Is MacArthur right?

[Ekklesian]

Remember: it's the Dems that are making this a national issue. Now the ball is in the court of each individual state legislature, who are closer to the people.

Also remember: Roe v Wade was only about legalizing abortion on demand nation wide. There was legal abortion in many circumstances before that ruling.

 

[biscuit1953]

Whatever innocent child that may have been conceived in the cases of fornication or adultery under the law would have been put to death when the guilty woman was stoned. Deut. 22:22ff

Would they then have been guilty of slaying the innocent in the judgment of the adulterers? Ex. 23:7

Maybe there's something to this "quickening" thing, and room for mercy for the victims of rape and incest.

I might point that when Joshua was told to "utterly destroy all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old..." (Joshua 6:21), the young were put to death as a result of their parents sin. It seems paradoxal with Exodus 23:7 and Deut 24:16.

Matthew Henry addresses this by pointing out that all die whether it be by earthquake, pestilence, famine or if God be pleased to authorize and command anyone to carry out the death sentence. However, no one today is commissioned to do what Joshua did. "Unless it can be proved that the wicked Canaanites did not deserve their doom, objectors only prove their dislike to God, and their love to his enemies. Man makes light of the evil of sin, but God abhors it. This explains the terrible executions of the nations which had filled the measure of their sins."

 

[Ekklesian]

I might point that the rules of war differ from the civil laws that prevail in the time of peace. And the laws I cited are among the latter.

So the question stands.

 

[biscuit1953]

I might point that the rules of war differ from the civil laws that prevail in the time of peace. And the laws I cited are among the latter.

So the question stands.

I would also point out that we are not Israel and the civil laws nor the rules of war apply to the church. If indeed abortion is murder it can't be justified by using Israel's instructions any more than using the slavery laws to justify American slavery. The pre-quickening argument seems shaky.

 

[Ekklesian]

I would also point out that we are not Israel and the civil laws nor the rules of war apply to the church.

You just nullified your appeal to Exodus 21:22-23 and the Psalms.

If indeed abortion is murder it can't be justified by using Israel's instructions any more than using the slavery laws to justify American slavery. The pre-quickening argument seems shaky.

And you're not putting a lot of thought into your answers to the question I raised. You're simply reacting to the challenge it poses to your cherished presuppositions.

What does the law about fornication and adultery and the punishments thereof teach us about God's mind toward that which may be in its earliest stages of conception due to wickedness?

 

[biscuit1953]

You just nullified your appeal to Exodus 21:22-23 and the Psalms.


And you're not putting a lot of thought into your answers to the question I raised. You're simply reacting to the challenge it poses to your cherished presuppositions.

What does the law about fornication and adultery and the punishments thereof teach us about God's mind toward that which may be in its earliest stages of conception due to wickedness?

There are other verses that teach an unborn child is alive including Luke 1:41 which states that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. I was pointing out the dangers of robbing the promises and prophecies of Isael and giving them to the Church. That is exactly what the prosperity preachers do. I can understand what you are saying if you accept the teaching that the Church has replaced Israel which also led to Christians justifying American slavery. The church is promised spiritual blessings while Israel was promised material blessings if they kept the commandments. That is probably the point of contention that can't be settled among us.

 

[Ekklesian]

There are other verses that teach an unborn child is alive including Luke 1:41 which states that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.

I'm not disputing that. Stop reading into my posts, and deal with what I am asking.

I was pointing out the dangers of robbing the promises and prophecies of Isael and giving them to the Church. That is exactly what the prosperity preachers do. I can understand what you are saying if you accept the teaching that the Church has replaced Israel which also led to Christians justifying American slavery. The church is promised spiritual blessings while Israel was promised material blessings if they kept the commandments. That is probably the point of contention that can't be settled among us.

Blah, blah, blah.

 

[Ekklesian]

What does the law about fornication and adultery and the punishments thereof teach us about God's mind toward that which may be in its earliest stages of conception due to wickedness?

This was poorly worded.

It seems where justice is concerned, we may be more concerned about that which may be in its earliest stages of conception than God appears to be.

 

[sword]

Whatever innocent child that may have been conceived in the cases of fornication or adultery under the law would have been put to death when the guilty woman was stoned. Deut. 22:22ff

Would they then have been guilty of slaying the innocent in the judgment of the adulterers? Ex. 23:7

Maybe there's something to this "quickening" thing, and room for mercy for the victims of rape and incest.

what about mercy for the child. If you believe the child in the womb is a life (not everyone does) then whats the difference between a partial birth abortion the day of delivery or euthanasia min. after birth?

 

[Ekklesian]

what about mercy for the child. If you believe the child in the womb is a life (not everyone does) then whats the difference between a partial birth abortion the day of delivery or euthanasia min. after birth?

Yes, in the vast majority of circumstances, there needs to be justice for the child.

But what about the woman stoned for adultery? Are we going to presume that there never was a case where a child was conceived?

What about those cases where a child was? That's what I m asking.

It seems to me that there would have been some provision to ensure an innocent isn't being slain as well if God were looking at these things the same way we are.

 

[biscuit1953]

Yes, in the vast majority of circumstances, there needs to be justice for the child.

But what about the woman stoned for adultery? Are we going to presume that there never was a case where a child was conceived?

What about those cases where a child was? That's what I m asking.

It seems to me that there would have been some provision to ensure an innocent isn't being slain as well if God were looking at these things the same way we are.

Josua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

If God wants a child to die of cancer, by the sword, earthquake, famine, whatever, He is still God. We know through the miracles of ultrasound and other scietific discoveries that a child's heart starts beating in 35 days. Either abortion is wrong or it isn't.

 

[voicecrying]

Whatever innocent child that may have been conceived in the cases of fornication or adultery under the law would have been put to death when the guilty woman was stoned. Deut. 22:22ff

Would they then have been guilty of slaying the innocent in the judgment of the adulterers? Ex. 23:7

Maybe there's something to this "quickening" thing, and room for mercy for the victims of rape and incest.

How quickly was the stoning after being caught? Would the egg have been fertilized by then?

 

[Ekklesian]

Josua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So, you're saying that man, in the pursuit of justice and judgement...and that's what Joshua wrought on the Canaanites...may justly kill the fruit of the perpetrators, though the infants were innocent?

Is that what you're saying?

Then you've just made a stronger case for abortion in the cases of rape and incest than I thought might be implied in the laws I was citing.

[edited to add: And for a much later term.]

We know through the miracles of ultrasound and other scietific discoveries that a child's heart starts beating in 35 days. Either abortion is wrong or it isn't.

The laws I am citing were divinely revealed. Our own understanding is irrelevant.

 

[Ekklesian]

How quickly was the stoning after being caught? Would the egg have been fertilized by then?

Now here's a good question.

 

[sword]

Josua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

If God wants a child to die of cancer, by the sword, earthquake, famine, whatever, He is still God. We know through the miracles of ultrasound and other scietific discoveries that a child's heart starts beating in 35 days. Either abortion is wrong or it isn't.

I have always thought, for the non-believer, the heartbeat makes sense as the point at which a baby's life begains, but how could anyone condone ripping a baby apart and removing it from the mothers womb mins. before it would naturally been delivered. How is this any different than mins. after delivery, if the mom changes her mind. or it's the wrong gender or perhaps if the precious child had some disability. I just can't fathom such a decision.

 

[sword]

Was Achan's children killed as a result of their fathers sin or were their names changed to no longer be the children of Achan as I have read several times. Seems killing the children would violate scripture. If they were burned with the animals and all that he had. Perhaps the adult children were part of the plot to keep what belonged to God.


Deut. 24:16, 2 Kings. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4

 

[biscuit1953]

I have always thought, for the non-believer, the heartbeat makes sense as the point at which a baby's life begains, but how could anyone condone ripping a baby apart and removing it from the mothers womb mins. before it would naturally been delivered. How is this any different than mins. after delivery, if the mom changes her mind. or it's the wrong gender or perhaps if the precious child had some disability. I just can't fathom such a decision.

I agree with you 100%. Only God has the right to give and take life. The death sentence has been given to all the sons of Adam and God has a reason unknown to us as to why some people die slow painful deaths and others go peacefully. In Amos 1:13-14 the sin of abortion was one of the sins mentioned as to why God destroyed the children of Ammon. If I were to die at the hands of a murderer, that is God's will but woe to the one who actually commits the murder. We will never know why God does many things he does.

 

[Ransom]

But what about the woman stoned for adultery? Are we going to presume that there never was a case where a child was conceived?

One, pregnancy isn't instantaneous. It can take almost a week for sperm to meet egg. That means if a woman was caught in the act, she wasn't already pregnant. Two, if judgment was swiftly carried out, in all likelihood she still wasn't pregnant, or at least it was still too early for anyone to know. It wasn't like the modern justice system where she would sit on death row for 20 years first.

 

[abcaines]

But what about the woman stoned for adultery? Are we going to presume that there never was a case where a child was conceived?

I know I'm broaching a different subject altogether but there's a bunch of talk about stoning a woman for adultery... Last I heard, the act of adultery requires two people. Why is it only the woman everyone talks about stoning? Where's the man? Shouldn't they both be stoned? Together?

I yield the soap box for the remainder of my time, Mr. Speaker.

 

[Ransom]

I know I'm broaching a different subject altogether but there's a bunch of talk about stoning a woman for adultery... Last I heard, the act of adultery requires two people. Why is it only the woman everyone talks about stoning?

Because the topic at hand is abortion, and whether it is moral to stone women who might be pregnant if it would also kill an innocent unborn human being. Whether men deserve execution as well, just isn't relevant to the topic.