Abortion

(There is no death to the soul. An abortus, therfore, does not have a soul. It is just a piece of tissue, non-human, at the time of abortion.
Click to expand...
If the fetus was just a piece of tissue, then why does it grow into a human being? Certainly a piece of tissue is not learning anything. The fact that you mention a soul means that you are taking a religious perspective. If the fetus was just a piece of tissue, then why does it have organs all acting for one purpose. Either that purpose is God's or is not, but if the fetus does not have a soul then God is constructing a human body. Are you to mess up God's work? In any case, you have no basis for deciding at what time the fetus does have a soul or does not have a soul. The inescapable conclusion is that you would act as if the fetus always has a soul. Say for example that I hid one baby out of a million in tires and told you to shoot one of the tires for a million dollars. My conclusion is that if you do not kill the baby, it's attempted murder and if you do kill the baby it is murder. So why are you not taking a more cautious moral position M*W?

What is wrong is aborting a late-term infant who could sustain life on its own.
Click to expand...
Neither babies, two year olds or the thousands of people in commas can sustain life on their own.

Earthsuits come and go. We abort them when the time is right. When we shed them, they no longer contain the spirit.
Click to expand...
This begs the question of why we have earthsuits?

The spirit doesn't change.
Click to expand...
Our spirit, does change and does grow.
 
Okinrus,

You seem to think that christians cannot use other sources besides the bible to determine what is wrong.
Click to expand...
No, I was simply looking at what the bible says on the issue, i.e. the official word of God. If it was important then presumably he would have mentioned it, especially since he picks on things like wearing different types of weave as being punishable by death. Without such a mention it seems reasonably to imply that he thinks that what you wear is far more important than the death of an unborn child.

Other sources of course cannot be considered blessed by God such as the bible and are therefore just secondary considerations.

For the Christian, God is the source of absolute truth, and he has communicated with us through the clear teaching of Scripture. But in the areas of life and abortion the Bible remains silent. Scriptural principles guide our understanding. If we cannot agree on the fundamental that there is a right and wrong—a true and false, a good and an evil— then issues such as abortion and the status of the unborn will remain out of reach.

I don't think this "myth" is a traditional christian teaching. All mothers know that their unborn child is alive. It's common sense.
Click to expand...
Today they do, can you claim the same for those times of widespread ignorance when the bible stories were written?

If God were so opposed to abortion, then why didn't he include a clear, unequivocal command against it in the canonical text, which is presumably his inspired text?
 
No, I was simply looking at what the bible says on the issue, i.e. the official word of God. If it was important then presumably he would have mentioned it, especially since he picks on things like wearing different types of weave as being punishable by death. Without such a mention it seems reasonably to imply that he thinks that what you wear is far more important than the death of an unborn child.
Click to expand...
The emphasis is on the meaning behind it. Do you cloth yourself with Christ and the holy Spirit, as Paul said or with something else? New wine is poured into new vine skins and the life is in the blood. There's no precondition on whose blood or how intelligent the child is. It's all considered bloodshed insofar as the law is concerned.

Other sources of course cannot be considered blessed by God such as the bible and are therefore just secondary considerations.
Click to expand...
This is your standard sola-scriptura viewpoint that you were raised into. The bible of course says nothing about it being the only source of knowledge. It also has a serious chicken before the egg problem. How exactly were the books in the bible chosen? Well from the holy Spirit, from tradition, and what was found useful. So to be intellectually honest, the Church considers tradition to be on par with Scripture.

For the Christian, God is the source of absolute truth, and he has communicated with us through the clear teaching of Scripture. But in the areas of life and abortion the Bible remains silent. Scriptural principles guide our understanding. If we cannot agree on the fundamental that there is a right and wrong—a true and false, a good and an evil— then issues such as abortion and the status of the unborn will remain out of reach.
Click to expand...
Scripture principles are not the only guide to understanding. Moses says that the Law was not new to Israelites nor did they have to cross a sea but it was written on their hearts.
 
No religious view on abortion

Originally posted by okinrus
---------
If the fetus was just a piece of tissue, then why does it grow into a human being?
---------
(That is what it is genetically programmed to do.)
---------
Certainly a piece of tissue is not learning anything.
(No, the piece of tissue cannot survive on its own.)
----------
The fact that you mention a soul means that you are taking a religious perspective.
----------
(No, I am NOT taking a "religious" perspective, I always take a "spiritual" perspective.)
----------
If the fetus was just a piece of tissue, then why does it have organs all acting for one purpose.
----------
(That is the way it has been genetically programmed.)
----------
Either that purpose is God's or is not, but if the fetus does not have a soul then God is constructing a human body.
----------
(Yes, the human body is being constructed, but the human body is of the Earth. It's physical, and it's temporary.)
----------
Are you to mess up God's work?
----------
(No, absolutely not! It is the work of humans to create human life. It is the work of God to indwell in the already formed human life.)
----------
In any case, you have no basis for deciding at what time the fetus does have a soul or does not have a soul.
----------
(No, it is not my decision, or the decision of the mother, to determine when and what time the fetus will acquire a soul. That is the work of God.)
----------
The inescapable conclusion is that you would act as if the fetus always has a soul.
----------
(No. The fetus does not ALWAYS have a soul. Only that can be determined by God. What about babies that don't live after birth? They didn't lose their soul, for whatever reasons, the Spirit of God chose not to dwell in that baby.)
----------
Say for example that I hid one baby out of a million in tires and told you to shoot one of the tires for a million dollars. My conclusion is that if you do not kill the baby, it's attempted murder and if you do kill the baby it is murder. So why are you not taking a more cautious moral position M*W?
----------
(Bad example, okinrus. I personally would not get involved in such a thing. It is not MY decision whether to abort a fetus. It's the mother's decision. It's her body. As long as the fetus in within her body, and the One Spirit of God still indwells therein, it is entirely her choice. The One Spirit of God does not die with this abortion. It moves on and on. The body is temporary on the Earth. The spirit is eternal. Flesh returns to dust. The spirit goes on forever.)
----------
Neither babies, two year olds or the thousands of people in commas can sustain life on their own. This begs the question of why we have earthsuits?
----------
(That's the only way we can get around on Planet Earth in the flesh. Again, the flesh is only TEMPORARY anyway. The body is corrupt, mortal, but the One Spirit of God has never changed! Ideally, we help our spirit to grow while we occupy the Earthsuit. After that, we simply return to the source.)
 
According to the "rules" or "laws" of biology, something is only living if it has the following characteristics:

1. It is made up of at least one living cell.

2. It contains DNA or hereditary material.

3. It can reproduce.

4. It can convert energy.

5. Homeostasis, the ability to maintain internal environmental conditions.

Besides "living", something can be categorized as "non-living" or "dead". Dead is obviously something that was once living, but no longer fulfills the laws required to be considered living. Non-living is anything that has never fulfilled the laws of biology to be considered living. There are a few odd ones out there. Surprisingly, viruses are considered non-living. See if you can see why. :) It's up to debate whether a fetus meets those requirements as living. I don't know enough about fetuses to have an opinion on whether it is living, non-living, or (probably not) dead.
 
(No, absolutely not! It is the work of humans to create human life. It is the work of God to indwell in the already formed human life.)
Click to expand...
Ok, you just said that our body was genetically programmed. Programmed by who? Certainly not us and if not God then who else? And if it really was the work of humans to create human life, then why start the work in the first place? If we do not choose to create human life, then who choses? If it's God your messing up God's plan but if it is not God then who?

Certainly a piece of tissue is not learning anything.
(No, the piece of tissue cannot survive on its own.)
Click to expand...
I cannot live on my own and you cannot either. We all need basic human resources such as bread. The distinction is that your making is arbitrary and this is why I said before that blurring the line would devalue human life.

(Bad example, okinrus. I personally would not get involved in such a thing. It is not MY decision whether to abort a fetus. It's the mother's decision. It's her body. As long as the fetus in within her body, and the One Spirit of God still indwells therein, it is entirely her choice
Click to expand...
No, it will always be her choice just as it would be my choice to go around shooting people. In both cases we should have laws to deterrant such a behavior so that each would get their proper punishment. Of course her decisions do affect the fetus. A mother who does crack while pregnant may give the baby health complications. Is she morally repsonsible for the baby in this case? I would say yes, there's a clear cause and effects of what she does during pregancy to the wellfare of the child.

(That's the only way we can get around on Planet Earth in the flesh. Again, the flesh is only TEMPORARY anyway. The body is corrupt, mortal, but the One Spirit of God has never changed! Ideally, we help our spirit to grow while we occupy the Earthsuit. After that, we simply return to the source.)
Click to expand...
If this was true, then it would seem that your theology promotes murder. Kill everyone so that they may recieve spiritual enlightenment with the source.

(No, I am NOT taking a "religious" perspective, I always take a "spiritual" perspective.)
Click to expand...
When I say religious perspective, what I mean is agreeing to certain assumptions or dogma such that the soul exists and that there is a reality that is unseen. With these assumptions, we still remain rational or so we hope :)
 
Besides "living", something can be categorized as "non-living" or "dead". Dead is obviously something that was once living, but no longer fulfills the laws required to be considered living. Non-living is anything that has never fulfilled the laws of biology to be considered living. There are a few odd ones out there. Surprisingly, viruses are considered non-living. See if you can see why. It's up to debate whether a fetus meets those requirements as living. I don't know enough about fetuses to have an opinion on whether it is living, non-living, or (probably not) dead.
Click to expand...
I'm not a biologist but the validity of those laws is only to biological science and even if we use the biological definition, only to an entire species. For example, a dog that is neutered is still alive and a child that has not reached puberty is alive. A virus does not have cells or DNA. Abortionist usually concede that the fetus is alive and is human but not a person.
 
when I was pregnant, I noticed that my baby was alive around the second trimester. It sucked it's thumb under the ultrasound, it kicked me when I skipped a meal and fluttered happy when I ate that bite of icecream to welcome the sugar rush. The fetus ate, urniated, kicked, slept, ect....There is no way in hell this is not life....maybe not an adult life, but it's a fetus life.....A baby spends its days confined helpless in a crib, attached to it's mother breast for nutritional source and we don't say that it's dead, so why is the fetus any different than a newly born baby.
 
Remaining rational...

Originally posted by okinrus
----------
Ok, you just said that our body was genetically programmed. Programmed by who? Certainly not us and if not God then who else? And if it really was the work of humans to create human life, then why start the work in the first place? If we do not choose to create human life, then who choses? If it's God your messing up God's plan but if it is not God then who?
----------
(Evolution genetically programmed us. Personally, I give our Creator credit for evolution. For example, you believe literally that God created Adam of the Earth. He then created Eve from Adam's rib. Then he told them to be fruitful and multiply upon the Earth. Seems to me that it was up to A&E to procreate from there on.)
----------
I cannot live on my own and you cannot either. We all need basic human resources such as bread. The distinction is that your making is arbitrary and this is why I said before that blurring the line would devalue human life.
----------
(Once we come into existence, we no longer need the intrauterine sustenance of our mothers'. When we reach an age of self-sufficiency, we need to find our own sustenance. If we don't, we die. In utero, we survive only until the nourishment is discontinued. In life, we survive only until no one feeds us or until we are unable to feed ourselves. This is life. Losing one's life in no way affects the One Spirit of God. That remains the same for eternity. If we're talking about the body, the flesh, that is a human choice. If we're talking about the Spirit, that is a Godly choice. The Spirit of God will remain whether or not there are particular bodies.)
----------
No, it will always be her choice just as it would be my choice to go around shooting people.
----------
(These examples are apples and oranges. A woman's uterus should not be ruled by any government or any law. Murder must be ruled by law.)
----------
Of course her decisions do affect the fetus. A mother who does crack while pregnant may give the baby health complications. Is she morally repsonsible for the baby in this case? I would say yes, there's a clear cause and effects of what she does during pregancy to the wellfare of the child.
----------
(Yes, the crack-head mother should have been more responsible than to bring into this world a baby addicted to drugs. Surely, she won't take care of it, and it would end up handicapped and orphaned. In Texas, giving birth to a baby addicted to drugs is a prosecutable felony. The baby is taken away from the mother, and the mother goes from the delivery room to jail. Wouldn't it have been better for everyone, especially this unwanted child, to have been aborted? Now, this baby becomes the responsibility of the rest of us (our tax money, etc.). But since this child lived, it contains the One Spirit of God, even though its life won't be that great, its greatness is the fact that it is a living, breathing vessel containing the One Spirit of God on the face of the Earth. There is a difference between preventing life to happen and taking away life. Our body is only a vehicle. It's God's vehicle. But God still leaves it up to the human being to take control of the body. Therefore, what we do to our body is entirely within our control. Some people overeat. Some people fill it with drugs. Some people kill it. Some more slowly than others, but the end result is that we shed our flesh. It is within our power as a human being to be in charge of our bodies.)
----------
When I say religious perspective, what I mean is agreeing to certain assumptions or dogma such that the soul exists and that there is a reality that is unseen. With these assumptions, we still remain rational or so we hope.
----------
(The soul existing and our understanding of its purpose has nothing at all to do with religion. When God created us, he gave us this innate knowledge. We didn't need man-made religions to be formed to give us a set of dogmas to follow. All we needed is our Soul to lead us. Until we come to know the One Spirit of God that dwells within all of us, we are nothing more flesh and blood. It is our life in spiritual form that keeps us rational. The difference is that flesh and blood are Earthbound. The mind and spirit are Heavenbound (Godly). There's always a struggle between the two. But it is inevitably up to us what we do with this struggle.)
 
(These examples are apples and oranges. A woman's uterus should not be ruled by any government or any law. Murder must be ruled by law.)
Click to expand...
Our claim is that abortion is killing of an innocent child. If the law can protect what comes out of a uterus why not the human life that is within it.

In Texas, giving birth to a baby addicted to drugs is a prosecutable felony. The baby is taken away from the mother, and the mother goes from the delivery room to jail. Wouldn't it have been better for everyone, especially this unwanted child, to have been aborted?
Click to expand...
The crime commited is done to an unborn child. There must be a victim for each crime correct? Yet if the unborn child is not a human being who are we protecting? So already the state is prosecuting woman for harming what's in their uterus. Also better in this case is not always what we think but how we make use of the situation because all things that happen are allowed by God. A possible senario is that whereby seeing the consequences of her action, the mother goes into treatment.

There is a difference between preventing life to happen and taking away life.
Click to expand...
Conception is whole other issue though we cannot prevent life to happen anymore than we can create life.

The soul existing and our understanding of its purpose has nothing at all to do with religion. When God created us, he gave us this innate knowledge. We didn't need man-made religions to be formed to give us a set of dogmas to follow.
Click to expand...
Your reciting a bunch of mantras learned at new age workshops. In particular your philosophy is similar to the I AM group. Evolving spiritual masters such as Jesus etc. very much man made. Now we all know that logic needs a set of presumptions ie. logic is built upon what we already know and the logical conclusions that follow.

The difference is that flesh and blood are Earthbound. The mind and spirit are Heavenbound (Godly). There's always a struggle between the two. But it is inevitably up to us what we do with this struggle.)
Click to expand...
No, no there's two spirits. There's you, a spirit and God, the Spirit. If the mind and spirit were Godly, as you say, then we would certainly know God and would not have any struggle because the flesh only does what the spirit tells it. The flesh, in other words, counts for nothing. It's entire basis is that it interacts with the earthly world giving us an earthly picture.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
I'm not a biologist but the validity of those laws is only to biological science and even if we use the biological definition, only to an entire species. For example, a dog that is neutered is still alive and a child that has not reached puberty is alive. A virus does not have cells or DNA. Abortionist usually concede that the fetus is alive and is human but not a person.
Click to expand...

If a requirement was to have two arms and one of mine got cut off it wouldn't change me from living to non-living. And a virus actually does have DNA. Viruses are made from protein and DNA.
 
Yeah my bad, depending on the virus they can be made up of DNA or RNA but not both. The main reason why they are not considered a life form is that they do not replicate on their own but must need a host to insert their biological makeup.
 
New Age???

Originally posted by okinrus
----------
Our claim is that abortion is killing of an innocent child. If the law can protect what comes out of a uterus why not the human life that is within it.
----------
(Because the law has no jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, just like the law should have no jurisdiction over a man's rectum.)
----------
The crime commited is done to an unborn child. There must be a victim for each crime correct? Yet if the unborn child is not a human being who are we protecting? So already the state is prosecuting woman for harming what's in their uterus.
----------
(Yes, because drug use is involved, that makes it a crime. However, when a woman drinks alcohol during her pregnancy, and the child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), there is no prosecution because alcohol is a legal substance. It's no different, it's harming the unborn child.)
----------
Also better in this case is not always what we think but how we make use of the situation because all things that happen are allowed by God.
----------
(This would include abortion.)
----------
A possible senario is that whereby seeing the consequences of her action, the mother goes into treatment.
----------
(Yeah, right. The number of women who continue to use drugs, regardless of the number of pregnancies they may have while they're using, is tantamount to the minute number who actually go in for treatment. And those who go in for treatment, the number who are actually "cured" from using drugs is even smaller. Furthermore, these women are also prostituting themselves for crack, and they are incubators for HIV. This is also transmitted to the fetus, but then, there's no law against it.)
----------
Conception is whole other issue though we cannot prevent life to happen anymore than we can create life.
----------
(No one really likes abortion. I hate it, but I see the human necessity for it.)
----------
Your reciting a bunch of mantras learned at new age workshops. In particular your philosophy is similar to the I AM group. Evolving spiritual masters such as Jesus etc. very much man made. Now we all know that logic needs a set of presumptions ie. logic is built upon what we already know and the logical conclusions that follow.
----------
(Well, I've never been to a new age workshop, and I don't know who the I AM group is. I've never heard of 'em. I would say that Jesus was an "evolved spiritual master" just like I would say Mohammed and Buddha were evolved spiritual masters. But since you say that I sound like I have this kind of philosophy, you've given me the idea that maybe I should start such a group!)
----------
No, no there's two spirits. There's you, a spirit and God, the Spirit. If the mind and spirit were Godly, as you say, then we would certainly know God and would not have any struggle because the flesh only does what the spirit tells it. The flesh, in other words, counts for nothing. It's entire basis is that it interacts with the earthly world giving us an earthly picture.
----------
(No, I believe there is the ONE Spirit of God that we all share. We call it "our soul." The only purpose of our existence in the flesh is to carry that One Spirit of God over the face of the Earth to all humanity for the purpose of "enlightening" others' spirit. I use the word "enlightening" not because it tends to be an overused word in the New Age environment, but I use it as an "illumination" of the spirit we carry for God, so we will come to know God in a more intimate way. God created humans to glofify his work. Otherwise, thre would be no need for humans to exist. Perhaps he could have selected dogs or horses (both my choices) to carry his spirit over the Earth, but he selected us. As long as we are on the pathway to our spiritual existence, that is, life after we discard the Earthsuit, then God is pleased with us. And, no, sinners remove themselves from the One Spirit of God, so they do not evolve spiritually on this Earth. Earth is the only place where sin can take place, so this life is a testing ground for spiritual improvement.)
 
(Well, I've never been to a new age workshop, and I don't know who the I AM group is. I've never heard of 'em. I would say that Jesus was an "evolved spiritual master" just like I would say Mohammed and Buddha were evolved spiritual masters. But since you say that I sound like I have this kind of philosophy, you've given me the idea that maybe I should start such a group!)
Click to expand...
Well I'm suprised. Maybe those you speak with are part of the New Age movement or something. Ok I will give you a comparision of your teaching AFAIK and the I AM group.
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0601W4.htm

"Purpose: To bring "ascended I AM power" to America, that she might fulfill her cosmic destiny as the world’s repository of "Light.""
Looks like you meet this one, " but I use it as an "illumination" of the spirit we carry for God". Using the term earth suite seems to suggest some sort of cosmic journey.

"Source of authority: The spiritistic revelations of Guy and Edna Ballard."
Perhaps not, but I suspect that you have some sort of revelation. I never met someone so stubborn who has not had some kind of revelation. It's not that your an evil person or anything, it's just strange.

"Attitude toward Christianity: Rejecting"
You don't just reject Christianity; it's your mission to destroy it. Of course not the christians but the christian religion.

"The only ones who know the solution of Life are the Ascended Masters."
Your perception of Jesus as some sort of spirtual master is very similar.

"[Jesus states:] try always to remember that you are not human beings so-called, but you are Gods and Goddesses in embryo. (Godfre Ray King, The "I AM" Discourses, pp. 273-274)"
This basically sums up everything you've said. The main difference is that we are not I AM but that we share one Spirit who is God. Your beliefs are a little bit inconsistant on this issue so please clarify.

"I want so much to have you feel that you are the Only Authority in this world or any other, so far as your world is concerned.... We are going to take this Authority and use it, clear away all discord, and declare with no uncertainty: ‘I AM’ the Supremacy of man, everywhere I go—’I AM’ God in Action (Ibid., pp. 44-45)"
This thread is a good example of this.


"God: An impersonal Force, Principle, Energy. There also exists a pantheon of gods and demigods;"
Hard to tell. Certainly you believe that we are gods but you also seem to believe that God is One.

"Jesus: An ascended master."
yes

"To be fully enlightened is to attain to the ascension—to be free of all physical limits and to become a God."
yes

"Man: Inwardly divine."
yes

"Satan: A Christian myth."
yes

"Heaven and Hell: States of consciousness."
Probably

(Yes, because drug use is involved, that makes it a crime. However, when a woman drinks alcohol during her pregnancy, and the child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), there is no prosecution because alcohol is a legal substance. It's no different, it's harming the unborn child.)
Click to expand...
I think a woman is morally responsible for her child though. If the child was born with FAS, then I think she would feel guilty if she was aware of what achohol does to the fetus. So in legal sense you may be right, but in the moral sense your wrong.

(Yeah, right. The number of women who continue to use drugs, regardless of the number of pregnancies they may have while they're using, is tantamount to the minute number who actually go in for treatment. And those who go in for treatment, the number who are actually "cured" from using drugs is even smaller. Furthermore, these women are also prostituting themselves for crack, and they are incubators for HIV. This is also transmitted to the fetus, but then, there's no law against it.)
Click to expand...
They are, of course, morally responsible. Consequences do wake up people but this is more of legal issue....they should be forced to under go treatement by law.
 
The difference between God and cults

Originally posted by okinrus
----------
Well I'm suprised. Maybe those you speak with are part of the New Age movement or something.
----------
(Actually, in my family and among my closest associates, I am the one they come to for spiritual guidance. It's always been this way. I can be in a grocery store, and strangers will come up to me and start talking about whatever! Honestly, it's come to the point where I've started to send my daughter to the store for me, because sometimes I feel overwhelmed with people approaching me. At work, it's the same thing. People I don't know come to my office and just want "to talk." It has presented a problem for me at work, too, because my boss just thinks I'm a busy-body. But that's not the case. I have stopped going to the cafeteria at lunch so I can have some privacy when I eat. I don't mean to reject people, but I am burdened by them sometimes. No, I've never attended any New Age workshops, and none of my friends are into New Age. In fact, most of my friends, believe it or not, are Xians. My thoughts and my philosophy have come only from within me. If others have philosophies similar to mine, it always surprises me, but then I feel like I'm truly not alone in this world.)
----------
(I looked up the website, but in all honesty, this group does sound like a cult.)
----------
Using the term earth suite seems to suggest some sort of cosmic journey.
---------
(Earthsuit is a word I coined several years ago to explain that the spirit is always there, but we take on a physical body (an Earthsuit) while we are here in the flesh. Calling it a "cosmic journey," we only need our Earthsuit, our flesh and blood, while we are alive in human form. It's the physical body, so I don't see the physical body as being "cosmic." I see the One Spirit of God that we carry here on Earth to be more "cosmic.")
----------
"Source of authority: The spiritistic revelations of Guy and Edna Ballard."
----------
(Again, these people sound like a cult. I've never heard of them, and I don't care to know anything else about them. There are also the Raelians, the People's Temple (they're all dead now), and Heaven's Gate (gone, too!), but I'd say all these were suicide cults.)
----------
Perhaps not, but I suspect that you have some sort of revelation. I never met someone so stubborn who has not had some kind of revelation. It's not that your an evil person or anything, it's just strange.
----------
(I guess throughout my life, even as a small child, I have had certain "revelations" that I didn't even understand at the time. So, I just forgot about them because I didn't know how to "process" them with my young mind. Yes, I've been told many times that I am stubborn. I suppose that comes with my humanness, but usually when I'm stubborn, it serves me well. I wouldn't say I'm evil, and neither would my family or friends. I try to be pleasant with everyone, and loving and forgiving. Forgiveness is the one MOST powerful gift we could possibly have. (This comes from another "revelation.") When one forgives absolutely everyone who has offended him, or more importantly, forgives himself for those whom he may have offended, it opens up the soul to receive such wonderous things. I cannot encourage everyone to be as sincerely forgiving as possible, to others, but to oneself. This is MOST important. It truly releases the burdens on one's soul.)
----------
You don't just reject Christianity; it's your mission to destroy it. Of course not the christians but the christian religion.
----------
(Because I inherently know Xiantity has lied to the masses for so long that they believe it. I'm sure Jesus looks down upon "Xians" and it breaks his heart to see what has become of the teachings he tried to bring to the people of this world. Xianity today is NOT what Jesus represented.)
----------
"The only ones who know the solution of Life are the Ascended Masters." Your perception of Jesus as some sort of spirtual master is very similar.
----------
(I would say that Jesus was a spiritual master. I don't think any of us could come close to his illumination.)
----------
"[Jesus states:] try always to remember that you are not human beings so-called, but you are Gods and Goddesses in embryo. (Godfre Ray King, The "I AM" Discourses, pp. 273-274)"
----------
(I've never heard this quoted before, but I don't agree with it.)
----------
This basically sums up everything you've said. The main difference is that we are not I AM but that we share one Spirit who is God. Your beliefs are a little bit inconsistant on this issue so please clarify.
----------
(My belief in the One Spirit of God within us all has nothing to do with what this cult says. Maybe I have my own cult, but this is news to me. I don't follow any other group.)
----------
"I want so much to have you feel that you are the Only Authority in this world or any other, so far as your world is concerned.... We are going to take this Authority and use it, clear away all discord, and declare with no uncertainty: ‘I AM’ the Supremacy of man, everywhere I go—’I AM’ God in Action (Ibid., pp. 44-45)" This thread is a good example of this.
----------
(This sounds like Southern White Supremacy talking. The only authority I know of is God, the Creator, who created us to carry his spirit on Earth. Man is NOT God, but man is used by God as a spiritual vehicle. That is our only purpose on this Earth. We MUST get in touch with the reality of our "mission.")
----------
(It would be interesting to see what becomes of the 'I AM' group. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they went by the way of the People's Temple.)
----------
"God: An impersonal Force, Principle, Energy. There also exists a pantheon of gods and demigods;" Hard to tell. Certainly you believe that we are gods but you also seem to believe that God is One.
----------
(What I've said is that "we are One with God." By ourselves, we are nothing more than a piece of meat.)
----------
"Jesus: An ascended master." yes
----------
"To be fully enlightened is to attain to the ascension—to be free of all physical limits and to become a God." yes
----------
(We remove our "physical limits" when it is time to shed our Earthsuit. When God is through utilizing us to carry his spirit on the face of the Earth, our time is done, and the process begins to shed our Earthsuit. For example, someone commits suicide. He chose not to carry God's spirit any longer, but I would say that he was probably distant from God before he committed suicide. One who is with God would not do that because they would realize what their mission is.)
----------
"Man: Inwardly divine." yes
----------
(No, not without the Spirit of God, man is just a piece of meat.)
----------
"Satan: A Christian myth." yes
----------
(There is the pure positive spirit energy of God, and then there is the negative force we call "Satan." What I don't believe is the physical features Xian's say Satan has. It's a force of negative energy. There's no physical features to Satan just like there are no physical features of God. They're both energy fields.)
----------
"Heaven and Hell: States of consciousness." Probably
----------
(Since the One Spirit of God is eternal, and humankind is temporary, I would say that life in the eternal spirit of God is what I consider to be heaven. Heaven is no particular place but everywhere other than during our physical life on Earth. Hell to me would be the fear of God. Since God is our Creator and our life everlasting, to fear God is to fear our own existence! To fear God is to fear our innermost self where the Spirit of God dwells for a time. This is my one major problem with Xians who "fear God." Please don't do that! Love God, trust God, but fear nothing or no one except allowing fear to enter your heart. Fear is the absence of God.)
----------
I think a woman is morally responsible for her child though. If the child was born with FAS, then I think she would feel guilty if she was aware of what achohol does to the fetus. So in legal sense you may be right, but in the moral sense your wrong.
----------
(Yes, a woman should be morally responsible for her child, but this is not what we are seeing in reality. The problem I see in my practice is, yes, there are women who take care of their bodies and nourish their baby well, and when its born they love it and do a wonderful job at mothering. But, all too often, I see the other side of it. Drug users who haven't had prenatal care, who stayed stoned or drunk during the whole pregnancy. They don't care about their baby, all they care about is where their next hit is coming from. Most of these women don't even want to see their baby. Most of them lose their baby immediately after birth to the authorities. Most of them don't even seem to care. All they're desperate for is to get out the hospital to get another hit.
----------
They are, of course, morally responsible. Consequences do wake up people but this is more of legal issue....they should be forced to under go treatement by law.
----------
(Treatment? Treatment doesn't work for most of these people. Sure, the court can force them to go into treatment, but they just do it to keep out of jail. They just go through the motions, all the while, they're getting their hits one way or the other. It simply doesn't work. Yes, they are morally responsible for what they have done. But you have to remember, these people have already removed themselves from the spirit of God. They're committing suicide. It may be a slow suicide, but it's suicide none the less. It's a total removal of the body from the One Spirit of God that wants to dwell in us all.)
 
I personally believe that after the creation of a suitable body and brain the soul is added drop by drop and not all at once. An animal gets a little less because a less developed brain couldn't hold it. By the same logic I think a fetus in the early stages only has about the same amount of soul as a salamander. Even after birth I think the soul is far from complete and is added over most of one's life.

That dosn't mean I think you should abort a fetus without reason but it is the mother's prerogative. If something serious is wrong with the fetus or bringing it to term might kill the mother I definatly support aborting the fetus. Please note that I don't approve of the killing of salamanders but I also am not going to stop you if you choose to.
 
Clockwood, I'm not sure what the brain, which is a organ of flesh has to do with the soul other than the soul making choices upon the brain's electrical impulses. Some of the most intelligent people are violent criminals because they use their intelligence to kill others. Inteligence cannot readly be defined, thus any precondition on intelligence will result in a very blurry line. Someone who is terribly bad at math may be a brilliant musician. Your view of the soul is sort of odd. Most religions claim that the soul is really is us, what is left with the abstance of all flesh; therefore, it would be hard to support a case for the addition of more of us from outside of us. When I said that the soul could grow, I meant in the sense of loving God. An immaterial entity such as the soul cannot grow in the physical sense from the very assumption that it is not physical. Therefore any growth in physical knowedge or in size cannot be supported simply because it is not growth of the soul. The prevalence of abortion in society will have a number of long term effects that we simply cannot predict. I suspect that abortion will devalue morality, in general, and shows the hopeless turmoil that modern society is in. Intelligence cannot be used as a factor in moral decisions. Neither can the progress of the human race be used.

That dosn't mean I think you should abort a fetus without reason but it is the mother's prerogative. If something serious is wrong with the fetus or bringing it to term might kill the mother I definatly support aborting the fetus.
Click to expand...
Most pro-lifers support abortion if carrying the baby to term would kill the mother. The vast majority of abortions are not this case and are made with no medical need.
 
Okinrus, if you are so positive abortion is wrong, why do you think it is legal in the United States?
 
The body is mortal, the soul is eternal

Originally posted by ScrollMaker
----------
Okinrus, if you are so positive abortion is wrong, why do you think it is legal in the United States?
----------
(The body is mortal. Someone said that if we're not busy being born, we are busy dying. In a sense, our Earthsuits are aborted when we die. I see no difference in an embryo's Earthsuit being discarded before it is born. We're all mortal in the flesh. It's all temporary. Just because that embryo has been aborted, does not mean the soul also dies. The soul simply returns to the source of everything.)
 
Re: The body is mortal, the soul is eternal

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I see no difference in an embryo's Earthsuit being discarded before it is born. We're all mortal in the flesh. It's all temporary. Just because that embryo has been aborted, does not mean the soul also dies. The soul simply returns to the source of everything.
Click to expand...
That is truly stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top