Brainsucker, I couldn't have said it better myself. If you believe in the bible well there is nothing wrong with that at all. Personally, I do not believe that, but so what? What do my beliefs have to do with someone else’s beliefs ... and vice versa? The same for science and religion … they are just not compatible and should not be used in some kind of morbid competition … but they are … often. The problem is exactly one of interpretation and there are way too many religious organizations who feel obligated to interpret for us. I do not have any use for organized religion because they just put out a lot of people that all think the same??? There are no individuals … only financial supporters … the flock. People are supposed to be different and think different thoughts and do different things ...  the spice of life and what makes civil discourse possible.

You have one of the best attitudes I have seen in a while and your honest views are pleasant for a change. Don’t let us antagonists interfere with your beliefs … you have most of us beaten by far …

Organized religion is not bad, any more than organization itself is bad.   Do we become more charitable if we disband the Salvation Army and Red Cross and let everybody just give individually according to their beliefs?   Or what about World Vision?   I'm not going to go to Africa to help some starving orphan.  In fact, without some organizaton out there to tell me, I wouldn't even know there was a starvation problem in Africa at all.  But I have no problem putting $30 to my credit card every month to help out the organization help Africa.   And there is a reason our U.S. Constitution specifically had to put in an Amendment protecting our right to assemble:  because governments recognized the power in organizing.

So you'd think they'd try it themselves....;0

Yeah.   And I readily admit the government doesn't exactly honor the right to assemble, either.   The number of incidents of police ordering protesters to disperse is disturbing.  Yet it only illustrates the point further.

Human life begins at fertilization. Human development begins at a cellular level and those cells are alive Leauki.

Yes, human fetuses are complete human beings.You and I were once in that stage of life. We were full human beings, not potential oneS. We were complete just not fully grown. Kill at any one of these stages, and a human life is killed.

CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE: iT GOES TO SHOW SCIENCE CONFIRMS BOTH THE BIBLE AND CHURCH TEACHINGS ON LIFE.  

BRAINSUCKER POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS:

Good response Leauki, but calling the account of Noah's Ark from the ancient Jewish Tradition  "folklore" somehow doesn't do it justice.

The underlying structure of the first 11 chapters of Genesis comes to us from two ancient sources ..the Priestly and Yahwistic traditions. Through them it's not difficult to conceive of an assured continuity and preservation of the transmission of oral material.

Most agree that the integration of these traditions was given to Moses and thus we have the truths contained in Genesis 1-11.

.....................................

BRAINSUCKER POSTS:

Genesis definitely has an historical nature but we can't approach it as we would a modern historical work. Rather, Genesis is a theological interpretation of ancient Israelite history that gives a religious illustration of the Divine plan of salvation. 

......................................................

RIDDLEKING Re; your post #703...

Whoever wrote this point of interest from the story of Noah's Ark is mistaken.  Genesis tells us that God gave them 120 years to repent. They didn't. Almighty God sent the Flood as a just punishment for previous sins and as a lesson for future generations.  God didn't send the Flood to wipe out the gift of free will nor to destroy wickedness or prevent the possibility of future sin.

God saved Noah and his family from the moral flood of sin.

God has always willed that if man did good, man would not be destroyed and that if he does evil he will be destroyed.

 

Ha, ha, ha, God doesn't make mistakes, but we do plenty.

God has a perfect right to do as He pleases with the work of His own creation. He didn't have to create nor has He any obligation to any of His creatures that He should contiinue to confer existence upon them. What God makes He is free to unmake.

When we make a thing which will not fulfill the purpose for which it was made, we destroy it and set to work again.

 

All this just goes to show the inability of man to comprehend the full significance of this event. 

 

 

 

 

 

One can reasonably argue from the Bible that God has made at least one mistake.  Viewing this passage objectively, it appears that God felt at the time that creating mankind was a mistake.  One could always start from the premise that God cannot make mistakes and from there interpret this Genesis 6 passage in some way such that He didn't really make a mistake, but I don't think that's entirely objective.  The simplest explanation is that God made a mistake and therefore sent a Flood.   However,  there may be "kinds" of mistakes.  Let me explain:  say I adopt a kid.  And in spite of all my best attempts at parenting, he gets addicted on drugs, steals from the rest of my family, gets arrested, and will probably OD on drugs eventually anyway.  I regret that I ever adopted this guy.  Did I make a mistake?  Well, yes and no.  At the end of the day, I can't control the choices he makes.    But I think that the idea that an omnipotent God cannot make mistakes is probably not so simple.

lulapilgrim ... again, let's NOT copy/paste slabs of text from elsewhere. 

Instead, quote segments ONLY and link to the body/origin.

Plagiarism is an issue whether intentional or not.

I think it's a matter for each person to decide for themselves.

I'm not saying that there should be no morals. I'm not saying people should be able to do whatever they want with no limits.

Society allows people to use tobacco which slowly kills those who use it.

Society allows people to own guns which kill people.

So if these things are allowed why can't a woman decide for herself if she wants to carry through with a pregnancy?

It shouldn't be a matter of religion in society or science or if the government allows it. It's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

 

I appreciate your need to monitor the discussion. 

Just to be clear, I haven't plagiarised anything but now I know your rules concerning NOT copying and pasting texts from links and will abide your rules as best I can.

Thank you for leaving the link which gives LifeSiteNews as the source of what I had cut and pasted.

 

I'm Christian and I lean toward pro-choice myself.  Exact reasons as Chasbo just cited.  And believe me, on the Christian boards I take flak for it.  I've been banned before from the Christians-only section of a board because I support pro-choice (evidently that makes me non-Christian...).   The government needs to stay out of family business.   And you can't just pick-and-choose when the government steps in and when they don't.  Unborn babies are in the jurisdiction of the parents--they're not freakin' government property.  If the government should step in at all, it's in giving the father a say-so in the baby's fate.

Note that this does not mean I don't support Pro-Life protesters picketing clinics and distributing education materials.  I very much support that.  Both parents should be given a choice, and that means making fully-informed choices; and that includes the Pro-Life side of the story (it's called free speech).   I just don't support the government ban on a family matter.

CHASBO,

No man is an island. If it were merely a matter of each person deciding for themselves according to their own standard of morality, we'd have chaos, utter, ultimate free fall chaos. (IMO, it's fast coming to that).

That's why we as social beings (society) have standards of morality expressed in our laws. The American Founders understood this. Society, true religion and government are three God-given spheres of authority. That's exactly why it is a matter that true religion, just government and true liberty be intertwined.

Yes, society allows people to use tobacco which slowly kills. It's abuse of the freedom to use tobacco where people harm themselves. 

Yes, society allows people to own guns, but it's abuse of the freedom to own guns whereby people are killed.

Freedom of choice ... freedom to choose what?

It's a scientific fact that an unborn child is a human being and we all know it, including the medical community.

So why do people insist that the mother has the freedom to choose the death of her innocent baby trapped in the womb? 

Right now, pro-abortionist's morals have deemed that abortion is "legal". But that act is offensive to the baby.

Once a woman is pregnant, another person's life is in the consideration. And truth is we don't have freedom of choice (true liberty) to murder another innocent life which is what abortion is. 

The right to life is the true liberty to all other freedoms. Without life we'd have no freedom to choose whatsoever.

Regarding abortion, I lean as does Chasbo--each person has to decide for themself.  For myself, it's clear that a child is still a person--even in the womb.  That isn't confusing beyond the very earliest stages of pregnancy and we have tons of scientific evidence and research now that supports this.

But I do believe that the woman can ultimately make the decision.  I don't think that's "unbiblical" for the same reasons I don't think divorce is unbiblical.  Divorce is literally biblical .  It was passed down by Moses as "law".  What's interesting is what the bible attributes Jesus as having said about it:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.

But it was not this way from the beginning." Matthew 19:18 NIV

The bible allows for--but does not excuse divorce.  I think abortion is the  same situation--though I could not conscious it in the latter stages of pregnancy other than to save a mother who's life was in danger.  I honestly don't understand how anyone with any medical knowledge can rationalize that and it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

I'm also not judging any particular woman's circumstance in which she may have chosen an abortion.  We all make mistakes and sometimes tragic ones.

That's the thing about free will...we get to chose...right wrong or otherwise.

Whether or not the Great Flood was world-wide or local will always be debated, however Scripture does tell of mountains that were covered.

I think there are too many Biblical passages and specific words that when put together tell of a world-wide flood.

For one example, Gen.7: 17-24,

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased, and lifted up the ark on high from the earth. 18 For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: and the ark was carried upon the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

21 And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth: and all men. 22  And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth, died. 23  And he destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air: and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark. 24  And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.

Anyway, as far as Ararat, the mountains, and where the Ark rested...

The Douay Rheims version has Gen. 8:4-5 as, "And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventh and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia. And the waters were going and decreasing until the tenth month, for in the tenth month, the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared."

Accadian Urartu is the region corresponding to Armenia but extends further to the South. It seems to me the reference here where the ark rested is to the country and not to the mountain called Ararat today.

"Mountain" does seem to be a relative term and varies in its application. Did Noah's Ark rest on top of a hill? I guess we won't know until we find it, and who knows if that will ever happen. Maybe science will once again confirm Scripture!

 

Yep, this is the bare basics and what life is all about....got to agree with you here.

....................................

Here is where we disagree. Abortion is far different situation from divorce, Biblicaly and every which way. 

Abortion was always prohibited by the Fifth Commandment of God. No one has any right before God and in conscience tp abortion. The deliberate and direct destruction of innocent human life is forbidden by the commandment, Thou shalt not kill."

Another Biblical principle is that the end does not justify any morally evil means.

You are correct that divorce was allowed by Moses as pronounced in the OLd Testament (Old Covenant Law). But with Christ, and the New Covenant Law all that changed. Christ raised the marriage contract to the dignity of a Sacrament and the New Testament condemns divorce.