J
johnshark
Guest
hey phummel here is more on the ten commandments from a site called fisheaters
it has charts too
fisheaters.com/10commandments.html
it has charts too
fisheaters.com/10commandments.html
- Status
D
Des
Guest
Hey phummel. Just a question. If your society was to believe people beyond the age of 65 should be euthanized would you be consistent with your response above, say you don’t judge and walk around with a smile while this is going on around you? Would you likewise do the same without so much as a protest if black folks were forced to be slaves again?
To judge the heart and soul is one thing. To judge what is morally right or wrong is another.
P
placido
Guest
Did you ever come across Deuteronomy? It tells us why the Sabbath was given to the Israelites and why it was placed in the Decalogue: “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your ***, nor any of your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates; that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you. And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD your God brought you out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: THEREFORE THE LORD YOUR GOD COMMANDED YOU TO KEEP THE SABBATH DAY.”
It is clear. The Sabbath was given exclusively to the Israelites. As a sign: “It is a sign forever between Me and the people of Israel,” (Exodus 31:17).The Old Covenant is gone now. The sign of a covenant that has passed away can not remain valid. Insisting in its validity is like hosting a flag of former Colonial Masters in an independent and sovereign country.
Don’t give up.
Agreed!
The only problem is that the SDAs add “Ten” whenever Commandments are mentioned.
The Old Covenant was one unit. The separation of moral, ceremonial and ritual laws is man-made, not wrong per se, but very interesting when coming from someone who believes in sola scriptura.
Jesus gave us a “new Commandment” of love (John 13:34), not just a summary of the Ten Commandments.
Nothing wrong being a vegetarian, just don’t try to make it a Doctrinal issue (Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15, 1 Timothy 4:4).
No. It was Johnshark, not me.
Beautiful! Continue praying and reading. God Bless!
Placido
F
fishisgood
Guest
Isnt this like saying (pre 1863)… “yeah I dont believe in slavery so I dont own any but my neighbor does and thats his personal choice”… or … “I dont shoot anyone personally but if someone else does thats there personal choice and I believe in freedom”… except the fact that it infringes on the other persons freedom in other words it holds no ground as an argument in the Christian world…
P
placido
Guest
What people don’t take into account is the fact that the Bible text was originally written without chapters and without verses. The Bible does not nember the Ten commandments either. Here they are (without the man-made verses):I’ve heard this too and don’t know where it comes from. You probably already saw this in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
If you can’t find it in the Bible, wikipedia the next best thing
I like the little chart Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic. I don’t see any real differences - correct me if I am wrong.
‘I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
'You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.
'Take care to keep holy the sabbath day as the LORD, your God, commanded you.
Six days you may labor and do all your work;
but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then, whether by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or *** or any of your beasts, or the alien who lives with you. Your male and female slave should rest as you do.
For remember that you too were once slaves in Egypt, and the LORD, your God, brought you from there with his strong hand and outstretched arm. That is why the LORD, your God, has commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
'Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD, your God, has commanded you, that you may have a long life and prosperity in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.
'You shall not kill.
'You shall not commit adultery.
'You shall not steal.
'You shall not bear dishonest witness against your neighbor.
'You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. ‘You shall not desire your neighbor’s house or field, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ***, nor anything that belongs to him.’ (Deuteronomy, NAB).
As you can see, the Bible does not tell us how to number the Commandments, simply that they are ten. And how can a Pope be so naive as to change the order of the Ten Commandments (SDAs know where!) and forget to change them in the Catholic Bible as well?
placido
P
phummel
Guest
These are fair and thoughtful questions.
Freedom is a Christian issue for me. It has to do with the character of God. He gives us freedom, and so I try not to inhibit the freedoms of my brothers and sisters.
I know my answer is worldly, so that may be a clue of a moral blind spot, but I will try to elaborate.
While a fetus is growing inside of a woman, I cannot force her to love this child.
The child is endowed with love through its mother.
I cannot through force or law make her stop smoking, drinking, eating tuna, punching herself, etc. I cannot harvest babies and grow them like tomatoes.
In the example of the 65+ years being killed and potential slaves, they are not linked-to and 100% dependent on another human being. I can use civil disobedience and subversion to help these people.
Is it appropriate for a church to take a stand against abortion? absolutely
Should a government spend tax dollars for abortions? No.
Should a government create incentives so that a mother would want to carry a child to term? Probably.
Does it make sense for a government to try to force the mother to love her child? It doesn’t seem practical.
Does it make sense for a government to outlaw those that perform abortions? I suspect it would create an unsafe black market.
I know this is a very worldly answer.
Is it appropriate for me to take a stand against this? absolutely
What tools should I employ to put an end to this?
- violence - not for me
- personal relationships - minister to those who are contemplating this option
- influence - change government and church policies
Please, what else?
P
phummel
Guest
I have read this.
We often use the Old Testament as foreshadowing of Christ. Yes, this is obvious in Isaiah but not so obvious here. During one of our Sabbath School studies, it was taught that freedom from Egypt was a foreshadowing of salvation. The SDA church has been a fascinating experience for me - I would have never thought of that.
Actually, I don’t believe in sola scriptura. I attend an SDA church but I am not a member.
I probably lean closer to the Methodist camp which I characterize as closer to prima scriptura - Bible, Tradition, Reason, Experience.
It’s not for me or the church.
Have you seen our doctrines? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Fundamentals
As a perspective member, I am struggling with the SDA doctrines and baptismal vows.
I would love to debate these, but at this time I can only defend some of them.
placido, thank you for your considerate replies.
-paul
G
greggy53
Guest
It’s a very wrong answer…Do you think we should not pass laws because people are only going to break them??
Perhaps we should legalize theft, becuase as it stands people use guns to rob people, and that makes it even more dangerous. If we make it easier to steal perhaps they might not get so violent about it???
P
phummel
Guest
For now, I respectfully disagree, but I appreciate the force and logic of your remarks.
I was wrong for expressing a secular political opinion. This of course was my opinion and does not reflect the views of the SDA church.
I am so tempted to continue this discussion but instead will pause and pray.
-paul
G
greggy53
Guest
Whenever you are ready drop me a line.
D
Des
Guest
Of course you can ask for laws to defend children who may be harmed by their mothers regardless if they in her belly or not. It’s the same as if you have a mother who’s a drug addict. Her kids will be taken away from her thereby forcing her to change her lifestyle. We actually have a messed up law here in Canada where a woman can get an abortion even at 9 months but if she is to harm the fetus and actually give birth to it, she can get jail.
I gave those two examples because of your repsonse that you do not judge. You never mentioned first that dependancy is now the factor to decide here. But if you like, I could move that example up even further to where the elderly are very much dependent on someone as you say an unborn child is. Also, a newborn baby is 100 percent dependant on it’s mother. Does that give her an automatic right to control whether this child lives or dies? I certainly hope not.
The government can’t force a mother to love her 2 year old baby girl either but it certainly can throw a jail sentence to her life if she harms her. It’s a huge incentive to protect the defenseless when the mother could care less you know. We are all obligated to defend any innocent person’s life when possible so that should naturally include the unborn as well.
Merely being attached to an umbilical cord may be a unique relationship between a mother and her baby but it still doesn’t negate the fact that they both are two different persons there both with their own right to life so long as they aren’t intentionally trying to do harm to one another of course.
This makes no sense cause it seems you are concerned for the person who wants to kill an innocent human beings welfare and calling her practice unsafe. You see, the difference is she has that choice to make. The unborn child doesn’t and as unsafe as something goes, it can’t compete with the certainty of death by an abortion.
Voting for pro life candidate is a huuuuuge start.
May the Holy Spirit endow you with the gift of wisdom concerning this subject.
D
Des
Guest
Mm-hmm.
I suppose the only positive way to see this is that deep down, they regognize it as a person in order to call it murder so it leaves us with hope.
P
phummel
Guest
To all, on abortion:
In the past, I’ve always chosen reproductive freedom for the woman. Abortion was never my personal choice but I left that freedom open.
It allowed my politics to be easy.
I never had to bother with corner cases and the slippery slope that the opposite policy involves.
It was also seemingly consistent with living in a universe of freedom.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but rather I need to be convinced; I need guidance; I need to understand what that new world would look like.
For starters, we will outlaw abortions. No one can get them or give them.
Are there exceptions for when the mother’s health is at risk?
I honestly knew someone in college who had an ectopic pregnancy. I don’t know her full story, but I think the fetus was attached in her fallopian tube.
Do we put health restrictions on the mother?
Can she smoke? Can she drink?
Can she get x-rays, go on a roller coaster, fly on a plane?
Can she eat tuna?
Should be allowed to over-eat and pass a lifetime of fat cells to her child?
Is time a factor? I.e., the maturity of the fetus?
Should we mandate positive prenatal care?
Has anyone dared to implement health restrictions? If so, can we go further and put health restrictions on people before they have sex?
After all, what science has learned about the epigenome indicates that our health decisions can impact our genetic code.
God Bless You all for your convictions and I look forward to your responses.
In the past, I’ve always chosen reproductive freedom for the woman. Abortion was never my personal choice but I left that freedom open.
It allowed my politics to be easy.
I never had to bother with corner cases and the slippery slope that the opposite policy involves.
It was also seemingly consistent with living in a universe of freedom.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but rather I need to be convinced; I need guidance; I need to understand what that new world would look like.
For starters, we will outlaw abortions. No one can get them or give them.
Are there exceptions for when the mother’s health is at risk?
I honestly knew someone in college who had an ectopic pregnancy. I don’t know her full story, but I think the fetus was attached in her fallopian tube.
Do we put health restrictions on the mother?
Can she smoke? Can she drink?
Can she get x-rays, go on a roller coaster, fly on a plane?
Can she eat tuna?
Should be allowed to over-eat and pass a lifetime of fat cells to her child?
Is time a factor? I.e., the maturity of the fetus?
Should we mandate positive prenatal care?
Has anyone dared to implement health restrictions? If so, can we go further and put health restrictions on people before they have sex?
After all, what science has learned about the epigenome indicates that our health decisions can impact our genetic code.
God Bless You all for your convictions and I look forward to your responses.
P
placido
Guest
Yet you fail to see that the Sabbath rest was a foreshodowing of the rest in Christ (Matt 11:28).
According to Deuteronomy, the Sabbath was to celebrate freedom from Egypt. If freedom from Egypt was a shodow, its celebration was also a shodow. But the SDAs don’t see that.
Good!
placido
P
placido
Guest
Did you not tell us you are not a SDA? Why do you then suspect that we may get the impression your views reflect the views of the SDA? That, unfortunately, makes me suspicious.
placido
P
placido
Guest
J
johnshark
Guest
no im not. if i was to beat my pregnant wife to death/had a miscarriage i would be charged with 2 murders/murder of her baby
P
placido
Guest
I was just shocked to hear that there is a law that focuses on “who” instead of “what” crime was committed. If it was the baby’s mother who killed the unborn baby then it is considered to be no crime, it becomes a crime only if the unborn baby was killed by a person other than the mother. Unbelievable how far humanity has fallen!
placido
P
placido
Guest
It amazes me to see how far people are willing to go to directly or indirectly deffend abortion.
As a Christian, what would you do if I tell you one of the following:
- I am going to defraud my employer;
- I am going to steal my neighbor’s car;
- I am going to kill my wife;
- I am going to commit suicide.
I am still asking myself: why, when it comes sex-related issues (abortion and contraception), do some “Christians”, especially SDAs, immediately recognize my “freedom” and my “liberty” and allege that advising me against those would be “hateful” and “repressive”?
placido
- Status