(Prolifer)ations 4-30-10

Thumbnail image for blog buzz.jpg

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN

  • LiveAction reveals the dehumanizing language used by the abortion industry, including abortionist Jim Newhall's view that "not everybody is meant to be born. I believe, for a baby, life begins when his mother wants him."...
  • LaShawn Barber spotlights James White's article from the Christian Research Journal entitled, "An Eye for An Eye? Exodus and Abortion," which addresses the claim that Scripture is silent on abortion.

  • Pro-Life in TN writes about the controversy surrounding "abortion doulas."

  • Pro-Life in TN also has the story on the 8 nurses from Nassau University Medical Center on Long Island who were disciplined for refusing to participate in a non-life threatening abortion procedure.

  • Gerard Nadal examines the hypocrisy of promoting side-effect laden ESCR while adult stem cell research has proven beneficial results.

  • Fr. Frank Pavone discusses pro-life Freedom Rides on the Priests for Life blog.

  • MommyLife hosts the video of a speech by a former Planned Parenthood board member who became aware of the eugenic underpinnings of the organization and converted to pro-life:

  • Barbara also shares links to 2 other videos dealing with the eugenics of PP.


    Comments:

    "not everybody is meant to be born. I believe, for a baby, life begins when his mother wants him."

    It's when we can see the morality of an action as relative to a situation instead of absolute that we find people who can make statements like abortionist Jim Newhall's. We need to teach our children the problems with moral relativism because they will not learn it in school.

    Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2010 4:59 PM


    My mom had me when she was 43 and I can still remember her telling me the story of the doctor informing her that she was too old to be having children. My mom lived to be 81 and I still believe it is prayer that lenghtened her life. I'm not sure if I was a gift to her but I know my mom was God's gift to me. I believe that when God blesses the womb that is exactly what it is a blessing. I was number 6 and can only imagine what type of pressure she would have to face in the year 2010. Back in 1964 ignorance was not nearly as organized as it is today.

    Posted by: myrtle miller at April 30, 2010 8:15 PM


    "Back in 1964 ignorance was not nearly as organized as it is today."

    Hilarious! And so true.

    Posted by: Lori Pieper at April 30, 2010 9:12 PM


    Myrtle, my grandmother was 40 years old when she gave birth to my father, the only surviving child of six pregnancies.

    Needless to say, I too am thankful to be here! When the womb is blessed, it is blessed. At any age. I have some pastor friends who thought they were "done" having kids. They had 2 teenage daughters and were in their 40s and surprise!! They now have a beautiful little boy who is the apple of his sisters' eyes. :)

    Posted by: Kel at April 30, 2010 10:24 PM


    I was almost 42 when I had my 'little miracle' :)

    Posted by: Pamela at April 30, 2010 10:29 PM


    "not everybody is meant to be born. I believe, for a baby, life begins when his mother wants him."

    Jim Newhall's statement seems to me to be quite similar to the biblical law (Exodus 21:22-23) that the punishment for causing a miscarriage is whatever the father determines it should be; in other words, the value of a fetus is what the father (or nowadays, parents) place on it. I don't see a difference between that and this particular Newhall quote.

    Which does bring up a side question, which I hope comes out as sincerely as I mean it, because I really do want to know the answer: if an embryo at conception is equal in all measures to an adult, and aborting a nonviable fetus is the same as murdering a born child, as far as god is concerned -- why doesn't the Exodus law treat causing a miscarriage (and killing the fetus) the same as murdering someone as far as punishment? Why doesn't Leviticus 27 give any value to infants under one month (and says nothing about the unborn)? Why wouldn't the bible, as the word of god, include such an important message? I'm no biblical scholar, and maybe I'm missing something somewhere. Anyway, I'd really, sincerely like to know.

    Posted by: Violet at April 30, 2010 11:36 PM


    My grandmother was 48 or 49 when she had my mother, who was the youngest of 10 children. She was in the beginning stages of parkinson's disease, and it was during the depression. They had finished the barn on their new land, and had to live in it because they couldn't afford to build a house. My mother, my aunts, and one uncle are and were some of the most loving, giving, and happy people I know, so apparently, even when faced with insurmountable hardship, they were loved. I can't imagine my gramma was thrilled about being pregnant, but she did the right thing, and as for me, four kids and five grandkids later, I am so thankful she did. I love the comment - "Back in 1964 ignorance was not nearly as organized as it is today." Apparently that's how it was in '35, too!

    Posted by: thankful at May 1, 2010 12:14 AM


    Violet,
    Please read the post above...
    LaShawn Barber spotlights James White's article from the Christian Research Journal entitled, "An Eye for An Eye? Exodus and Abortion," which addresses the claim that Scripture is silent on abortion.
    Also go to prolifetraining.com and read the answer to your question
    thank you

    Posted by: Susie at May 1, 2010 7:11 AM


    How are we to assume “when his mother wants him” happens at birth? Would Newhall kill an unwanted 9-year-old (assuming, of course, he gets paid)?

    Posted by: Nulono at May 1, 2010 10:11 AM


    Myrtle, Kel, Pamela, thankfu,

    Thank you for sharing your pro-life stories! So happy you are here with us today!

    Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2010 10:51 AM


    Re: MommyLife video of Dr. La Verne Tolbert's speech:

    Love it!! Love her!

    Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2010 10:57 AM



    My greatgrandmother gave birth to her ninth and last child at age 43. She was in labor when she knocked on her window and asked a total stranger walking to church to please come and help her. The woman agreed to help, came in the house, removed her hat, gloves coat, and suitcoat,(the dear soul probably spent the entire morning dressing for church!) rolled up her sleeves and delivered my great aunt, who lived to her early nineties. My great grandma would live another 16 years.

    Posted by: Mary at May 1, 2010 11:37 AM


    Violet,

    Your observations are indeed problematic and need be addressed. [I sure hope I get this right!]

    One of the planks of the pro-life movement has human life as being of special value. When confronted with experiences that show beyond doubt that we are worthless and useless, then whom do I believe?

    Understanding scripture goes some way, when you attempt to understand the living experiences these people were living. It was not at all uncommon for a few siblings of a family to survive into adulthood. [It was even more iffy for the poor.] A great thing ... 'yes' then and a qualified 'yes/no/maybe/it-all-depends' now.

    Little was given to any child more than a great deal of hope and faith, and for Jesus (expectation). In those days abortion was almost totally out of normal, human character. To even consider such an affront would be to cast the person into the same framework that we now have for pedophiles.

    So little is said about abortion because it was shunned as an affront to God and to humans. We too dwell here because a few of us have learned that we(all) humans are precious, even if some have yet to learn this. {Hisman and many others here have learned it directly from Jesus, others, like Gerry have learned it from the pain of loving another (his autistic son) who will never attain the status of wanted. There are so many wonderful folks with incredible stories.

    (forgive me for writing in math terms, but I do so because it may help explain) So many people here hold the value of human life at '8'. Others (because of sad experiences) would tend towards '0' (and a '1' would be a marvel).
    Now 'we are all equal'. Does this mean '8' = '8' [as the Constitution means], or is it '1' = '1' [as experience sometimes dictates]? Is hope just an illusion/fantasy or, is science better (science without dreams)?

    we humans all crave peace {to-be-right]. Can I offer you my peace and you will happily receive it? Or will you reject this peace?

    Posted by: John McDonell at May 1, 2010 1:11 PM



    No abortion in Canada's G8 maternal health plan
    Last Updated: Monday, April 26, 2010 | 11:15 PM ET

    CBC News

    International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda declares that the government will not fund abortions in its G8 child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries. (Canadian Press)
    The federal government has disclosed for the first time that Canada will not fund abortions in its G8 child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries.

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced late in 2009 that Canada, as the host of the upcoming G8 meeting in June, would champion maternal and child health in developing countries.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/26/abortion-maternal-health.html

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/26/abortion-maternal-health.html#ixzz0mi7HlAhC

    Posted by: hippie at May 1, 2010 3:12 PM



    Posted by: Violet at April 30, 2010 11:36 PM


    1. "not everybody is meant to be born. I believe, for a baby, life begins when his mother wants him."

    2. I'm no biblical scholar, and maybe I'm missing something somewhere. Anyway, I'd really, sincerely like to know.

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

    vilest,

    Do you have MPD?

    Have you suffered a closed head injury that has left you with a short term memory deficit?

    1. You asserted that there are no pro-choice people who believe the statement you just quoted.

    2. Yes. You are 'missing something' and you go to extraordinary lengths to do so.

    I do not believe for a moment that you "really want to know".

    Instead of consulting and referring to a 'book' in which you place no trust or assess any value, why don't you ask the ONE who gives you breath?

    The 'Author of Life' holds the answers to all your questions and HE will indulge your contentious foolishness for a little while and if you are humble enough to acknowledge what you do not know, then HE will be gracious enough to fill in some blanks for you.

    But be forewarned, with knowledge comes responsibilty and even HIS patience has it's limit.

    If you continue in your arrogance and pride HE will leave you to your own devices or as it is written, HE will allow you to return to your own vomit until you can humble yourself once again.

    Enjoy the journey.


    Posted by: yor bro ken at May 1, 2010 4:30 PM


    Every life has value in God's eyes.

    Posted by: facts against abortion at May 1, 2010 4:51 PM


    I do not believe for a moment that you "really want to know".

    Well, what you believe is up to you. I meant my questions sincerely, and I greatly appreciate the other thoughtful answers I received.

    Instead of consulting and referring to a 'book' in which you place no trust or assess any value, why don't you ask the ONE who gives you breath?

    Whatever you think you know about me, you don't know whether I place trust or assess value in the Bible, whatever my own personal relationship with god and what I put faith in.

    if you are humble enough to acknowledge what you do not know, then HE will be gracious enough to fill in some blanks for you.

    I am humble enough to know that I don't have all the answers. I am humble enough to know that where I find faith and comfort and what I believe may not be the right answer for anyone else. Your comments show clearly and repeatedly that humility is not a trait you display in this forum. That you seem to think you're exceeding humble and try to lord that over people is laughable. Arrogance? Pride? You demonstrate those traits rather neatly as well. Thank you for reminding me, once again, of the kind of person I never ever want to be.

    Posted by: Violet at May 1, 2010 8:10 PM


    John and Susie,

    Thank you for your thoughtful answers, and references for further reading. I appreciate that you took my question as sincerely as it was intended, and you've given me a lot to think about.

    Violet

    Posted by: Violet at May 1, 2010 8:19 PM


    Your welcome, Violet.

    Many PL'ers look with incredulity at PC'ers. They somehow think dogmatic answers are sufficient. These aren't. The present Pope, in the years he was Cardinal Ratzinger was famous for much of his writing , but he did say something that stuck ... 'the devil believes in Jesus too. He (the devil) just does not love Him. Too any times, we on this earth believe that our God-space is defined by our belief.

    Here is a true absolutely astounding experience about life in God::: Walter was a high-school chum. He got married right after university and the next year his son David was born.

    David had a weird blood disorder. Suddenly all his blood cells would just fall-apart. Walt and is wife, Rosie would fly David to Sick Kid's i Toronto (some 500 miles). At age 5 years, David died during one of his seizures.

    I was not home for David'd funeral nor for some time after that. But I did talk to Walt about David a time later. Walt said, "Strange, that kid never did raise his head, ... never called me Daddy ... yet I learned more from him than from any human ever." I was(still am) flabbergasted at how wondrous we can be.

    A few more years passed. I told Walt I was awed by how well he and Rosie handled David's dying. "You either face it or die. Rosie and I decided to face it together!"

    'Why do you tell these things to me?' I asked hm once. "Because I thought you might understand." I understand that Walt took me to God-space. I understand that Walt is one beautiful Human being.

    Posted by: John McDonell at May 2, 2010 2:38 PM


    ".. 'the devil believes in Jesus too. He (the devil) just does not love Him. "

    Hi John,

    Thank you for sharing your friends' story of faith.

    I've heard Fr. John Corapi mention that quote from Cardinal Ratzinger. It's an eye-opener. Corapi also states that faith really means trust .... trusting in God's will for our lives..."thy will be done". Is trust the foundation of "God-space" as you call it?

    Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2010 2:57 PM


    John McD,

    I meant to add.. I hope you are doing well. It's always nice to hear from you!

    Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2010 2:58 PM


    Violet-
    I'm not a biblical scholar either but my understanding of the scripture in Exodus is that when a quarrel takes place and an unborn childs life is lost because of an accident, when there is lack of intent to hurt the bystander or her unborn then the penalty is not severe, but when intent is involved the consequences are more severe. Does that make sense? Hope this helps.

    Posted by: myrtle miller at May 3, 2010 12:59 AM


    We have finals this week so those who like to pray please pray for me this week. I would like to do really well on my finals and my brain alas is having difficulty in algebra and my self-esteem is challenged. Please pray God's best for me as I pray for you all as well. Will be back in a week if God says the same.

    Posted by: myrtle miller at May 3, 2010 1:11 AM


    People, think about the tone in answering questions from people who are sincerely questioning. I read Violet's response to me and John thanking us for our answers and taking her questions seriously and got curious and clicked over to her website. I will read more of it when time permits...but what I read reminded me that it is important to speak with kindness to people who do not agree with us. I stand as someone who was once pro choice and am a convert to this movement as many of us are. We do not win converts by being mean spirited. We have the evidence on our side and there is no need for us to be harsh in our language.

    Posted by: Susie at May 3, 2010 10:04 AM


    "We have finals this week..."

    Myrtlemiller,
    Praying for you!

    Posted by: Janet at May 3, 2010 10:23 AM


    Myrtle,

    Praying for you as well. God Luck!

    Posted by: Praxedes at May 3, 2010 12:46 PM


    In those days, Violet, often infant sacrifice was the method by which unwanted children were disposed of. You can read plenty in the Bible about what God thinks of that.

    The penalty for the accidental death of a child in this case was not severe, but the penalty for the accidental death of an adult (confinement to a certain city for the lifetime of a certain person, I believe) was not as severe as the punishment for murder (death).

    The Bible is very clear that children are blessings, and that we are to be fruitful and multiply, and that one of the purposes of marriage is to produce Godly offspring. If all of these are true, how can it also be true that pregnancy is a curse, and that children are to be avoided, rejected, or killed, and that it is okay to render one's marriage childless? If a thing is a blessing from God, shouldn't we accept it and rejoice?

    Posted by: ycw at May 4, 2010 6:47 AM


    In those days, Violet, often infant sacrifice was the method by which unwanted children were disposed of. You can read plenty in the Bible about what God thinks of that.

    By my reading, god doesn't seem to have much of a problem with the "disposal" of "unwanted" children. There are a number of places in the bible where god orders the killing of children, sometimes in great numbers. Everything from stating that disobedient children are to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 30:17), to god putting all firstborn children to death (Exodus 12:29-30), to killing more disobedient children (2 Kings 2:23-24), to forcing parents to eat their children (Leviticus 26:29, Jeremiah 19:9, Deuteronomy 28:53). And then there's my personal favorite (fyi, that's sarcasm): "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:9)

    The Bible is very clear that children are blessings, and that we are to be fruitful and multiply, and that one of the purposes of marriage is to produce Godly offspring.

    Well, they're blessings until they disobey their parents. Then it appears that it's perfectly acceptable to kill them. (Maybe that's why you refer to producing "godly offspring" -- are disobedient children "godly"?)

    Posted by: Violet at May 4, 2010 12:22 PM


    For Violet: http://www.learnthebible.org/dashing-little-ones-against-stones.html

    Violet, you have to understand that it was not God's desire that people be killed for disobedience. It was His will that His children know the seriousness with which He views disobedience. Disobedience against parents is viewed as rebellion against Him. Therefore, He put a very, very harsh penalty upon disobedience.

    Also, here: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/cannibal.html

    The killing of the firstborn in Egypt was the last resort for the Lord and it was only this that at last caused Pharaoh to release the Hebrew people from their slavery in Egypt.

    You need to do some research of the context of these things. It might help you to understand them more clearly.

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at May 4, 2010 1:32 PM


    Most of what you refer to was the destruction of entire people groups, not the specific destruction of children. And when the Israelites disobeyed, it was not because of their compunctions about killing children--no, they wanted the kings to serve them, or the most beautiful of the women for slaves/wives. It is not as though anyone was saying, "but what about the children?" This stuff is hard--even Christians often find it hard--but if the Israelites could not or would not have taken in those babies or children, perhaps it was better for them not to starve to death or grow up to become part of an evil culture. It was God's decision, and I believe that God is compassionate, righteous, infallible, and omniscient.

    Abortion is not comparable. First of all, today, there are plenty of people willing to adopt any infant, even an infant with disabilities. Second, these children are being killed by their own mothers, not an invading culture (much like those practicing infant sacrifice, among the sins for which God sentenced some of those other people groups for extinction). And now, under the new covenant, we are called to love our enemies and show them mercy, not kill off every one of them.

    I have heard that the term used when the Bible speaks of stoning disobedient children actually refers to an adolescent or young adult, not a two-year-old who has temper tantrums. I believe that there is a concept of an age of accountability in the Bible, though I don't know a reference for it.

    It almost sounds like Ken is right, though, and you did just want to bait someone into answering so that you could throw all of that at them.

    Posted by: ycw at May 4, 2010 1:53 PM


    I have heard that the term used when the Bible speaks of stoning disobedient children actually refers to an adolescent or young adult, not a two-year-old who has temper tantrums. I believe that there is a concept of an age of accountability in the Bible, though I don't know a reference for it.
    ****************************

    Correct.

    Posted by: Kel at May 4, 2010 1:57 PM


    I do understand that the context and history surrounding some of these passages makes them more complicated in interpretation than is apparent in a quick reading. However, it seems to me that we work very hard to explain these somewhat problematic parts of the bible, which seem to contradict the teachings of peace and love found elsewhere -- but when it comes to other passages, the ones that seem to support our personal views or place certain behaviour or ways of life above others, we don't look at them with the same critical eye.

    I've read quite a bit this past week about the Exodus passage on the penalty for causing a miscarriage, the meaning of which hinges on how certain words are translated. But when it comes to passages like Leviticus 20:13, which seems to refer to homosexuality, the same kind of analysis is not done by those who use the passage to suggest that homosexuality is an abomination -- even though its meaning is just as dependent on translation and is not as clear as some would have us believe. (Here is one detailed examination of the passage, if you're interested: http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus2013.htm)

    The killing of the firstborn in Egypt was the last resort for the Lord and it was only this that at last caused Pharaoh to release the Hebrew people from their slavery in Egypt.

    My understanding of this particular part of the bible is that god repeatedly hardened the heart of the pharaoh, so that the signs he saw did not affect him. Hardening his heart was a choice that god made, and it is only because of this that it went as far as the killing of the firstborn children. God could just as easily have softened the pharaoh's heart, so that the first pleas resulted in the release of the hebrews from slavery. Instead he chose the path that ended with the mass murder of children.

    These are far from the only places in the bible where the lives of children aren't held sacrosanct.

    Posted by: Violet at May 4, 2010 2:01 PM


    if the Israelites could not or would not have taken in those babies or children, perhaps it was better for them not to starve to death or grow up to become part of an evil culture.

    Are you sure that's an argument you really want to make here? That some children were/are better off dead compared to what they may face in life? (Interestingly, it was that "evil culture" that took in Moses and raised him as their own.)

    It almost sounds like Ken is right, though, and you did just want to bait someone into answering so that you could throw all of that at them.

    Please don't mistake my intentions here. I am here to learn. I am looking for a thoughtful, rational discussion of the issues involved. I am interested in how other people see these passages and how they fit into others' views of the world. I am not christian; I am not anything (yet). I am still searching for the spiritual place that I belong, and that is the perspective from which I approach these discussions. There is no baiting going on here.

    Posted by: Violet at May 4, 2010 2:15 PM


    Hi Violet.

    I'd be happy to discuss these biblical issues with you. Is there just one verse that you really see as problematic or maybe one general problem that you see? You've brought up several things and while they are all good, I just am not able to devote the kind of time and energy into giving a thorough and careful discussion of all of them. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at May 4, 2010 2:23 PM


    I've read quite a bit this past week about the Exodus passage on the penalty for causing a miscarriage, the meaning of which hinges on how certain words are translated.

    ********************
    Not a miscarriage. A premature delivery. If there were no harm, then there would be payment made. If there were harm, it would be life for life, etc.

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3318&t=KJV

    Also re: Leviticus 20:13: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=20&v=13&t=KJV#conc/13

    Pharaoh's heart: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2259

    Posted by: Kel at May 4, 2010 2:47 PM


    Not a miscarriage. A premature delivery.

    That's what I meant -- I was just identifying the passage, not addressing the translation issues.

    As far as Leviticus 20:13, after reading the word-for-word translations with explanation that I've found, it sounds like the better english translation is:
    "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will die; their blood is on them."

    The explanation here is that this passage is actually directed at regulating how a woman's bed can be used, and by whom, similar to what is found in Leviticus 15. In any case, my intention is not to argue which interpretation is right but to make the point that we tend to choose the interpretation that is most convenient for our purpose. When one translation works to support a particular view or way of life, people don't usually spend much time looking into what's behind the translation or how accurate it is.

    Posted by: Violet at May 4, 2010 3:18 PM


    Violet, would you care to read the context of verses 10-21 of Leviticus 20?

    10'(I)If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    11'(J)If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

    12'(K)If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

    13'(L)If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

    14'(M)If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.

    15'(N)If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.

    16'If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

    17'(O)If there is a man who takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness; he bears his guilt.

    18'(P)If there is a man who lies with a menstruous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

    19'(Q)You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they will bear their guilt.

    20'(R)If there is a man who lies with his uncle's wife he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they will bear their sin. They will die childless.

    21'(S)If there is a man who takes his brother's wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They will be childless.

    (NASB translation)


    These verses all deal with sexual relations.

    Posted by: Kel at May 4, 2010 4:42 PM


    BTW, Violet, the references I listed for you previously are from the original Greek and Hebrew translations of the Scriptures. The later NASB translation I listed is considered to be one of the closest English translations to the original languages. Anyone can write their own interpretations of what they'd prefer the text to say, but that doesn't necessarily line up with the original languages or the context.

    Posted by: Kel at May 4, 2010 4:53 PM


    When one translation works to support a particular view or way of life, people don't usually spend much time looking into what's behind the translation or how accurate it is.
    Posted by: Violet at May 4, 2010 3:18 PM
    *******************

    My point exactly, Violet. When you want to find a way to excuse your sin and/or the sins of others, one will create a god in his/her own image, the god of self.

    BTW, I hope you're not implying that the Christians on this board haven't spent time researching the Scriptures intensely, because most of us have. We don't just "believe stuff cuz some dude told us to." For someone who claims not to be a Christian and continues to pull Scripture out of context, your comment came across as pretty condescending and presumptuous.

    Posted by: Kel at May 4, 2010 5:02 PM


    Violet, I wish you luck in your search for truth, and I am sorry for questioning your motives.

    "Are you sure that's an argument you really want to make here? That some children were/are better off dead compared to what they may face in life?"

    I am not arguing that anyone other than God could make such a decision, just trying to understand how a loving God could do what He did. In the end it rests, as do many things, in the truth that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and good, while I am none of those things.

    "(Interestingly, it was that "evil culture" that took in Moses and raised him as their own.)"

    I was thinking more of those situations where God helped the Israelites to wipe out whole cultures than the plague of the firstborn. Actually, God commanded the Israelites to be more welcoming to the Egyptians, who had welcomed them as Joseph's family, than many of the other nations who did not let them pass during the exodus. Perhaps the plague had something to do with killing every male Israeli infant for over 40 years? (The midwives in that story, by the way, are a good example of God blessing those who refuse to participate in abortion.)

    Posted by: ycw at May 4, 2010 6:21 PM


    For believers who are interested on an insightful teaching describing parallels with Pharaoh's rule & current events (stick w/it, it's not all a lesson in Hebrew :D) :

    PART ONE
    PART TWO
    &
    PART THREE

    Ecclesiastes 1:9 says

    That which has been is that which will be,
    And that which has been done is that which will be done.
    So there is nothing new under the sun.

    Posted by: klynn73 at May 4, 2010 6:46 PM


    Kel,

    BTW, I hope you're not implying that the Christians on this board haven't spent time researching the Scriptures intensely, because most of us have.

    Of course not -- that's not my intention at all. The very reason I ask these questions here is because I know that the people here do study the scriptures and are capable of answering the questions I am raising.

    We don't just "believe stuff cuz some dude told us to." For someone who claims not to be a Christian and continues to pull Scripture out of context, your comment came across as pretty condescending and presumptuous.

    I'm very sorry if it came across that way, because that's not how I meant it. I'm not sure what else I can do to show you that I am sincere, other than asking questions and responding to people as respectfully and sincerely as I can.

    My point exactly, Violet. When you want to find a way to excuse your sin and/or the sins of others, one will create a god in his/her own image, the god of self.

    I couldn't agree more with that statement. Thank you for getting at the heart of what I was trying to say.

    Posted by: Violet at May 4, 2010 8:22 PM


    Violet, please know that Lev 20:13 is not the only scripture addressing these matters. See Romans Chapter 1, specifically verses 24 to 28. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Lev 18:22 are pretty clear as well.

    Your comment about God hardening Pharoah's heart is correct--God could have caused things to happen differently, but His plan for Moses to lead the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt was carried out in that manner for reasons we might not fully comprehend. I do know that the establishment of the Passover in and of itself is a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ coming as Messiah. They marked their door lintels with the blood of a spotless sacrificial lamb, and death passed over them. Those who accept the free gift of salvation through the sacrifice of the spotless (sinless) Lamb of God are also covered by the blood, and death is defeated.

    Posted by: klynn73 at May 4, 2010 9:54 PM


    Your right I did read it even before Moses left God told him And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: So if Israel is God's firstborn I wonder if God noticed what Egypt was doing to his firstborn let's see Pharaoh told the midwives to kill the baby boys he worked God's people like they were animals and he then had the audacity to increase there workload. Remember that it was a Jew (Joseph) that brought Egypt out of a very difficult time. So as a Christian I very much appreciate the fact that my God who is also my Heavenly Father is well able to vindicate me. I think what he done to Pharoah is called getting a taste of your own medicine. I love his mercy side but I very much appreciate his sense of justice.

    Posted by: myrtle miller at May 6, 2010 4:28 PM