tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post8538670184234368680..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: What does the Bible actually say about life before birth?Peter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-67789084506061402472014-06-09T01:49:35.136-07:002014-06-09T01:49:35.136-07:00The Bible does not support the view that some huma...The Bible does not support the view that some human lives are worth less than others . All are made in the image of God and all are equally precious." then why does he spend his life degrading and harming the dignity of others? He clearly thinks people who are gay are not fully human or worthy of full human dignity. He needs to explain himself.agen judi onlinehttp://goo.gl/StzUWonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-25084382775757375792013-11-18T15:12:54.936-08:002013-11-18T15:12:54.936-08:00Your case here seems to rest on the claim that the...Your case here seems to rest on the claim that the 'soul' enters the body after conception, but this idea can be challenged on two counts:<br /><br />1. The Bible does not support this kind of soul/body dualism. We are ensouled bodies or embodied souls - unified wholes.<br /><br />2. The timing of Jesus' birth is clear from the context. God sent the angel to Mary when Elizabeth was in her 6th month of pregnancy with John the Baptist (Luke 1:24,26,36). Shortly afterwards Elizabeth prophesied about the baby Mary would bear. Mary subsequently stayed with Elizabeth three months and then went home (1:56). Elizabeth would have this time been full term (nine months) and gave birth shortly afterwards. This means that no more than one month elapsed between the angel's visitation and Elizabeth's prophecy about Jesus, meaning that Jesus would have been in his first month of intrauterine life.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-57306877233436272182013-11-15T13:51:41.440-08:002013-11-15T13:51:41.440-08:00I am sorry to see the way Dr Saunders has misused ...I am sorry to see the way Dr Saunders has misused Scripture to support his arguments. I have looked at many of his Bible references, and I believe that very few of them, when properly understood, actually support his arguments. For example, he quotes the Psalms (and other passages such as Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:5) without understanding the principle of Hebrew poetry where two successive lines are alternative ways of saying the same thing. He majors on Psalm 139, even though the last sentence quoted, “All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” counteracts his argument: the Psalmist is referring to a time before conception. Other Scriptures (e.g. Ephesians 1:4, Revelation 13:8) describe God’s knowledge of us before the foundation of the world; quite a lot of weeks before birth! Dr Saunders’ use of Luke 1 relating to the birth of Jesus is also incorrect; there is nothing in the passage to indicate that Jesus was even conceived when Mary met Elisabeth.<br />Please can Christians base their arguments on what Scripture says, rather than twisting Scripture to support their pre-conceived ideas.<br />I am a Christian who believes that a human is created by God with a soul. The Bible makes it very clear that the soul leaves the body at death, and ends up in either heaven or hell. For a Christian, the abortion question must be about the point at which the soul is created, or enters the body. How many Scriptures support the idea that a foetus is a person with a soul? I think there are a few, but let’s think carefully about them.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-41853959420985530102013-11-12T10:12:39.480-08:002013-11-12T10:12:39.480-08:00Peter, I totally agree that the baby in the womb s...Peter, I totally agree that the baby in the womb should be protected and thank you for this article., but Psalm 139 v13--16 Reads "For thou hast possessed my reins" possessed means, in Hebrew, "to acquire, or set up" (speaks to me of God's purpose for David's future). Knit in the Bible is used a very few times, but not here and it means "bound together." The Ps goes on- "Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb" covered means to cover, or hedge in, which, to me, speaks of protection v14-"fearfully and wonderfully made, marvellous are thy works and that my soul knoweth right well = greatly. v15 )My substance was not hid from thee (substance in Hebrew can mean just substance or bone) when I was made in secret"-not even his mother knew him at conception and for a few weeks, but God knew him. "Curiously wrought" means embroidered ie made beautiful in God's sight for he was to be, not only His child, but a great King, "After God's own heart" and on the forerunner of Christ throne. Even though I beg to differ on small details, the human child should have all the rights of every other person for that's what they are, small people. We don't finish developing until 20-30yrs old. The womb should be the safest place on earth. Not all those born are the children of God. Most do not repent and Christ said, "Ye are of your father, the devil and the works of your father ye will do", only repentant sinner are elligable to be called sons of God. Not everyone is, or will be saved, The baby's development is a picture of the new born babe "in Christ".They make a lot of noise to say they have arrived (and how we love to hear that cry). but up to birth, the work has been done in silence and even in secret, just as in salvation-we have the "quickening of the Spirit" and begin to move in new ways, begin to recognise sounds and peole who love us ie other Christians, and there comes the day when they have fruit-fruit for our labour-another new babe in Christ. What a priviledged people we are, who are born again of the Spirit, what a hope, what a word to share but we need help to understand and grow in grace. As babes we crawl, walk and then run- let us run "race that is set before us"<br />savedbychristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604242266907426389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-22059234604484436372013-11-12T08:42:19.172-08:002013-11-12T08:42:19.172-08:00No explanation is required. I have simply expresse...No explanation is required. I have simply expressed an orthodox Christian view about homosexuality. People who identify themselves as gay are as precious in God's sight as everyone else and Jesus died for them and calls them to repentance and faith as he does everyone else. Refs on homophobia and sexuality below:<br /><br />My take on homophobia - http://bit.ly/FPldkE<br />Biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality - http://bit.ly/yw3XUUPeter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-36609605670257161742013-11-12T07:26:53.663-08:002013-11-12T07:26:53.663-08:00"There was no condemnation on Judah for decid..."There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action."<br />Really? Later Judah condemns himself and commends Tamar, his widowed daughter in law, because she took responsibilty for her line of descent and Judah did not. There is often much to condemn in stories of patriarchs and while the passage may appear silent on condemnation when it is a narrative or story telling passage, we can be absolutely clear from those passages that clearly teach morality. The biblical view on murder and abortion is totally clear. To imply otherwise is either ignorant or willfully disingenuous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-10808031067152426332013-11-12T05:15:24.436-08:002013-11-12T05:15:24.436-08:00Peter Saunders has made very homophobic comments a...Peter Saunders has made very homophobic comments and clearly doesn't believe the Bible. If, as he writes, "The Bible does not support the view that some human lives are worth less than others. All are made in the image of God and all are equally precious." then why does he spend his life degrading and harming the dignity of others? He clearly thinks people who are gay are not fully human or worthy of full human dignity. He needs to explain himself.jonathan.swift.ukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00993440158960174053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-64087314023322618402013-11-11T21:44:47.941-08:002013-11-11T21:44:47.941-08:00THE BIBLE SUPPORTS ABORTION RIGHTS.
Genesis 38...THE BIBLE SUPPORTS ABORTION RIGHTS. <br /> <br />Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time.<br /><br />This was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.<br /><br />If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. <br /><br />There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.<br /><br />Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.<br /><br />Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:<br /><br />"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."<br /><br />Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life"; it gains full human status after birth only.<br /><br />The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterward, it is considered subhuman until it is born.<br /><br />Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu -- it is not a person.'<br /><br />The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.<br /><br />This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus.<br /><br />If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.<br /><br />Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve.<br /><br />An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.<br /><br />Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.<br /><br />THE NEW TESTAMENT IS MORE PERMISSIVE THAN THE OLD!<br /><br />Jesus repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17) as did his apostles (see chapters 10, 15, and 21 of Acts). Paul, however, not only dismissed his previous adherence to the Law as "so much garbage," but claimed the risen Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9).<br /><br />Some Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring all of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles altogether.<br /><br />Wouldn't "three times..." thus justify "choice"?<br /><br />The late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933-2007), raised Catholic but went on to become an evangelical minister, a vegan, and author of God's Covenant with Animals (it's available through People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA), said they're quoting Paul out of context.<br /><br />Paul, she observed, was very strict with himself:<br /><br />"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Corinthians 9:27)<br /><br />Regina Hyland said this verse indicates it's possible for one to lose one's salvation (a serious point of contention among born agains!).<br /><br />Conservative Christians usually are quick to condemn anyone preaching a false gospel!http://www.vasumurti.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-54277762527155977492013-11-10T14:14:25.927-08:002013-11-10T14:14:25.927-08:00"the Bible points very strongly to the conclu..."the Bible points very strongly to the conclusion that human life begins at conception" [Peter Saunders]<br /><br />That a mammal's life (including a human's life] began at conception isn't a biblical doctrine, or, at least, a biblical doctrine that is still necessary, now that we have science. Nor is it a conclusion. It isn't even a premiss. It is a tautology.<br /><br />The definition of the verb to "conceive", is to become the mother of a new mammal specimen. The statement that a human's life began at his or her conception is therefore simply a statement that his or her life began when it began. That is not something that any modern, scientifically-minded thinker needs to read in the bible and to believe by faith, in order to know that the statement is true. It is true, because the statement is a tautology.<br /><br />The inequality of the pre-born human, with other humans, is always based upon a mere metaphysical doctrine. That doctrine takes various forms, but it always a mutation of an ancient myth called "ensoulment", rehashed as (what I have dubbed) "enpersonment". The enpersonment hypothesis does not belong in scientific biology, or any rational ethical system, not even utilitarianism. It is pure mumbo jumbo.<br /><br />Please see:<br /><br />The mumbo-jumbo of choice<br /><br />http://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/the-mumbo-jumbo-of-choice/<br /><br />“ We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life… but the point is not when does life begin but when does it begin to matter. ”<br /><br />[ Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, major abortion service provider ]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com