent---not the definition of the new life. It is defined by the combination of each original life.

When an infant girl is born, there is allready within her body, 400 mature eggs, each alive, and defined by the combination of the life of each parent. A similar scenario exists for a male child. When she grows up and gets pregnant, the child developing in her did not originate from the life in her body, but the life of the childs grandparents bodies, where the egg and germ (that becomes sperm) that joined to form the child were first caused in her parents bodies.

God created human life only once, in Adam. From the life in his body, he created Eve, and life has been progressing from generation to generation ever since.

[TB]

From some opinions morality comes from God. Since some people's god calls them to murder people there might be some parallel between the two.

Spell it out, and dispense with the ambiguities. "Some" peoples god who calls them to murder, is a demon.

[acmanko]

Spell it out, and dispense with the ambiguities. "Some" peoples god who calls them to murder, is a demon.

Lucifer has quite a few here fooled

[TB]

All things come from Hugh's version of god. This would be the same god who ordered the massacre of men, women, children, innocent babies and animals.
The same god who destroyed all life, save a few, including innocent babies, born amd unborn. You need a bit more book learning amigo. We will all face God's judgment one day, when He chooses the time. Abolishing evil, is not evil, nor is reaping the consequences of our own action, and choosing. The Canaanites were practicing a distinctly evil and immoral life style, and after 400 years of patience, God decided to end it. Curious you bring this up, since one of the practices condoned was infant sacrifices, where a living infant was placed in the red hot iron arms of the Canaanite idol Baal and incinerated---for the purpose of abortion.

If you read the accounts ever, you'll find that God used swarms of bees to drive out the Canaanites, he used the armies of Israel to defeat them against incredible odds, and in self defense after a peaceful solution was sought--so it can't really be claimed either that it was the Israelites who defeated them, any more than it can be claimed that it was your screwdriver that fixed your last call.

You've chosen your lack of knowlege, but displaying it suggests a lack of discernment.

[TB]

Lucifer has quite a few here fooled

Apparently

[Hugh B]

Once again, despite whether others agree or disagree, by the laws of our nation, abortion up to a certain point is legal. If we think back to when abortion was illegal in some states, such as was the case in Maryland when I was growing up, you may remember young women dying from hack abortions or women having to travel to DC to get a legal abortion. At least with abortion being legal, women who feel they cannot carry full term can have their abortions done safely.

I see. So if taking the life of another person (the baby) you put your own at risk then you need the law to make it legal to get a doctor's assistance so you can murder the unborn without risking your own health.

So, since women are going to kill their children we should at least make it legal so they don't hurt themselves in the process.

No matter how one tries to justify abortion they fall into a logical and biological series of deadends.

[Hugh B]

Once again, despite whether others agree or disagree, by the laws of our nation, abortion up to a certain point is legal. If we think back to when abortion was illegal in some states, such as was the case in Maryland when I was growing up, you may remember young women dying from hack abortions or women having to travel to DC to get a legal abortion. At least with abortion being legal, women who feel they cannot carry full term can have their abortions done safely.


It seems that according to your reasoning that since the law currently allows a woman to take the life of her unborn child that you condone her immoral actions.

Would you change your position if the Supreme Court actually looked at the fact that life begins at conception and then ruled that abortion is now illegal?

You see, the court never actually looked at when human life begins. That was never considered and that is the problem with our current law.

[RoBoTeq]

God created human life only once, in Adam. From the life in his body, he created Eve, and life has been progressing from generation to generation ever since.
There is no Biblical evidence that God ever "created" Adam the man or Eve. Adam was "formed" by God at an unspecified time after the "creation" of mankind (Genesis 1) and Eve was "made" from Adam even later. Mankind was "created" as an unspecified plurality, both male and female alike, at an earlier time then Adam was formed and Eve was made.

[RoBoTeq]

Lucifer has quite a few here fooled
Yes they are:troll2:

[RoBoTeq]

I see. So if taking the life of another person (the baby) you put your own at risk then you need the law to make it legal to get a doctor's assistance so you can murder the unborn without risking your own health.

So, since women are going to kill their children we should at least make it legal so they don't hurt themselves in the process.

No matter how one tries to justify abortion they fall into a logical and biological series of deadends.
I propose no legal bindings on the issue at all. I don't think our government should be involved in this other then maybe creating a set point of time when a pregnancy is determined to be carrying a human being legally bound under the law of man.

In this way, for those who oppose abortions at the various stages or all together, can be free to not support any medical facility that does not oppose abortion. Likewise, any medical person who opposes abortion would not be ostracized for his or her opposition to abortion. If individual states or even counties, cities and towns want to pass their own ruling, then they should be free to do so as well.

In this way we could have all Americans, no matter what their religious bent, be able to live somewhere with those who are like them. The rule of capitalism would soon follow and governments would start catering to the masses in each region and the masses would be free to migrate to where it best suited them.

[RoBoTeq]

It seems that according to your reasoning that since the law currently allows a woman to take the life of her unborn child that you condone her immoral actions.

Would you change your position if the Supreme Court actually looked at the fact that life begins at conception and then ruled that abortion is now illegal?

You see, the court never actually looked at when human life begins. That was never considered and that is the problem with our current law.
If you are trying to get me on some kind of a guilt trip, it won't work. I think as an American even though I am myself a devout follower of Christ's teachings.

As an American, I feel I must respect the theological and moral views of others as long as it does not do me physical harm. I am not responsible for the lives of those who do not follow the paths that I believe are moral and of God. As an American, I believe in freedom of religious choice and that includes the morality that goes along with whatever religious beliefs others have. I may evangelize to those who I believe are wrong minded, but I will not judge and I will not support laws that will judge.

[TB]

There is no Biblical evidence that God ever "created" Adam the man or Eve. Adam was "formed" by God at an unspecified time after the "creation" of mankind (Genesis 1) and Eve was "made" from Adam even later. Mankind was "created" as an unspecified plurality, both male and female alike, at an earlier time then Adam was formed and Eve was made.

Gen. 1 is a synopsis of creation, Gen. 2 is a closer look at the creation of man. Just because Gen. 2 follows Gen 1, does not guarantee what they speak of is consecutive, any more than a listing of points discussed in Obummers State of the Union address would nessessarily mean that anything about any of those points spoken of in more detail after the list was given, was discussed after the address was over.

[EarthLoop]

Personally I don't think there are enough abortions happening....

Furthermore if your on welfare you need to get stuck with a needle every 3 months so you cannot get pregnant and you need to get drug tested !!!

[Hugh B]

If you are trying to get me on some kind of a guilt trip, it won't work. I think as an American even though I am myself a devout follower of Christ's teachings.

As an American, I feel I must respect the theological and moral views of others as long as it does not do me physical harm. I am not responsible for the lives of those who do not follow the paths that I believe are moral and of God. As an American, I believe in freedom of religious choice and that includes the morality that goes along with whatever religious beliefs others have. I may evangelize to those who I believe are wrong minded, but I will not judge and I will not support laws that will judge.


I am not trying to guilt you or anyone else. Most people are very superficial in their thinking on abortion. Most people base their opinion on this issue on emotional and selfish factors without even considering the topic at a deeper biological and philosophical level.

I am simply giving some here a little more to consider. I happen to think that I have thought this particular issue thru to a level that very few people have. My arguments on this topic are not generally known.

[EarthLoop]

Now matter what the decision is to give life or not it's not up to any man to decide. It's totally the womans choice and they can do whatever they want to do. There is nothing you can do about that.

If it was wrong whatever they chose to do then they have to answer to their god of choice. Either way there isn't a person on this thread that can control that fact.

I certainly don't agree with late term abortions but there may be cases that it's necessary. Early stages why not?? In the end we are all just sheep anyway.

[RoBoTeq]

Gen. 1 is a synopsis of creation, Gen. 2 is a closer look at the creation of man. Just because Gen. 2 follows Gen 1, does not guarantee what they speak of is consecutive, any more than a listing of points discussed in Obummers State of the Union address would nessessarily mean that anything about any of those points spoken of in more detail after the list was given, was discussed after the address was over.
Really? Then why is Genesis 1 account of the creation of mankind, male and female, completely different from Genesis 2 accounting of the "forming" of Adam the man, singular, and the later "making" of Eve?

And where did all of those pesky people in the land of Nod come from, and why were they out of the sight of God?

[RoBoTeq]

I am not trying to guilt you or anyone else. Most people are very superficial in their thinking on abortion. Most people base their opinion on this issue on emotional and selfish factors without even considering the topic at a deeper biological and philosophical level.

I am simply giving some here a little more to consider. I happen to think that I have thought this particular issue thru to a level that very few people have. My arguments on this topic are not generally known.
Let me get this straight; most people don't know how to act so you are going to tell them how to act? Did you just run for the presidency as a Democrat? You sure sound like our president with your elitist attitude that you know better how others should think and behave.

[EarthLoop]

Really? Then why is Genesis 1 account of the creation of mankind, male and female, completely different from Genesis 2 accounting of the "forming" of Adam the man, singular, and the later "making" of Eve?

And where did all of those pesky people in the land of Nod come from, and why were they out of the sight of God?


Adam and Eve were placed here as seeds from another civilization so both accounts are fictional...

[RoBoTeq]

Adam and Eve were placed here as seeds from another civilization so both accounts are fictional...
Well, since I do believe that Biblical scripture is factual, even though we have misinterpreted it, been told lies about what it is telling us and is often difficult due to the language and cultural variances, I'm just not feeling the Adam and Eve story as they were seeds. UNLESS; we are talking metaphorically and they were the proverbial "seeds of man", in which they still were of a later race then God's original "creation" of mankind, both male and female at the same time.

[Hugh B]

Let me get this straight; most people don't know how to act so you are going to tell them how to act? Did you just run for the presidency as a Democrat? You sure sound like our president with your elitist attitude that you know better how others should think and behave.

Neither you nor anyone else here has directly refuted my position with arguments that directly refute my own.

What I do get when I state my position are responses such as yours and similar such as:

Who do you think you are?
You think you are morally superior!
Who are you to tell others how to think?
You have your opinion and I have mine.

These replys are not to the issue or the arguments they are visceral responses used when others have no logic from which respond. I can only assume that some of these arguments have placed a rock in your shoe and caused you to think in some way new to you regarding this issue and whatever that is, makes you uncomfortable because it challenges your current position.

That is exactly what I indended to do. Get people to consider this issue from new perspectives. Sorry if I make you feel so uncomfortable that you must resort to a personal attack as opposed to considering the arguments I posted.

[EarthLoop]

What is not logical is believing that there is an all powerful man up in the sky looking down upon us and controlling everything.

Governments love I mean Freaking Love religion. CONTROL!!!

Free your mind:patriot:

[RoBoTeq]

Neither you nor anyone else here has directly refuted my position with arguments that directly refute my own.

What I do get when I state my position are responses such as yours and similar such as:

Who do you think you are?
You think you are morally superior!
Who are you to tell others how to think?
You have your opinion and I have mine.

These replys are not to the issue or the arguments they are visceral responses used when others have no logic from which respond. I can only assume that some of these arguments have placed a rock in your shoe and caused you to think in some way new to you regarding this issue and whatever that is, makes you uncomfortable because it challenges your current position.

That is exactly what I indended to do. Get people to consider this issue from new perspectives. Sorry if I make you feel so uncomfortable that you must resort to a personal attack as opposed to considering the arguments I posted.
You don't make me uncomfortable at all. I know and accept that I cannot control most situations in life that I am not directly responsible for and I accept that others do not believe the same things that I do, and that is ok. I may not want to hang out with those people, but I respect their viewpoints as I expect them to respect mine. Remember, we can only ask that our trespasses be forgiven "as we forgive those who trespass against us". Clearly, we are forgiven based on a curve factor.

No, neither I nor anyone else can dispute what you say. You however, without the Bible, which is not the governing authority of the U.S., dispute what others say in dispute to your beliefs.

But, you keep citing that biology upholds your viewpoints and therefore what you believe is fact. What is fact is not up to one person to dictate to the rest of the world.

Let me ask you something Hugh; do you eat any foods that are Biblically unclean?

[RoBoTeq]

What is not logical is believing that there is an all powerful man up in the sky looking down upon us and controlling everything.

Governments love I mean Freaking Love religion. CONTROL!!!

Free your mind:patriot:
I absolutely agree that God defies man's logic. When I freed my mind is when I was able to see beyond logic to Truth. Yes, governments and despots do love "religion". Religion is a very flawed, man made concept supposed to be for the purpose of learning about and revering God. Religion, as a concept and in practice, has failed miserably. That does not mean that God is not our Creator and who we will spend spiritual eternity with or spend eternity without.

[EarthLoop]

I absolutely agree that God defies man's logic. When I freed my mind is when I was able to see beyond logic to Truth. Yes, governments and despots do love "religion". Religion is a very flawed, man made concept supposed to be for the purpose of learning about and revering God. Religion, as a concept and in practice, has failed miserably. That does not mean that God is not our Creator and who we will spend spiritual eternity with or spend eternity without.

I totally agree I was just pointing out the fact of bring Logic into it. But you can also add this to the mix. How do we know that god created us on earth??

There is actual physical evidence handed down to us from ancient cultures of space travelers coming to earth. You can go to Mayan pyramids today and see this in their stone carvings.

I always laugh at people when they say the universe is infinite (as if they have a clue) and then believe we are the only ones in it. I'm sure god is capable of managing more than one civilization.

[RoBoTeq]

I totally agree I was just pointing out the fact of bring Logic into it. But you can also add this to the mix. How do we know that god created us on earth??

There is actual physical evidence handed down to us from ancient cultures of space travelers coming to earth. You can go to Mayan pyramids today and see this in their stone carvings.

I always laugh at people when they say the universe is infinite (as if they have a clue) and then believe we are the only ones in it. I'm sure god is capable of managing more than one civilization.
I'm right there with you on this one. I don't have a clue as to how, but we certainly don't exactly seem to fit the nature of the Earth as far as being indigenous. And, if we are indigenous to the Earth, then everything we do is natural. Just like the beavers causing a forest with a stream running through it to turn into a pasteur several generations down the line, if we are indigenous, then our causing the blue sky to turn yellowish grey and covering dirt and grass with concrete and asphalt is all just a natural thing.

[TB]

Adam and Eve were placed here as seeds from another civilization so both accounts are fictional...

And what verifies your opinion as reliably true?

[TB]

Really? Then why is Genesis 1 account of the creation of mankind, male and female, completely different from Genesis 2 accounting of the "forming" of Adam the man, singular, and the later "making" of Eve?


Same reason a ladder schematic is different from an O&M manual of the same RTU.

[royc]

Here is an interesting discussion. What is a person? When did you become a person?

I will leave that question open to those who want to give an opinion and chime in later if there is interest. This question is actually very important and has vast implications.

"Persons - In contemporary global thought, once humans are born, personhood is considered automatic via Legal fiction created by a Birth certificate."

Roy

[RoBoTeq]

Same reason a ladder schematic is different from an O&M manual of the same RTU.
That is not a relative answer. In this answer, you are suggesting that no one can really trust scripture. You are supporting the false notion that Bibles relate different interpretations.

No where else in the Bible do the authors backstep after having such a definite ending to a subject as Genesis 2 ends the discussion of the seven days of Creation. Why would this one particular subject change the entire flow of the way scripture is written?

Aside from Genesis, keeping within the Old (Hebrew) Testament, the creation of mankind prior to the forming of Adam the man and the making of Eve from Adam brings a lot of other scripture that has been questioned over the century into a more rational line.

[RoBoTeq]

"Persons - In contemporary global thought, once humans are born, personhood is considered automatic via Legal fiction created by a Birth certificate."

Roy
A birth certificate is not fiction in the fact that it records the time and date of "birth".

In a society, certain age based laws come into effect due to the desires of some to control when a citizen can do certain things. We have set a point of age for smoking, voting, drinking alcoholic drinks, being eligible to die in combat etc. We have also set a point when we are "born" which is a point that has always been, throughout all of the history of mankind, at the point when a baby takes it's first breath of air and is able to survive without being attached to the life support system of the mother. We also have determined a point for which a fetus can no longer be aborted, and that is the contention here; where should that point be located?

Conception? Birth? Quickening? 8 weeks? third trimester? These are all variables of when different people believe that a human zygote becomes a person.

[TB]

That is not a relative answer. In this answer, you are suggesting that no one can really trust scripture. You are supporting the false notion that Bibles relate different interpretations. Not at all. Just as an O&M and a schematic are both describing the same thing for different purposes, and in different detail, so are Gen. 1&2


No where else in the Bible do the authors backstep after having such a definite ending to a subject as Genesis 2 ends the discussion of the seven days of Creation. Why would this one particular subject change the entire flow of the way scripture is written?No where? Compare Exodus and Deuteronomy, 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles, the synoptic Gospels (emphasis on synoptic) actually, the entire Bible could be downsized approx by 1/3 its volume if only one point of view per event were recorded. Instead, it is exactly the variouse points of view and descriptions of events recorded that lends to a more complete understanding and its credibility.


Aside from Genesis, keeping within the Old (Hebrew) Testament, the creation of mankind prior to the forming of Adam the man and the making of Eve from Adam brings a lot of other scripture that has been questioned over the century into a more rational line.
Only to a mind that won't ask Jesus what he meant. (see Mt 23:10 )

[RoBoTeq]

Not at all. Just as an O&M and a schematic are both describing the same thing for different purposes, and in different detail, so are Gen. 1&2Are you referring to O&M as being Operation and Maintenance? I am assuming your are referring to a wiring diagram vs a schematic, which are simply different ways of saying the same thing. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not say the same thing at all.

No where? Compare Exodus and Deuteronomy,A reiteration of the same account, not a more detailed version of an earlier accounting.
1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles,Again, a reiteration of an entire account, not just taking one specific point and expanding on it, as you suggest that Genesis 2 does for the creation of mankind in Genesis 1
the synoptic Gospels (emphasis on synoptic) actually, the entire Bible could be downsized approx by 1/3 its volume if only one point of view per event were recorded. Instead, it is exactly the variouse points of view and descriptions of events recorded that lends to a more complete understanding and its credibility. You are not comparing apples to apples. Different viewpoints is essential to verify the events even though the viewpoints may differ due to the vantage point of the viewer. Genesis is a conversation between the speaker to the listener, of which there is only one of each.


Only to a mind that won't ask Jesus what he meant. (see Mt 23:10 )
And here is the "holier then thou" attitude again. Do you really believe that those who oppose your take on scripture do so because only you pray for answers? The one thing I learned from Billy Graham is to not trust any thought without running it past God, and I especially do that for understanding scripture.

Once again, taking the attitude that the accounting of Adam and Eve is a more detailed, yet very different acounting of the creation of mankind, leads us to many other problems in scripture.


Who were the people who lived in the land of Nod?
Why were the people in the land of Nod out of the sight of God?
Was the woman that Cain married a close relative?
Why would God need to choose the predecessors of the Hebrews over all other of mankind if all of mankind came from the same family source?
Why does Genesis 2:5 say that the fields were without vegetation and there was no man to work the field when Genesis 1 clearly states that the vegetation was created much earlier then mankind?
Who were gentiles and why were they godless if all of mankind came from Adam and Eve?
Why use different syntax between "created" in Genesis 1 accounting of the creation of mankind (plural usage0, male and female, and the "forming" of Adam (singular usage) the man and "making" of Eve in Genesis 2? Especially at a time when there were so many less words for description?
What usually defines a lie is the amount of questions that a lie creates. The prospect that Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind raises a lot of questions.

[TB]

Who were the people who lived in the land of Nod?

Nodites? Nodders (they were a quiet but agreeable people)

What does it matter? The Bible says they were there. Most likely Cain's relatives, directly descended from Adam and Eve. We're not told how many years after the fall Cain killed Able and wandered untill he settled in Nod, and given the life spans then, could certainly have been enough time to create many settlments throughout the land


Why were the people in the land of Nod out of the sight of God?Because they chose to be. Unless your god is nearsighted and limited, the best understanding is that they were not concerned with God, therefore He was not intent on training them, as is consistent with Gods character throughout history


Was the woman that Cain married a close relative?Sheda had to been. No problem there since the restriction on closely related marriages didn't come untill centuries later when the gene pool thinned out


Why would God need to choose the predecessors of the Hebrews over all other of mankind if all of mankind came from the same family source?Because the line of Jesus could only be traced back throughout the generations, through only one family per generation. This would necessarily omit other families.


Why does Genesis 2:5 say that the fields were without vegetation and there was no man to work the field when Genesis 1 clearly states that the vegetation was created much earlier then mankind?vegetation was created a few days earlier than man, but we're not told if seeds only, or mature plants or both, or even how densly populated the world was with each variety


Who were gentiles and why were they godless if all of mankind came from Adam and Eve?c'mon man, reread Genesis. You trying to insinuate that you think godlessness necessarily negates humanity?


Why use different syntax between "created" in Genesis 1 accounting of the creation of mankind (plural usage0, male and female, and the "forming" of Adam (singular usage) the man and "making" of Eve in Genesis 2? Especially at a time when there were so many less words for description?

Same reason you would get a generic O&M manual from a particular unit that covered units with different wiring schematics. Gen. 1 is a account of what happened, and Gen 2 of how it happened in a particular circumstance.



Now, you can't tell me you really thought those were legitimate problems, and if you do, I won't believe you anyways. I think you just wanna hear the wind blow.

[RoBoTeq]

Nodites? Nodders (they were a quiet but agreeable people)

What does it matter? The Bible says they were there. Most likely Cain's relatives, directly descended from Adam and Eve. We're not told how many years after the fall Cain killed Able and wandered untill he settled in Nod, and given the life spans then, could certainly have been enough time to create many settlments throughout the land
Because they chose to be. Unless your god is nearsighted and limited, the best understanding is that they were not concerned with God, therefore He was not intent on training them, as is consistent with Gods character throughout history
Sheda had to been. No problem there since the restriction on closely related marriages didn't come untill centuries later when the gene pool thinned out
Because the line of Jesus could only be traced back throughout the generations, through only one family per generation. This would necessarily omit other families.
vegetation was created a few days earlier than man, but we're not told if seeds only, or mature plants or both, or even how densly populated the world was with each variety
c'mon man, reread Genesis. You trying to insinuate that you think godlessness necessarily negates humanity?

Same reason you would get a generic O&M manual from a particular unit that covered units with different wiring schematics. Gen. 1 is a account of what happened, and Gen 2 of how it happened in a particular circumstance.



Now, you can't tell me you really thought those were legitimate problems, and if you do, I won't believe you anyways. I think you just wanna hear the wind blow.
Well, not one thing you have come up with here is supported by scripture. Everything is assumed and conjecture based on what we all have been told.

And since you end your little trip down fantasy lane by saying you don't believe me, you have put a pretty big stumbling block in the way of our exploring this subject further.

In contrast, with God's creation of mankind during the seven days of Creation and later God's forming of Adam and making of Eve, most of these questions can be answered without having to make up a bunch of stuff.

Who were the people who lived in the land of Nod? These would be descendants of the people God created in Genesis 1.
Why were the people in the land of Nod out of the sight of God? This, we are not told. However, unlike omiting details about the Hebrews, of which the Hebrew Bible is about, it is not really relative to have to know why these humans were outside of the sight of God.
Was the woman that Cain married a close relative? She would have to be unless there was a creation of mankind, male and female, prior to God's forming of Adam the man and making Eve from Adam. With there being a previous creation of mankind, this woman would be of a race that was outside of God's sight, and therefore not related to Adam and Eve.
Why would God need to choose the predecessors of the Hebrews over all other of mankind if all of mankind came from the same family source? He wouldn't. If God were to reiterate the creation of mankind, why would God omit telling of why offspring of Adam and Eve were out of God's sight? This just makes no sense whatsoever.
Why does Genesis 2:5 say that the fields were without vegetation and there was no man to work the field when Genesis 1 clearly states that the vegetation was created much earlier then mankind? Because God was referring to fields to be cultivated, not vegetation in general. God created mankind, male and female, without making it necessary for them to have to farm. God's created mankind from Genesis 1 were to have all of the vegetation for them to eat. It wasn't until Genesis 2:5 that we are told about God's forming a man, Adam, to work the field that God had made. Adam is clearly God's first farmer.
Since mankind in Genesis 1 was created, male and female, after vegetation was on the Earth, there was no need for man to work the fields because the fields didn't yet exist. This certainly does also fall in line with the evolution of man going from gatherer to farmer.
Who were gentiles and why were they godless if all of mankind came from Adam and Eve? With a creation of mankind other then the descendants of Adam and Eve, it is apparent who the gentiles were. Anyone who was not from the line of Adam and Eve were gentiles. If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, there would be no gentiles.
Why use different syntax between "created" in Genesis 1 accounting of the creation of mankind (plural usage0, male and female, and the "forming" of Adam (singular usage) the man and "making" of Eve in Genesis 2? Especially at a time when there were so many less words for description? This is a major item that took our learning more about the ancient languages to be able to understand. We now know that the ancient Aramaic word "adam" was used to designate mankind as well as a specific person. The variance in the term used for mankind and the name is equivelant to capitalizing the word. Notice that man in Genesis 1 is just "man" while when describing Adam in Genesis 2, man is preceeded by "the" to designate his being a specific person named Adam.

[TB]

Now you created a problem in your philosophy. We are told that by one man sin entered the world and death by sin. That one man was Adam, and as the only man in the world at that time, all humans descended from him, and all inherited sin as well. If there were other people in the world at Adams time, then sin would not be a guaranteed inheritance of us all, and only the descendants of Adam would die, since death did not exist before sin entered the world. There is noone in the world now that will not die, therefore there is no one who has not decended from Adam.

[Hugh B]

Now you created a problem in your philosophy. We are told that by one man sin entered the world and death by sin. That one man was Adam, and as the only man in the world at that time, all humans descended from him, and all inherited sin as well. If there were other people in the world at Adams time, then sin would not be a guaranteed inheritance of us all, and only the descendants of Adam would die, since death did not exist before sin entered the world. There is noone in the world now that will not die, therefore there is no one who has not decended from Adam.

Right, and it gets worse.

There was no sin before Adam sinned therefore there was no death before Adam. Therefore, there were no fossils before Adam.

That makes evolution impossible. All death and the fossil record had to come after Adam sinned and brought death into the world.

[RoBoTeq]

Now you created a problem in your philosophy. We are told that by one man sin entered the world and death by sin. That one man was Adam, and as the only man in the world at that time, all humans descended from him, and all inherited sin as well. If there were other people in the world at Adams time, then sin would not be a guaranteed inheritance of us all, and only the descendants of Adam would die, since death did not exist before sin entered the world. There is noone in the world now that will not die, therefore there is no one who has not decended from Adam.
Not philosophy. You just shot hundreds of years ahead to a time of the New Testament with dialogue to non-Jews who would not be familiar with the Hebrew Testament. By this point in time, all of mankind has been grafted into the brotherhood of the Hebrew/Jews. So, to a Jew like Paul, the previously gentile Christians inherited the sin of Adam and Eve as well as the covenant with God.

We could also investigate the intent of Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— " for clues that Adam is not the man being accused of causing sin to enter the world. After all, why should Adam the man get the blame when it was Eve who committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden?

Romans 5:12 states that sin entered the world through one man, and death followed sin...Adam did not create sin; Adam submitted to sin from the serpent. There are Biblical hints that Satan originated as a man, not an angel.

Just a few other points to ponder, but the New Testament does not secure Adam as the first of all of mankind.

[bootlen]

TB, don't fall this bait. Robo did exactly this before and he castigated me when I referred to it. He's not really looking for answers. He's just playing some strange form of "Dungeons and Dragons". :couchhide:

[TB]

TB, don't fall this bait. Robo did exactly this before and he castigated me when I referred to it. He's not really looking for answers. He's just playing some strange form of "Dungeons and Dragons". :couchhide:

Yeah....y'know how when you see someone soooo ugly you just can't stop looking at them , sometimes I get that way with arguments. :det:



No ofence meant Robin but now you are reaching into the land of fantasy and WAG.....unless you have rational evidence.

[bootlen]

.....unless you have rational evidence.

Pfft.

[TB]

Pfft.

:LOL:

[sline-dawg]

..but now you are reaching into the land of fantasy and WAG.....



Isn't that what you guys do..???:couch:

[EarthLoop]

Not philosophy. You just shot hundreds of years ahead to a time of the New Testament with dialogue to non-Jews who would not be familiar with the Hebrew Testament. By this point in time, all of mankind has been grafted into the brotherhood of the Hebrew/Jews. So, to a Jew like Paul, the previously gentile Christians inherited the sin of Adam and Eve as well as the covenant with God.

We could also investigate the intent of Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— " for clues that Adam is not the man being accused of causing sin to enter the world. After all, why should Adam the man get the blame when it was Eve who committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden?

Romans 5:12 states that sin entered the world through one man, and death followed sin...Adam did not create sin; Adam submitted to sin from the serpent. There are Biblical hints that Satan originated as a man, not an angel.

Just a few other points to ponder, but the New Testament does not secure Adam as the first of all of mankind.


See this I have a problem with...

As if people at one time people lived forever. They never have and never will.

We were born to die. If I don't die then my son will never be.

[RoBoTeq]

TB, don't fall this bait. Robo did exactly this before and he castigated me when I referred to it. He's not really looking for answers. He's just playing some strange form of "Dungeons and Dragons". :couchhide:
No boots, I am not. I would appreciate it if you would cease doing exactly what Satan wants us to do; not seek the truth.

There are contriversial thoughts about passages in scripture that we today have more ways of discerning what is truth and what lies we may have been passing on for centuries. Remember; scripture was held in secret by a major power organization for centuries. All that was taught was what this previously Pagan organization wanted the masses to learn. Martin Luther broke down many of the lies but even he was so perverted in his learning that he did not see through the entire facade that has been draped over the truth.

All I am asking for is open dialogue and study of scripture that has caused hate and death over the centuries because of the interpretations that were made of scripture in secret, behind closed doors, where the task of manipulating the intent of scripture without changing any of the words of scripture required that scripture be kept in secret for so long that the original languages of the writing of scripture was lost to antiquity.

[RoBoTeq]

Yeah....y'know how when you see someone soooo ugly you just can't stop looking at them , sometimes I get that way with arguments. :det:



No ofence meant Robin but now you are reaching into the land of fantasy and WAG.....unless you have rational evidence.
I believe that scripture is the rational evidence for what I am suggesting. I would not be having this conversation for any other reason then to learn the truth. What keeps me studying scripture are the many questions that arise from the interpretations of scripture that we have been given.

Why would we blindly accept what has been told to us by the very same organization that without reason deemed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, that Mary the mother of Jesus remained a virgin all of her life, That Peter, a Jewish bigot, was the first bishop of Rome, that we need to buy our way into heaven, and so on and so forth? Why would we not question interpretations that not only make it awkward to fit into other passages of scripture, but have a distinct reason for being manipulated?

The Roman emperer detested Jews so much that he demanded that Christianity not be an extension of Judaism, but must be completely different then Judaism. By making Adam and Eve everyone's origin, Rome takes away what made the lineage of Adam and Eve so different from other races. There is motive and there is evidence; why not explore this?

[RoBoTeq]

See this I have a problem with...

As if people at one time people lived forever. They never have and never will.

We were born to die. If I don't die then my son will never be.
I don't see in scripture where mankind was created not to die. Only Adam and Eve were told that they would surely die if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but we don't know exactly what that death sentence actually means. There is nothing stating that Adam and Eve would have lived forever, just that if they ate of the tree of knowledge, they would surely die.

Then again, the Garden of Eden may be a completely different type of place and not an Earthly place. Even though the descriptions of the rivers puts the Garden of Eden in what is now Iraq, it certainly could be that those rivers were named for the Genesis story after the fact and that the Garden of Eden could be more like a physical section of the spiritual heaven. We really just don't know.

What we can be certain of is that Adam and Eve came after mankind was already on Earth and that Adam and Eve were completely different in the way God formed and made them, respectively, from how God created mankind, male and female at the same time.

Also, God told his created mankind to go forth and multiply. Adam and Eve don't even seem to think about sex until Satan lures Eve to him. As for the eating of the fruit, apples are not mentioned in scripture. Fruit was commonly used for genitalia. So maybe God did not get so ticked at Adam and Eve over their choice of produce.

[EarthLoop]

I don't see in scripture where mankind was created not to die. Only Adam and Eve were told that they would surely die if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but we don't know exactly what that death sentence actually means. There is nothing stating that Adam and Eve would have lived forever, just that if they ate of the tree of knowledge, they would surely die.

Then again, the Garden of Eden may be a completely different type of place and not an Earthly place. Even though the descriptions of the rivers puts the Garden of Eden in what is now Iraq, it certainly could be that those rivers were named for the Genesis story after the fact and that the Garden of Eden could be more like a physical section of the spiritual heaven. We really just don't know.

What we can be certain of is that Adam and Eve came after mankind was already on Earth and that Adam and Eve were completely different in the way God formed and made them, respectively, from how God created mankind, male and female at the same time.

Also, God told his created mankind to go forth and multiply. Adam and Eve don't even seem to think about sex until Satan lures Eve to him. As for the eating of the fruit, apples are not mentioned in scripture. Fruit was commonly used for genitalia. So maybe God did not get so ticked at Adam and Eve over their choice of produce.

So you to think it's possible that Adam and Eve are just a DR. Seuss fairy tail??

So they might die anyway but they will Surely die if they eat the fruit...

Go forth and Multiply ... But don't have sex until Satan says it's ok....

People are so stupid. The bible is an ancient comic book..

Go to church and do your tithing on Sunday... You think god invented tithing?? Keep your money it's a scam!!

Your just sheep to be controlled we people who get it have our own minds and we make our own choices.

The scary thing is that Satanists have a better grip on reality than the Christians in this country. The Christians I see are weak and just followers !!

[RoBoTeq]

So you to think it's possible that Adam and Eve are just a DR. Seuss fairy tail?? Not at all. In fact, I believe that the Holy Roman Empire worked hard to hide the fact that the line of Adam and Eve were much more important to God then were God's originally "created" mankind.


So they might die anyway but they will Surely die if they eat the fruit... That would certainly be one way of looking at it. Since there are accounts of those from the line of Adam and Eve living very long lives, there is something to that. Maybe the line of Adam and Eve was intended to live without dying and by accepting sin a time span was put on their lives. Scripture does not tell us this. At least not that we have deciphered as yet.


Go forth and Multiply ... But don't have sex until Satan says it's ok...
Not with the mankind that was created by God in Genesis 1, during the seven days of Creation. Those people, an unknown number that could represent all of the races of the world, were told to go forth and multiply. Eve was made from Adam to be Adam's helper. There is no mention of Adam and Eve multiplying before Eve was beguiled by the snake Satan.

People are so stupid. The bible is an ancient comic book.. I don't think of myself as being stupid and I don't think that many theological scholars are stupid. For something as miraculous as scripture to be conceived the way it was and then to last for so many years without alteration should vouch for the fact that there is something supernatural about it. Besides, many of us faith know for a fact that God exists because we have personal relationships with God. So there is no reason for us to doubt scripture as being the Word of God.


Go to church and do your tithing on Sunday... You think god invented tithing?? Keep your money it's a scam!! Tithing is in scripture. In order to keep the Good News spreading, those who dedicate themselves to only spreading the Good News need to be supported. Today's religious organizations have made an absolute mockery of the intent of tithes with the outlandish and oppulent buildings that have replaced the congregation as being the church.


Your just sheep to be controlled we people who get it have our own minds and we make our own choices. Yes, we are all sheep. And there are wolves among us. We as the masses are going to follow something, so why not follow the Good Shepard?


The scary thing is that Satanists have a better grip on reality than the Christians in this country. The Christians I see are weak and just followers !! I spent several years as a Satanist, getting into the occult just as much as I have spent my later years getting away from it. You are wrong. Satan is a deceiver who hides the reality of life from us. The reality is that we are spiritual beings on a temporary physical life journey. Not one thing in our physical existance can be taken with us to our spiritual destination when our physical bodies die. Therefore, everything physical is meaningless, utterly meaningless, in the realm of our true reality.

[TB]

Right, and it gets worse.

There was no sin before Adam sinned therefore there was no death before Adam. Therefore, there were no fossils before Adam.

That makes evolution impossible. All death and the fossil record had to come after Adam sinned and brought death into the world.

Thought of bringing that one up too, but didn't.

Musta missed another que :o

Good catch amigo :)

[TB]

Why would we blindly accept what has been told to us by the very same organization that without reason deemed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, that Mary the mother of Jesus remained a virgin all of her life, That Peter, a Jewish bigot, was the first bishop of Rome, that we need to buy our way into heaven, and so on and so forth? Why would we not question interpretations that not only make it awkward to fit into other passages of scripture, but have a distinct reason for being manipulated?Point taken, but to reject everything they say, simply because they say it would be an ad hominem fallacy. The possibility exists that there may be remnants of unperverted, or accidental truth. You know me better than that by now anyways, there ain't much I will blindly accept as truth w/o evidence


The Roman emperer detested Jews so much that he demanded that Christianity not be an extension of Judaism, but must be completely different then Judaism. By making Adam and Eve everyone's origin, Rome takes away what made the lineage of Adam and Eve so different from other races. There is motive and there is evidence; why not explore this?

You still have the same problem of death. This reasoning suggests that Constantine knew of other races not from A&E (which he may actually have believed since it is a WICCAN / pagan doctrine) Paul would have probably known it too (as long as we're speculating) but he wrote that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, that that sin came to ALL through the sin of one man, (since Adam sinned while he was sinless, and death and sin came to ALL through "one man", and death and sin came to some from Adam, then it's only a small effort to logically deduce that the "one man" referred to was Adam) and again, that God would have ALL to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, then Paul knew it was a false claim that anyone existed before Adam.

[TB]

Isn't that what you guys do..???:couch:

Is it? Maybe...Maybe not. but if you think so then wouldn't it be wise to investigate the matter and straighten us out?

[RoBoTeq]

Right, and it gets worse.

There was no sin before Adam sinned therefore there was no death before Adam. Therefore, there were no fossils before Adam.

That makes evolution impossible. All death and the fossil record had to come after Adam sinned and brought death into the world.
This is actually another point of contention based on Adam and Eve being the origins of all of mankind. What you are proposing is that all of our historical records that indicate the existance of mankind earlier then 6,000 or so years ago are in error.

This brings up all of those huge dinosaurs that then must have lived at the same time as Adam and Eve, yet there are no indications of them in scripture other then in Job. Wouldn't a world full of T-Rex's at least make a mention in scripture?

Conversely, if we understand scripture to be telling us of a creation of mankind much earlier then Adam and Eve, scripture no longer disagrees with evolution. Also, this would put the beginning of the race that spawned from Adam and Eve at the 6,000 year mark. Now, everything makes more sense and we don't need to kill others for heretical thinking.

[RoBoTeq]

Point taken, but to reject everything they say, simply because they say it would be an ad hominem fallacy. The possibility exists that there may be remnants of unperverted, or accidental truth. You know me better than that by now anyways, there ain't much I will blindly accept as truth w/o evidence I don't dismiss all that was passed down by the Holy Roman Empire after centuries of being in complete control of scripture. I actually believe that most of it is as it was intended, with a few manipulations tossed in for specific purposes required by the Romans



You still have the same problem of death. This reasoning suggests that Constantine knew of other races not from A&E (which he may actually have believed since it is a WICCAN / pagan doctrine) Paul would have probably known it too (as long as we're speculating) but he wrote that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, that that sin came to ALL through the sin of one man, (since Adam sinned while he was sinless, and death and sin came to ALL through "one man", and death and sin came to some from Adam, then it's only a small effort to logically deduce that the "one man" referred to was Adam) and again, that God would have ALL to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, then Paul knew it was a false claim that anyone existed before Adam. This is after Jesus brough everyone under the same covenant. Therefore, this is the way a devout Jews such as Paul was would convey how sin entered the world. Previously Pagan gentiles would need to accept sin as well as salvation.

It is point such as this that allowed the Holy Roman Empire to bastardize the intent of scripture. Paul would only be able to relate to what he was taught all of his life based on scripture. I'm sure the previously Pagan Romans had their stories of how sin entered the world. I wouldn't thing that the existance of sin was new to anyone, so how sin came to us is only a matter of how it was related in conjunction with our specific culture.

[RoBoTeq]

Is it? Maybe...Maybe not. but if you think so then wouldn't it be wise to investigate the matter and straighten us out?
That is what I am looking for; to be set straight if my path for seeking the truth is not the right one.

[bootlen]

A picture of Joe Wilson just popped into my head.

[RoBoTeq]

A picture of Joe Wilson just popped into my head.
There you go again with that hateful attitude. You are pretty good at being petty. Maybe you should stand off to the side and let us liars, ie; anyone who disagrees with you, have a conversation.

[geerair]

Ok, a person is a living human being, born or unborn and begins to exist at conception. All humans are persons.So, a living human being and a person can be a clump of undifferentiated cells attached to and feeding off of a host.

Your definition would then include a cancerous tumor.

[geerair]

Not real sure about this one. As far as I can tell we become human beings when Geer's science book says we are. It's just a few chapters behind his latest findings on glacial demise.We become viable human beings when we are born.

[geerair]

I believe I can prove that the unborn is a human person from the moment of conception. Fire away. We eagerly anticipate your logic.

[geerair]

Oh, and do you need a law in order to lead your family to a moral life?Do you need the threat of hell in order to lead your family to a moral life?

[geerair]

The key question regarding abortion is What is the unborn?

The most common objections to the prolife position are as follows;

1) Women have the right to privacy with their doctors. The facts are that we all have a right to a measure of privacy within limits.And indeed there are limits on abortion as specified in Roe v.Wade.


No privacy argument allows us to do harm to another innocent human being. The law regularly invades or privacy when another human being’s welfare is at stake.Then again, you are using your own morality code to define your parameters.



Privacy is not the issue in abortion. It was the issue on which the decision rested in Roe v. Wade




The real issue is what is the unborn? If it is another human being then it is no longer just the mother’s health but another living person.Again your morality.








2) But women should have the right to choose. No one has unrestricted freedom to choose. The freedom depends upon what kind of choice one has in mind. Choice is not the real issue, but rather whether a choice harms another human being or not.And again there are resrtictions on abortion. That these restrictions are not draconian enough for you speaks to your your own version of morality.



3) Women shouldn’t have to continue a pregnancy that is the result of a rape. Carrying a child when the pregnancy was the result of rape can be emotionally devastating. But why should the child pay with his own life for the father’s crime? Would we allow the woman to execute the rapist because of the emotional relief it gives her? If not, why should she be allowed to execute her innocent child for the same reason?Because we value the emotional and physical well-being of woman over a clump of undifferentiated cells.





So again, the real question is what is the unborn? If the unborn is not a human person then do whatever you want. But, if the unborn is an actual human person then killing him is just not right. We just don’t go around killing people because they are unwanted, inconvenient or an economic hardship. Unless we don’t value life.More personal morality.

[RoBoTeq]

Do you need the threat of hell in order to lead your family to a moral life?
I see the theological conception of hell as an alternative to what will occur if we do not lead moral lives according to scripture, not so much as a threat, but more as a warning.

Let's face it, if we live our lives according to the rules put forth in scripture, we will lead better lives and be better human beings. As an added bonus to having better lives as humans, we also will secure a place with God for our eternal spiritual lives. I just can't find any fault with that plan.

[geerair]

Absolutely right! And it is interesting that I get castigated for bringing this issue to ARP. Someone needs to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.You don't get castigated for bringing the issue to ARP. You get castigated for injecting personal morality and novel defintions driven by religous zealotry.








Reagan made the remark that he found it interesting that those who favor choice are already born.Reagan supported an abortion law as governor and his later anti-abortion stance was a product of political calculation rather than deeply held convivtion.

[RoBoTeq]

And indeed there are limits on abortion as specified in Roe v.Wade.

Then again, you are using your own morality code to define your parameters.

It was the issue on which the decision rested in Roe v. Wade

Again your morality.

And again there are resrtictions on abortion. That these restrictions are not draconian enough for you speaks to your your own version of morality.

Because we value the emotional and physical well-being of woman over a clump of undifferentiated cells.

More personal morality.
I must agree with your overall take on this subject.....

(urrrp...excuse me, I need to rinse that taste out of my mouth...)

I personally lean toward human life, as in life with a soul, begins with a baby's first breath. For this reason, I personally lean toward human life beginning at birth.

This does not mean that I agree with abortion, I don't. I believe that abortion is something that should be reserved only for certain extreme occasions such as rape or to protect the health of the mother. In my mind, there is never any reason to abort an "unwanted" pregnancy. If a pregnancy is unwanted, then be responsible and don't get pregnant. It's not like this is a difficult task in this day and age.

The limits on when a fetus can be aborted I believe should also be considered, as they are. In no way do I believe that persons who are just irresponsible about getting pregnant should be able to burden others with their irresponsibility by having abortion covered by insurance. If you are an irresponsible person, take out a seperate insurance policy to cover your being irresponsible just like I had to do when I was skydiviing.

For those who chant pro-choice for women, I say;


Getting Pregnant is a choice; choose not to do so if you don't want to have a baby.
Following through on your responsibility to give birth if you were irresponsible in getting pregnant is a choice, and the only honorable one.

[geerair]

Progressives believe in retro-active abortion.

No liberal progressive has ever been able to make a lucid arguement why an unborn fetus is not a human being and that abortion is not murder. That's because they refuse to accept the simple truth of life: life begins at the moment of conception.There are conservatives who are pro-choice.


Instead, these monsters want to desperately find some meager justification for their evil lifestyle choices.Yes, yes, too bad it takes the threat of hell to coerce some into leading a moral life.



These people who mock God Jehovah and Jesus Christ will stand in judgement one day and they won't be wearing that silly smirk that permeates their little quips on this site. Yes, the Jesus-Jumper's version of "you just wait, I'm gonna get my big brother to whip your ass and then you'll be sorry."

[geerair]

Right, and it gets worse.

There was no sin before Adam sinned therefore there was no death before Adam. Therefore, there were no fossils before Adam.

That makes evolution impossible. All death and the fossil record had to come after Adam sinned and brought death into the world.Ah yes, the Flintstones theory. A favorite of the science illiterate.

[geerair]

I see the theological conception of hell as an alternative to what will occur if we do not lead moral lives according to scripture, not so much as a threat, but more as a warning.Threat, warning.........




Let's face it, if we live our lives according to the rules put forth in scripture, we will lead better lives and be better human beings. As an added bonus to having better lives as humans, we also will secure a place with God for our eternal spiritual lives. I just can't find any fault with that plan.Would those include the rules on how to treat slaves? Or that every living thing must be destroyed if god gets pissed?

[geerair]

This does not mean that I agree with abortion, I don't. I believe that abortion is something that should be reserved only for certain extreme occasions such as rape or to protect the health of the mother. In my mind, there is never any reason to abort an "unwanted" pregnancy. If a pregnancy is unwanted, then be responsible and don't get pregnant. It's not like this is a difficult task in this day and ageThe limits on when a fetus can be aborted I believe should also be considered, as they are. In no way do I believe that persons who are just irresponsible about getting pregnant should be able to burden others with their irresponsibility by having abortion covered by insurance. If you are an irresponsible person, take out a seperate insurance policy to cover your being irresponsible just like I had to do when I was skydiviing.

For those who chant pro-choice for women, I say;


Getting Pregnant is a choice; choose not to do so if you don't want to have a baby.
Following through on your responsibility to give birth if you were irresponsible in getting pregnant is a choice, and the only honorable one.
Spoken like a true male of the species who knows he will never have to carry a fetus.

[RoBoTeq]

Threat, warning.........



Would those include the rules on how to treat slaves? Or that every living thing must be destroyed if god gets pissed?
Not at all. Not now. If you just want to dwell on Old Testament times without regard to the progression of God's will, then you must also dwell on ancient science as opposed to what we understand today; fair?

Of course it's not fair. Catch up to speed on what God's will is please. The major theme to to dwell on is to love one another as Christ love's us. That is the base of what Christ teaches us.

However, God's rules for how to treat slaves when it was an accepted thing for humans to do was pretty darned good for those slaves. Slavery of course, was a lot different in Biblical stories then what we think of as slavery. Slaves of Hebrews were nearly accepted as family members.

[RoBoTeq]

Spoken like a true male of the species who knows he will never have to carry a fetus.
I have a news flash for you geer; there's no such thing as butt babies. So, unless you are a woman, like it or not, you won't ever have to carry a fetus either.

However, no woman has to carry a fetus. All women have the choice to carry a fetus or not, except for instances that I have already allowed for. Are you claiming that woman are just not capable of being responsible people? Jeesh, what a chauvanist pig:troll2:

[geerair]

I have a news flash for you geer; there's no such thing as butt babies. So, unless you are a woman, like it or not, you won't ever have to carry a fetus either.But then I am not trying to insist that women adhere to my male-influenced moral code.





However, no woman has to carry a fetus. All women have the choice to carry a fetus or not, except for instances that I have already allowed for.All men have the choice to not knock up women.





Are you claiming that woman are just not capable of being responsible people? Jeesh, what a chauvanist pig:troll2:No, that would be you.

You insist that women are not responsible enough to arrange their lives without your version of morality.

[bootlen]

Let's face it, if we live our lives according to the rules put forth in scripture, we will lead better lives and be better human beings. As an added bonus to having better lives as humans, we also will secure a place with God for our eternal spiritual lives. I just can't find any fault with that plan.

So you DO agree with RCC doctrine?

[RoBoTeq]

But then I am not trying to insist that women adhere to my male-influenced moral code. You don't seem to have a moral code that includes this subject. You seem to think that men and women who behave irresponsibly should be just as irresponsible about how they handle their mistakes. And yes, if there is an unwanted pregnancy, then two people have made a mistake.


All men have the choice to not knock up women.
I never stated otherwise.




No, that would be you.

You insist that women are not responsible enough to arrange their lives without your version of morality.
I think you will see that I insisted that "people" are not responsible enough to arrange their lives without causing unwanted pregnancy. My morality does not come into play here because I do not consider myself a moral enough of a person to judge the morality of others.

You on the other hand should be quite a fit person for all of the exercise you get jumping to conclusions about how others think and running around in circles with your attempt at arguing.

[RoBoTeq]

So you DO agree with RCC doctrine?
Not all of it, no. Only that which truly reiterates what Jesus teaches us. I certainly don't believe I have to be a Catholic to be saved, do you?

[RoBoTeq]

Now ain't this just a hoot; I'm being tag teamed by an extreme leftist and an extreme righteous. Talk about being between a rock and a hard head.

[geerair]

Not at all. Not now. If you just want to dwell on Old Testament times without regard to the progression of God's will, then you must also dwell on ancient science as opposed to what we understand today; fair?

Of course it's not fair. Catch up to speed on what God's will is please. The major theme to to dwell on is to love one another as Christ love's us. That is the base of what Christ teaches us.So we just focus on the good bits and nevermind the horrendous bits.

That would be tatamount to considering that Charlie Manson wasn't such a bad guy, afterall he did care for his people and insisted they love one another.







However, God's rules for how to treat slaves when it was an accepted thing for humans to do was pretty darned good for those slaves. Slavery of course, was a lot different in Biblical stories then what we think of as slavery. Slaves of Hebrews were nearly accepted as family members.Owning human beings is never right and your god, above all, should know that.

[bootlen]

Not all of it, no. Only that which truly reiterates what Jesus teaches us. I certainly don't believe I have to be a Catholic to be saved, do you?

Nope. But Jesus said good works (doing what's right and not doing what's wrong) is not the way to get to Heaven. And THAT is contradictory to RCC doctrine and the post in question.

[geerair]

You don't seem to have a moral code that includes this subject. I do. It includes not shoving my morality into others lives.




You seem to think that men and women who behave irresponsibly should be just as irresponsible about how they handle their mistakes.No, i think they should explore all options. That would include abortion, no matter what your religious code leads you to believe.



And yes, if there is an unwanted pregnancy, then two people have made a mistake. I would agree.




I think you will see that I insisted that "people" are not responsible enough to arrange their lives without causing unwanted pregnancy.You clearly were stating it is soley a women's problem.


My morality does not come into play here because I do not consider myself a moral enough of a person to judge the morality of others.Yet you continue to assert your morality.


You on the other hand should be quite a fit person for all of the exercise you get jumping to conclusions about how others think and running around in circles with your attempt at arguing.Standard Boyd excuse for a crumbling attempt at logic and morality.

[bootlen]

Geer thinks there's a gun at his temple.

[RoBoTeq]

So we just focus on the good bits and nevermind the horrendous bits. I really don't believe you are this ignorant of scripture, but I suppose I could be wrong. I really almost hope you are completely ignorant of scripture because the alternative is that you are pretending to be stupid.

There was an obvious progression of nearly two thousand years of history that went into the developement of the eventual creation of Christianity by Jesus Christ. (For those who continue to be confused by this, it was Jesus Christ that created Christianity and not the Roman Catholic Church...just in case you were wondering.)

During this progression, a New Testament (maybe you heard of it or have seen the movie version) was created between God and mankind that is quite different from the covenant of the Hebrew (Old) Testament. There is even an old saying about this that goes; No one puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."


That would be tatamount to considering that Charlie Manson wasn't such a bad guy, afterall he did care for his people and insisted they love one another.
You see, it is inflammatory stuff like this that you post that makes me believe you just prefer to act like a buffoon and really have no desire to have an actual rational and respectful conversation. That' ok by me. A court jester can be fun at times. [quote]

Owning human beings is never right and your god, above all, should know that. First of all, God is God, not my God. Just because some folks don't believe in God does not mean that God does not believe in them or that God does not exist.

Now, owning human beings certainly was an acceptable practice during more of human history then not. I am not saying that I condone the practice, I don't, but it has been an acceptable practice. God does not force us to do anything. God has given us the right to choose how we wish to conduct ourselves. In Biblical history, God gave His chosen people, the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews instruction on how to properly treat those who were enslaved to them because they themselves had been enslaved. God does not interfere with the decisions we make, although God may tip the playing field in favor of the faithful from time to time.

[RoBoTeq]

Nope. But Jesus said good works (doing what's right and not doing what's wrong) is not the way to get to Heaven. And THAT is contradictory to RCC doctrine and the post in question.
I'm not following what ever it is you are trying to say.

[RoBoTeq]

I do. It includes not shoving my morality into others lives.



No, i think they should explore all options. That would include abortion, no matter what your religious code leads you to believe.


I would agree.



You clearly were stating it is soley a women's problem.

Yet you continue to assert your morality.

Standard Boyd excuse for a crumbling attempt at logic and morality.
What a hypocrite. All you have done is to impose "your" morality on others. It is quite impossible to have a discussion of a subject based on morality without imposing one's own morality on others in the conversation. The difference is that I don't care what you and others do as long as it does not adversely affect me. When a law requires insurance to cover someone elses irresponsible behaviour for reasons of that person's simply not wanting to deal with the effect of their irresponsible behaviour, and this is going to increase my insurance premiums; I say NO!

I don't care if others want to abort their unborn children. Hell, with the attitude of most who want the right to whisk away their irresponsible behaviour, I really don't much care if they kill their bratty kids who are going to grow up just like their parents. This sounds to me like a good way to reduce the population of geerlike thinking in the world. I just don't want to have to wind up paying for it.

Incidentally, I know of several liberal and even one in particular ultra liberal families that I absolutely respect how they have lived and raised their liberal, now adult children. They are liberals, but they are not irresponsible people.

[RoBoTeq]

Geer thinks there's a gun at his temple.
I really can't figure out if he is really as wacked as he sometimes comes off or not. Like you are implying; no one is making him do or not do anything. I don't even know what his gripe is in this discussion.

[glennac]

I really can't figure out if he is really as wacked as he sometimes comes off or not. Like you are implying; no one is making him do or not do anything. I don't even know what his gripe is in this discussion.

I figure he is an agent provocateur. Sent to this forum by the Democratic Under ground to cause disunity in the ranks of conservatives and Christians alike so we can't focus on the Cancer which is ruining our country like in the WH and Congress the commie loving Democrats.:eek2::) Thank you very much. You too geer:)

[sline-dawg]

It's a Blues Brother thing...... He's on a mission from god.....:couchhide:








Ain't we all.....:)

[RoBoTeq]

Glenn's thoughts on why geer is here is more logical. Geer claims he does not believe in God. In fact, geer is very malicious to those of who do believe in God. Maybe geer is like C.S. Lewis's Screwtape or more likely wormwood.

[bootlen]

I'm not following what ever it is you are trying to say.

RCC says salvation is works based. Scripture says it is not.

[RoBoTeq]

RCC says salvation is works based. Scripture says it is not.
I follow scripture only. I have been stating all along that the RCC has made many claims that are not truth. I even mentioned the RCC requiring deeds for salvation being one of the many falsehoods that the RCC has passed on to believers. This is exactly why I feel uncomfortable with the RCC position that Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind; it doesn't follow scripture.

[EarthLoop]

I follow scripture only. I have been stating all along that the RCC has made many claims that are not truth. I even mentioned the RCC requiring deeds for salvation being one of the many falsehoods that the RCC has passed on to believers. This is exactly why I feel uncomfortable with the RCC position that Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind; it doesn't follow scripture.


What about Adam and Steve??

[RoBoTeq]

What about Adam and Steve??
Must be your relatives:troll2:

[bb]

Maybe geer is like C.S. Lewis's Screwtape or more likely wormwood.

Sounds accurate.

[RoBoTeq]

Sounds accurate.
Yep, geer is Wormwood for sure. From The Screwtape Letters, Chapter XXX: "My dear Wormwood, I sometimes wonder whether you think you have been sent into the world for your own amusement."

Now if that is not directed to geer, I don't know what would be:troll2:

[geerair]

Geer thinks there's a gun at his temple.?????????

[geerair]

What a hypocrite. All you have done is to impose "your" morality on others. It is quite impossible to have a discussion of a subject based on morality without imposing one's own morality on others in the conversation. The difference is that I don't care what you and others do as long as it does not adversely affect me. When a law requires insurance to cover someone elses irresponsible behaviour for reasons of that person's simply not wanting to deal with the effect of their irresponsible behaviour, and this is going to increase my insurance premiums; I say NO!What law would that be?


I don't care if others want to abort their unborn children. Hell, with the attitude of most who want the right to whisk away their irresponsible behaviour, I really don't much care if they kill their bratty kids who are going to grow up just like their parents. This sounds to me like a good way to reduce the population of geerlike thinking in the world. I just don't want to have to wind up paying for it.What law requires you to pay for it?

[geerair]

I figure he is an agent provocateur. Sent to this forum by the Democratic Under ground to cause disunity in the ranks of conservatives and Christians alike so we can't focus on the Cancer which is ruining our country like in the WH and Congress the commie loving Democrats.:eek2::) Thank you very much. You too geer:)Oh, it is way worse than that.

[geerair]

Geer claims he does not believe in God. In fact, geer is very malicious to those of who do believe in God. Only when you are malicious to the truth. Which seems to be increasing with every post you make.

[geerair]

Yep, geer is Wormwood for sure. From The Screwtape Letters, Chapter XXX: "My dear Wormwood, I sometimes wonder whether you think you have been sent into the world for your own amusement."

Now if that is not directed to geer, I don't know what would be:troll2:C.S. Lewis, that old fraud.

Ah, a person influenced by Lewis' scribblings.........no wonder Boyd is as he is.

[TB]

This brings up all of those huge dinosaurs that then must have lived at the same time as Adam and Eve, yet there are no indications of them in scripture other then in Job. Wouldn't a world full of T-Rex's at least make a mention in scripture?

Conversely, if we understand scripture to be telling us of a creation of mankind much earlier then Adam and Eve, scripture no longer disagrees with evolution.
Gees Robin, since when does the Bible, which has stood unchanged for centuries, have to be made to conform to scientific interpretation, which has remained unchanged for a few years at the most?

While watching the nature channel or other nature shows, keep your eye out for dinosauers---little ones, they're there. Then consider that reptiles are the only animal that continues growing as long as it lives, and ask yourself, "What would that look like if it were 1500 years old?"

Also remember that some of what science calls prehistoric dinosauers, have only died off in the last couple hundred years, and some still live in the S.American and African deep swamps.

[RoBoTeq]

C.S. Lewis, that old fraud.

Ah, a person influenced by Lewis' scribblings.........no wonder Boyd is as he is.
I am influenced by everything and everyone I experience, some for good, some for bad and some are dismissed as irrelevant. The influence you have on me is something akin to that taste you get in your mouth when you have acid indigestion.:troll2:

[RoBoTeq]

Gees Robin, since when does the Bible, which has stood unchanged for centuries, have to be made to conform to scientific interpretation, which has remained unchanged for a few years at the most?

While watching the nature channel or other nature shows, keep your eye out for dinosauers---little ones, they're there. Then consider that reptiles are the only animal that continues growing as long as it lives, and ask yourself, "What would that look like if it were 1500 years old?"

Also remember that some of what science calls prehistoric dinosauers, have only died off in the last couple hundred years, and some still live in the S.American and African deep swamps.
I do not expect the Bible to conform with science at all. It is still nice when Theology and the sciences play nice together. Why should we accept a history that bucks up against everything we are learning from science "and" against it's own writings, when another history better coincides with everything else?

Your brand of fundamentalism is like the child who hears a mouse in his closet and is convinced that there is a monster in there. Even when the noise stops and a dead mouse is found, you are the child that refuses to believe there is no monster. I use this analogy because I fear that what we have been led to believe just may come from a monster.

[royc]

Well I had to unsubscribe for a while, cause I just didnt have the time to read some of the nonsense written, especially when the original question "What Is A Person" was completly ignored, and was replaced by the usual "radical religious fest", which had obsolutly nothing to do with the original question, but I can assure you, that was the intention of the poster.

I find that its realy sad, that those of you who were born here, under natural law, dont seem to be able to distinguish the difference between "Law" and "Statues".

A pregnant woman goes to several stages of pregnancy, and after some time its called a fetus, with several attributes of progession. When she delivers its called a human being, and the parent(s) may give it a name..John/Jane Doe or whatever, and the delivery attendant, if there is such, will attest that such John/Jane was born, and may even document such.

Its just in recent (civilized) times that goverments have required that the natural human being, born under natural law, given a natural name, is coerced to be handed over to a corporation, and then an instrument called Certificate Of Birth will be made, so the corporation has legal rights to such PERSON. So in effect when you obtain a birth certificate for your child, you are putting your child in to bondage to the corporation, and the statues it operates under, which it then declares it to be (corporate) law.

So the original question from the OP is very simple, a child does not become a PERSON by birth, it is a human being with a given name, and does not become a PERSON, til the parent makes it so, with the above short explanation.

Seems that some in here are ingnorant of truth, and all they seem to do is trying to type themselfs smart.

Roy

[RoBoTeq]

I find that its realy sad, that those of you who were born here, under natural law, dont seem to be able to distinguish the difference between "Law" and "Statues".

.................................................. ..................................................

Seems that some in here are ingnorant of truth, and all they seem to do is trying to type themselfs smart.

Roy
LOL! Roy, you are a hoot! You arrogant immigrant you:patriot: Instead of embracing your adoptive country, you continue to very wrongly consider yourself superiour to your fellow countrymen.

OK, let's be real clear here Roy; a "statue" is an monument type of structure usually depicting a person, place or thing. And you are correct; a statue is not a law.

However, if you meant to use the term "statute", then you are still wrong. While not all laws are statutes, a statute is a law.

As for your claimed description of what is a person, your diluting rambling makes it difficult for me to really understand what you are trying to say. If I am reading your insulting diatribe correctly, you are saying that if we don't name a child at birth, it will never become a person. :eek2:

[royc]

Quote:

So the original question from the OP is very simple, a child does not become a PERSON by birth, it is a human being with a given name, and does not become a PERSON, til the parent makes it so, with the above short explanation.
-----------------------------------------------------

So let me make it simple for you...

A child becomes a PERSON when you get a binding agreement called a CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH.

A PERSON is a corporate fiction.

Roy

[royc]

You may want to watch this to get a better explanation of how this all works, its from England but it pertains to about every country by now, exept for rare occasions.....


http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/john-harris-its-illusion


Roy

[RoBoTeq]

Quote:

So the original question from the OP is very simple, a child does not become a PERSON by birth, it is a human being with a given name, and does not become a PERSON, til the parent makes it so, with the above short explanation.
-----------------------------------------------------

So let me make it simple for you...

A child becomes a PERSON when you get a binding agreement called a CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH.

A PERSON is a corporate fiction.

Roy
So, there were no persons before the advent of birth certificates? If a child is born outside of societal guidelines, such as Gypsies, they are not persons because they don't have birth certificates?

[RoBoTeq]

You may want to watch this to get a better explanation of how this all works, its from England but it pertains to about every country by now, exept for rare occasions.....


http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/john-harris-its-illusion


Roy
I see. So, do we need to be from Germany or England to be intelligent enough to understand things or are all Europeans automatically smarter then natural born Americans?

[acmanko]

Any American that took the time to learn the laws of our land, know that Roy is correct. Only Americans blinded by realigious zeal are to ignorant to know what is otherwise common knowledge.

[RoBoTeq]

Any American that took the time to learn the laws of our land, know that Roy is correct. Only Americans blinded by realigious zeal are to ignorant to know what is otherwise common knowledge.
How would you know anything about Americans?

[TB]

This is actually another point of contention based on Adam and Eve being the origins of all of mankind. ....
Conversely, if we understand scripture to be telling us of a creation of mankind much earlier then Adam and Eve, scripture no longer disagrees with evolution. If "we" understood scripture to be telling us of a creation of mankind much earlier then Adam and Eve then "we" would not be understanding correctly.

Act 17:26 From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live,
Act 17:27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

[RoBoTeq]

If "we" understood scripture to be telling us of a creation of mankind much earlier then Adam and Eve then "we" would not be understanding correctly.

Act 17:26 From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live,
Act 17:27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
Where are you getting that version of Acts from? It does not at all coincide with the KJV or with Aramaic translations.

[RoBoTeq]

Sorry TB, I was using my KJV Bible because of the Strong's Concordance being so useful for word translations from Aramaic and ancient Greek to English. I see the NIV words Acts 17:26 the way you quoted it.

However, it is getting late so I won't be able to dig further, but the Greek word that has been translated to "man" in this passage actually means "blood". The passage refers to "one blood", not "one man". With Luke being a non-Jew as well as a learned physician, may have believed that reverring to all of mankind as coming from one blood line to mean one source of lineage or from only "human" blood. Or, not being familiar with the Jewish faith, Luke may have been the first to misunderstand the Genesis story of the creation of mankind.

As with so many things in scripture, we do not know for certain. Therefore, we may not be able to use this passage to show either an Adam and Eve for all or a previous creation of mankind prior to the forming of Adam and the making of Eve from Adam.

[TB]

However, it is getting late so I won't be able to dig further, but the Greek word that has been translated to "man" in this passage actually means "blood". Except that in the greek, the word "man" is not used in this passage. The translators added the word "man" for clarity, and continuity, because of the way our American language flows, and because the meaning is unchanged by doing so. It literally reads," ...and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on face of the earth..."




With Luke being a non-Jew as well as a learned physician, may have believed that reverring to all of mankind as coming from one blood line to mean one source of lineage or from only "human" blood. Or, not being familiar with the Jewish faith, Luke may have been the first to misunderstand the Genesis story of the creation of mankind.

The KJV in its wording, still communicates the meaning that all nations of men were of one blood

Except Luke wasn't relaying his understanding of the Jewish Genesis, but what Paul had said to the Areopagus in Athens. Paul, a Jew who understood Genesis as well as any Jew and better than most because of his upbringing in the tradition of the Pharisees, said it in Greek, to Greek speaking philosophers, and there is no reason to suspect Luke of being dishonest or absent-minded in his record of it.

[RoBoTeq]

I was in the midst of turning in for the night when I posted, so I did miss some of the background of this being a quote from Paul. I'm getting ready for a meeting, so I can only do a little at this time as well.


Except that in the greek, the word "man" is not used in this passage. The translators added the word "man" for clarity, and continuity, because of the way our American language flows, and because the meaning is unchanged by doing so. It literally reads," ...and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on face of the earth..."
Your translation omits the word "blood" as is in the KJV version of; Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; KJV


Except Luke wasn't relaying his understanding of the Jewish Genesis, but what Paul had said to the Areopagus in Athens. Paul, a Jew who understood Genesis as well as any Jew and better than most because of his upbringing in the tradition of the Pharisees, said it in Greek, to Greek speaking philosophers, and there is no reason to suspect Luke of being dishonest or absent-minded in his record of it.
You are correct. So this falls back to the same as Paul's accounting in his letter to the Romans. Paul is a Jew, speaking to non-Jews. Paul needs to get some of the Biblical history of "man", (but really only Hebrews) to the gentiles so they will understand the progression of the covenant of God to them.

Remember, all who are not the Hebrew lineage have to be grafted into the fold. They are not of the same DNA as the Hebrews. They come from a different line and therefore are only related through Jesus Christ.

[Some Dude]

Upon the moment of conception a person becomes a person.

[royc]

Upon the moment of conception a person becomes a person.

And what do you base that on.

Roy

[acmanko]

Upon the moment of conception a person becomes a person.

so does a twin, who comes from a egg fertilized by a second man cease to be a person?



Advances in DNA testing have made this phenomena far more easy to find and prove since then. The technical term is heteropaternal superfecundation, and it can come about because fraternal twins are the result of two eggs being present in the uterus at the same time, allowing for two different sperm to join and result in an embryo. Those two different sperm can come from two different men if the timing is right- and the timing can be surprisingly open, given that it is possible (but very rare) for fraternal twins to be conceived during two different menstrual cycles. Some estimates say that up to 1 in 12 pairs of fraternal twins worldwide have different fathers.

[acmanko]

And what do you base that on.

Roy

Don't you know anything? It depend on how you hold your tongue

[royc]

I see. So, do we need to be from Germany or England to be intelligent enough to understand things or are all Europeans automatically smarter then natural born Americans?

Considering your diatribe of the subject matter, thats a good possibillity.

Also let me remind you, I have been an American longer then you have, unless of course your older then I think you are..lol

I've said this before and I'm going to say it again. Exept for the fact that I was born there and graduated at age 14, and still speak the language somewhat, there is little left in me thats german. I consider myself a full blooded American, and I'm proude of it, and I will always remind all of those who are born here, whenever they are ignorant of what being a real American is all about.

As to how well the average American is educated today....Considering we have Obama as president, it speaks volumes.

Roy

[RoBoTeq]

Upon the moment of conception a person becomes a person.
The law disagrees. From what source do you justify your stand? Is birth control the prevention of allowing a person to exist? Is causing the egg and sperm to not be able to perform their allocated function an interference with the rights of persons to be? What about the morning after pill? At exactly what point is conception? The moment the sperm touches the egg? How long does that take? The moment the sperm breaks through the egg? After there are enough cells to form an embryo? How long does that take? After the fertilized egg has settled into the uterus, from which time we start counting down the nine months?

The above described is the complete process of conception, which can take up to two weeks to complete after sexual intercourse. At what point do we determine conception is a definite?

[RoBoTeq]

so does a twin, who comes from a egg fertilized by a second man cease to be a person?



Advances in DNA testing have made this phenomena far more easy to find and prove since then. The technical term is heteropaternal superfecundation, and it can come about because fraternal twins are the result of two eggs being present in the uterus at the same time, allowing for two different sperm to join and result in an embryo. Those two different sperm can come from two different men if the timing is right- and the timing can be surprisingly open, given that it is possible (but very rare) for fraternal twins to be conceived during two different menstrual cycles. Some estimates say that up to 1 in 12 pairs of fraternal twins worldwide have different fathers.
Takes you to come up with the most remote scenario possible.

For this to happen, there must be two seperate eggs fertilized seperately by two different sperm from two different males but within 48 hours of one another. It's the same as having two seperate pregnancies going on at the same time.

[RoBoTeq]

Considering your diatribe of the subject matter, thats a good possibillity.

Also let me remind you, I have been an American longer then you have, unless of course your older then I think you are..lol

I've said this before and I'm going to say it again. Exept for the fact that I was born there and graduated at age 14, and still speak the language somewhat, there is little left in me thats german. I consider myself a full blooded American, and I'm proude of it, and I will always remind all of those who are born here, whenever they are ignorant of what being a real American is all about.

As to how well the average American is educated today....Considering we have Obama as president, it speaks volumes.

Roy
Well, I've been an American for 56 years and have a great respect for foreign born American citizens no matter how long they have been in the U.S. I often feel that natural born Americans just don't appreciate our nation as much as you unnaturally born Americans do:angel:.

You still come across like a jerk who thinks he's better then natural born Americans.:patriot:

[royc]

Well, I've been an American for 56 years and have a great respect for foreign born American citizens no matter how long they have been in the U.S. I often feel that natural born Americans just don't appreciate our nation as much as you unnaturally born Americans do:angel:.

You still come across like a jerk who thinks he's better then natural born Americans.:patriot:

Considering your last line, you dont know what respect is.

Roy

[RoBoTeq]

Considering your last line, you dont know what respect is.

Roy
Just following your lead Roy. You are the one who started, without provocation, belittling natural born Americans. What is truly ironic is that you used wrong terminology and incorrect definitions of the term you thought you were posting as an example of how stupid natural born Americans are.

I know exactly what respect is, and I have no respect for someone who thinks of others the way you do.

[acmanko]

Takes you to come up with the most remote scenario possible.

For this to happen, there must be two seperate eggs fertilized seperately by two different sperm from two different males but within 48 hours of one another. It's the same as having two seperate pregnancies going on at the same time.

Evidently, you do not understand what 1 in 12 means, nor do you understand menstrual cycle.

I just wonder if one egg out of a set of twins fails to develope completely if it makes the other a half-person, or if it attaches to the developed egg it becomes a parasite

[Pneuma]

I know this lady, actually my wife does, she has a kid with Luekemia, or some blod cancer. They had a bunch of eggs fertilized invitro. They did dna testing for a match so he could have a donor. This is happening right now. no offense but you guys are so far afield in this discussion and missing that both legal and moral lines of reasoning are important. Right now you can get a bunch of fertilized egss, (concieved persons?) test them and kill the ones you don't want, legally, so how then can you go from that and argue that a woman who is simply pregnant from unprotected sex can't kill the kid cause she doesn't want a baby?

In this post I'm not arguing one way or another, but I am just defining the current boundries. Legally we recognize a person at a certain point, the age of viability, via roe V wade, scientifically we are making persons and either killing them or continiung to grow them, on a case by case basis, depending on if we want a certain sex or in this case need a marrow donor.

I mean she wants a marrow donor, what if she wanted identical twins? Or what if they can through DNA see if a kid will be tall, or smart? Do we just keep making persons and keeping the "good" and tossing out the "bad"?

The abortion rights debate is being defined outside of the courts while everyone eyes are on Tim Tebow's mom!

As I posted before, just wait until we can actually manipulate genetics, no more choosing and killing, just creating what "we" like. Dr Sues here we come!

[RoBoTeq]

Evidently, you do not understand what 1 in 12 means, nor do you understand menstrual cycle.

I just wonder if one egg out of a set of twins fails to develope completely if it makes the other a half-person, or if it attaches to the developed egg it becomes a parasite
I have no idea why you are blathering about this. It is as I stated it is;

Twins With Two Fathers - Superfecundation and Superfetation

Q: I was wondering how often it happens that twins have two fathers?
A: Twins with separate fathers is called Superfecundation. For this to happen, two things have to happen:
1. You have to ovulate twice (dizyogtic).
2. You have to have sex with different men within a couple of days of ovulation.It seems you are the one who does not understand what 1 in 12 means, nor do you understand menstrual cycle. This is not a 1 in 12 circumstance. More like 1 in a million.

http://babymed.com/FAQ/Content.aspx?13811

[TB]

Your translation omits the word "blood" as is in the KJV version of; [COLOR=black]Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; KJVThere is no word in the Greek that is translated "Blood" either, so don't try and make something of it. The KJV added that word for language clarity in 1600 English as well, and since their use of the language then was different from our use of it now, and more has come to light of the ways words were used in the Greek, and their meanings in that time, than what was known in the 1600's, there are more reliable translations theese days than the KJV (even though the KJV is not a bad translation).



You are correct. So this falls back to the same as Paul's accounting in his letter to the Romans. Paul is a Jew, speaking to non-Jews. Paul needs to get some of the Biblical history of "man", (but really only Hebrews) to the gentiles so they will understand the progression of the covenant of God to them.So you're saying that since Paul said, "...God wants ALL men to be saved...", and ,"...for ALL have sinned...", and, "...of ONE he made ALL men,..." but he only meant "some", then therefore, your position is that Paul lied.



Remember, all who are not the Hebrew lineage have to be grafted into the fold. They are not of the same DNA as the Hebrews. They come from a different line and therefore are only related through Jesus Christ.


Act 10:34 Then Peter started speaking: "I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people,

Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him.

God is not concerned with the DNA of one race vs. another. The line of the Hebrews was only set apart because it was the lineage the promised Savior was to come from, and the nation God chose to distribute His message to all the world through

[acmanko]

Pope Robo gets alot of stuff wrong, he is fallible. untill he takes Bootlen to the woodshed on most topics

[RoBoTeq]

There is no word in the Greek that is translated "Blood" either, so don't try and make something of it. The KJV added that word for language clarity in 1600 English as well, and since their use of the language then was different from our use of it now, and more has come to light of the ways words were used in the Greek, and their meanings in that time, than what was known in the 1600's, there are more reliable translations theese days than the KJV (even though the KJV is not a bad translation). While we all can only be as good as our source material, and all source material is even prone to errors, we still must always be wary of "interpretations" rather then "translations". First you claim that the NIV version of the passage substituted the word "blood" with "man" for clarity (that is an interpretation) and now you are saying the word "blood" was never used in this passage in the Greek text of the earliest writings.

So, how is it that Strong's has the Greek word "haima" as the word in question? Haima is translated to "blood". Are you saying that the KJV writers added an ancient Greek word to the original text so they could translate it to olde English?


So you're saying that since Paul said, "...God wants ALL men to be saved...", and ,"...for ALL have sinned...", and, "...of ONE he made ALL men,..." but he only meant "some", then therefore, your position is that Paul lied. I have not said any such thing or have I implied any such thing. If you look at the different epistles from Paul, you will see very clearly that Paul used completely different tact and style when writing to the different churches.

When Paul had a Jewish audience, Paul could speak based on the Hebrew scripture because his audience was already familiar with what Paul was speaking of. But when Paul spoke to previously gentile believers, Paul had to teach the Hebrew scripture in an inclusive manner so that his non-Jewish audience could relate how Jesus Christ fulfilled the messianic prophecy of Hebrew scripture. After the coming of Jesus Christ, "all" men became equal in the eyes of the Lord. Those who were not of the lineage of Adam and Eve are now "grafted" into the covenant of God to the Hebrews through Jesus Christ.





Act 10:34 Then Peter started speaking: "I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people, Exactly my point. Peter was a bit of a bigot. Peter was raised in the Hebrew belief that those of Hebrew heritage were of a diferent lineage then those who were not. Peter was hesitant to accept the New Testament as meaning that "NOW", not prior to, but after the coming of Jesus Christ, God no longer shows favoritism in dealing with people. Prior to Jesus Christ, the Hebrews were God's chosen people, were they not?


Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. Once again my point is made. Paul had to tell the Roman believers that there is "NOW", no distinction between the Jew and the Greek. Why did Paul have to tell them this if not because prior to Jesus Christ it was not so? [/quote]

God is not concerned with the DNA of one race vs. another. The line of the Hebrews was only set apart because it was the lineage the promised Savior was to come from, and the nation God chose to distribute His message to all the world through [/quote]Why would God create all of mankind and then divide us into warring nations with God only taking one side? This makes no sense whatsover and defies everything scripture tells us.

[RoBoTeq]

Pope Robo gets alot of stuff wrong, he is fallible. untill he takes Bootlen to the woodshed on most topics
Of course I'm fallible, but not as fallible as the Pope is.

[TB]

While we all can only be as good as our source material, and all source material is even prone to errors, we still must always be wary of "interpretations" rather then "translations". First you claim that the NIV version of the passage substituted the word "blood" with "man" for clarity (that is an interpretation) and now you are saying the word "blood" was never used in this passage in the Greek text of the earliest writing.
So, how is it that Strong's has the Greek word "haima" as the word in question? Haima is translated to "blood". Are you saying that the KJV writers added an ancient Greek word to the original text so they could translate it to olde English? The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate and German versions. The Greek version I have dosen't have a word in it that would have been translated either "man" or "blood". I think you misunderstood what I originally wrote.



I have not said any such thing or have I implied any such thing. If you look at the different epistles from Paul, you will see very clearly that Paul used completely different tact and style when writing to the different churches.

When Paul had a Jewish audience, Paul could speak based on the Hebrew scripture because his audience was already familiar with what Paul was speaking of. But when Paul spoke to previously gentile believers, Paul had to teach the Hebrew scripture in an inclusive manner so that his non-Jewish audience could relate how Jesus Christ fulfilled the messianic prophecy of Hebrew scripture.Sure he did. Before you can recieve salvation you must first realize you need it, but this is what I'm understanding you to be saying, that Paul preached something not aplicable to gentiles as if it was---that would be lying.



After the coming of Jesus Christ, "all" men became equal in the eyes of the Lord. Those who were not of the lineage of Adam and Eve are now "grafted" into the covenant of God to the Hebrews through Jesus Christ. Exactly my point. Peter was a bit of a bigot. Peter was raised in the Hebrew belief that those of Hebrew heritage were of a diferent lineage then those who were not. Peter was hesitant to accept the New Testament as meaning that "NOW", not prior to, but after the coming of Jesus Christ, God no longer shows favoritism in dealing with people. Prior to Jesus Christ, the Hebrews were God's chosen people, were they not? Once again my point is made. Paul had to tell the Roman believers that there is "NOW", no distinction between the Jew and the Greek. Why did Paul have to tell them this if not because prior to Jesus Christ it was not so?
Paul was preaching a "Jewish" religion, that Jews held excluded gentiles and allways had--though it never did really. Throughout the OT, God was also sending His Prophets to gentile nations as well as Jews--there was no exclusion going on from Gods end. It wasn't untill the Jews forgot about the relationship with God that they were supposed to have with Him, and that their salvation actually came through, that they started developing the theology that they recieved salvation because of who they were (Jews) which also excluded anyone because of who they were (Not Jews). Seems like you are victim of the teachings handed down by those who deify Mary, and hold to a works based theology just as they claimed OT Judaism did. How would you tell a man born blind what "light" is unless you described to him what it does? I submit to you that that is the purpose of the OT law. God was describing to "blind men" his character by what it does, knowing that they would onlu empathetically understand it if they did it. In the NT Jesus revealed Gods character the other way, by demonstrating it. Both testaments say the same thing. Thats why Jesus could say to the pharisees, speaking of the OT scriptures, "...but they are they that speak of me."

Why would God create all of mankind and then divide us into warring nations with God only taking one side? This makes no sense whatsover and defies everything scripture tells us.

God didn't devide us into warring nations and then take sides. We devided ourselves into warring nations, and most of us throughout history chose to not be on Gods side

[acmanko]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in the real world, about 16,000 children die daily from hunger

http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html


how is it that the Bible can justify such a slaughter

[bootlen]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in the real world, about 16,000 children die daily from hunger

http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html


how is it that the Bible can justify such a slaughter

It does not. What it DOES do is make it clear that if a female is not married, she should keep her knees together and if a male is not married, he should keep his "horse" in the "barn". It also makes it clear that should these directives be violated, that the innocent should not be blamed.

Now I realize this is a little more information than you can handle at one time but be patient, study hard, and one day, you will understand...maybe.

In the meantime, you shouldn't post things like you did in the above quote, making yourself look really :censored:.

[acmanko]

It does not. What it DOES do is make it clear that if a female is not married, she should keep her knees together and if a male is not married, he should keep his "horse" in the "barn". It also makes it clear that should these directives be violated, that the innocent should not be blamed.

Now I realize this is a little more information than you can handle at one time but be patient, study hard, and one day, you will understand...maybe.

In the meantime, you shouldn't post things like you did in the above quote, making yourself look really :censored:.

I do believe somewhere in the NT, there is a parable about food and clothing and we are directed not to worry about food, God will provide as he does to the birds and animals. But, only a christian would know that

[RoBoTeq]

The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate and German versions. The Greek version I have dosen't have a word in it that would have been translated either "man" or "blood". I think you misunderstood what I originally wrote.So where did Strong's come up with the Greek word that cited in what is considered the most accurate bible concordance available?



Sure he did. Before you can recieve salvation you must first realize you need it, but this is what I'm understanding you to be saying, that Paul preached something not aplicable to gentiles as if it was---that would be lying.You keep ignoring the fact that the New Testament completely changed who was able to receive God's grace under the Abrahamic covenant. We cannot just go mixing up Hebrew Testament and New Testament passages. Jesus even warned us about doing such a thing by using the parable of putting old wine into new wine bags.



Paul was preaching a "Jewish" religion, that Jews held excluded gentiles and allways had--though it never did really. See here! You are even confusing your self in trying to make every human came from Adam and Eve fit.
Throughout the OT, God was also sending His Prophets to gentile nations as well as Jews--there was no exclusion going on from Gods end. It wasn't untill the Jews forgot about the relationship with God that they were supposed to have with Him, and that their salvation actually came through, that they started developing the theology that they recieved salvation because of who they were (Jews) which also excluded anyone because of who they were (Not Jews).Once again proving that God wanted to recognized as God by all, but only God's chosen people, the descendants of Adam and Eve, were under the Abrahamic covenant unless those who were descended from God's creation of mankind prior to Adam and Eve learned of and accepted God as the line of Adam and Eve understood God.
Seems like you are victim of the teachings handed down by those who deify Mary, and hold to a works based theology just as they claimed OT Judaism did. How would you tell a man born blind what "light" is unless you described to him what it does? I submit to you that that is the purpose of the OT law. God was describing to "blind men" his character by what it does, knowing that they would onlu empathetically understand it if they did it. In the NT Jesus revealed Gods character the other way, by demonstrating it. Both testaments say the same thing. Thats why Jesus could say to the pharisees, speaking of the OT scriptures, "...but they are they that speak of me."
This appears to just be a petty insult toward me, so I will ignore it other then to say that in no way do I submit to RCC teachings and have never believed that Mary, mother of Jesus, is to be deified. I'm really disappointed that you stooped to such caddy accusations.


God didn't devide us into warring nations and then take sides. We devided ourselves into warring nations, and most of us throughout history chose to not be on Gods side
Show us! Show us from scripture where we divided ourselves. Show us where some of those born to Adam and Eve went bad, and split from the A&E homestead. There is nothing!

But, there is a strong indication that there was a creation of mankind prior to the forming of Adam and the making of Eve. There is even a definite ending to the Creation story before Adam and Eve are even mentioned. Why would scripture take time to describe the same event, with different data, twice, but neglect to even mention something so important as a division in the family that has been taught to us is the beginning of all of mankind? Does this even make sense?

Of course it doesn't make sense. That is why we have to make up all sorts of reasons for who the people in the land of Nod were, who Cain married, why some of God's created humans were chosen people while the masses of others from the alleged same family were not...and on and on.

If we take scripture for what it is telling us, without regarding what we have been taught by a previously Pagan organization that had every reason to distance Jesus from being Jewish, the story makes a lot more sense.

[RoBoTeq]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in the real world, about 16,000 children die daily from hunger

http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html


how is it that the Bible can justify such a slaughter
First off, what is the "real" world? If we are spiritual beings on a temporary physical journey in a Created physical existance, then the "real" world is the realm of our spirituallity.

In the physical world, we are born to die. When and how that occurs is a physical detail. No matter how our physical bodies expire, our spiritual being still exists. In the matter of children, Jesus tells us that children are innocents. So, we should be able to feel comfort that when a child dies, that childs spirit will be with God for eternity.

It's not that God does not care what happens to us in the physical world. God obviously cares enough to have given us guidelines to live by as well as to have become one of us in Jesus Christ and to have experienced the best and the worst of us.

God has Created the physical Universe to operate under certain laws we refer to as nature. While God will intervene for those of faith who sincerely ask God for intervention, for the most part, what happens to us is a result of how we as a whole deal with God's Creation and with one another. We are the ones responsible for most premature deaths. If we follow God's instructions for us, we can reduce that number greatly.

[acmanko]

First off, what is the "real" world? If we are spiritual beings on a temporary physical journey in a Created physical existance, then the "real" world is the realm of our spirituallity.

In the physical world, we are born to die. When and how that occurs is a physical detail. No matter how our physical bodies expire, our spiritual being still exists. In the matter of children, Jesus tells us that children are innocents. So, we should be able to feel comfort that when a child dies, that childs spirit will be with God for eternity.

It's not that God does not care what happens to us in the physical world. God obviously cares enough to have given us guidelines to live by as well as to have become one of us in Jesus Christ and to have experienced the best and the worst of us.

God has Created the physical Universe to operate under certain laws we refer to as nature. While God will intervene for those of faith who sincerely ask God for intervention, for the most part, what happens to us is a result of how we as a whole deal with God's Creation and with one another. We are the ones responsible for most premature deaths. If we follow God's instructions for us, we can reduce that number greatly.

that's pretty deep Robo. but I would have to agree with what you say, in fact , it is one , if not the best posts you have made.

which takes us back to the first post. defining what a person is has little to do with the big picture and makes any argument about abortion rather trivial

[RoBoTeq]

It does not. What it DOES do is make it clear that if a female is not married, she should keep her knees together and if a male is not married, he should keep his "horse" in the "barn". It also makes it clear that should these directives be violated, that the innocent should not be blamed.

Now I realize this is a little more information than you can handle at one time but be patient, study hard, and one day, you will understand...maybe.

In the meantime, you shouldn't post things like you did in the above quote, making yourself look really :censored:.
I just want to make it clear that I do not subscribe to this sort of controlling hype interpretations from scripture. After all, God did tell His created mankind to "go forth and multiply". Maybe it was just Adam and Eve that God put the sexual restrictions on. Even Jesus told the promiscuous woman at the well that she was married to all of the men she had had sex with.

[RoBoTeq]

I do believe somewhere in the NT, there is a parable about food and clothing and we are directed not to worry about food, God will provide as he does to the birds and animals. But, only a christian would know that
The parable about not worrying is one that I have to read over and over because I keep failing to heed this lesson.

[RoBoTeq]

that's pretty deep Robo. but I would have to agree with what you say, in fact , it is one , if not the best posts you have made.

which takes us back to the first post. defining what a person is has little to do with the big picture and makes any argument about abortion rather trivial
I do take this into consideration a lot when these discussions come up. To be honest, I would not want to be the one to have to make a definite determination on abortion. There are just so many variables, physically, psychologically, theologically and spiritually that this subject really needs to be a personal matter. My only absolute objection is that there should be laws that will require all citizens to have to be responsible for the decisions of those who act irresponsibly.

[acmanko]

It does not. What it DOES do is make it clear that if a female is not married, she should keep her knees together and if a male is not married, he should keep his "horse" in the "barn". It also makes it clear that should these directives be violated, that the innocent should not be blamed.

Now I realize this is a little more information than you can handle at one time but be patient, study hard, and one day, you will understand...maybe.

In the meantime, you shouldn't post things like you did in the above quote, making yourself look really :censored:.

God created "horses " to roam free. Except those that are tame, with a broken spirit

[bootlen]

I do believe somewhere in the NT, there is a parable about food and clothing and we are directed not to worry about food, God will provide as he does to the birds and animals. But, only a christian would know that

I DO in fact know that and also know that food is not delivered to wild animals. They also have to get up early, find, dig, and forage (also apparently alien to you).

[bootlen]

I just want to make it clear that I do not subscribe to this sort of controlling hype interpretations from scripture. After all, God did tell His created mankind to "go forth and multiply". Maybe it was just Adam and Eve that God put the sexual restrictions on. Even Jesus told the promiscuous woman at the well that she was married to all of the men she had had sex with.

Before He told man to multiply, He instituted marriage. There was a reason for that. I'll forgo posting that sermon.

Yes, He did. He told her other things as well and told ALL of us other things about sex and marriage, all of which you have chosen to look past.

[bootlen]

God created "horses " to roam free. Except those that are tame, with a broken spirit

Just to reiterate...it is over your head. You speak of equines. I was speaking of something else.

Thank you for confirming my post.

[RoBoTeq]

Before He told man to multiply, He instituted marriage. There was a reason for that. I'll forgo posting that sermon.

Yes, He did. He told her other things as well and told ALL of us other things about sex and marriage, all of which you have chosen to look past.
Show us these passages please.

[bootlen]

Show us these passages please.

Why? They'll be ignored just like the rest.

[RoBoTeq]

Why? They'll be ignored just like the rest.
Quit bellyaching. If you have something to teach us, then do it. Your incessant vague posts are as useless as geers.

[bootlen]

Quit bellyaching. If you have something to teach us, then do it. Your incessant vague posts are as useless as geers.

I'm not the one bellyaching. You are asking something of me that I refuse to do. I have no reason to bellyache.

[RoBoTeq]

I'm not the one bellyaching. You are asking something of me that I refuse to do. I have no reason to bellyache.
Why post something that you refuse to back up? That is what geer does. I would think you would enjoy open discussions about God and God's teachings. Seems you'd rather just dictate what you want to believe whether there is a chance that it isn't true or not.

[bootlen]

Why post something that you refuse to back up? That is what geer does. I would think you would enjoy open discussions about God and God's teachings. Seems you'd rather just dictate what you want to believe whether there is a chance that it isn't true or not.

Tried it before. Like having a discussion with a mule. Not my idea of a fun OR intelligent thing to do.

I'll just stick to stating the truth and let you sort it out for yourself. It's all in the Bible.

[acmanko]

Tried it before. Like having a discussion with a mule. Not my idea of a fun OR intelligent thing to do.

I'll just stick to stating the truth and let you sort it out for yourself. It's all in the Bible.

Men enjoying more than one woman, or as you prefer, letting their horse roam, is in your Bible. From Abraham to King David.

What part of the Bible is it that you ignore or are afraid of. And don't say the NT, you've made it clear you just simply do not understand it.

[RoBoTeq]

Tried it before. Like having a discussion with a mule. Not my idea of a fun OR intelligent thing to do.

I'll just stick to stating the truth and let you sort it out for yourself. It's all in the Bible.
I will agree that there is a mule in the discussion. You must have a mirror in front of you when you are on the Internet.

In other words, you don't care about Truth, you just want to preach.

[RoBoTeq]

Men enjoying more than one woman, or as you prefer, letting their horse roam, is in your Bible. From Abraham to King David.

What part of the Bible is it that you ignore or are afraid of. And don't say the NT, you've made it clear you just simply do not understand it.
We just might drive each other nutty, but I'd love to sit down with you over beers having these discussions.

[bootlen]

Men enjoying more than one woman, or as you prefer, letting their horse roam, is in your Bible. From Abraham to King David.

What part of the Bible is it that you ignore or are afraid of. And don't say the NT, you've made it clear you just simply do not understand it.

Sure is. So is murder, theft, lying, and every other sin. Doesn't mean God approves of it.

What it DOES mean is that God can use anybody, regardless of their frailties. Even you, ac, if you'd let him.

[bootlen]

Men enjoying more than one woman, or as you prefer, letting their horse roam, is in your Bible. From Abraham to King David.

What part of the Bible is it that you ignore or are afraid of. And don't say the NT, you've made it clear you just simply do not understand it.

BTW, ac. It is abundantly clear you do not understand Scripture and, as is typical, are afraid of that which you do not understand.

Personally, I REVEL in Scripture and the truths found therein.

[bootlen]

I will agree that there is a mule in the discussion. You must have a mirror in front of you when you are on the Internet.

In other words, you don't care about Truth, you just want to preach.

REALLY?!! I gave you answers using Scripture in your questions about the 2 accounts of creation. But it did not fit into your own unwavering diatribe about Adam's kids being out of God's sight. What a freakin' riot!::DD:

Nah. I'm done with you.

[bootlen]

We just might drive each other nutty, but I'd love to sit down with you over beers having these discussions.

Perfect fit.

[acmanko]

We just might drive each other nutty, but I'd love to sit down with you over beers having these discussions.

maybe this summer, but I would prefer Scotch or Tequila. Me and beer don't agree so much

[Some Dude]

I cannot believe how absolutely lost some of you are especially when scripture is so simple.
Even when scripture is quoted some of you still twist it to fit your agenda.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple,,,,really its not??? Then why was there a law about the death of an unborn child in the mosaic law requiring death or in case of accident the offender had to stay in a city of refuge.
A person does not have to be born to be a person.

Why do some of you make things so complicated? It doesnt make you smarter, in fact,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,quiet the opposite.

[acmanko]

I cannot believe how absolutely lost some of you are especially when scripture is so simple.
Even when scripture is quoted some of you still twist it to fit your agenda.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple,,,,really its not??? Then why was there a law about the death of an unborn child in the mosaic law requiring death or in case of accident the offender had to stay in a city of refuge.
A person does not have to be born to be a person.

Why do some of you make things so complicated? It doesnt make you smarter, in fact,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,quiet the opposite.

You supposeded Christians have a hard time remembering that Christ fulfilled all of the prophecies and laws of the old testament.

don't bring up mosiac law. Its over finished and done.

[Some Dude]

You supposeded Christians have a hard time remembering that Christ fulfilled all of the prophecies and laws of the old testament.

don't bring up mosiac law. Its over finished and done.

You nonchristians have a way of forgetting that the mosaic law was the tutor leading up to the Christ or Messiah, using your once again flawed logic its ok to murder steal etc because well after all they were part of the Mosaic law.

[RoBoTeq]

REALLY?!! I gave you answers using Scripture in your questions about the 2 accounts of creation. But it did not fit into your own unwavering diatribe about Adam's kids being out of God's sight. What a freakin' riot!::DD:

Nah. I'm done with you.
Your answers were not from scripture and they were wrong. If you are incapable of studying and learning beyond what you think you already know, you are not only done with me, you are putting yourself in a position where you are done with God.

You never directly addressed any of my questions, but rather just stopped posting when you could not defend what we have been taught about how the Bible tells us about the beginnings of mankind and the beginning of the Adam and Eve story. Two different stories that have been merged by the RCC in order to deceive us.

[RoBoTeq]

maybe this summer, but I would prefer Scotch or Tequila. Me and beer don't agree so much
Sounding better all of the time.

[RoBoTeq]

I cannot believe how absolutely lost some of you are especially when scripture is so simple.
Even when scripture is quoted some of you still twist it to fit your agenda.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple,,,,really its not??? Then why was there a law about the death of an unborn child in the mosaic law requiring death or in case of accident the offender had to stay in a city of refuge.
A person does not have to be born to be a person.

Why do some of you make things so complicated? It doesnt make you smarter, in fact,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,quiet the opposite.
Actually, the Bible was designed to be easily understood by all who heard the stories and who later read them. However, through the manipulation of the RCC taking scripture out of the public eye, the decline in education during the Dark Ages and the original languages of the Bibles being lost to antiquity along with our understanding of the societies of the times of the Biblical stories, we today understand scripture much less then those 2,000 years ago did.

Through manipulation by the RCC and other religious entities, scripture has become difficult. It is not plain or simple any longer. Satan's minions have successfully confused our understanding of scripture. That is why we mush not only study scripture in as pure a form as we can but we must also study the times and places of those who lived at the time of each book of scripture.

Mosaic law does not apply to Christians in it's entirety. Judging by the variations of descriptions of how Mosaic laws affect Christians, both those who are 100% for Christians following Mosaic laws and those who oppose the need for Christians to follow some Mosaic laws can find justification in Paul's epistles.

Since Mosaic law covers from the Ten Commandments to laws of observance, we may want to seperate which Mosaic laws were being discussed at which times. It appears by most accounts that Mosaic laws of observance are not attritable to Christians as these laws concern works and from the New Testament we know that salvation can come through grace alone. Salvation cannot come through works because it was determined by Jesus Christ that man cannot completely obey all of the Mosaic laws of observance.

If man is saved by grace alone because observance of all works is beyond any man, then even if abortion at any point is a sin, it would not affect salvation. However, there is not enough precise teachings in the Bible to support the moment a person is a person pro or con of any of the times before birth and a baby's first breath.

So no, it is not simple. For those who think scripture is simple, they simply have not studied it enough but have been given a biased thought from somewhere that what they believe to be true must be true. While I believe that my spiritual understanding comes from the Holy Spirit, there is another spirit that is not so holy that affects our thoughts as well.