A Beautiful Life - Almost Wasn't

[Philip]

A beautiful lady, right? She almost wasn't!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/ ... vived.html

We were all once a fetus, but ALWAYS human!

[Audacity]

[img]Photo%20removed![/img]

According to the National Institute of Health, each year in the United States
about 25,000 babies, or 68 babies every day, are born still.
source


.

[Philip]

So, Audacity, WHAT is your point???!!! What has THAT got to do with intentional abortion?

[Audacity]

So, Audacity, WHAT is your point???!!! What has THAT got to do with intentional abortion?

That abortion isn't the only process that's taking potential lives. God seems to be letting fetuses develop for 20-28 weeks before killing them off, yet I don't hear anyone condemning him for it. In his infinite knowledge (omniscience) why isn't he killing the embryo in its first moments of formation? Surely he knows it isn't destined for birth.

.

[Byblos]

So, Audacity, WHAT is your point???!!! What has THAT got to do with intentional abortion?

That abortion isn't the only process that's taking potential lives. God seems to be letting fetuses develop for 20-28 weeks before killing them off, yet I don't hear anyone condemning him for it. In his infinite knowledge (omniscience) why isn't he killing the embryo in its first moments of formation? Surely he knows it isn't destined for birth.

.

Because He is not a god fashioned after your own whims.

[Audacity]

So, Audacity, WHAT is your point???!!! What has THAT got to do with intentional abortion?

That abortion isn't the only process that's taking potential lives. God seems to be letting fetuses develop for 20-28 weeks before killing them off, yet I don't hear anyone condemning him for it. In his infinite knowledge (omniscience) why isn't he killing the embryo in its first moments of formation? Surely he knows it isn't destined for birth.

.

Because He is not a god fashioned after your own whims.

And just what whims are these?

[Byblos]

So, Audacity, WHAT is your point???!!! What has THAT got to do with intentional abortion?

That abortion isn't the only process that's taking potential lives. God seems to be letting fetuses develop for 20-28 weeks before killing them off, yet I don't hear anyone condemning him for it. In his infinite knowledge (omniscience) why isn't he killing the embryo in its first moments of formation? Surely he knows it isn't destined for birth.

.

Because He is not a god fashioned after your own whims.

And just what whims are these?

Those that judge God by your hand-made standards.

[Audacity]

So, Audacity, WHAT is your point???!!! What has THAT got to do with intentional abortion?

That abortion isn't the only process that's taking potential lives. God seems to be letting fetuses develop for 20-28 weeks before killing them off, yet I don't hear anyone condemning him for it. In his infinite knowledge (omniscience) why isn't he killing the embryo in its first moments of formation? Surely he knows it isn't destined for birth.

.

Because He is not a god fashioned after your own whims.

And just what whims are these?

Those that judge God by your hand-made standards.

Don't know what "hand-made" standards are, but I fail to see what's wrong with expressing how he appears to me: "God seems to be . . . ." I know darn well good Christians have no trouble expressing how he appears to them. Would you take them to task for doing so? For judging god to be . . . .(insert complimentary words). . .? I hardly think so.

OR WRONG WITH

Saying what I haven't heard, "I don't hear anyone condemning him for it."

OR WRONG WITH

Asking a question about him "In his infinite knowledge (omniscience) why isn't he killing the embryo in its first moments of formation? " Asking is not judging.

OR WRONG WITH

Inferring something from one of his claimed powers, omniscience: "Surely he knows it isn't destined for birth." Wouldn't an omniscient god know such a thing?

.

[Philip]

First off, there are very good Scriptural reasons to believe that babies and young children that die go to be with the Lord (and MANY evangelicals and theologians would agree). And if that is the case, then what is actually more loving? A child being born into the chaos, uncertainties and many terrible dangers of this world - not to mention that child may well never grow up to become a Believer in Christ (and thus perishing after death), or in immediately being in the presence of the Lord? FOREVER. Perhaps even growing up in Heaven. But what Audacity apparently believes is living a long life of uncertainties and dangers in THIS world, and potentially dying unsaved and punished, is better and more loving than instant bliss and a guaranteed eternity of that.

No, asking questions isn't bad. But asking them in an accusing manner that caricatures aspects of God we cannot understand or have any certainties as to their purposes or ramifications - THAT is bad.

Lastly, the GIVER and CREATOR of life has the right to discontinue it. Last time I checked, NO one doesn't physically die. In a 100 years or so, does it truly matter whether someone lives to old age, or that they didn't even survive infancy? ONLY God can accurately answer that question!

[Audacity]

First off, there are very good Scriptural reasons to believe that babies and young children that die go to be with the Lord (and MANY evangelicals and theologians would agree).

Fine.

And if that is the case, then what is actually more loving? A child being born into the chaos, uncertainties and many terrible dangers of this world - not to mention that child may well never grow up to become a Believer in Christ (and thus perishing after death), or in immediately being in the presence of the Lord? FOREVER. Perhaps even growing up in Heaven.

So then everyone would have been better off never having been born. Interesting, to say nothing of unusual, perspective.

But what Audacity apparently believes is living a long life of uncertainties and dangers in THIS world, and potentially dying unsaved and punished, is better and more loving than instant bliss and a guaranteed eternity of that.

Now, now, let's not go inferring irrelevant scenarios. Granted that you think being dead is better than being alive, but let's leave it for some other discussion, and stick to the matter at hand: You asked, "What has [still-born births] got to do with intentional abortion? And I told you.

No, asking questions isn't bad. But asking them in an accusing manner that caricatures aspects of God we cannot understand or have any certainties as to their purposes or ramifications - THAT is bad.

So you're saying that because my point has you flummoxed and you can't address it, it is therefore BAD. I assume that if I pointed out some puzzling aspect of god for which you had a ready answer my point wouldn't be BAD, but merely erroneous. If my question seems accusatory may I point out that it merely follows a logical progression.

1. FACT: According to the National Institute of Health, each year in the United States about 25,000 babies, or 68 babies every day, are born still.

2. APPEARANCE: God seems to be letting fetuses develop for 20-28 weeks before killing them off,

3. OBSERVATION: Yet I don't hear anyone condemning him for it.

4. QUESTION: In his infinite knowledge (omniscience) why isn't he killing the embryo in its first moments of formation?

5. INFERENCE: Surely he knows it isn't destined for birth.

Lastly, the GIVER and CREATOR of life has the right to discontinue it.

And I'll grant you that.

Last time I checked, NO one doesn't physically die. In a 100 years or so, does it truly matter whether someone lives to old age, or that they didn't even survive infancy? ONLY God can accurately answer that question!

Irrelevant.

But back to my point: People condemn others for having, performing, and supporting the right to an abortion. YET, they have no trouble with god letting a fetus go almost full term, and sometimes even full term, before killing it. Something no reputable abortionist would do or rational female allow. Just consider "Abortions in the United States by gestational age, 2004" (source:Wikipedia)



Virtually nothing after the 20th week, yet stillborn births are considered to be those taking place from the 20th to the 28th week. It's as if god was picking up where abortionists stopped.

[RickD]

Audacity wrote:
But back to my point: People condemn others for having, performing, and supporting the right to an abortion. YET, they have no trouble with god letting a fetus go almost full term, and sometimes even full term, before killing it. Something no reputable abortionist would do or rational female allow.

First, why is it that when the unborn die in the womb, you say, God kills them? When someone dies outside the womb, do you also say that God killed him?

Second, we're talking about the murder of the unborn. When a doctor performs an abortion, he/she is murdering an unborn human being. They should be condemned for murder.

Since I don't think you're making an argument against condemning those who kill the unborn, but trying to make an argument against what you see as a double standard by not condemning God, I bring you back to my first point: why, when an unborn human dies in the womb, do you blame God?

[Philip]

Philip: And if that is the case, then what is actually more loving? A child being born into the chaos, uncertainties and many terrible dangers of this world - not to mention that child may well never grow up to become a Believer in Christ (and thus perishing after death), or in immediately being in the presence of the Lord? FOREVER. Perhaps even growing up in Heaven.

Audacity: So then everyone would have been better off never having been born. Interesting, to say nothing of unusual, perspective.

I'm not saying EVERYONE would be better off dying before living a normal lifespan, only those who would otherwise die as unbelievers - as, per my view about such child deaths, it would be a matter of eternal bliss/life vs. eternal condemnation. But as God has purposes for us here, NO one except Him can determine what is His will is - or why it is so. But as we are purely speaking of abortion - that is TAKING a life deliberately, and ONLY God can take a life righteously, as He is the One who gave it. Not to mention, whether we die in our mother's womb, or peacefully in our sleep at 99, we are born to die, at some point. All mortals do.

Philip: But what Audacity apparently believes is living a long life of uncertainties and dangers in THIS world, and potentially dying unsaved and punished, is better and more loving than instant bliss and a guaranteed eternity of that.

Audacity: Now, now, let's not go inferring irrelevant scenarios. Granted that you think being dead is better than being alive...

Um, if what the Bible says is true about those who inherit eternal life is true, if what we know of it is true - how can our lives here possibly compare? Only physical death will happen anyway. ALL souls live on - SOMEWHERE.

No, asking questions isn't bad. But asking them in an accusing manner that caricatures aspects of God we cannot understand or have any certainties as to their purposes or ramifications - THAT is bad.

Audacity: So you're saying that because my point has you flummoxed?

Really - how so?

Audacity: 1. FACT: According to the National Institute of Health, each year in the United States about 25,000 babies, or 68 babies every day, are born still.

2. APPEARANCE: God seems to be letting fetuses develop for 20-28 weeks before killing them off,

That's an assumption: Are these not human beings that he allowed to die, yet earlier than others? We are born into a world in which we are physically dying the moment we are born. Our very DNA guarantees death. Do you think of God killing off a sick old man who dies at 100? Course not - he succumbed to his mortality. How is the RESULT of an infant dying any different? And the ONLY way it can be any worse is if the afterlife for one in the presence of the Lord is worse than life here - which Scripture notes that the very moment one leaves the planet to be with the Lord will be the best moment of their lives - short or long it was. So, this supposed horror of babies dying a natural death per the results of that - no contest!

Audacity: 3. OBSERVATION: Yet I don't hear anyone condemning him for it.

For allowing the natural course of biological or other circumstances? If nefarious or negligent, etc. - WHO is responsible? Man!

Philip: Last time I checked, NO one doesn't physically die. In a 100 years or so, does it truly matter whether someone lives to old age, or that they didn't even survive infancy? ONLY God can accurately answer that question!

Audacity: Irrelevant.

Concerning abortion, yes. Concerning the the present physical world is not now meant to be eternal, or with ANY guarantees. The only guarantees are for the next world. You are asserting killing by God, in a world where either death comes from natural means, or negligence or harm of man. A lion kills a man: A natural world occurrence
.

Audacity: But back to my point: People condemn others for having, performing, and supporting the right to an abortion. YET, they have no trouble with god letting a fetus go almost full term, and sometimes even full term, before killing it. Something no reputable abortionist would do or rational female allow. Just consider "Abortions in the United States by gestational age, 2004" (source:Wikipedia)

Virtually nothing after the 20th week, yet stillborn births are considered to be those taking place from the 20th to the 28th week. It's as if god was picking up where abortionists stopped.

AS IF - that is you applying to God a consequence of how He created the present world to include death - whether short or long lived - our DNA or circumstances of this world cause death. You also are thinking God should only consider short-term ramifications of our earthly existence, as opposed to the eternal consequences of all. Because if the Bible is correct, THIS world is not the outcome, and will be but the blink of an eternal eye. Instant bliss vs. continuing life here - oh the cruel God that allows some to barely taste mortality, and before they endure a lifetime of whatever hardships, suffering, etc. - so that they instantly enter into eternal bliss. There is NO comparison. A doctor or surgeon that could transform ANY human being into such a state would be celebrated with joy worldwide. But only if the outcome is as per what Scripture describes of those with God forever.

[Audacity]

Audacity wrote:
But back to my point: People condemn others for having, performing, and supporting the right to an abortion. YET, they have no trouble with god letting a fetus go almost full term, and sometimes even full term, before killing it. Something no reputable abortionist would do or rational female allow.

First, why is it that when the unborn die in the womb, you say, God kills them? When someone dies outside the womb, do you also say that God killed him?

I say "god kills them" because unlike anyone else, doctors included, he has the power insure they live, but chooses not to. It's guilt by omission, a concept in law that recognizes an obligation to help prevent a crime when possible. And, from everything I've heard about god, his love of mankind would seem to obligate him to help those he is bringing into the world. Moreover, just as offensive is his timing, making a prospective mother and father go through 20+ weeks of hope and anticipation before bringing it all to an end. But maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe he has no stake in who survives pregnancy and who doesn't. Maybe he doesn't care one wit if you or I were born or not. That said, if "he kills them" is too offensive then think of it as "he purposely lets them die."

Second, we're talking about the murder of the unborn. When a doctor performs an abortion, he/she is murdering an unborn human being. They should be condemned for murder.

"Murder" is a legal term, and if abortion doesn't fall under it's definition, then it doesn't qualify. Where I live abortion isn't considered murder, so, you can call abortion "murder" all you want, but it's meaningless to me.

Since I don't think you're making an argument against condemning those who kill the unborn, but trying to make an argument against what you see as a double standard by not condemning God, I bring you back to my first point: why, when an unborn human dies in the womb, do you blame God?

I believe I covered it well enough in my reply above.

.

[Philip]

[url]Audacity: I say "god kills them" because unlike anyone else, doctors included, he has the power make sure they live, but chooses not to.[/url]

And YOU never addressed the reality of what such infant deaths would mean for a child instantly in Heaven. Your words: "He has the power to make sure they live." What the heck do you think would MORE make them live, and magnificently so, than being in the presence of the Lord???!!! Oh, so God is guilty of allowing them instant entrance into a beautiful, perfect place of joy with Him? Such a wonderful fate we should all seek!

And, Audacity, why are you not similarly obsessed over anyone that dies, as ALL die? Is it possible that's because you consider THIS life all that matters, as if its the ONLY life that exists? And, quite interesting, you speak of God in an accusing manner - almost as if He is REAL and you are angry at HIm.

[1over137]

I say "god kills them" because unlike anyone else, doctors included, he has the power make sure they live, but chooses not to. It's guilt by omission

Audacity,
You are judging God here, aren't you?

This to me is like judging God for not living in Heaven.
Who is to be blamed that we are not in Paradise?
God? Us?
Do we deserve to live there?
Do you deserve to live there?