|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Jan 10, 2005 22:28:56 GMT -5
Abortion was illegal until Roe vs wade in 1976. And now that the woman, who got it legalized, is a christian, she's against it!
What does her being a Christian have to do with the issue.
Remember:
Factually, there used to be laws in America that allowed slavery. Those laws were put on the books by our founding church going men. Part of our Christian-American heritage.
Thanks for the history lesson.
BoyntonStu
|
|
|
|
Post by learnin2 on Jan 10, 2005 22:57:00 GMT -5
What matters is that a bunch of lawyers in black robes, declared that they were higher authority than God. And that it was their sole authority to determine when life begins, not God's. So they redefined what a baby is, to be an unviable tissue mass(fetus). Abortion was never "legal" or moral. Now it's just "legal", but still not moral. Can men demand that their babies to be aborted, without the women's consent? Aren't they part of creating it? Abortion laws stripped away the fathers rights to his own child.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Jan 10, 2005 23:13:55 GMT -5
What matters is that a bunch of lawyers in black robes, declared that they were higher authority than God. Learnin, Do you know exactly what laws God intended us to follow? If you do, please answer my original questions about Capital Punishment, the Sabbath day, and the Ten Commandments. Why does God abort 1/3 of all pregnancies? Where do those aborted 'souls' go to? BoyntonStu |
|
|
|
Post by learnin2 on Jan 10, 2005 23:31:14 GMT -5
Deut 30:19, Exodus 21:12-27
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Jan 11, 2005 0:25:20 GMT -5
Where do those aborted 'souls' go to?
BoyntonStu
[/quote]
They return to their Heavenly Parents in the pre existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Jan 11, 2005 12:20:51 GMT -5
Where do those aborted 'souls' go to? BoyntonStu They return to their Heavenly Parents in the pre existence.[/quote] Where did you learn this? Heavenly Parents? Please explain and/or define. What about test tube embryos? BoyntonStu |
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Jan 11, 2005 13:12:05 GMT -5
They return to their Heavenly Parents in the pre existence. Where did you learn this? Heavenly Parents? Please explain and/or define. What about test tube embryos? BoyntonStu [/quote] I am going to answer this knowing a take a great risk of being ridiculed by you. However, there may be someone reading this who has an honest and true heart and will benefit from the answer. I always knew within myself that we all (including me) all lived before we were born on this earth. LDS missionaries and reading scriptures confirmed this for me. Are parents single in the eternities? No. God is Heavenly Father. If there is a Father there is also a Mother. Heavenly Mother. Jesus Christ is our brother. When an embryo heart begins to beat, it has a spirit. When those frozen embryos are no longer frozen, but are in a womb where they can develop and grow, they have a spirit also. This is the same for test tube embryos. Now before any of you begin your onslaught of insults, just remember this is my opinion not based on tangible facts, but on the convictions of my heart. |
|
|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Jan 11, 2005 13:32:57 GMT -5
Hmm I haven't witnessed an onslaught of insults from Stu or anyone in this thread. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what Stu says but I don't see where he has insulted you. Am I missing something?
If you think about, when someone does insult someone else, does this insult say more about the person targeted by the insult or the person hurling the insult. Angry words indicate a weak argument or position.
In general, I admire the person who can organize their thoughts into a meaningful and reasonable argument. That is what persuades me. I respect the person who appeals to reason and logic yet balances their writing with care and concern for other's feelings.
1 Cor 13:1 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."
Not saying that I can do this but I am working on it.
KT
|
|
|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Jan 11, 2005 15:11:54 GMT -5
I am going to answer this knowing a take a great risk of being ridiculed by you. However, there may be someone reading this who has an honest and true heart and will benefit from the answer.
I always knew within myself that we all (including me) all lived before we were born on this earth. LDS missionaries and reading scriptures confirmed this for me. Are parents single in the eternities? No. God is Heavenly Father. If there is a Father there is also a Mother. Heavenly Mother. Jesus Christ is our brother.
When an embryo heart begins to beat, it has a spirit. When those frozen embryos are no longer frozen, but are in a womb where they can develop and grow, they have a spirit also. This is the same for test tube embryos.
Now before any of you begin your onslaught of insults, just remember this is my opinion not based on tangible facts, but on the convictions of my heart.[/quote]
First, let me say that you are entitled to believe any way you want to believe.
However, consider the following:
When do we make up our minds on how to believe?
When it comes to Legal Land and the 'law', we come to a conclusions here on the forum that are180 degrees opposed to what we were taught as children, and what is accepted as true by the vast majority of people.
I should not get any arguments here.
Please read Thoma Paine's, The Age of Reason that he wrote in 1794. Mr. Paine was paramount in convincing our founding fathers to forget serving kings and to revolt against England when he wrote "Common Sense" in 1795. Like Marc, Paine questioned the status quo in such a clear manner that every person in three who lived in America read his book and took action.
His second book was about religion and it convinced me to take a different APPROACH in studying religion.
What I see happening is grown up people replaying the religious lessons that were taught to them as children.
In other words they believed before they studied. I think that it should be the other way around, as did Paine.
I ask questions to open up discussion in very basic areas so that we can all learn from each other.
I believe that my approach is healthy, informative, and yes, vexing for some.
BoyntonStu
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Jan 11, 2005 15:31:39 GMT -5
Hmm I haven't witnessed an onslaught of insults from Stu or anyone in this thread. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what Stu says but I don't see where he has insulted you. Am I missing something? If you think about, when someone does insult someone else, does this insult say more about the person targeted by the insult or the person hurling the insult. Angry words indicate a weak argument or position. In general, I admire the person who can organize their thoughts into a meaningful and reasonable argument. That is what persuades me. I respect the person who appeals to reason and logic yet balances their writing with care and concern for other's feelings. 1 Cor 13:1 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." Not saying that I can do this but I am working on it. KT Good scripture KT. Stu has insulted others on this board, those posts were deleted. I read the one aimed at Candy before it got cut. I am surprised that there is so much talk of religion on this message board as it is clearly not a religious site. Logic and religion do not go together and I believe one should not look for logic in faith, at least as far as the world defines logic. I believe abortion takes a life. However I do not believe it is murder. |
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Jan 11, 2005 15:35:36 GMT -5
First, let me say that you are entitled to believe any way you want to believe.
However, consider the following:
When do we make up our minds on how to believe?
When it comes to Legal Land and the 'law', we come to a conclusions here on the forum that are180 degrees opposed to what we were taught as children, and what is accepted as true by the vast majority of people.
I should not get any arguments here.
Please read Thoma Paine's, The Age of Reason that he wrote in 1794. Mr. Paine was paramount in convincing our founding fathers to forget serving kings and to revolt against England when he wrote "Common Sense" in 1795. Like Marc, Paine questioned the status quo in such a clear manner that every person in three who lived in America read his book and took action.
His second book was about religion and it convinced me to take a different APPROACH in studying religion.
What I see happening is grown up people replaying the religious lessons that were taught to them as children.
In other words they believed before they studied. I think that it should be the other way around, as did Paine.
I ask questions to open up discussion in very basic areas so that we can all learn from each other.
I believe that my approach is healthy, informative, and yes, vexing for some.
BoyntonStu
[/quote]
As I did not have religion in my childhood you have characterized me incorrect that I am just replaying what was taught to me in my youth.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Jan 11, 2005 17:05:30 GMT -5
Factually what is a law but the written will of men and women. Factually, there used to be laws in America that allowed slavery. Those laws were put on the books by our founding church going men. Part of our Christian-American heritage. What is a law but the written will of the men/women who wrote it? To my knowledge the supreme court has never had a unanimous decision. If that small a group cannot agree then how can anyone begin to suggest that a law or constitution is the written will of the people and thereby imply *all* the people of a geographical area are in agreement when they are not all individually nor collectively consulted? Factually you are correct that there may have been laws allowing slavery; however, following is an excerpt from the first rough draft of the DOI, "he (referring to the king of britan) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people (Africans) who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. " . . . What does this prove you might ask? That even though there may have been laws allowing for slavery at the time, not all agreed with them as individual slavery is the enemy of personal liberty and some folks at the time understood this concept. It also illustrates my first point. That just because a group of people declare something so does not make it true unless one is willing to kill and murder to enforce that opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Jan 11, 2005 17:54:12 GMT -5
[. That just because a group of people declare something so does not make it true unless one is willing to kill and murder to enforce that opinion.[/quote]
Which happened by the millions. And I might also add. WHen the other folks stand by and do nothing while the slaughter takes place.
BoyntonStu
|
|
