Why wouldn't Jesus...

[Ralph]

I'm not aware of a single example of Christ's teachings where he advocated for government enforcement of the behavior he preached.

Which, coincidentally is exactly why I say Jesus would be pro-choice.

Pro Choice? As in the murder of innocent gestating CHILDREN, in the name of privacy? Does it matter what YOU SAY...but rather, the Christian should be concerned with what "did" the CHRIST say and teach...no?

The Bible does not directly teach anything about the practice of abortion on demand...but it does provide enough relevant material to allow any logical and intellectually honest person to conclude the will of God on the subject....and we are commanded to know the will of God, it is not a suggestion, but a command to know that will and be fearful when we propagate against such as is revealed (Eph. 5:17-21).

One must first consider the scriptural fact that ALL passages found in the Holy Bible are the Word of God, as ALL was revealed by the Holy Spirit of God and is capable of making the man of God 'perfect' in doctrine that will lead him into ALL good works -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, just as Jesus declared, He would leave the Holy Spirit of Truth behind after His death to bring back remembrance of the things that He taught the Apostles(John 14:16)....the commissioned duty of the Holy Spirit was to lead the early church (John 15:26)..aka Kingdom of God (Matt. 16:16-28).......into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13-14).....when the spirit is teaching by inspiration, in essence it is the CHRIST that is teaching, because the Holy Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost....does not teach His own words but those instructed from HEAVEN.

In the Book of (Zechariah 12:1), we find these teachings of the Holy Spirit...as ALL SCRIPTURE, both Old and New are the product of the Spirit ( 2 Tim. 3:16), God is self professed to be not only the CREATOR of the Heavens and the EARTH...but the one who "...forms the SPIRIT of Man WITHIN HIM".

Thus, it was GOD that placed that Spirit within all men......man therefore has no RIGHT OF PRIVACY to destroy that LIFE...because man did not create that life, unless that life is taken after JUDGMENT of crimes made against humanity...this is the ONLY excuse for taking another human life. CRIME and protection against that CRIME...which would threaten the life of an innocent. With the reason presented by God for CAPITAL PUNISHMENT being the fact that MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF "GOD" -- Genesis 9:6

Just what crime against humanity has a gestating human child been accused of.....might less found guilty of committing? And Most certainly God reveals to us in the Holy Bible that a gestating child has a SOUL while still in the womb ( Psalms 139:13-16, Jer. 1:4-5, Gal. 1:15, Isaiah 49:1)......also describing the gestating CHILD within the womb of any FEMALE WITH CHILD....as a CHILD, A son , A daughter...etc.....that gestating child is never described by God in the Holy Scriptures as anything less than a HUMAN with A SOUL (Luke 1:39-44), John was described as a BABY...not a fetus, A BABY that already had been blessed by the Holy Spirit. The term BABY as presented in the original Greek is the exact same word used to describe the BABY JESUS....AFTER BIRTH (Luke 2:12,16). Thus, God does not accept the circular argument that a gestating child is any less human or without a SOUL because it is located in the womb and has yet to breech the MAGICAL BIRTH canal that DEFINES life for the PRO CHOICE.....passionate liberals of today. God has told us that ONE INDIVIDUAL SOUL is more significant than EVERYTHING ELSE this physical world has to offer (Matthew 16:26).

 

[manifold]

I agree that he would consider it a sin. But he also never advocated government prosecution for commiting sinful acts.

 

[Intense]

"Structuring our society to help the poor" is still too vague.

At face value, of course he would'nt object to it, but you need to be more specific about the structure itself. You might disagree, but there are some very smart people in this world that think the best thing to help the poor is to provide them with a thriving free market economy with no welfare and very little government intervention. But I'm pretty sure that's no what you're asking.

No...I wanted to see if anyone had any reasonable objections to such a thing because believe it or not, some people think that because he said nothing about it he'd be against it. Or that he somehow believed or stated that only individual person-to-person contributions were valid.

As to how, that's a topic for another thread. Personally I don't think Jesus would care how we did it as long as we made a sincere effort to do it.

You mean like when people think the turn the other cheek thing only applies to individuals in a fist fight?

Keep in mind that you have more than two cheeks!

 

[Care4all]

I'm not aware of a single example of Christ's teachings where he advocated for government enforcement of the behavior he preached.

Which, coincidentally is exactly why I say Jesus would be pro-choice.

Pro Choice? As in the murder of innocent gestating CHILDREN, in the name of privacy? Does it matter what YOU SAY...but rather, the Christian should be concerned with what "did" the CHRIST say and teach...no?

The Bible does not directly teach anything about the practice of abortion on demand...but it does provide enough relevant material to allow any logical and intellectually honest person to conclude the will of God on the subject....and we are commanded to know the will of God, it is not a suggestion, but a command to know that will and be fearful when we propagate against such as is revealed (Eph. 5:17-21).

One must first consider the scriptural fact that ALL passages found in the Holy Bible are the Word of God, as ALL was revealed by the Holy Spirit of God and is capable of making the man of God 'perfect' in doctrine that will lead him into ALL good works -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, just as Jesus declared, He would leave the Holy Spirit of Truth behind after His death to bring back remembrance of the things that He taught the Apostles(John 14:16)....the commissioned duty of the Holy Spirit was to lead the early church (John 15:26)..aka Kingdom of God (Matt. 16:16-28).......into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13-14).....when the spirit is teaching by inspiration, in essence it is the CHRIST that is teaching, because the Holy Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost....does not teach His own words but those instructed from HEAVEN.

In the Book of (Zechariah 12:1), we find these teachings of the Holy Spirit...as ALL SCRIPTURE, both Old and New are the product of the Spirit ( 2 Tim. 3:16), God is self professed to be not only the CREATOR of the Heavens and the EARTH...but the one who "...forms the SPIRIT of Man WITHIN HIM".

Thus, it was GOD that placed that Spirit within all men......man therefore has no RIGHT OF PRIVACY to destroy that LIFE...because man did not create that life, unless that life is taken after JUDGMENT of crimes made against humanity...this is the ONLY excuse for taking another human life. CRIME and protection against that CRIME...which would threaten the life of an innocent. With the reason presented by God for CAPITAL PUNISHMENT being the fact that MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF "GOD" -- Genesis 9:6

Just what crime against humanity has a gestating human child been accused of.....might less found guilty of committing? And Most certainly God reveals to us in the Holy Bible that a gestating child has a SOUL while still in the womb ( Psalms 139:13-16, Jer. 1:4-5, Gal. 1:15, Isaiah 49:1)......also describing the gestating CHILD within the womb of any FEMALE WITH CHILD....as a CHILD, A son , A daughter...etc.....that gestating child is never described by God in the Holy Scriptures as anything less than a HUMAN with A SOUL (Luke 1:39-44), John was described as a BABY...not a fetus, A BABY that already had been blessed by the Holy Spirit. The term BABY as presented in the original Greek is the exact same word used to describe the BABY JESUS....AFTER BIRTH (Luke 2:12,16). Thus, God does not accept the circular argument that a gestating child is any less human or without a SOUL because it is located in the womb and has yet to breech the MAGICAL BIRTH canal that DEFINES life for the PRO CHOICE.....passionate liberals of today. God has told us that ONE INDIVIDUAL SOUL is more significant than EVERYTHING ELSE this physical world has to offer (Matthew 16:26).

Are we a body that receives a soul? Or a soul that receives a body? If God knew us before we were born, then i would imagine we were a soul before we even got a body?

Though God did say he FORMED Adam before he breathed life in to him...? Was that breathing life in to him, giving him his soul or the holy spirit??

but then both mary and elizabeth, when they were pregnant IN LATER MONTHS...i stress this about later months, because John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb leaped for joy, being in the presence of the Lord, within Mary's womb...and the ability to kick takes place almost the 4th or 5th month I believe? So this does imply there is a soul within the womb....but not necessarily at conception...Christians of old, believed the Soul entered the body after 40 days for men and 60 days for women or something of the like...(Search St Thomas Aquinas) it was not until the last few centuries that most as Christians take conception as the point of the soul, but not all Christian faiths take this stance, there are some who do not...but most do. But even Aquinas, who thought the soul entered the human at Quickening, he still believed it to be morally wrong to abort...the presence of the soul made no difference...

people who believe in reincarnation believe the soul exists before the body... as well...

 

[manifold]

I agree that he[Jesus] would consider it[abortion] a sin. But he also never advocated government prosecution for commiting sinful acts.

Can I get a ruling on this from the judges?

Can I declare checkmate and pop open the bubbly?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

because he never exsited!

Prove it.

Typical, prove a negative, usually I wouldn't entertain such a thing but in this case.
1. From all the writers around at the time of jesus no one mentions him.
2. The first book of the new testament was writen 70 years after his supposed death.
more to come.

The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), the first four books of the New Testament were written by either a disciple of Jesus or a person that was a close associate of a disciple and used their words.

The books had to have been written before 70 A.D. because none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke, by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. We add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written early.

So if Jesus was crucified in 32 A.D. and we know that the gospels were written before 62 A.D. that's only a 30 year span. Therefore both of your points were addressed and defeated.

1. From all the writers around at the time of jesus no one mentions him.
I've shown the authors particularly Luke of the four gospels were in fact alive during Jesus' time and he in fact did mention Jesus.

2. The first book of the new testament was writen 70 years after his supposed death.
more to come
I've shown that it is more than likely parts of the New Testament were written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion.

 

[Ravi]

I agree that he[Jesus] would consider it[abortion] a sin. But he also never advocated government prosecution for commiting sinful acts.

Can I get a ruling on this from the judges?

Can I declare checkmate and pop open the bubbly?

WOULD he consider it a sin? I don't know...after all, he never said anything about abortion.

 

[manifold]

I agree that he[Jesus] would consider it[abortion] a sin. But he also never advocated government prosecution for commiting sinful acts.

Can I get a ruling on this from the judges?

Can I declare checkmate and pop open the bubbly?

WOULD he consider it a sin? I don't know...after all, he never said anything about abortion.

You're welcome to disagree with my opinion on that part of the matter. But I notice you ignore the actually relevant, and factual, aspect of the matter: that he never advocated government persecution for commiting sinful acts. And since I'm fairly certain you're willing to aknowledge this, I'm forced to conclude you're just trying to needle me.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Intense]

I agree that he[Jesus] would consider it[abortion] a sin. But he also never advocated government prosecution for commiting sinful acts.

Can I get a ruling on this from the judges?

Can I declare checkmate and pop open the bubbly?

What's to celebrate?

 

[manifold]

I agree that he[Jesus] would consider it[abortion] a sin. But he also never advocated government prosecution for commiting sinful acts.

Can I get a ruling on this from the judges?

Can I declare checkmate and pop open the bubbly?

What's to celebrate?

 

[Intense]

Can I get a ruling on this from the judges?

Can I declare checkmate and pop open the bubbly?

What's to celebrate?

LOL, Like standing on the beach during a lightening storm fun!

 

[manifold]

Yep, or burning ants with a magnifying glass fun.

 

[Intense]

Yep, or burning ants with a magnifying glass fun.

I out grew that one a long time ago. I use my horn allot though. I don't always signal, and I talk on the cell while driving. Born a real rebel.

 

[logical4u]

I agree that he[Jesus] would consider it[abortion] a sin. But he also never advocated government prosecution for commiting sinful acts.

Can I get a ruling on this from the judges?

Can I declare checkmate and pop open the bubbly?

WOULD he consider it a sin? I don't know...after all, he never said anything about abortion.

This is mentioned in the book of Enoch. It says in there that abortion was taught by the fallen angels (the ones that made wives of the daughters of men).
You might want to check the OT on this one. The Hebrews were punished for practicing infantcide (age the only factor) with the god, Mollech (nasty fellow, working today in the abortion clinics). How can you love your G*d if you are destroying a gift He gave you?

 

[logical4u]

Which, coincidentally is exactly why I say Jesus would be pro-choice.

Pro Choice? As in the murder of innocent gestating CHILDREN, in the name of privacy? Does it matter what YOU SAY...but rather, the Christian should be concerned with what "did" the CHRIST say and teach...no?

The Bible does not directly teach anything about the practice of abortion on demand...but it does provide enough relevant material to allow any logical and intellectually honest person to conclude the will of God on the subject....and we are commanded to know the will of God, it is not a suggestion, but a command to know that will and be fearful when we propagate against such as is revealed (Eph. 5:17-21).

One must first consider the scriptural fact that ALL passages found in the Holy Bible are the Word of God, as ALL was revealed by the Holy Spirit of God and is capable of making the man of God 'perfect' in doctrine that will lead him into ALL good works -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, just as Jesus declared, He would leave the Holy Spirit of Truth behind after His death to bring back remembrance of the things that He taught the Apostles(John 14:16)....the commissioned duty of the Holy Spirit was to lead the early church (John 15:26)..aka Kingdom of God (Matt. 16:16-28).......into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13-14).....when the spirit is teaching by inspiration, in essence it is the CHRIST that is teaching, because the Holy Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost....does not teach His own words but those instructed from HEAVEN.

In the Book of (Zechariah 12:1), we find these teachings of the Holy Spirit...as ALL SCRIPTURE, both Old and New are the product of the Spirit ( 2 Tim. 3:16), God is self professed to be not only the CREATOR of the Heavens and the EARTH...but the one who "...forms the SPIRIT of Man WITHIN HIM".

Thus, it was GOD that placed that Spirit within all men......man therefore has no RIGHT OF PRIVACY to destroy that LIFE...because man did not create that life, unless that life is taken after JUDGMENT of crimes made against humanity...this is the ONLY excuse for taking another human life. CRIME and protection against that CRIME...which would threaten the life of an innocent. With the reason presented by God for CAPITAL PUNISHMENT being the fact that MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF "GOD" -- Genesis 9:6

Just what crime against humanity has a gestating human child been accused of.....might less found guilty of committing? And Most certainly God reveals to us in the Holy Bible that a gestating child has a SOUL while still in the womb ( Psalms 139:13-16, Jer. 1:4-5, Gal. 1:15, Isaiah 49:1)......also describing the gestating CHILD within the womb of any FEMALE WITH CHILD....as a CHILD, A son , A daughter...etc.....that gestating child is never described by God in the Holy Scriptures as anything less than a HUMAN with A SOUL (Luke 1:39-44), John was described as a BABY...not a fetus, A BABY that already had been blessed by the Holy Spirit. The term BABY as presented in the original Greek is the exact same word used to describe the BABY JESUS....AFTER BIRTH (Luke 2:12,16). Thus, God does not accept the circular argument that a gestating child is any less human or without a SOUL because it is located in the womb and has yet to breech the MAGICAL BIRTH canal that DEFINES life for the PRO CHOICE.....passionate liberals of today. God has told us that ONE INDIVIDUAL SOUL is more significant than EVERYTHING ELSE this physical world has to offer (Matthew 16:26).

Are we a body that receives a soul? Or a soul that receives a body? If God knew us before we were born, then i would imagine we were a soul before we even got a body?

Though God did say he FORMED Adam before he breathed life in to him...? Was that breathing life in to him, giving him his soul or the holy spirit??

but then both mary and elizabeth, when they were pregnant IN LATER MONTHS...i stress this about later months, because John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb leaped for joy, being in the presence of the Lord, within Mary's womb...and the ability to kick takes place almost the 4th or 5th month I believe? So this does imply there is a soul within the womb....but not necessarily at conception...Christians of old, believed the Soul entered the body after 40 days for men and 60 days for women or something of the like...(Search St Thomas Aquinas) it was not until the last few centuries that most as Christians take conception as the point of the soul, but not all Christian faiths take this stance, there are some who do not...but most do. But even Aquinas, who thought the soul entered the human at Quickening, he still believed it to be morally wrong to abort...the presence of the soul made no difference...

people who believe in reincarnation believe the soul exists before the body... as well...

Mary fled to her cousin, Elizabeth's soon after conception.

One of the theories on reincarnation is that the person is possessed and the demon puts selective memories in the victims mind. Since the demon was alive in the past, the "memories" are vivid and seem real.

 

[Ravi]

Can I get a ruling on this from the judges?

Can I declare checkmate and pop open the bubbly?

WOULD he consider it a sin? I don't know...after all, he never said anything about abortion.

This is mentioned in the book of Enoch. It says in there that abortion was taught by the fallen angels (the ones that made wives of the daughters of men).
You might want to check the OT on this one. The Hebrews were punished for practicing infantcide (age the only factor) with the god, Mollech (nasty fellow, working today in the abortion clinics). How can you love your G*d if you are destroying a gift He gave you?

Wow...Jesus was in the OT? What Bible do you read?

 

[logical4u]

Yes, I do. Though just because Jesus said something doesn't make it owned by Christians and therefore something that is wrong. Helping the poor is just basic common sense for a country overall, check out the ones that don't and you'll find the entire country is basically a toilet.

But that has nothing to do with my question.

If you look at the countries that have governments (Cuba, USSR, Cambodia, China, Venezuela) that got power due to telling "the poor" they would have a share (the wealth redistributed), you will see they are either:
in the toilet
headed for the toilet
or swinging to the conservative (capitalist) way.

Your arguement holds no water. Yeshua said that those that are not againt us (Him) are for us (Him). I guess that means whether they acknowledge Him or not.

Your post actually has nothing to do with what I said nor does it refute it.

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear: the societies that have claimed to be "all about taking care of the poor" are miserable failures. They are corrupt with leaders that are far more concerned about their personal wealth, than the basic needs of the poor.

This country (on the other hand) was intended to allow people the freedom to make their own way (they are not held down by culture and social status as in other countries). People here have started with nothing: no money, no education, no family and have still managed to make a descent life (in some cases, become millionaires).

The plan you suggest (if ever accepted) will allow corruption and abuse of citizens. Please explain to me I have to labor for other people's families before one cent goes to my family. Please tell me why I am forced to pay for others' college, so that I cannot send my children to college without taking out a loan or selecting a lesser college. Please explain to me, why my family must "settle" for less, so that families that continually make bad choices can live better.
I know all of this is so. Explain to me how it makes me free and not a slave.
If you set up a society where the gov (the very, very corrupt, unaccountable gov) claims it will make it better for the poor, it will be abused and there will still be poor. If you do not believe me: check the dems "war on poverty", the reason for welfare and see how that is working out for the country.
You know your statement won't work. When it is demonstrated how it won't work, you just repeat the statement instead of giving examples of where it has worked.
Please show us how your great theory CAN work, and don't say that should be another thread.

 

[Ravi]

I'm sorry that you think our society is corrupt to this extent. All societies have their problems, ours does, too...but I disagree about the extent.

You have a choice, you can live elsewhere or you can stop making money.

From what I understand, before we had welfare we had American children living like starving kids in third world countries...distended bellies, high rate of death...etc. I don't think getting rid or reducing the plight of kids is a bad thing, you seem to.

I think the ways we help the poor can and should be changed but I don't think it would be a good thing to let Americans die in the streets.

 

[Intense]

WOULD he consider it a sin? I don't know...after all, he never said anything about abortion.

This is mentioned in the book of Enoch. It says in there that abortion was taught by the fallen angels (the ones that made wives of the daughters of men).
You might want to check the OT on this one. The Hebrews were punished for practicing infantcide (age the only factor) with the god, Mollech (nasty fellow, working today in the abortion clinics). How can you love your G*d if you are destroying a gift He gave you?

Wow...Jesus was in the OT? What Bible do you read?

Jesus was referred to plenty in the Old testament.


Psalms Chapter 22.

The Holy Bible



Isiah Chapter 53.

The Holy Bible

 

[Lonestar_logic]

God gave humans free will to abort. End of story.

Humans also have free will to murder. So does that mean murder is ok?