"Non-Believers" View of Bible-Believing Christians

[Bob White 20]

While the "injection" of a spirit maybe impossible to prove,...is a heartbeat?

[Rooster7 11]

Merlyn,

 

By having the attorneys arguing in favor of the law explain what secular purpose the law serves. If they can't come up with ANY non-religious reasons for a law, it deserves to be struck down.

 

What if the law served two masters? That is, suppose there was a valid secular reason for the law, but the law was also agreeable to others for religious reasons. For example, many Americans believe that the fetus is a life. There is no real medical evidence to say differently. Of course, there are doctors that claim certain fetuses, those not viable outside of the womb, should not be considered a human life. Some others believe that no fetus should be considered a viable life. Still there are others who believe all fetuses should be treated as human life. Regardless, these medical professionals do not have any special insight as to when one comes to consciousness. And even if you give them more credence than they deserve, there is no consensus agreement as to when life begins. That being casewhat if, elected representatives passed a law banning abortion Or, better yet, what if the Supreme Court throws out Roe v. Wade Would you view these possibilities as the state establishing a religion? Would you argue against the law or the courts decision?

 

But Id like to take this debate one step further. Give me a law any law, and I bet I can show a religious motivation and a secular argument for its existence - or why it shouldnt exist, as the case may be.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Rooster7 11]

Prairie_Scouter,

 

Generally, I don't like the idea of abortion as a method of birth control, but I think that in the bigger picture, the woman has to retain control over her body.

 

I agree that a woman should have control over her body. But then again, the abortion argument does not concern the body of the woman as much as it does the body of the baby in her. I think the babys right to life is greater than that womans right to choice.

 

[stlscouter 10]

reading some of the posts it is hard to believe which sperm won the race and was able make it to quickening stage. Ah yes-human status at conception-what a concept. In the theatre of your mind imagine your mother deciding you were nothing but a glob and...bye bye.

 

Ah but you made it, milions did not.

[packsaddle 753]

The initial question is prejudicial. I know Christians that feel this way about certain other individual Christians. It is not the sole domain of non-believers. I have felt this regarding certain individuals, some of whom are Christians. I feel that they consider their faith superior and that my faith is inferior, possibly evil. I think the difference is that I try not to generalize, but rather to view others as individuals.

 

When the Jehovah's witnesses arrive, interrupting my weekend to try to convince me of their view, I get the feeling they think their belief is superior.

And I have asked in these threads in the past: can anyone think of a faith that adds to their creed, "...but we might be wrong"? Or starts with the word, "perhaps"? The only faith I know that constantly questions their own beliefs (and others) currently has their religious award blacklisted by BSA.

 

And there is the co-worker with whom I have little, if any, interaction but who once gave me a ticket (number 666, heh, heh) to eternal damnation. I shrug this off as a joke but my view of the guy is not the same as before.

 

Or the Baptists down the street who informed my children (ages 5 and 7 at the time, as I remember) that they were "going to hell" and likewise caused me to have some impure thoughts.

 

Or the ones who informed my friends that they "walk with Satan"...what can I say? Perhaps they are right .

 

Nevertheless, I also have many friends of a variety of faiths (and some with no faith, so they say) and I hold no prejudice in my mind toward them. And, thinking on it, I believe the reason for my lack of prejudice toward all those people with vastly different faiths is that they likewise display no such prejudice toward anyone else. We sometimes discuss our beliefs openly and without fear of criticism or accusation. But I guess if someone were to join and then try to convince the rest of us that their beliefs were absolute, they might come to think we were prejudiced against them. Especially if we didn't say we agreed with them. 'Victim stance' is the thinking error that comes to mind.

 

Edited part: Just a thought...is there such a thing as a non-bible-believing Christian?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Rooster7 11]

Paddlesack,

 

We sometimes discuss our beliefs openly and without fear of criticism or accusation. But I guess if someone were to join and then try to convince the rest of us that their knowledge was absolute, they might come to think we were prejudiced against them. Especially if we didn't say we agreed with them. 'Victim stance' is the thinking error that comes to mind.

 

I dont consider myself to be a victim. Yet, I cant help but believe that you have come to some rather unflattering conclusions merely because you find the beliefs of my faith to be harsh, and/or you are unsettled by the fervor and confidence which I might display in my faith as being absolute truth. Why, Im not sure.

 

If you believe the beliefs of my faith (i.e. mans fallen nature, Gods judgment, homosexuality as being a sin, harsh teachings like the existence of hell, whatever.) are bogus, then you are free to reject them without ceremony. But, I would think that my fervor and confidence in such a fairy tale would be reason to pity me not resent me. Or, if you have concern for all of humanity including my own, then you might want to reason with me. And if in the end, I continued to grasp onto a fairly tale for which you politely had no respect, why not simply dismiss me as deluded? Maybe that is your position, but I get the impression that there is more. If not, then consider this post as yet one more in a series of bogus beliefs. If there is more, then I think you should ask yourself why?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[madkins007 10]

Ed,

 

The old 'abortion is murder' phrase is in itself technically inaccurate since murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a life (OK, some definitions say 'wrongful', but most of those definitions then define wrongful as 'illegal'). As long as it is not against the law, it is not murder. By the same token, war, eating beef, and capital punishmnet is not murder.

 

This does not necessarily mean any of this is right, just, or ethical.

 

My big problem with the pro-life movement relates back to my earlier comment. The movement seems totally wrapped up in focusing on the unborn child. They rarely show the same levels of concern for the mother facing the difficult choice, or for the workers often struggling with their conscience anyway, etc. I always wondered what Jesus thought of the idea of only looking at the needs of the unborn and ignoring the needs of the others present.

 

 

 

(As for me, I'd love to see a law that said 'no abortion after a heartbeat is detected' except for extreme situations. I know neither side would be happy, but it seems to be a livable solution.)

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

I have experienced enough of life to witness to a rough estimation of what we can expect as a country if our leaders were to do away with the Constitution and insert the Bible, word for word as our new guiding principle. Many would be in joyful agreement with the idea that we have aligned ourselves with God's Holy Word and all of the associated ideas. But, as soon as any problem came up, such as an unwanted pregnancy, they would have their daughter on the first jet out of the Holy Land to any other unholy country to have an unholy abortion and then they would return as soon as possible to praise God for His deliverance. I have a long laundry list of personal experience with many God fearing people (including myself) and their (our) weaseling ways but hopefully that is not necessary. The Bible has also shown this same truth about God's own people time and again. It is there, read it.

 

The problem with legislating morality is that morality is based on how well God and the individual has been able to remake one heart for that one person to live in accordance with God's desires. No amount of legislation will ever make any person respond to God, abide by God's word, and live a holy life. Once a person actually has faith in a real God, instead of the world, then real change will happen. Legislation for God is little more than true disbelief in a real God.

 

FB

[evmori 11]

Murder is murder whether it is legal or illegal.

 

Prairie,

No I mean abortion is murder. A fetus is a living thing. Killing a living thing is murder. Abortion is legal murder because it is considered a medical procedure.

 

Yes a woman should have control over her body. She can say "no" so she doesn't get pregnant.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Bob,

No, I don't think that the indication of a heartbeat is indicative of life. It is indicative of further development of the embryo/fetus. The loss of a developing fetus through a medical procedure is tragic, but I don't believe it is a loss of life until that fetus could survive on its own in the world. That's where I've drawn the line; your mileage may vary.

 

Ed,

Once again, "abortion is murder" is your opinion based on your religious beliefs. Others think differently. The law of the land is that abortion is a legal medical procedure.

 

I do agree that people, not just women, should be more responsible for their sexual activities. Abortion shouldn't be simply a method of birth control, in my view, but as long as it is legal, people will abuse the ability to get an abortion. And, I think that this debate, not just here but in other circles, centers too much on the fetus, as if the woman who is pregnant has nothing to say about the situation. My vote goes to the woman's control over her body until such point that the fetus is able to survive on it's own. As I said, my opinion based on my beliefs. Just saying "don't get pregnant" is a nice ideal, but unfortunately, life mostly doesn't work that way as much as I'm sure we would all like it to.

[Bob White 20]

You could no more run a government acording to the bible than you could run it based on a book on physics. Neither was not written for that purpose. To suggest that it is the intent of Christians to do so is a gross misrepresentation.

 

Which in a way takes us back to the actual topic of the thread.

[Bob White 20]

Prairie Scouter writes "No, I don't think that the indication of a heartbeat is indicative of life."

 

I have to wonder how many living individuals he has met who do not have a heartbeat?

 

Prairie, if you follow your first-aid training and you come upon a body that is unresponsive what are the first things you check to determine the severity of their condition?

[evmori 11]

OK. If abortion isn't murder then why when someone murders a pregnant woman & the fetus dies, too the murderer is charged with two murders?

Oh! Let me answer!

Because it isn't a medical procedure!

 

Good points, Bob White. Very good points~

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Bob,

I didn't say that I thought Christians were actually trying to change the government to be based on biblical law. Using the example of some Middle East countries that have used their holy book as the literal basis for their laws, I said that this was just something that we have to watch out for. I also said that this would be an extreme case and couched it in terms of concerns over other government actions that could be abused if not watched carefully.

 

As you well know, despite your sarcasm, my post on heartbeat was in regards to posts which both you and I made in regards to the beginning of life. You asked whether having a heartbeat was an indication of life. I answered in the context of the thread, not in the general terms you have taken. So, haha, very funny, but not relevent to what I said.

 

Ed,

Laws are passed for all kinds of reasons. Some states do have laws that make the killing of a fetus as a part of killing the pregnant woman a "2nd murder". Why were these laws passed? I don't know, but I would suspect that "get tough" lawmakers saw some political capital to be gained regardless of what their beliefs might be. There are also laws that make the killing of a police officer a more heinous crime than killing a child. Do you think those were passed because lawmakers think that the killing of police officer is actually worse than the killing of a child? No, they were passed for their deterent effect unrelated to the issue of which life has more value.

[Bob White 20]

The comment on the use of the bible had nothing to do with one of your posts but was in response to another poster.

 

Nowhere do I find either of us saying that a heartbeat was the 'beginning of life" my post posed the question, 'does the existence of a heartbeat establish the existence of life'?

 

To which you replied (and I quote)"No, I don't think that the indication of a heartbeat is indicative of life."

 

So I repeat my unanswered questions.

 

How many live people do you know without a heartbeat?

 

In an emergency situation when you encounter an unresponsive person, what are the first things you are taught to check to determine their condition?

 

How can you answer these truthfully and not accept that a heartbeat is indicative of the existence of life.