Must a Christian always "play nicely" with others?

[Quahom1]

Well, that's the thing. I routinely kill bugs in my house. Bugs are a pest. Anybody who says I don't have a right to kill bugs that invade my home I will personally strike on the head with a baseball bat. People who say that are a pest and shouldn't have a right to live in this world. (Perhaps I should go further and say they should all burn in hell!)

I shall, therefore, present an alternative counter-argument.

My house is a vessel. A woman's body is also a vessel. The owner of a vessel has a right to kill pests that invade that vessel. I have a right to kill bugs that invade my home. A woman, therefore, should have a right to kill babies that invade their body.

Babies are a pest.

Abortion isn't murder. It's just the routine domestic maintenance job of keeping a vessel clean of bugs, insects and pests. When a baby doesn't belong in the vessel the baby's got to go. Bye bye baby! Shoo! Go back where you came from! Get out of my vessel, you insect!

You are...joking, right?

 

[Saltmeister]

This thread was momentarily closed. I asked the admin (Brian) about it and it seems that it was closed by accident.

You are...joking, right?

Then along comes some bloke with a funny moustache who argues that the world is their vessel to protect, and it's full of pests called Jews...

I think a point a lot of people seem to overlook with abortion in this thread is that it is the taking of human life. The ethical question is how developed - if at all that life is - but it would be remarkable to call babies "pests"!

Alright, fair enough. I was being silly there. Calling babies pests might have been going a little too far. I was subconsciously aware that the issue was with human babies and therefore a member of the same species in the animal kingdom. There was a touch of sensationalism there but I got caught up in the excitement of saying it.

Sometimes I just think that the labeling of abortion itself as murder is itself sensationalism. My disagreement with the murder concept is that murder usually refers to a killing of a member of society with whom you might have relationship. If not, it's someone famous, rich, powerful or influential. It's someone you know, have seen, and maybe you don't like. You don't really have a relationship with an unborn baby.

Though yes, you'd have feelings for an unborn baby. Maybe you do feel some love for the unborn baby. Maybe you're angry that it's inside your body. But an unborn baby, unlike a member of society, doesn't have a history.

When you murder someone, when you kill a member of society, that person has a history. An unborn baby doesn't have a history except for its own development inside a woman's body, and all babies go through the same process so they are not unique in that regard. A baby doesn't become an "individual" until it is born.

My concept thus is this: murder applies to members of society, to individuals and people with a personal life story and history. Unborn babies do not have that. According to that definition, therefore, I don't consider abortion to be murder. Murder isn't specifically the killing of humans, but the killing of unique individuals. That would be my concept of murder.

 

[mee]

I see the early Christians not as people intensely attached to Scripture,

quote]


luke 9;35
they were ones that listened to Jesus, and he directed to the hebrew scriptures .


If Jesus had intended that the record of his ministry and the writings of his disciples replace the Hebrew Scriptures, he would surely have indicated this.


However, regarding Jesus just before his ascension to heaven, Luke’s account states: “Commencing at Moses and all the Prophets [in the Hebrew Scriptures] he interpreted to [two of his disciples] things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” Later, Jesus appeared to his faithful apostles and others.

The account continues: “He now said to them: ‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.’” (Luke 24:27, 44)

Why would Jesus still be using the Hebrew Scriptures at the end of his earthly ministry if they were out-of-date?


and he did say to people ......it is written

After the Christian congregation was established, Jesus’ followers continued to use the Hebrew Scriptures to highlight prophecies that were yet to be fulfilled, principles from the Mosaic Law that taught valuable lessons, and accounts of ancient servants of God whose fine examples encourage Christians to remain faithful. (Acts 2:16-21; 1 Corinthians 9:9, 10; Hebrews 11:1–12:1)

“All Scripture,” wrote the apostle Paul, “is inspired of God and beneficial.”

(2 Timothy 3:16)


No wonder that the apostle Paul was inspired to write: “All the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope”! (Romans 15:4) Yes, the Hebrew Scriptures are still an integral part of God’s inspired Word, the Bible. They have real value for us today.


especially about Daniel 2;44




Today, the good news of the Kingdom is being preached in many lands, as Jesus prophesied it would be. (Matthew 24:14)

As a result, millions of people have dedicated their life to God. They are excited about the blessings that the Kingdom will bring. They look forward to living forever in peace and security on a paradise earth, and they joyfully tell others about their hope.

(Psalm 37:11; 2 Peter 3:13)




we need the bible to have accurate understanding

the Hebrew Scriptures describe Jehovah as “a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth.” Yet, we also learn that “by no means will he give exemption from punishment.” (Exodus 34:6, 7)
Those two aspects reflect the meaning of God’s name. “Jehovah” literally means “He Causes to Become.” That is, God becomes whatever is needed to fulfill his promises. (Exodus 3:13-15)

But he remains the same God. Jesus stated: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.
”Mark 12:29.

 

[seattlegal]

I think that people who get divorced for any reason other than spousal abuse or unfaithfulness have failed. If you loved each other enough to get married and can't figure out a way to make things work, you didn't try hard enough.

Hi Marsh. What about those who lie to get someone to marry them? Would you consider fraud regarding a marriage agreement to be a valid basis to dissolve/annull a contract or marriage?

 

[17th Angel]

I think a point a lot of people seem to overlook with abortion in this thread is that it is the taking of human life. The ethical question is how developed - if at all that life is - but it would be remarkable to call babies "pests"!

It's the taking of life full stop. A human life has no more worth than that of any other animal, They are priceless and cannot be replaced...

 

[Marsh]

It's the taking of life full stop. A human life has no more worth than that of any other animal, They are priceless and cannot be replaced...

According to Jesus, people are worth more than many birds. Humans were created in the image of God and, although that does not give us licence to destroy God's other creations, it does set us apart from the rest of creation.

 

[Marsh]

Marsh, aren't you being a bit judgmental here?

Nope; I haven't thrown a single stone at a single person. Just because I don't agree with, say, divorce for frivolous reasons doesn't mean that people shouldn't get divorced. That's up to them to decide. However, allowing people freedom to make their own choices does not mean that I need to change my opinions to suit their needs. For two years, I taught a class of students who had been expelled from other area high schools. Guess what percentage of them came from broken homes?

 

[Marsh]

Hi Marsh. What about those who lie to get someone to marry them? Would you consider fraud regarding a marriage agreement to be a valid basis to dissolve/annull a contract or marriage?

Does the lie result in abuse (pain you shouldn't be expected to tolerate) or unfaithfulness (an act that completely destroys the bond of trust between you)? Or is it a lie that can be worked through? For example, that the person you marry is poor, but let on that they were wealthy. Or that the person you marry is not as hardworking as you thought, or that their interests are not the same. Here's the thing: too many couples give up too easily these days, simply because society tolerates divorce when in the past it did not. Giving up easily is no way to build your faith, because if you are able to give up on your wife who you do see and do know, how much more easily will you be able to give up on God who you do not see and do not know?


Let me take my views a step farther: Although getting divorced (again, unless due to abuse or unfaithfulness) is a failure, getting divorced after you have children is wickedness.