Why do Christians oppose abortion?

[Glaurung]

Purgatory, as the name implies, is a process of purification (not punishing or expiration). You have to be enough transformed (gain virtues and clean away vices) to enter heaven. You have to make up for the missed opportunities to do this in earthly life (debt created by sin).

You cannot merit after death. Purgatory is the punishment for sins for which expiration is stilled owed. That this punishment purifies the soul from the stains of sin does not diminish its nature as a punishment nor does it imply the availability for further means of gaining merit. There are no second chances where we can gain merit after this life. We are judged immediately after death.

Purgatory may be a place of great suffering, even a place of fire if traditional depictions are to be believed. But it is also a place of great joy because to be in Purgatory is to be guaranteed the beatific vision. To be in Purgatory is to know with certainty that you will one day enter Heaven.

 

[eik]

This question is directed mainly at Christians that believe in an afterlife (heaven/hell).

Where do babies go when they die? (born or unborn)

Not sure what the connection between the title of your thread is (re Abortion) and the question "Where do babies go when they die? (born or unborn)?"

No baby is going to go to "hell" as in gehenna, because hell is reserved for culpable sinners.

As for abortion, I am ambivalent. I would not recommend it for true Christians, but for non-Christians I don't care because their children will be brought up as pagans to sin as pagans; and our prisons are full of the children of pagans. However that said, abortion on the grounds of sex should be always prohibited on severe penalties.

 

[metis]

I'm sorry Metis, but this is a silly argument

Not if one understands the law and what a legal term actually entails. I taught a poli sci course for 25 years so, yes, I'm at least a bit "anal" on this.

When Cain murdered Able there was no state.

Then it was not "murder"-- a "sin", yes.

And even if you insist on avoiding the M-word based on this silly argument it remains nonetheless true that no government, court or any legal body whatsoever can give you the "right" to take human life.

Such as with a declaration of war? capital punishment?

Inventing one's own definitions, since language is meant to communicate, doesn't make sense.

 

[GardenLady]

Well looks like everyone here believes Christian's are all pro life..Apparently noone here lives in Tx. The United Methodist Church I visited openly says they support prochoice and quite a few Liberal Christian's do out here.

There are those who equate Christian with fundamentalist / evangelical. Of course, that is not correct. But it is commonly done.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You cannot merit after death. Purgatory is the punishment for sins for which expiration is stilled owed. That this punishment purifies the soul from the stains of sin does not diminish its nature as a punishment nor does it imply the availability for further means of gaining merit. There are no second chances where we can gain merit after this life. We are judged immediately after death.

Purgatory may be a place of great suffering, even a place of fire if traditional depictions are to be believed. But it is also a place of great joy because to be in Purgatory is to be guaranteed the beatific vision. To be in Purgatory is to know with certainty that you will one day enter Heaven.

Heaven is heaven only if goodness rules there. That's why you can enter heaven only if goodness rules in you. Inner transformation is necessary. It can't be forced. It must be awaken in the heart.

 

[Riders]

There are those who equate Christian with fundamentalist / evangelical. Of course, that is not correct. But it is commonly done.

It is commonly done in Texas, you are wrong.

 

[metis]

There are those who equate Christian with fundamentalist / evangelical. Of course, that is not correct. But it is commonly done.

Correct.

BTW, I grew up in a LCA Synod church, which you know merged with the ALC Synod to form the ELCA Synod. I was an acolyte, was active in the Luther League, and I had tentative plans to become a minister but our pastor taught that accepting the ToE was against the Bible, which at least is not the current position of the ELCA from my understanding.

 

[Riders]

It is commonly done in Texas, you are wrong.

I guess I am agreeing with you. I was mixed up sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well looks like everyone here believes Christian's are all pro life..

I don't even think that the Christians who call themselves "pro-life" are actually pro-life, generally.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This question is directed mainly at Christians that believe in an afterlife (heaven/hell).

Where do babies go when they die? (born or unborn)

If you think, “Obviously heaven, God would never send an unborn child to hell for all eternity!”, then great, all babies go to heaven. Now, if that's true, I don't understand the opposition to abortion. Think about it. The bible implies that a great many adults are going to hell. If your child grows up in this world, there's a good chance they'll be one of them. If you could guarantee your child's place in heaven for eternity by ending their stay on earth prematurely, wouldn't that be worth it? Their life on earth should be completely meaningless when compared to all eternity, and why risk them going to hell? If this is true, you'd think that if Christians were going to take a position on abortion, it'd be pro-death.

If on the other hand you think, “Everyone has sinned and is destined for hell unless they take Christ into their heart!”, then ok, all babies go to hell. Now, if that's true, what does that say about God? This is important. Because if you believe that the miscarriages, and SIDS babies, and every accident resulting in a child's death means you might go to heaven and never see your children again, doesn't "heaven" look more like your own personal hell, where you are never reunited with your kids, and have to spend eternity living with their abuser?

As far as the new testament goes to spread a message of "God loves you". the concept that this "loving" God will send many of you including your babies to a fiery Hell for all eternity, can't be reconciled.

In fact, if Hell is real, then I really don't think we can view the God as "loving" at all, but instead as the "great torturer".

Since the Bible claims that God is both "loving" and will send you to hell, I feel we must conclude that both can't be true, which implies the entire book is not created by God. At which point, I think it's safe to say we have no true information on an afterlife, and should not be using this book as a basis for our decisions.

Thoughts?

They don't read the whole Bible. Otherwise, they would see the Bible is not anti-abortion. I think souls, since they are eternal, have always exists, so aborted fetus souls go into another person.

 

[Mitty]

Murder is not allowed in the Bible. I think it means also that babies should not be murdered.

That biblical law only applies to those who have been born and taken the first breath of life and does not apply to foetuses or embryos, given that Numbers 5:20-28 commands the abortions of adulteresses because of the property rights of men. And Deut 7:16 commands genocide, including butchering children and the unborn.

 

[Mitty]

I'm sorry Metis, but this is a silly argument. When Cain murdered Able there was no state. The sin of murder needs no civil authority to define it. And even if you insist on avoiding the M-word based on this silly argument it remains nonetheless true that no government, court or any legal body whatsoever can give you the "right" to take human life.

Which is why it wasn't morally wrong for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel, since the ten commandments etc didn't apply to him, and his god even protected him from retribution after he relocated to Nod and lived happily ever after with one or two Nod girls.

 

[Cooky]

This question is directed mainly at Christians that believe in an afterlife (heaven/hell).

Where do babies go when they die? (born or unborn)

If you think, “Obviously heaven, God would never send an unborn child to hell for all eternity!”, then great, all babies go to heaven. Now, if that's true, I don't understand the opposition to abortion. Think about it. The bible implies that a great many adults are going to hell. If your child grows up in this world, there's a good chance they'll be one of them. If you could guarantee your child's place in heaven for eternity by ending their stay on earth prematurely, wouldn't that be worth it? Their life on earth should be completely meaningless when compared to all eternity, and why risk them going to hell? If this is true, you'd think that if Christians were going to take a position on abortion, it'd be pro-death.

If on the other hand you think, “Everyone has sinned and is destined for hell unless they take Christ into their heart!”, then ok, all babies go to hell. Now, if that's true, what does that say about God? This is important. Because if you believe that the miscarriages, and SIDS babies, and every accident resulting in a child's death means you might go to heaven and never see your children again, doesn't "heaven" look more like your own personal hell, where you are never reunited with your kids, and have to spend eternity living with their abuser?

As far as the new testament goes to spread a message of "God loves you". the concept that this "loving" God will send many of you including your babies to a fiery Hell for all eternity, can't be reconciled.

In fact, if Hell is real, then I really don't think we can view the God as "loving" at all, but instead as the "great torturer".

Since the Bible claims that God is both "loving" and will send you to hell, I feel we must conclude that both can't be true, which implies the entire book is not created by God. At which point, I think it's safe to say we have no true information on an afterlife, and should not be using this book as a basis for our decisions.

Thoughts?

Because it's rude to destroy our brethren.

 

[eik]

There are those who equate Christian with fundamentalist / evangelical. Of course, that is not correct. But it is commonly done.

Why is it not correct? Just because some affirm themselves to be Christians does not mean that it is legitimate for others to call them "Christian".

The law of Christ is the rule of faith. If my faith precludes me from calling another a Christian, then it is the correct thing to do, howsoever they may want to be labelled. The rule of the herd has no application to Christianity, which contrary to supposition, is a very discriminating religion (cf. 1 Cor 5).

 

[eik]

[Murder] only applies to those who have been born and taken the first breath of life and does not apply to foetuses or embryos, given that Numbers 5:20-28 commands the abortions of adulteresses because of the property rights of men. And Deut 7:16 commands genocide, including butchering children and the unborn.

Numbers 5:20-28 doesn't command the abortions of adulteresses, so much as cause the abortions of adulteresses in cases where adultery was unproven. Where it was proven, the unborn would be killed with the adulteress.

Deut 7:16 only applied to those whom God had appointed to suffer wrath on account of sins. It could not be accounted always "genocide" in modern parlance because there was clearly an element of war & self-defence. Often it was the Canaanites who set out to attack or seduce Israel. The Hivites escaped by making peace.

"For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses." Joshua 11:20.

 

[Deeje]

@dejee wrote: Death is never spoken of as a gateway to another life.

When on the cross, Jesus told the "good thief" that "Today, you will be with me in paradise." Since they were both on crosses at the time, and the culmination of Jesus' mission was his death and resurrection (and not survival of crucifixion), it seems highly unlikely that Jesus was envisioning any other entry in paradise than that following death.

Sorry I missed this.....you misspelled my name so I did not get an alert....

Jesus' comment to the thief hanging alongside of him is greatly misunderstood IMO.
When Jesus told the man "truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise" ....we have to understand what he promised. Did Jesus tell the man he would go to heaven? No....he said that he would be with Jesus "in paradise". Where is paradise? Where was the first paradise? Right here on earth...so what was Jesus promising this man?

Did Jesus go to heaven that day? NO...because the Bible tells us that he stayed for 40 days after his resurrection to strengthen his disciples for the difficult road ahead. They were still reeling from his loss but his appearances to them during those 40 days helped them to regain their composure and to be determined to finish the work that Jesus had started.

The ones chosen to rule with Christ in heaven would join him there later when he returned to take them "home".....but the kingdom had to have subjects, so not all Christians would go to heaven.....God's first purpose was to have humans fill the earth, and he gave them a beautiful paradise to start them off.....which they lost through disobedience.

Jesus' death ensures that all will return to God's first purpose....the earth will yet be filled with righteous humans who will never have to suffer pain or death, ever again. Their paradise will return...and last forever as it was supposed to.

The promise made to the thief then, is not heaven but a place among the resurrected when the kingdom rules this earth. Jesus will do the resurrecting. (John 5:28-29) The thief was not a disciple of Christ and therefore would not merit a place in heaven. The Kingdom covenant was made with his faithful apostles, (Luke 22:28-29) who had stuck with Jesus in his trials....not to someone who converted moments before death. There is no such thing as a deathbed conversion.

The resurrection is promised to both the 'righteous and the unrighteous', so the thief could look forward to a resurrection on earth with Jesus as his King.

Revelation 21:2-4 promises...."And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

That is what Jesus promised....as King of God's heavenly Kingdom he will bring great blessings to mankind on earth as he undoes all the damage that the rebels in heaven and on earth have done to his creation. Its beautifully simple.

 

[Mitty]

Numbers 5:20-28 doesn't command the abortions of adulteresses, so much as cause the abortions of adulteresses in cases where adultery was unproven. Where it was proven, the unborn would be killed with the adulteress.

Still doesn't change the fact that Numbers 5:20-28 obviously commands the abortions of adulteresses.

If you actually believe otherwise and believe that it was just about upset stomachs and sore thighs then why weren't male adulterers also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it"?

Numbers 5:20-28 Common English Bible
20 But if you have had an affair while married to your husband, if you have defiled yourself, and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”— 21 then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, “May the Lord make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the Lord induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. 22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry.”

And the woman will say, “I agree, I agree.”

23 The priest will write these curses in the scroll and wipe them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he will make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse. And the water that brings the curse will enter her, causing bitterness. 25 The priest will take the grain offering for jealousy from the woman’s hands, elevate the grain offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest will take a handful of the grain offering as a token part of it and turn it into smoke on the altar. And afterward he will make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, then the water that brings the curse will enter her, causing bitterness, and her womb will discharge and she will miscarry. The woman will be a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman hasn’t defiled herself and she is pure, then she will be immune and able to conceive.

Deut 7:16 only applied to those whom God had appointed to suffer wrath on account of sins. It could not be accounted always "genocide" in modern parlance because there was clearly an element of war & self-defence. Often it was the Canaanites who set out to attack or seduce Israel. The Hivites escaped by making peace.

"For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses." Joshua 11:20.

Doesn't change the fact that Deut 7:16 obviously commands genocide as shown when Joshua and his fellow murdering thugs butchered all the women and children and unborn and stole their land (Josh 6:21 8:26 10:37).

If you actually believe otherwise then where does the bible say that the women and children and the unborn were attacking Joshua and his murderous thieving thugs?

 

[eik]

Still doesn't change the fact that Numbers 5:20-28 obviously commands the abortions of adulteresses.

If you actually believe otherwise and believe that it was just about upset stomachs and sore thighs then why weren't male adulterers also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it"?

Numbers 5:20-28 Common English Bible
20 But if you have had an affair while married to your husband, if you have defiled yourself, and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”— 21 then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, “May the Lord make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the Lord induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. 22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry.”

And the woman will say, “I agree, I agree.”

23 The priest will write these curses in the scroll and wipe them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he will make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse. And the water that brings the curse will enter her, causing bitterness. 25 The priest will take the grain offering for jealousy from the woman’s hands, elevate the grain offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest will take a handful of the grain offering as a token part of it and turn it into smoke on the altar. And afterward he will make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, then the water that brings the curse will enter her, causing bitterness, and her womb will discharge and she will miscarry. The woman will be a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman hasn’t defiled herself and she is pure, then she will be immune and able to conceive.

I said it causes abortions in adulteresses. I don't have a problem with it.

Doesn't change the fact that Deut 7:16 obviously commands genocide as shown when Joshua and his fellow murdering thugs butchered all the women and children and unborn and stole their land (Josh 6:21 8:26 10:37).

If you actually believe otherwise then where does the bible say that the women and children and the unborn were attacking Joshua and his murderous thieving thugs?

There were no facilities for housing or feeding prisoners of war in those days. If you have a solution to how the Israelites were to feed all these prisoners and prevent them from rebelling (children grow up pretty fast), then let me know.

 

[Mitty]

I said it causes abortions in adulteresses. I don't have a problem with it.

There were no facilities for housing or feeding prisoners of war in those days. If you have a solution to how the Israelites were to feed all these prisoners and prevent them from rebelling (children grow up pretty fast), then let me know.

Did Joshua and his murdering thieving thugs eat all the children and unborn they butchered as described in Deut 28:53 for true believers under siege after bashing them on rocks (Psalm 137:9), or did they just feed them to their dogs?

And how did Moses manage to feed his four million or so relatives as they wandered aimlessly around the Middle East deserts for 40 years and is that why there was a population decrease?

 

[eik]

Did Joshua and his murdering thieving thugs eat all the children and unborn they butchered as described in Deut 28:53 for true believers under siege after bashing them on rocks (Psalm 137:9), or did they just feed them to their dogs?

Eh? Why would they do that?

And how did Moses manage to feed his four million or so relatives as they wandered aimlessly around the Middle East deserts for 40 years and is that why there was a population decrease?

They were fed by manna, "The Israelites ate manna forty years, until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna until they reached the border of Canaan." Ex 16:35.

So it is clear that once they reached Canaan, their manna dried up. Who was going to feed all the prisoners of war? You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think you going to create a moral argument by importing the standards and civilization of the 21st century AD into 1500BC warfare.