Happy Easter
Never associate the idea of martyrdom with the Cross of Christ. It was the supreme triumph, and it shook the very foundations of hell. There is nothing in time or eternity more absolutely certain and irrefutable than what Jesus Christ accomplished on the Cross – He made it possible for the entire human race to be brought back into a right-standing relationship with God. He made redemption the foundation of human life; that is, He made a way for every person to have fellowship with God….
The heart of salvation is the Cross of Christ. The reason salvation is so easy to obtain is that it cost God so much. The Cross was the place where God and sinful man merged with a tremendous collision and where the way to life was opened. But all the cost and pain of the collision was absorbed by the heart of God.
~ Oswald Chambers
Happy Easter, everyone. See you Monday. Comment authentication on.
[Photo courtesy Jean Vidican]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Happy Easter everyone!
Hey guys,
you ‘pro-deathers’ (His Man’s phrase) is problematic from a pro-choice point of view. Some of your ranting about ‘The Father killing Jesus’ was only intended to inflame and anger us believers [you succeeded] … so we would back-off on you guys …. WRONG, WRONG and WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!! (It is Easter after all!)
[God’s Life in not anything like ours.] Think of God as the flame on a lit candle. We are the candle. Before being lit (saved), the only life (experience) we understand is the life of being an unlit-candle. However, we were/are created to be lit. And once set-on-fire we slowly die-to-the-flame …. become One IN Him … (in Jesus’ own words) ‘as I am in You, and you in Me’.
In a very sure way we are people who live ‘in God’s kingdom’ – actually live IN God (why His Man has so much confidence!)
just got this from a pal ……… short (but very good) prayer:
“Lord, I love you and I need you, come into my heart, and bless me,
my family, my home and all of my friends,
in Jesus’ name. Amen.”
Jesus’ life ended & has begun again IN me!
PAX – (Latin for: PEACE)
John –
Thank you for that prayer. It is very good.
Since we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and Savior tomorrow, I thought I would share some quotes from the founders of the US which to many pro-death liberals is anathema because they cannot stomach that we are a Christian nation:
Here are but a few from hundreds of quotes:
In speaking to Indian Chiefs regarding teaching of their youth “They would do well to learn of our ways and particularly those of the teachings of Jesus Christ.” George Washington
On Patrick Henry’s deathbed ” I am consoled that the religion of Christ has from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in vain…
Thomas Jefferson: “I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure which have ever been preached to man.” “I consider myself a Christian, that is a student of Jesus Christ.”
John Adams in talking about his nightly prayer added a “few words more to the prayer so as to express my trust in Christ…”
Now I lay me down to sleep, etc.
Last line; “For Jesus” sake, Amen”
“Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. come, Lord Jesus” Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
“His forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ” Robert Paine, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“I rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ” Samuel Adams, Signor of the Declaration of Independence.”
Upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence “We have this day returned to the Sovereign. No King but King Jesus.” John Adams, Second President.
In his personal Bible, James Madison made this note “The apostles did greater Miracles than Christ…”
After being shot by Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton’s last words were “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
“I rest my hope on the salvation of Jesus Christ.” James Kent, Father of American Jurist Prudence.
In his Last Will, John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote “Unto Him who is the
author and giver of all good…I render thanks…for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son.
May we all bow in humbleness and thank Jesus for dying on the cross for our Sins and that we are saved, not by works, but by His grace alone.
The legalization of abortion in 1973 flies directly in the face of our Founding Fathers intent of this being a God-fearing nation. It is for this purpose that I dedicate and pledge my life to defeating the horror of aborion by making it illegal once again in this country and restoring our Christian roots. I cannot fail, for He and I are a majority.
Since we’re all spouting quotes, I’ll add one of my own:
From the US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….
His Man, it was legal before Roe vs Wade, it was simply a state decision. Roe V Wade just made states allow abortion
As long as we’re quoting, this is the classical version of the Hippocratic oath.
Hippocratic Oath — Classical Version
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art – if they desire to learn it – without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
Dan,
And how many states was abortion legal in and why then was Roe v. Wade necessary? Please answer.
Less,
Please give some time on that Tripoli quote and I will have my doctorate Christian constitutional/legal scholar friend rip it to shreds.
Now let’s look at the modern version:
Hippocratic Oath
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
The last paragraph…rendered pointless by a new generation…
mk
HisMan: That’s great, do it.
Less,
Have started the process and will be back with their answers when I recieve them.
His Man, here is an estimate of states that may/may not ban abortion if roe v wade were overturned today:
http://clairelight.typepad.com/atlast/images/abortionmap.jpg
Im still looking for a pre roe v wade map, but I know it was legal in NY, thanks to my history text book, so there was at least one state, and the rate of abortion there was incredibely high in 1970 as a fun fact. It also states that by 1972 “many states had liberalized their abortion laws”
Enduring Vision, 5th edition
Dan,
The short answer is that Roe v. Wade overturned 50 state laws that put various restrictions on abortion, from complete prohibitions to limitations on late term abortions. All of those were overturned. Yes it was a state decision, but all 50 states had some sort of law limiting abortion that was overturned by Roe v. Wade.
And Dan, please tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A half truth is a whole lie.
For that reason let me take a moment to restate and re-phrase my pledge: “I hereby dedicate and pledge my life to defeating the horror of aborion by making it illegal throughout the country at both the State and Federal levels of government and, to the full restoration of our Country’s original Christian roots. I cannot fail, for He and I are a majority.”
Less:
You said at 2:32 pm:
“From the US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….”
Here’s the counterpoint:
THAT ARTICLE IS A SCAM! WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TREATY AT ALL. IT WAS MADE UP AND ADDED MUCH LATER, LONG AFTER THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED.
THIS PHRASE WAS ADDED BY JOEL BARLOW, WHO WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN AND IS ONE OF MANY WHO TRANSLATED THE TREATY. SADLY THIS IS THE ONE MOST OFTEN QUOTED.
PAGE 1075 FROM THE TREATY TRANSCRIBED IN 1930 GIVES MANY EXAMPLES OF HOW OFTEN WE ARE REFERRED TO AS A CHRISTIAN NATION.
BOTTOM LINE, ARTICLE 11 WAS NOT IN THE SIGNED DOCUMENT, MERELY FABRICATED BY BARLOW.
THOSE WHO REWRITE HISTORY DO SO FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA!
Less, it doesn’t surprise me that you are a pro-deather. What I am learning is that pro-deathers are so willing to decieve themselves and others that they don’t take the time to get to the whole truth about issues nor take them to their logical conclusion. Many college professors would call this incompetence.
Why do I know this for a fact? Well because the Bible says that if we seek God with all our heart, mind, and soul He promises that we will find Him. Pro-deathers have not found God yet, as evidenced by their pro-murder stance and therefore, they can’t be be seeking with their whole mind, heart, and soul or, perhaps they haven’t finished the journey and are just in error.
Either way, my hope for you is that you are open minded enough to the truth to stop at believing the lies that pro-death abortionists spew to keep themselves in business at the price of the lives and souls of countless billions. Listen to what they have to say knowing that it is not the truth and to dig deeper means to find the truth.
I knew that couldn’t have been right!…thank you for checking that one out, Hisman.
No, it WAS in the document. Take a US history class hisman; we went over it at the beginning of the year, Congress ratified it knowing full well the phrase was there, we went over it in class. Im pretty sure a history teacher would know more about the topic.
“from complete prohibitions to limitations on late term abortions”
prohibitions were overturned, states can and still do put restrictions on late term abortions; that is perfectly legal. Also, as I said, before Roe Vs Wade had been decided, many states had already liberalized their views on abortion. It simply made the rest join in that had yet to do so.
“Pro-deathers have not found God yet”
Not true, I have an EXTREMELY strong faith in God, be careful about what you say and judging people, I find this just as bad if not worse than your comment about me not caring about the sacrifice made in WW2.
Not true, I have an EXTREMELY strong faith in God, be careful about what you say and judging people, I find this just as bad if not worse than your comment about me not caring about the sacrifice made in WW2.
Dan … you say you have faith in God…do you believe in the presence of a Soul? If so, why, why, oh why would you take the chance of advocating the destruction of innocent souls just so that a woman can feel she has a full “bodily autonomy”? Is it really worth it to you?
With people who have faith in God, it’s usually quite simple… we know we are different from the animals because we have souls. We are created in God’s image. How can one believe we are created in God’s image and then destroy His human creation willingly?
Because quite simply, I dont believe life begins at conception, and honestly if the church thought about it, they would abandon the stance as well simply because it could split into twins, at which point the soul would split with everything else, etc, and it becomes overly complicated.
I believe the soul “enters” at the first breath of the child, which I believe (though Im unsure) is described in the Bible. Now does that mean I believe fetuses late in pregnancy worthy of abortion? No because they are viable and can live. One can live without a soul, though that gets all complicated and whatnot because of religous beliefs and what not, so I just wont go into that complication
Dan, if you have any doubt, is it really the best idea to err on the side of death? The Bible says that the life of the flesh is in the blood? What if the soul entered when the baby has blood running through it’s tiny veins? What if it happened before that? Do you have absolute certainty that you are not in error when you say it is not until the first breath that the baby receives a soul?
The Bible says that we are known before we are even born.
“13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. ”
And I’m sure you’ve seen this verse also:
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
And I realize this particular verse was directed at Jeremiah, but I do not believe there is any reason to doubt that God knows us as well before we were formed in the womb. There are numerous passages which speak of this and make it clear that we are who we are even in the womb.
How can you take the chance? What if you are wrong?
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”
Genesis (I dont have an exact line number, found it and it closed on me >
HisMan, I require proof of that? I’m more than willing to cite my sources: do the courtesy of doing the same.
I am quite a spiritual person, and it is not up to you to judge this. My soul is my business, and not yours. To insinuate that because we are pro-choice means that we have not found God is simply not true: being Christian means believing in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, nothing more, and nothing less.
HisMan,
Many Native Americans have reverted back to practicing traditional customs and are no longer Christian (however, there are groups of Christian Natives as well as a few groups that combine both Native traditions with Christianity). Not that many have a chance seeing has a large majority was wiped out due to conquering Christians.
Read some books on the “converting” of the Native Americans, it’s pretty disgusting stuff. My dad has a couple of really good books or had… They might have been library books, don’t really remember.
(Note before continuing because I’ve been told I generalize too much, this is not about ALL Christians. It is a reply to HisMan.)
“The United States Government established the Haskell Institute to have a hold on the population of Native Americas. The main goal was to transform the Native Americans into following the ?American? way of living. The children were snatched from the reservations and were shipped off to schools like Haskell, where they were expected to learn how to act and think ?white.?
The heritage that they had grown up with was stripped away, as they were forced to act in a manner unlike their own, which was controlled by the government. The horrors that occurred during this process was documented and sent to the National Archives in Kansas City. Some of the methods that the schools used to assimilate the Native American children were to beat them and inflict pain and abuse for things, such as speaking in their Native language. If they misbehaved, they were punished. When exploring parts of Haskell Campus, the remains of children were found buried underneath the ground.”
http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_3323.shtml
“racist ideas – such as the Spaniard Sepulveda’s discussion about whether the Natives were humans at all, or the widespread idea that the New World had been given to the Christians just as Canaan had been given to the Jews”
http://www.2think.org/ah.shtml
“Strict Christian definitions of what humans should be, generated the white European image of the Native American Indian. The Indios lacked everything that resembled Christian norms. The sauvaiges were uncivilized, uncultured, uncultivated, and unpredictable in their “foreign-ness.” European explorers looked at, valued, and reported on indigenous peoples according to what the explorers knew of their own civilization and the powerful Christian worldview of the time. The early Spanish expansionists and clergy were therefore convinced that the native savage souls needed saving, and in so doing, they easily justified their conquests and enslavement policies….
….Pope Clement VI, in a papal bull Intra arcana written in 1529 to Charles V, wrote:
We trust that, as long as you are on earth, you will compel and with all zeal cause the barbarian nations to come to the knowledge of God, the maker and founder of all things, not only by edicts and admonitions, but also by force and arms, if needful, in order that their souls may partake of the heavenly kingdom (Washburn 1971:11).”
http://www.dickshovel.com/jank.html
“The American Holocaust… the total extermination of many American Indian peoples and the near-extermination of others, in numbers that eventually totaled close to 100,000,000.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/History/Sex_Race_AH.html
“I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of Their Highnesses. We shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as Their Highnesses may command. And we shall take your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him.
(above) a statement Spaniards were required to read to Indians they encountered in the New World”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/History/Quotations_AH.html
“”Civilizing” meant taking children away from their parents at the ages of 5-12 years and forcing them to live without father, mother, sister, brother in missionary schools, if you can imagine that done to a little child. This practice was not exclusive to the early years of American history but continued up until the mid 1970’s in this country. Children were beaten and given forced labor during their stay in school. Participation was “optional” but missionaries controlled the annuities of food and trust money through their relationship with superintendents and the military. Families that did not surrender their children did not receive food or payments that were supposed to be guaranteed to them.
Very young children caught in this situation were brainwashed to treat their parents as savages and barbarians and they suffered terribly under this psychological torture. By this method through several generations Cherokee, like most Native Americans were stripped of the knowledge of their heritage, religious beliefs and trust of their family supports.”
http://www.iwchildren.org/missionary.htm
———————————-
I’m disgusted by that quote of yours, HisMan. Native Americans prospered from accepting God. More like accept our God or die. And this is why I cannot take you seriously. I’m going to attempt to stop mocking Christianity because I have upset other people in my rebuttals against you. But your definitely one of those people who fans my Christian-phobia.
I wish that I would have had a chance to be more involved with my Native American culture growing up, but sadly my dad was raised in foster care and didn’t find his parents until much later in life. Both of my grandparents are now deceased so we don’t have any more relatives living on the Six Nations reservation anymore.
Less:
You said: “To insinuate that because we are pro-choice means that we have not found God is simply not true: being Christian means believing in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, nothing more, and nothing less.”
Wrong again: Even the demons believe and tremble.
Unfortunateley for them it’s too late.
Fortunately for you it’s not.
Not sure where you get your info, but, as usual for a pro-deather, it’s wrong.
Speaking of Native Americans and what would happen if Roe vs Wade is over turned, here’s something they trying to do in SD.
“”When Governor Mike Rounds signed HB 1215 into law it effectively banned all abortions in the state with the exception that it did allow saving the mother
Danielle:
I literally have many Native American friends. I’ve done much work for Bative Americans. I would be the first one to agree with you that what so called Christians (and again, Christians are not Christian because they call themselves so) did to the original Americans (your ancestors) was simply not right. Had I been living at the time when all this was being done to your ancestors I would have been as forcefully against that as I am today against abortion and probably would have been imprisoned for it or executed.
However, I don’t know where in the world you get the idea that I would be in favor of killing Native Americans or anyone else. I am a pro-lifer, remember? No, I’ve spent many hours talking with Native Americans about the hurt they feel and how it’s a shame that there’s not more talk of that in society. Perhaps God wants to use you to raise up a standard so that healing can take place. I believe many Native Americans still suffer greatly from the injustices done to them long ago. But the solution is letting go of bitterness not harboring it. Who but yourself are you hurting, really ask yourself that?
So to somehow associate what I said about America having Christian roots as fuel for your hatred of the white man is way out of context and really irrelevant to my post.
I denounce anyone, Christian or otherwise, who murdered, is murdering, or will murder another living human being, including an innocent baby in the womb.
Having said that, God will never use somebody filled with as much bitterness as you have stored in your heart. You would get alot farther if you let go of the bitterness because frankly it’s hurting you and blinding you to the Truth, the only thing that can truly set you free.
Danielle:
Why is it right to kill a baby in the womb even it was concieved during a rape? Seems to me that the rage for that rape is being put on the unborm child, no? A death sentence simply for being conceived, makes no sense, and is perverted thinking.
When white men took revenge on an Indian village for the rape of a white woman by a Native American man, was the killing of innocent Native American children justifiable during that revenge spree?
When Native Americans took revenge on a white town for the rape of a Native American women woman by a white man, was the killing of innocent white children justifiable during that revenge spree?
No, abortion is always wrong everywhere under every circumstance, no exceptions, white, black, brown, yellow, doesn’t matter.
“fuel for your hatred of the white man”
Haha… Hatred of the white man? I’m half white. I hate myself I guess and also my boyfriend… All but eh, 60 give or take people on my college campus, all of my friends…. Yup, hatred for white people, you got it. :P
How do you think so many native families got involved in Christianity? Through the means that I listed above.
Danielle,
You hate somebody. It’s obvious in your posts.
Maybe it’s me. That’s Ok, I’ve been getting alot of that lately simply for speaking truth and sometimes when I even agree with what you say, not out of compromise, but out of integrity.
Hate is hard to understand. It so blinds the heart.
I have always found Easter to be one of the most happy holidays of the year. It seems many of our holidays end in debauchery of some sort but Easter is really about happiness, purity, and family. And buffets, of course :)
I will be waking up in about 6 hours to go to mass. I had an opportunity to go to easter vigil today but I generally find it hard to get motivated to go to the vigil masses. I find easter masses much more jubilant and generally more redeemign to attend.
I hope everyone’s Easter is filled with love rather than animosity, and focus on family and God (if you are a believer) rather than disagreements and “sides.” Happy Easter, everyone.
Danielle, 4/8, 12:07a, said: “Read some books on the ‘converting’ of the Native Americans, it’s pretty disgusting stuff.”
Danielle, what’s your view of the Muslim faith?
Danielle, 4/8, 12:20a, said: “The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women. ‘To me, it is now a question of sovereignty,’ she said to me last week. ‘I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.'”
Danielle, you should have kept reading. Turns out Fire Thunder was a former abortion mill worker, for one thing. And that comment got Fire Thunder fired. I wrote a few columns on her (with links to news articles for corroboration):
“Sioux tribe plans to scalp its own”
“Sioux 2”
“The lunatic fringe goes mainstream”
Native Americans are by and large very pro-life.
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.
And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
(Jesus Christ – John 11:25, 26)
Happy Easter Everyone…
mk
HisMan:
According to the dictionary, Christian is “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.” If you would care to show me a different definition, please do so. Not all Christians follow your exact beliefs: again, you cannot prove that your exact beliefs are correct. Your faith says that you are correct, and that’s great, but you cannot empirically prove that you are.
Therefore, until such time as there is empirical proof that you are correct, I am and will be content with my beliefs.
According to the dictionary, Christian is “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; Adherent of Christianity
Adherent of Christianity
Christianity:
“a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior”
Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here; for he is risen.
Matthew 28:5-6 KJT
“Happy Easter!”
A missionary in Brazil discovered a tribe of Indians living in a remote jungle area. Disease was ravaging their population and they urgently needed medical help. However, the only clinic was on the other side of a raging river the Indians believed was inhabited by evil spirits. In their minds, crossing meant certain death. Although the missionary assured them he’d crossed it safely many times, they hesitated. When he led them to the bank and placed his hand in the water, they were skeptical. He even waded in and splashed water on his face. No luck. Finally he placed a dove in the water and it swam under the surface, emerging safely on the other side. Having discredited the river’s powers the missionary raised a triumphant fist. The tribe broke into cheers and followed him across. Great news! Jesus went through the river of death. He defeated it by submerging, crossing over and rising again on the other side!
Dr. Erwin Lutzer said. “We don’t need a Savior who can just ‘help’ us; we need [one] who can resurrect us. We don’t need a Savior who helps us when life gets tough; we need [one] who can help us when life ends.” Easter proves that Jesus truly is “the resurrection, and the life” (Jn 11:25). As a well-known writer said, “He made death look like a 90-pound weakling dressed up in a Charles Atlas suit!” He literally kicked the ends out of the grave, transforming it from a dead-end street into a glorious highway from here to heaven! And Paul says, “He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit.” Hence we say “Happy Easter!”
Less,
You said: “According to the dictionary, Christian is “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.”
What doee believe mean in this context? Does it mean like I “believe” in the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause or does it mean I give my life for Jesus because I trust that He will save me?
And what does adherent mean? I thought it meant to do those things Christians or followers of Christ would do. Seems to me that if you want to follow Christ you have to know what He said and what others that knew Him said about Him. Does this not mean that one would have to read and study the Bible to be a workmen that would not be ashamed?
Would Christ approve of abortion? If Christ would not approve of abortion seems to me that those who did would not be following Him but some other imaginary person they believed in but did not trust.
HisMan
I don
Less,
No hubris on my part, rather, you’ve “hubried” yourself by saying, “I
HisMan
As the Bible has been translated over and over again and is not proven to be the truth, your faith is no truer than mine.
If the Bible is all about life over death, than why does Leviticus speak so strongly about all the sins that would be death-worthy? Why is fornication punishable by death? Why would a rape victim be forced to marry her rapist? What kind of life would that be for the woman? The Bible might be about life over death, but I would rather die than live a life governed by the misogynic and violent views of the Old Testament. I will live my life as I see fit, doing good works and loving those around me.
If God wants the fetus to be carried to term, it will be, plain and simple. If I become pregnant and seek an abortion, I will go through with it unless God Himself tells me otherwise: and it would have to be a pretty compelling reason. Pregnancy is brutal, and forcing someone to go through that, even if you are God, is cruel. I do not and will not worship a cruel God.
You aren
Dan you said: “No, it WAS in the document. Take a US history class hisman; we went over it at the beginning of the year, Congress ratified it knowing full well the phrase was there, we went over it in class. Im pretty sure a history teacher would know more about the topic.”
You also said:”No, it WAS in the document. Take a US history class hisman; we went over it at the beginning of the year, Congress ratified it knowing full well the phrase was there, we went over it in class. Im pretty sure a history teacher would know more about the topic.”
I would no less trust an revisionist believing pro-death public school history teacher than I would trust any pro-death abortionist. Article 11 was a scam.
Here’s my answer from:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/
“A Chronology of US Historical Documents
The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.
Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
Article 2:
And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees of the equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River, thence straight to the head of Saint Mary’s River; and thence down along the middle of Saint Mary’s River to the Atlantic Ocean; east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river Saint Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall, respectively, touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.
Article 3:
It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty’s dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.
Article 4:
It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.
Article 5:
It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty’s arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation. And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.
Article 6:
That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.
Article 7:
There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease. All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artilery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.
Article 8:
The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.
Article 9:
In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.
Article 10:
The solemn ratifications of the present treaty expedited in good and due form shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in the space of six months or sooner, if possible, to be computed from the day of the signatures of the present treaty. In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.
Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
D. HARTLEY (SEAL)
JOHN ADAMS (SEAL)
B. FRANKLIN (SEAL)
JOHN JAY (SEAL)
Less,
You said: “As the Bible has been translated over and over again and is not proven to be the truth, your faith is no truer than mine.”
Which Bible translation from any reliable source disagrees with anything I have said? Yes, the meaning and usage of words changes over time and that’s why new trnaslations are needed so that people can understand the eternal, never to perish, Word of God.
You have very common ideas held by a majority of people. Not a surprise. The Bible says the road to perdition is wide and many take it. The road to life however, is narrow and few are that find it. If you’re not looking for the truth, you’re not going to find it.
I am sure my faith will result in heaven because it’s based on no less on then the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
All other ground is sinking sand.
You also said: “You aren
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”
God formed Adam and Eve much differently than he forms a fetus in the womb. Adam never did live in a woman’s womb. He was formed as a fully grown man, and his breath was given to him as a man, not as a baby who just emerged from his mother’s womb.
If we really wanted to use this verse to excuse murder, couldn’t we just as well say that until a person reaches manhood (or womanhood), they do not receive the “breath of life”, and therefore are not truly living beings with souls. Just living beings without souls?
Using this Bible verse way out of it’s context to try to justify murder of babies is wrong, and it is not “rightly dividing the Word of God”. If you are a Christian, you (and I) have a duty to search the scriptures in truth, and be sure you’re supporting things that are good and right, not just trying to find justifications for something that you know is wrong.
*********
Dan, did Jesus, when he came down to earth in the form of a human, have a soul when he was still within Mary’s womb?
Just curious to see what your opinion is.
And as for those of you who like to use Exodus 21:22-25 as an excuse to murder, saying that it supposedly proves an unborn baby is less important than the mother, you have simply not taken the time to read the Bible verses correctly.
The King James version, I’ll admit, might be difficult to understand, if you’re not familiar with the way it reads:
” 22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. “
Here is the New International Version’s translation of the same group of verses:
22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Sex selection “partial birth abortion” mentioned in the Bible:
King James version:
15And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
New international version:
15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 “When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”
19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.”
20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.
Psalm 106:
36 And they served their idols:
which were a snare unto them. Judg. 2.1-3 ; 3.5, 6
37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons
and their daughters unto devils, 2 Kgs. 17.17
38 and shed innocent blood,
even the blood of their sons and of their daughters,
whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan:
and the land was polluted with blood. Num. 35.33
39 Thus were they defiled with their own works,
and went a whoring with their own inventions.
40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people,
insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.
41 And he gave them into the hand of the heathen;
and they that hated them ruled over them.
42 Their enemies also oppressed them,
and they were brought into subjection under their hand.
Happy Easter, Jill
IV. Answering the Theological Case for Abortion Rights: The Bible
[The following material is presented here, with permission, from the Center for Bioethical Reform. Priests for Life is grateful to the authors, Gregg Cunningham and Scott Klusendorf.]
I. Why the Bible’s Alleged Silence on Abortion Cannot Be Used To Justify the Practice
A. Some actions are wrong even if Scripture is “silent”
B. Scripture affirms the humanity of the unborn child
C. The Bible’s alleged silence on abortion does not mean that its authors condoned the practice, but that prohibitions against it were unnecessary
D. The texts that abortion advocates use to discredit the full humanity of the unborn do not support their position
A. Some actions are wrong even if Scripture is “silent.”
1. Strange as it may seem, liberals are now citing Scripture (well, sort of) to defend child killing. They argue that since the Bible does not expressly condemn abortion, pro-lifers shouldn’t either. As one abortion advocate put it, those against abortion should “speak when the Bible speaks and be silent when the Bible is silent.”
2. There are a number of problems with this argument, not the least of which is the twisted assumption that because a particular behavior escapes mention in Scripture, it is therefore permissible. To cite an example, the Bible does not expressly condemn ax-murdering, yet few liberals would venture a defense of Jeffrey Dahmer. Nor does the Bible directly condemn infanticide (the killing of babies immediately after birth), but not even Gloria Steinem would sanction cutting up newborns for their body parts. As Francis Beckwith points out, if one accepts the principle that whatever the Bible does not expressly forbid is permissible, “one would be in the horrible position of sanctioning everything from slavery to nuclear warfare.”
3. But while the Bible may not expressly condemn abortion, it does condemn the taking of human life without justification (Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16-17; Matthew 5:21, etc.). From this it logically follows that if Scripture establishes the humanity of the unborn child, then abortion-on-demand cannot be morally permissible. Hence, the key question is not “Does the Bible expressly forbid abortion?” but “Does Scripture treat the unborn as human?” When framed this way, it becomes clear that Scripture indeed establishes the humanity of those in the womb.
B. Scripture affirms the humanity of the unborn child.
1. Scripture uses the same language for the unborn as it does other children. Luke’s gospel uses the word “baby” or “child” (Gr. brephos ) to describe John the Baptist prior to his birth. We are told in 1:41 and 1:44 that the “baby” (brephos) leapt in Elizabeth’s womb. But one chapter later (2:12,16), the already born Christ child is also referred to as a “baby” (brephos ). Since brephos is commonly used to describe infants and older children (Luke 18:15, Acts 7:19, 1 Peter 2:2), Luke’s use of the word for the pre-born John the Baptist is not without significance.
The Old Testament, meanwhile, uses variations of the word “child” or “children” for both the born and unborn, and in several instances applies personal language to the conceived embryo. Job said (3:3), “May the day perish on which I was born, and the night in which it was said, ‘a male child is conceived.”‘ [Hebrew word gebher [man child] is used here to describe Job at the point of conception. The word is often used for adult males, but is applied here to a conceived embryo.]
As Beckwith observes, “This passage connects the individual born with the individual conceived.” Job is clearly using personal language to trace his humanity back beyond birth to the act of conception. The Psalmist, using similar language (51:5), writes, “In sin did my mother conceive me.”
2. Scripture shows that God knows the unborn personally. The Bible does not speak of the unborn child as an unthinking, unfeeling tissue mass, but as a person with whom God interacts. Jeremiah 1:5 quotes Jehovah as saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you.” The Psalmist declares (22: 10), “From my mother’s womb you have been my God” and later marvels at God forming his “inward parts” and “weaving” him together in the womb. He concludes by saying, “My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in secret …. Your eyes saw my unformed substance” (139:13-16).
Now some try to dismiss these passages as applying only to prophets or other special persons. But Scripture does not discriminate on the basis of status. Job, for example, says of his slaves and maidservants (31:15), “Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?”
3. Scripture teaches that God not only knows the unborn, but endows them with purpose long before birth. The Angel of the Lord tells Samson’s parents, “The Child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death” (Judges 13:7). Elsewhere, the Apostle Paul tells us (Gal. 1:15) that he was “set apart in the womb” to serve Christ — something not likely to be true of a mere tissue blob or “potential” human. But perhaps the most vivid example is that of the incarnation: Christ enters our world as a conceived embryo and hence fully identifies with the whole spectrum of human existence from conception through death. As the writer of Hebrews tells us, “In all things He had to be made like His brethren that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest” (Hebrews 12:7).
4. Nonetheless, some have questioned the use of these passages to establish the humanity of the unborn. Concerning those passages that describe the unborn in personal terms, one author writes, “Such references designate individuals not only before birth but before conception… and so they are not really to the point.” But passages such as Jeremiah 1:5 do not claim that unborn children exist prior to conception, but only that God knows and has plans for them before they are conceived. As Beckwith points out, “This is certainly possible for an eternal God who knows all things simultaneously and is not bound by time or space.” (See, for example, Ps. 90:2; Isa.46:9-10; Col. 1:16-17.) In short, Divine foreknowledge cannot be used to dismiss the full humanity of the unborn child.
These examples, while not exhaustive, sufficiently prove that Scripture treats the unborn as human persons. And since the Bible clearly forbids killing people without justification, we can logically infer that it condemns abortion-on-demand as well.
C. The Bible’s alleged silence on abortion does not mean that its authors condoned the practice, but that prohibitions against it were unnecessary.
1. If a visitor from another planet were asked to examine the Biblical documents for clues on abortion, he would have to admit that the word does not appear. But a visitor with a sense of history might say, “Tell me what the laws, beliefs and customs were when the Bible was written and from these I shall infer whether or not its authors ever intended to condone abortion.”
2. Turning first to the Old Testament, our visitor would find:
*that the concept of “life” was regarded as the highest good, while “death” was seen as the worst evil. Hence the challenge found in Deuteronomy 30:19–“Today I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose Life, so that you and your children may live.”
*that man was not a chance or a mere assemblage of cells, but that he was created in the image of God. Hence, the shedding of innocent blood was strictly forbidden (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 23:7, Prov. 6:16-17)
*that children were never seen as “unwanted” or as a nuisance, but as a gift from God — the highest possible blessing (Psalm 127:3-5, 113:9, Gen. 17:6, 33:5, etc.)
*that immortality was achieved through one’s descendants. God’s “promise” to Abraham to make of him a great nation was passed on to Isaac, Jacob, etc. “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from Him,” writes the Psalmist (127:3; See also Gen. 48:16).
*that sterility and barrenness were seen as a curse, a source of great shame and sorrow. Hence, Peninnah’s harsh ridicule of Hannah, the prophet Samuel’s mother, because of the latter’s initial barrenness (1 Samuel 1:6. see also Gen. 20:17-18, 30:1, 22-23,etc.).
*that God was at work in the womb fashioning a human for His purposes (Ps.139:13-16, Isa. 49:1,5; Jer.1:5).
Among a people who saw life as the highest good and death the worst of evils, who saw man as being created in the image of God, who saw children as the highest possible blessing, who saw immortality as being achieved through one’s descendants, who saw sterility and barrenness as a curse, who saw God at work in the womb–among such a people, the concept of induced abortion was extremely unlikely to find a foothold. Hence, the Old Testament’s silence on abortion indicates that prohibitions against it were completely unnecessary, not that the practice was tacitly approved. (See Germain Grisez, Abortion: the Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments, Corpus Books, 1970, pp. 123-127 for a lengthy discussion of this point.)
In short, liberals who argue for abortion rights from the alleged silence of the Old Testament are committing a gross hermeneutical fallacy. Basic to good Biblical interpretation is the rule that “a text can never mean [to us] what it never could have meant to its author or his readers.”(See Gordon Fee, How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, Zondervan 1982, p.60.) In other words, it is important to interpret Scripture within its own intellectual and cultural framework without reading into it a foreign world view. The idea that the absence of a direct prohibition meant that women had a God-given right to kill their offspring would have been utterly foreign to the Hebrew culture of that day for the reasons cited above.
3. Turning to the New Testament, our visitor would quickly observe:
*that the first Christians, including all but one of the New Testament authors, were Jewish Christians with an essentially Jewish morality. Hence, if there was a Jewish consensus on abortion at the time, the early Christians most certainly would have shared that consensus.
*that early Judaism was, in fact, quite firmly opposed to abortion. As Michael Gorman points out in his excellent article “Why Is the New Testament Silent About Abortion?” (Christianity Today, Jan. 11, 1993), Jewish documents from the period condemn the practice unequivocally, demonstrating a clear antiabortion consensus among first century Jews:
— The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50) says, “A woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures.”
— Sibyline Oracles: includes among the wicked those who “produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away” as well as sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.
— I Enoch (first or second century B.C.) says that an evil angel taught humans how to “smash the embryo in the womb.”
— Philo of Alexandria (Jewish philosopher, 25 B.C. to A.D.41) rejected the notion that the fetus is merely part of the mother’s body.
— I Josephus (first-century Jewish historian) wrote, “The law orders all the offspring be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus.” (A woman who did so was considered to have committed infanticide because she destroyed a “soul” and hence diminished the race.)
No contradictory texts exist! Given this consensus, the most logical conclusion is that the Jewish Christian writers of the New Testament shared the anti-abortion views of their Jewish heritage — even if they never expressly mention the word “abortion” in their writings.
*that the theology of the New Testament is primarily task theology written to address specific issues in specific churches. In other words, the New Testament as a whole does not constitute a comprehensive code of ethics (although we certainly can derive certain principles of right and wrong from what’s written), but rather each document deals only with those moral issues which had become problems. For example, the Apostle Paul seldom mentions the historical career of Christ, but this does not mean that he was ignorant of it or questioned its validity. Rather, it means that a discussion of this sort never became necessary. Writes theologian George Eldon Ladd:
“Many studies in Paul have worked with the implicit assumption that his letters record all his ideas, and when some important matter was not discussed, they have assumed it was because it had no place in Paul’s thought. This is a dangerous procedure; the argument from silence should be employed only with the greatest of caution. Paul discusses many subjects only because a particular need in a given church required his instruction …. We would never know much about Paul’s thought on the resurrection had it not been questioned in Corinth. We might conclude that Paul knew no tradition about the Lord’s supper had not abuses occurred in the Corinthian congregation. In other words, we may say that we owe whatever understanding we have of Paul’s thought to the “accidents of history” which required him to deal with various problems, doctrinal and practical, in the life of the churches” (A Theology of the New Testament, EErdmans, 1974, pp.377-8. Emph. added).
Likewise, the New Testament’s silence on abortion does not mean that its authors approved of the practice, but that a discussion of the issue never became necessary. In other words, there was no deviation from the norm inherited from Judaism. The early Christians simply were not tempted to kill their children before or after birth.
*that many of the texts used by early Christians did condemn abortion. Although these early Christian works eventually lost their bid for canonicity, they do express how the first Christians felt on a variety of issues — including abortion. As Gorman points out, these early writings were read and preached in many congregations throughout the Roman Empire up until the fourth century. Examples include:
— The Didache: “You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn.”
— The Epistle of Barnabas: “You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn.”
— Apocalypse of Peter [describing a vision of Hell]: “I saw women who produced children out of wedlock and who procured abortions.”
These texts, writes Gorman, “bear witness to the general Jewish and Jewish-Christian attitude of the first and second centuries, thus confirming that the earliest Christians shared the anti-abortion position of their Jewish forebears.”
Given this overwhelming consensus against abortion by early Jewish Christians, our “visitor” would reason that what Jewish morality condemned, the writers of the New Testament never intended to legitimize.
(For further study, see Michael Gorman, Abortion & the Early Church, Intervarsity Press, 1982)
D. The texts that abortion advocates use to discredit the full humanity of the unborn do not support their position.
1. Exodus 21: 22-25. The passage as cited in the NIV reads: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the courts allow. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye?.” Liberals argue that this Scripture proves the unborn are not fully human because the penalty for accidentally killing a fetus is less than that given were its mother accidentally killed. But this argument is flawed on several counts.
First, assuming the pro-abortion interpretation of this passage is correct (i.e. that the unborn’s death is treated differently than the mother’s), it does not follow that the unborn are not fully human. The preceding passage presents a situation where a master unintentionally kills his slave and escapes with no penalty at all (the lack of intent being proven by the interval between the blow and the death.). Yet few liberals would argue that Scripture considers the slave to be less than human. Likewise, it does not follow that the unborn entity is non-human simply because the penalty for its death is less than that given were its mother to die. It might be argued that both the slave and the unborn child had a lesser social status in Hebrew society, but it cannot be demonstrated from this that a lesser social status meant that one was less than fully human.
Second, even if abortion advocates are correct about this passage, it cannot be used to support abortion on demand. Liberals argue that any woman should be able to kill any baby at any point in the pregnancy for any reason or no reason. This passage, however, does not even remotely suggest that a woman can willfully kill her unborn child without justification. At best, it only shows that there is a lesser penalty for accidentally killing her unborn offspring than there is for accidentally killing her. “To move from this truth to the conclusion that abortion-on-demand is justified is a non sequitur,” writes Beckwith in Politically Correct Death. (p. 143)
Third, this single passage cannot be used to invalidate other Scriptures which confer full human status on the unborn. As mentioned earlier, passages such as Job 3:3,10-16, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Galatians 1:15, etc. all treat the unborn as persons. The abortion advocate must somehow reconcile his own interpretation of this passage with these other Scriptures which are clearly not supportive of his view.
Finally, the pro-abortion interpretation of this passage (that a person who kills an unborn child only incurs a fine) has come under heavy fire from many Biblical scholars. There is a great deal of discussion about the phrase, “no serious injury.” “No serious injury to whom?” asks theologian R.C. Sproul. Liberals, of course, argue that the phrase only applies to the mother. But only a few translations, such as the Jerusalem Bible, actually interpret the verse in this way. When read in the original Hebrew, the passage seems to suggest that both the mother and the child are covered by the lex talionis — the law of retribution. The Hebrew term ason (harm/injury) is clearly indefinite in its reference, and the expression lah (to her), which would restrict the word “injury” only to the mother, is missing. Hence, the phrase, “no serious injury” seems to apply equally to both mother and child and if either is harmed the penalty is “life for life, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,” etc. According to Hebrew scholar Dr. Gleason Archer, “There is no second class status attached to the fetus under this rule. The fetus is just as valuable as the mother.” (Cited in J. Ankerberg and J. Weldon, When Does Life Begin, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989 pp. 195-6. See also, Meredith Kline, “Lex Talionis & the Human Fetus,” Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 [1985-1986] pp.73-89.)
2. Free moral agency. Some liberals argue that since God created human beings as free moral agents, laws restricting abortion must be against His will. This argument is subject to two criticisms.
First, as Beckwith points out (pp. 141-2), it is simply untrue that laws limiting “free moral agency” are contrary to God’s will. For example, laws banning rape, theft, murder and the use of crack cocaine invariably restrict the free moral agency of others. Few complain, however, because it is widely recognized that these laws protect the free agency of others who have a right not to be harmed by such behavior (i.e. a woman who is raped is prevented from exercising her free moral agency, hence laws against rape are perfectly just).
Second, the argument from free moral agency only works if the abortion advocate begs the question and assumes that the unborn are not human. For if the unborn are indeed human, laws restricting abortion would be perfectly just since the free agency of another, the unborn child, would be violated by an act of abortion. Hence, the question, “Are the unborn human?” must be addressed (and not merely assumed) before the question of free moral agency is discussed.
3. Psalm 51:5 and 139:13-16. Abortion advocates insist these passages teach only that the unborn are “being formed,” not that they are human persons. As Beckwith points out, there are three fundamental problems with this argument.
First, even if abortion advocates are right about these texts, they would still have to explain other Scriptural references (such as Gen. 4: 1, Job 3:3, etc.) which clearly state that a person’s existence begins at conception.
Second, those who use this argument commit the world view fallacy mentioned earlier. Basic to good hermeneutics is the principle that a text can never mean to us what it never could have meant to its author or original readers. In other words, it’s critical that we interpret Scripture within its own intellectual and cultural framework without reading into it a foreign world view. The distinction between “biological human life” and “human person” is a creation of modem pro-abortion thought which demands that the fetus meet certain developmental criteria before qualifying as fully human. (Carl Sagan, for example, insists that human personhood cannot possibly exist until the sixth month of pregnancy — when the fetus becomes fully sentient.) Since neither the Psalmist nor his readers were aware of this modem distinction, Psalm 51:5 cannot be used to support the pro-abortion position without doing violence to the text.
Third, far from undermining the humanity of the unborn this passage clearly affirms it. The Psalmist tells us in no uncertain terms exactly when his life began: “In sin did my mother conceive me,” he writes, linking his status as a person to the act of conception. Hence, the first part of Psalm 51:5 (“I was brought forth” or “was being formed”) best describes “the subsequent physical development of David in the womb, which continues after birth into infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood” (Beckwith, pp. 148-9).
The same can be said of Psalm 139:13-16. Liberals claim that because the unborn are still “unformed” (verse 16), they are therefore not fully human. But as Norman Geisler points out, “unformed doesn’t mean non-human any more than deformed does.” And since passages like this actually describe God’s personal relationship with the unborn, it’s strange that abortion advocates would use them to support their claim of an unthinking, unfeeling fetus.
4. Genesis 2:7. the argument for “breath” (nephesh). The argument goes that the first man, Adam, became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Since the unborn don’t ‘breathe’ until birth, they are not fully human. This argument is utterly vacuous.
First, it is scientifically imprecise to say that the unborn do not ‘breathe’ until birth. From conception forward, the unborn child receives and transfers oxygen, though not through the lungs. What changes at birth is the mode of breathing: instead of receiving oxygen through the placenta, the child begins to breathe through its lungs. Hence, the argument can be made that birth does not mark the beginning of human respiration.
Second, if the ability to sustain oxygen through the lungs is what indeed makes one human, then all those dependent on ventilators and oxygen machines would have to be classed as non-human.
Finally, the analogy between Adam and the unborn child does not fit. The creation of Adam was a unique historical event in which God formed Adam from inanimate matter (dust) and then breathed into him the “breath of life.” The unborn child, on the other hand, is a living entity from conception. Hence, the passage does nothing to discredit the humanity of the unborn.
His Man, wrong Treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified in 1797, or is that a liberal myth as well?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
theres the whole treaty.
Bethany, your comparison with Jesus is just off, simply because God gave Mary the choice to begin with, so he would have been born either way, so honestly with Jesus, who knows.
Can God even have a soul as we know it? theres something for thought…
and Bethany, the quote you bolded is often used by the pro choice side. Notice it doesnt mention whether or not the miscarried child lives or dies, in either case it is irrelevant, they simply pay a fine. If the pregnant woman is injured, it is at that point that eye for an eye is put in place.
Oh, and His Man, your treaty was that signed with BRITAIN to end the REVOLUTIONARY war, not signed to end the war with the Barbary Pirates
Danielle,
When my son Tommy was going through his hospitalizations and I felt so helpless and so alone I would play this Bonnie Raitt song over and over and over…
I think of it whenever I hear of someone struggling with a mental disorder…be it addiction, bi-polar, depression…
I thought you might enjoy it. Unfortunately it’s not on youtube, but if you ever get a chance, I would encourage you to buy it and listen to it.
It’s haunting and sad and yet hopeful all at the same time…
For you…
From me…
“Wounded Heart”
Bonnie Raitt
Wounded heart I cannot save you from yourself
Though I wanted to be brave, it never helped.
‘Cause your trouble’s like a flood raging through your veins
No amount of love’s enough to end the pain
Tenderness and time can heal a right gone wrong,
But the anger that you feel goes on and on.
And it’s not enough to know that I love you still
So I’ll take my heart and go for I’ve had my fill
[Instrumental break]
If you listen you can hear the angel’s wings
Up above our heads so near they are hovering
Waiting to reach out for love when it falls apart
When it cannot rise above a wounded heart.
When it cannot rise above a wounded heart.
You were in my prayers this weekend, all of my “girls” were…
Love,
mk
Can God even have a soul as we know it? theres something for thought…
Genesis 1:26-27 declares,
OK and I reread this quote again and realized I misinterpreted what you said. You’re saying you don’t know if Jesus had a soul when he was in the womb.
Ok, why does the Bible then say:
” 41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. ”
How can a babe in the womb leap for joy if it has no soul? Jesus came to the earth as a human, and he grew and developed as a human on earth. The only difference was his Heavenly power. He humbled and lowered Himself to become like one of us.
If the Bible says that He lept in the womb for joy, I believe He did. And I do not believe that a soulless baby can have emotions.
Speaking of which, do you know that babies have been known to cry inside the womb? And laugh? And suck their thumbs? And do anything that a normal baby does, except, within the womb?
How do you explain this, without the presence of a soul?
John the Baptist “recognized” the voice of Mary, but it is entirely possible that he just happened to kick at the right moment and his mother took that to be a joyful leap.
Hey Bethany,
I hope your Easter was WONDERFUL!!!!
The other thing we can’t forget is that time has not meaning for God.
So at the same moment he was asking her to carry his son, he was also creating her without original sin, at the same time that He was being crucified at the same time that we are typing on this computer.
He sees all and knows all because He isn’t limited by time.
Her knew her answer before she asked because He heard her give it at the same time…
See?
So He knew she would say yes, and He would have known if she said no, because everything is happening at once…
mk
SamanthaT,
43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Perhaps she assumed he leaped for joy, but how, if at this point Mary was the only one who understood who the child she was carrying was, could Elizabeth have known that Mary was the Mother of “her Lord”?
mk
Off topic,
SamanthaT, are you a different person than Samantha no “T”?
mk
Hi Mk…I hope yours was great too! I missed you while you were away! :)
The other thing we can’t forget is that time has not meaning for God.
So at the same moment he was asking her to carry his son, he was also creating her without original sin, at the same time that He was being crucified at the same time that we are typing on this computer.
He sees all and knows all because He isn’t limited by time.
Her knew her answer before she asked because He heard her give it at the same time…
See?
So He knew she would say yes, and He would have known if she said no, because everything is happening at once…
I totally agree, MK! :) Which is why I worded it so precisely…i said that “had she not been chosen”. But she was chosen…God chose Mary, and He knew her heart, he knew she would accept.
So I completely agree with what you’re saying ;-)
Ugh, I hate that I keep forgetting to put the italics code ( ) on every paragraph…I’m so used to the HTML code working differently that I usually just don’t think about it. lol
Sorry if it makes my posts confusing sometimes.
Also, Dan, in case you missed MK’s post above I realize it was very long), I thought I’d repost part of it down here for you to see (very good points, I think):
“4. Genesis 2:7. the argument for “breath” (nephesh). The argument goes that the first man, Adam, became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Since the unborn don’t ‘breathe’ until birth, they are not fully human. This argument is utterly vacuous.
First, it is scientifically imprecise to say that the unborn do not ‘breathe’ until birth. From conception forward, the unborn child receives and transfers oxygen, though not through the lungs. What changes at birth is the mode of breathing: instead of receiving oxygen through the placenta, the child begins to breathe through its lungs. Hence, the argument can be made that birth does not mark the beginning of human respiration.
Second, if the ability to sustain oxygen through the lungs is what indeed makes one human, then all those dependent on ventilators and oxygen machines would have to be classed as non-human.,/i>
Bethany,
I just figured if I posted the whole thing we could pull what we wanted more easily than have to go to Priests for Life over and over.
Right now there is a special on FOX news (gave up TV for lent, turned it on for the first time and there it was), something about facts and fiction on faith and the passion…looks interesting…although I’m not sure I trust FOX…
But I’m gonna go watch it…I’ll check back from time to time…it seems slow tonight.
good to be back.
mk
Thanks MK, I’ll see if my dad has the song on the computer when I go home next (he has all of Bonnie Raitt CDs on it).
This is the song that got me through those tough days/nights alone:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YQIk7M7WiIc
And this one as well:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oketnCssiy0
That was a good idea, MK. :)
Let me know how that show turns out. Hope it’s good…hard to tell with Fox. :)
I like this song after I’ve had a bad day..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIcFgl6zf3A
HisMan: I fully intend to have a delicious and vivacious life, filled with happiness and the security that when I die, I can go to my death being truly proud of what I have done.
Less,
Yes and you will find this out, that death, if faced without Christ, is not delicious nor vivacious. No it is bitter and well, without life. If you don’t believe me, go visit a terminal cancer ward in a hospital.
Something I’ve learned lately, never argue with someone who does not want to be confused with the facts.
I have heard this idea of life after death and I was wondering if it is biblically supported.
This argument is very convincing. It essentially says that after death everybody who has gone astray has a chance to repent. Those that dont’ go to hell for a finite time (for the finite world). At the second coming, Jesus will be the ultimate judge. Those that he deems unworthy will die a “second death” and that is it. No eternal punishment. But the worthy and repentent will live in eternal paradise.
It seems easy to belive. Is this idea bibically supported and where?
Thanks all! Happy Easter again!
and Bethany, the quote you bolded is often used by the pro choice side. Notice it doesnt mention whether or not the miscarried child lives or dies, in either case it is irrelevant, they simply pay a fine. If the pregnant woman is injured, it is at that point that eye for an eye is put in place.
You and I obviously read it differently.
From “The Biblical Case Against Abortion”
“Exodus 21
22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
1) If a woman gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury–i.e. the baby lives without harm,
then a fine results to compensate for the assault.
2) If a woman gives birth prematurely, and the baby dies, then the assailant is to be given the death penalty. This point is HUGE!!! What God is saying here is that the value and worth of an adult man is equal to the value and worth of an unborn fetus who was young enough, or injured enough, to die. God equates the loss of an unborn baby as the loss of a life, for He says, “you are to take life for life,…” This point cannot be emphasized too strongly. God considers the unborn baby alive, and the loss of that life is considered murder. This murder is punishable with the death penalty. This verse demonstrates three truths:
a) The unborn’s life is equivalent in value to an adult’s life in God’s sight
b) This also outlines God’s Law against criminal feticide.
c) The killing of the unborn is murder ”
From “Arguments against abortion”
“Another argument against abortion can be found in the Old Testament legal code, specifically Exodus 21:22-25.
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
The verses appear to teach that if a woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby is not injured, then only a fine is appropriate. However, if the child dies then the law of retaliation (lex talionis) should be applied. In other words, killing an unborn baby would carry the same penalty as killing a born baby. A baby inside the womb has the same legal status as a baby outside the womb.
Some commentators have come to a different conclusion because they believe the first verses only refer to a case of accidental miscarriage. Since only a fine is levied, they argue that an unborn baby is merely potential life and does not carry the same legal status as a baby that has been born.
There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, the normal Hebrew word for miscarry is not used in this passage (cf. Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Job 2:10; Hos. 9:14). Most commentators now believe that the action described in verse 22 is a premature birth not an accidental miscarriage. Second, even if the verses do describe a miscarriage, the passage cannot be used to justify abortion. The injury was accidental, not intentional (as abortion would be). Also, the action was a criminal offense and punishable by law.”
I have heard this idea of life after death and I was wondering if it is biblically supported.
This argument is very convincing. It essentially says that after death everybody who has gone astray has a chance to repent. Those that dont’ go to hell for a finite time (for the finite world). At the second coming, Jesus will be the ultimate judge. Those that he deems unworthy will die a “second death” and that is it. No eternal punishment. But the worthy and repentent will live in eternal paradise.
It seems easy to belive. Is this idea bibically supported and where?
It’s a nice thought but it unfortunately has no Biblical basis whatsoever.
There is a second death, but it’s not like what you described.
The Bible says that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Yet, every person who bows and confesses Christ does not go to Heaven, according to the Bible. I have not seen one verse in the Bible that would suggest that a person has another chance to repent after death.
Oops, that should read, every person who bows and confesses Christ AFTER death does not go to Heaven.
I hope that my post didn’t come off as rude sounding, I meant it sincerely.
there is a big problem here … the Bible itself is a book is a book of faith. Too often it is read with objectivity as the main preoccupation … history text; morality codes; literature ………… on and on. Years ago, I found that the best way to read Cristian scripture was to pray to the author of the text for insight into what he wrote.
The books are so human …. these folks are very much in love with God … the God who cares! His whole universe reveals a God who cares – for all of us and our choices.
MK I think Ive always had a “T.” (?) I havent seen another Samantha on here, but if there is one without the “T” she is new. Have a good Easter?
PiP, you asked: “I have heard this idea of life after death and I was wondering if it is biblically supported. This argument is very convincing. It essentially says that after death everybody who has gone astray has a chance to repent. Those that dont’ go to hell for a finite time (for the finite world). At the second coming, Jesus will be the ultimate judge. Those that he deems unworthy will die a “second death” and that is it. No eternal punishment. But the worthy and repentent will live in eternal paradise. It seems easy to belive. Is this idea bibically supported and where?”
Here’s my answer:
Yet the troublesome question still remains–why must we die in the first place? The truth is, God never made us to die. Death of the body was not God’s original plan. It is the result of sin. When Adam and Eve committed the first sin (disobedience to God), sin entered into this world; as a result of it, every single one of us will face death at sometime. When we die, we will also face judgment before God. “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). The Bible speaks of death as an enemy. 1 Corinthians 15:26 says, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” In this world we are seeing death all around us: death by old age, disease, murder, suicide, accidents, disasters, famine and war. All of these have been brought on mankind because of sin and a fallen race. Death is an evil that produces torment, fear, hatred, suffering, agony, pain, grief and heartache. There is only one way that we can overcome both death and the fear of it; that is through the One who conquered death and the grave. The death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, has now made a way for us to also conquer death. Romans 8:37: “Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.”
SPIRITUAL DEATH
Matthew 10:28: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Aside from death in the body, the Bible also speaks of another death–spiritual death (the second death). This is the death Jesus is referring to in the above verse, and it is ultimately the death that He came to deliver us from. This death is eternal separation from God. It extends beyond our mortal bodies. It does not mean ceasing to exist, rather it means that we will exist forever in our sinful state. Though hell is a literal place of torment, the main source of its torment is the eternal separation from God. This is far more ghastly than anything we can imagine, just as heaven is more wonderful than anything we can conceive. God never created hell for mankind. It was created as a fiery prison for Satan and the fallen angels (demons). Men are going there because they have chosen to follow the devil and have rejected Christ. Matthew 25:41: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
From the time we are born to when we die, we are given the chance to choose our own destiny. No one can choose it for us, least of all God. He created man with a free will that He will not violate. All He can do is set before us life (which is only found in the provision of Jesus’ death on the cross), or death (which is found in rejection of Jesus). To choose the latter will in no uncertain terms lead to the second death.
So, choose life by accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God as your personal Savior and then be baptized by immersion. He will reject nonone. After physical death, there will be no second chances for those who rejected Christ.
Evey knee shall bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord not becasue they were forced to but because they will be able to utter no other words when the finally see His Majesty. By that time, if you have not confessed Christ as Lord and believed in your heart that God rasied Him from the dead (Romans 10:9), it will be too late. Sight is not faith and without faith it is impossible to please God. If you’re reading this post, it’s not too late.
We pro-lifers are for life, not only in this present world, but also in the world to come by pointing them to the only One who can resue them, Jesus Christ.
May God Bless you and may you find Him.