If someone was to combat against humans in a physical method, then I've seen ways of not killing, like in Ominous Horizons for example, how those ninja dudes just leave, and in Catechumen, we all know what happens

But if someone was to make say, a Samson game where it told the truth, I don't think it'd be wrong to do so. It might get people interested in reading the story of Samson in the Bible. I'm not planning on developing it though lol. I wouldn't neccesarily call it a Christian game ya know? Like one that teaches Christian morals, more so I'd call it a Bible Game that teaches Biblical History... but I suppose that in a way that a Samson game would be teaching Christian morals as well because the Story of Samson teaches Christian morals. But I wouldn't neccesarily call it a Christian Game. See what I'm trying to say?

------------------
3rd Day Studios

"So many laughing at Jesus,"
"While the funniest thing that He's done,"
"Is love this whole stubborn rebellious world,"
"While the hate for Him just goes on."

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

I personaly believe that God desires his people to be warriors. There is a common thread throughout the bible, both OT and NT, of God calling his people to be warriors. In fact when the people of Israel came into the promised land God specificly did not allow them to conquer all of their enemies so that in God's own words the next generation of Israelites "might learn war". One of the things that I love about the bible is its brilliant paradoxes. One of the great paradoxes of christianity is that we are to be warriors and men of peace at the same time, we are to be ready and able to make war, and we are to make peace where ever we go. This is not a contradiction, its a paradox because we can be both warriors and peacemakers, we can wage war and also be men of peace.
I've always found it interesting that one of the most faithful men Jesus met during his ministry, a man he praised for his great faith, was a Roman Centurion, a soldier. The fact that he was a soldier apparently raised no issue for Jesus, nor did it for Peter later when he witnessed to Cornelius (also a roman soldier).

All that said, there is still the question of violence in entertainment. Is it right to derive entertainment from portrayals of violence? In my opinion this is an area of very fine lines. Fine lines are easily crossed and so this is an area for caution.
Most of my life one of my main hobbies has been history, and together with that, historical war gamming (terrain tables with miniature armies and what not). Much of my historical study has specialized in military history ranging from ancient to modern and everything in between. One of the reasons I love military history is that few other events in the scope of human existance display the extremes of human character that war does. In war you see the absolute worst, and the absolute best that man can be. I can't think of any other human endevour that has so clearly displayed the marvelous courage, honor, nobility, and selfless sacrifice (which is the essence of love) of which humanity is capable. I love to see those things. So as a result, when I watch a war movie, such as braveheart, or 13th warrior, or gladiator, or last samurai (some of my personal favorites), its not to gain enjoyment from violence, it is to see honor, selflessness, hope against all odds, determination to do what is right even at the most extreme cost. You don't see those things in Benji, or Finding Nemo, or whatever. The reality is that you only find such things when people are forced to them by terrible struggles... war... natural disaster... things of that nature. If you've ever wondered why God promises his people persecution, struggle, and suffering, rather than simply making everything peachy as soon as you say the sinner's prayer, this is your answer. People only grow, only display great virtue through trial and struggle. The greater the trial, the more virtue you will see people exhibit.

Now the fine line is that people have a propensity to grow to like blood and gore. This is ungodly and unholy. Fascination with gore, death, blood n' guts is not healthy and not godly. Humans are, in a sense, sacred beings because we are made in the image and likeness of God. We are fallen, twisted, and evil by nature, but even still we bear the likeness and image of God. This ultimately is why human life is different than animal life. This is where the real value of human life comes from. To revel in the destruction and mutilation of humans, thus, is a terrible perversion. It is nearly blasphemy.

So how does all that play out? Well, this is my opinion (<-- note the word opinion). I think that games (and other media) which portray being a warrior are good. It is my opinion that being a warrior is an important part of the christian life and that we currently desperately need warriors.
As to portrayals of violence, particularly against humans. This is an area for caution. Gratuitous (sp?) violence is something to be avoided as much as occult, and false religious teachings. Particularly in fantasy settings, there are plenty of ways to avoid violence against humans. However, I do not see value in unnecessarily sheltering people from reality either. The example you use of the story of sampson. This story is part of the bible, and as such is a christian story, not just a bible story... the entire bible is the word of God, not just the new testament. I don't think that we do anyone a service by trying to hide reality from them or changing history, and particularly the bible in order to 'sanitize' it for them. Obviously there may be concerns based on the age of children, and what they are ready to experience and to see, but I'm speaking more of a relatively mature audience of at least teens.

If you are going to use something to speak to people, it needs to reflect reality. Even in fantasy and fiction, if what you are presenting doesn't ring true it won't reach people. I'm not saying by this that everything needs to contain violence or war in order to be effective. Not at all. What I am saying is that being a warrior and the virtues of being a warrior are something very necessary to the christian life, something needed and relevant. I am also saying that if you are trying to speak to someone's heart, if you shy away from the really difficult parts of the story in order to sanitize it some how, I think you run a serious risk of stripping away the reality and the impact from your message.

If you look at all the great stories and legends through out history, right down to our day and age they all have certain things in common. These elements are things that have been identified and seized upon by the better authors in history because they are the factors that speak to us. They resonate, they ring true. Among this list of elements you will not find mindless gore and meaningless pointless violence. You will find one of the greatest characters of all time, the man of peace who must fight. He's been real men, and fictional characters, Hector (and yes even achiles in a way), Arthur, Aragorn, David, Joshua, Caleb, the Maccabees.
Anyway I'm rambling again.. the point is I don't think we should shy away from violence entirely because thats not real, and I don't think its productive or necessary. We deffinetly have to be careful, however, about how and why we portray such things.

This may be a controversial view, hopefully I'm not too far off base

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

To quote Simon_Templar from the thread Games Moral":

quote:

---

first off, killing isn't always evil. Killing is always regretable (at least in some sense), unfortunate, but not always evil. Many christians mistake regretable with evil. When Jesus beat a bunch of people with a whip, it was regretable that circumstance and their evil forced him to have to do that, and I'm sure he would rather have not had to do it, but it wasn't evil. When Cain killed Abel, that was evil, when David killed Goliath it was the right thing to do.

---

quote:

---

Now, having said all that, I must also say that killing, even when justified is never without consequence. Even if killing someone is the right thing to do, it is still regretable, and still has negative effects. The best example of this I can think of is that God forbade David from building the temple specificly because he had too much blood on his hands. David was a man after God's own heart, and even the people he killed were the enemies of God and Israel, it still marked him negatively, and he could not build the temple which was a great desire for him. Its actually an curious paradox of the faith that we are called to be warrior, God is called a warrior, and that is viewed as glorious in scripture, yet we don't and shouldn't revel in killing.

---

The fact that killing, while sometimes permitted, is never without negative consequence, is something that I thought should be brought up in this conversation.

In Christ,
clint

------------------
http://www.includingjudas.com/christiangame.html

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited November 05, 2004).]

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

On more of a game related note, I would have to agree with your statements simon-templar. I don't think it is bad to have violence in a game but the player must understand the consequences of killing. Also I like your word on realism. If something isn't realistic then it lacks any emphasis.

An interesting idea that came up in our game was the addition of a prostitute. The reasoning was to portray certain characters from the bible, Mary Magdelene/Rahab. Obviously we aren't going to show a sex scene to portray the situation, but the point would definately be made. Also after meeting the christians in our game they would realize that what they are doing is wrong. This idea isn't set in stone but I think it shows the same point.

If we as christians don't show the world the right way of handling situations then who will? Our world doesn't know who to follow, don't you think it would be a good idea to show them the way to Christ. That doesn't mean we have to beat people with bibles or convert them in our games. Maybe it is to show the characteristics that we as christians follow.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

hey, if a guy was trying to attack, say, my girlfriend... believe me, I'd take him on. it wouldn't be very loving of me to let him attack her, huh?

------------------
Soterion Studios

------------------
-- ignorance can be educated, immaturity can be grown out of, and drunkeness can be sobered, but stupid lasts forever.

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

unfortunately, I cannot currently think of anything in the new testament.

------------------
Soterion Studios

quote:

---

Originally posted by bennythebear:
if someone can show me in the new testament where we should fight(other than spiritually) please show me, i will pray and then read it.

---

I'm interested in knowing where the New Testament says that husbands should ignore the Old Testament and no longer physically protect our wives from thieves and rapists who come in the night.

Is there a difference in your mind between "turn the other cheek" and "let your wife be raped and killed while you ask the gentleman nicely if he would stop"?

Just so none of you think that the "God of the Old Testament" wasn't merciful, here's a great passage I came across during my reading last night. It comes from Ezekiel 33 (which many of you know as the Watchman chapter, but the part I'm referencing comes right after the Watchman part):

quote:

---

Ezekiel 33:11
Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

---

In Christ,
clint

P.S. Btw Simon_Templar -- I e-mailed you yesterday, but Hotmail bounced the message saying it was delayed in sending (though you may get it today).

------------------
http://www.includingjudas.com/christiangame.html

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited November 12, 2004).]

An observation: Be careful with the mixture of physical and spiritual. Some of the comments I've seen here in this discussion - and in some other threads here - indicate a degree of confusion over what our spiritual response is to be versus what are physical response is to be. The battle between our will and God's will is difficult, no doubt, but as spiritual maturity in God develops the battle becomes easier. Challenges - the decisions we have to make and the choices we have to sort through - will abound, but we can overcome them through and with God.
We (including myself here) need to keep our heart and mind in check so that we are sure our actions come from the right source. If I claim to be a Christian, I need to continue to mature in the ways of God - meaning I need to be aware of His Spirit working in me and giving heed to that process. If my actions toward that process is rooted in my will (physical, the flesh, the old man) then I grieve His Spirit because I essentially toss God's gift (the atonement for sin through His Son, Jesus, and the regeneration of my person - soul, spirit, mind, etc - through His Spirit) aside as unwanted or unneeded waste and therefore deny the power of God over my sin and reject that I ever accepted God's gift in the first place.
I don't want to be that type of Christian, and if any of you are as sincere as I am, I am sure you don't want to be like that either. So be encouraged as we grow together in the ways of God, for we all have trials and temptations, but persevering together in prayer and supplication we can overcome. All of you are in my prayers, and I hope I am in your prayers.

God bless,
Matt

I agree very much that God was merciful in the OT, He hasn't changed even the slightest.. that means both that his attitudes about war are the same now that they were then, and also that his attitudes about mercy and love and peace were the same then that they are now. If that makes any sense

I just sometimes get the impression that people think God is totaly different now than he used to be, and that the OT doesn't really matter anymore because everything is different. Thats not really the case. Many Christians are shocked I think when they read about God in the old testament and in some cases it even goes so far that the God of the OT doesn't fit into their conception of God. My favorite analogy for this concept I guess comes from C.S. Lewis, Chronicles of Narnia, there is a part in Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe, that the beaver is talking about how dangerous Aslan is and the kids are like "what you do mean dangerous, I thought he was a tame lion" and the beaver says "Oh no.. he isn't a tame lion.. but he is good." God it not a tame lion.

PS... It has been said in one of these conversations that we as christians are not part of the world, this is true in part. We are to be in the world but not of the world. The picture created here (and other places in scripture) is that there are two kingdoms or cities. the kingdom of this world, and the Kingdom of God or heaven. We live in the kingdom of this world, but we are citizens of the Kingdom of God, so we are strangers and wanderers in the kingdom of this world.
However, we do have responsabilities before God for the world around us. In scripture when God judges nations judgement falls on the entire nation, including those who believed in God. When Israel and Judah went into captivaty, the righteous were taken right along with the unrighteous. It has been said, and is very true that all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. This concept is true in scripture as well. God says that when he considers judging a place he scoures the land looking for a righteous man who will "stand in the gap" ie. a righteous person who is doing something to fight evil. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, but it is the nature of evil people to do evil.. it should be the nature of good people to oppose evil. Thus if evil is triumphing and running rampant, the righteous bear a greater weight of responsability. In america for example, if abortion is run wild, if homosexuality is rampant if lust and rebellion are seen as virtues, it is the fault of the christians. The people who do those things will be judged, but it is we christians through lack of responsability and lack of understanding that have allowed them to come to pass. Thus I think the idea that we don't need to be concerned with whats going on in the world around us is first unwise because we are the ones who will suffer the most if evil triumphs, both from the evil and then also facing the judgement that God sends upon our nation, and second I think it is shirking our responsability as light and salt in this world.

PPS.. Clint, I didn't get the email yet, if you want to resend it thats cool or I'll be on messanger/ICQ till about 4:30 today as well

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

[This message has been edited by simon_Templar (edited November 12, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by simon_Templar (edited November 12, 2004).]

*edit - added *try

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

[This message has been edited by bennythebear (edited November 12, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by bennythebear (edited November 12, 2004).]

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

*edit - please pray before you read these scriptures, and think about them.
------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

[This message has been edited by bennythebear (edited November 12, 2004).]

------------------
Soterion Studios

The verses you refrence from Romans chapter 12 are very good for the subject at hand. There are several things I'd like to point out that my illuminate my view point.

First, in verse 18 it says "if possible, so far as it depends upon you" (that is specificly in refrence to "living at peace with all men".) This passage implicitly states (by the converse) that it may not always be possible, and it may not always depend upon you. If it is not possible for you to live at peace, and if it does not depend upon you, then it must mean that someone else has forced you to act. An action that they have taken has put you in a position in which it is not possible for you to live at peace with them, and the decision no longer rests with you, ie. they have made the decision. Now, the only way it is possible for someone else to put you in a position where you no longer have a choice about which action to take is if they put you in a position in which your duty to God is absolutely undeniably crystal clear. I can think of no other situation in which we have no choice about what to do. This means that if someone can force us by their action into a position which absolutely requires that we no longer live at peace with them, we must have a duty to God not to live at peace with people under certain circumstances.
I hope that wasn't too confusing, whats clear in my head doesn't always make it clearly into the written word

Secondly is the point of vengance, in this set of verses it says (paraphrased) " never take vengance for yourself, vengance belongs to God, leave people to the wrath of God". I agree with this 100% killing in vengance is never justified. This is even recognised in our 'secular' laws (which are in fact based on scripture originaly). This is also why it is wrong to kill abortion doctors (one example). In order to be self defense or defense of others the life of the person you are defending must be in immanent danger (ie the killer is about to kill them right now and only instant action can save them). Also, as a side note, to really qualify as self defense the killer must be intending to kill.. if someone is about to kill you by accident, you don't have the right to kill them.
Anyway, if you kill someone immediately after they kill your friend, or family member, what you have done is not defense it is vengance, and is murder both under God and under man's law. Thus killing abortion doctors as they leave the clinic, or sit at home is not defense of life, its vengance because there is no immanent threat (I did actually have a discussion about this with a christian who thought it was ok to kill abortion doctors once).
Another point about vengance is that the governments have a mandate to punish certain crimes with death, given by God in scripture, both in the old and in the new testaments. It is in fact the original function of government to maintain justice by punnishing the wicked. This is not revenge. this is one of the reasons our criminal justice system is so screwed up. Punnishment for crime is not about deterent, its not about vengance, and its not about rehabilitation. It is about justice plain and simple. Governments, just like us, can and should be merciful, but there is a difference between mercy and injustice due to not punnishing the guilty.
Some wars are a matter of justice, some wars are a matter of defense, other wars are wrong. (at least I can't think of any other circumstance at the moment which would be right).

The rest of the verses in this section of scripture deal with returning love for hate, loving your enemeies, feeding your enemies, clothing them, returning good for evil and so on. Again this is all true and I agree with it 100%. Where we differ is that I don't believe that war is always an unloving, ungood, act. The easiest example is WWII. I think it is easy to make the case that the US involvement in that war was primarily an act of love and goodness. first it was an act of love to the people that Germany and Japan were killing and oppressing, which in the case of Germany numbered well into the millions, and Japan into the hundreds of thousands at least. Americans died by the thousands to save people they didn't know. Secondly it was an act of love for Japan and Germany. That may come as a shock, but we liberated both countries from the grips of terrible evil. And what did we do after? though these people had been our enemies, tried to kill us, brutalized our men that they had taken prisoner.. After wards we dumped millions of dollars into feeding, clothing, rebuilding their homes, and we even took up the job of defending them. To be honest, in the history of the world that stands out as one of the greatest acts of love by any nation, ever. As an aside I don't mean to suggest that america is perfect, no human is perfect, and even less so any nation. America has its share of dark spots (even in WWII). I merely point out an example of a war that was primarily an act of love.

there is a great section that relates to this topic in C.S. Lewis's mere christianity where he talks about what it means to love people. He was himself a soldier at one point and he makes an example about how the fact that he was at war with the germans didn't mean he didn't love them, and even if he was fighting and killing german soldiers it didn't mean he didn't love them. This is something that is remarkably common among soldiers of european wars and of the american civil war. The soldiers fought because it was their duty to do so, but they didn't hate their enemies, and even showed them kindness and compassion in some cases. It is interesting to note as well that in those particular cases, european wars and the american civil war there were often christians on both sides.

Somewhat related to this topic, but more a thought that just popped into my head and I'd like to get other people's opinions on it..
Can God be unloving, or do something that is unloving? God is Holy and he can not sin, he is truth and he can not lie, he is justice and he can not be or do something that is unjust. God is love... can he do something that is unloving? I would have to say that if God is love itself, it is impossible for him to do sometihng unloving, just as it is impossible for him to sin and so on. If that is the case, however, it would mean that even condemning a wicked person to hell was an act of love... What do you guys think about that?

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

I personally have no problem with self-defense - but I qualify my view with the perspective that anytime I would have (and have had) to resort to such a physical action, my entire demeanor would be (and has been) to reach out to the individual to teach them amid the situation what they are doing (or have done) is wrong and what the right thing to do is. I see no other way to love both a friend and an enemy. If I were to not share the truth of God in the worst situation, I would still fail in my testimony as a Christian whether or not I protected someone.
I have had friends who betrayed my trust and taken advantage of me in the worst ways - whom I have also forgiven by the grace of God and restored the friendship - and some of these have hurt me the same way again and again to the point I had to reject their friendship and break fellowship with them even though I still cared for them greatly. They still remain in my prayers, but it was (and is to this day) a very difficult reality to accept. In that, I am confident I did maintain my testimony - and could only do that through the grace of God and knowing that it is God's love I am to show and not my own (or the sincere lack thereof in some cases). Though I suffered in these things I grew so much more in the understanding of how God deals with us - those who love him but act as though we hate him in some way, or those who hate him period. I am not boasting, but sharing as much as I feel comfortable sharing about experiences I have had as relates to this topic because I do think it is beneficial.

I might be arguing semantics, but I do so because this is a place where words carry all our emotion, intent and meaning - so words are important here as it is the only way we can express ourselves to one another. I stated that because God does not condemn anyone to hell. God wants all people to spend eternity with him, but because he is a loving God he allows us to live our life by our own choosing. God has placed so many indications of his love for us in our life - everything in creation, including other people - that when we open our eyes (in every sense) we can see how much he cares for us. It is only by rejecting these things that a person does not know God.

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

I don't have the right to kill a murderer as punnishment but the government does. When the government does it, it is justice, when I do it its vigilantism and vengance. The reason for this is that God specificly delegated that authority to the government, and specificly did not delegate that authority to me (or other individuals).
The authority or right to take life comes only from God, and it exists because God has delegated it to people in very specific circumstances. Anything that is outside of those circumstances is not right.
The bible teaches that governments are given the power of the sword (the power to take life) by God, but individuals are not, except in the extreme circumstance that you are forced to do so in defense of life. Also, as I said before defense of life absolutely requires that there be imanent threat and imanent intent to kill involved, otherwise it is not justified.

I hope you don't feel too beset upon here benny Its not my intent or anyone elses to beat ya down. I just can't resist a chance to expound

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

------------------
If you let your faith go cold enough, there might come a point where you don't want to turn back to God. That would be tragic. -- Quote from Keith Green

3rd Day Studios

[This message has been edited by brandon (edited November 14, 2004).]

what if, you were on the jury of a trial of a man who killed an abortion doctor to save lives. would you convict him of first degree?
as for me, I'd probably piss of everybody and go for the hung jury. heh.

------------------
Soterion Studios

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

That said, however, the answer to the question is pretty obviously yes, it is a living human being. Some people try to argue this, but more and more its getting to the point where people don't bother because it doesn't work, the answer is still obvious. As a result, most people just try to skip the question and could the issue by raising other questions which are really irrelevant but play on people's emotions.

In answer to the question about being on a jury trying a person for killing an abortion doctor. First, it would depend on the circumstance (time and place of the killing) was the doctor in the midst of performing the operation with the baby's death an immanent fact unavoidable by any other means? If the doctor was not within seconds or minutes (at the very least) of performing the operation then I would find the killer guilty of 2nd degree murder. I don't know about 1st degree though. If the doctor was within seconds of killing the child the issue would be a much bigger question for me, and I would have a hard time finding him guilty. I'd have to think more about it.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

Benny, I would have to say it's your duty to serve jury duty as called. one could look it as Giving unto Caeser's what is Caesers. if we are to enjoy the right to a fair trial, we have to be willing to give up for it too. when your on the jury, you become a part of the government and given the task of a minister of justice.

------------------
Soterion Studios

It's scientific:
-The baby is alive by the scientific definition
-The DNA is human. Not monkey, not cat, not fish. It's human.
-The baby's got a seperate bloodstream from the mother
-The DNA is unique, and is the same DNA he/she will have for the rest of his/her life
-If it weren't for the placenta, the mother's immune system will identify the baby as foreign and attack him/her.

The first statement takes care of the "is it alive?" question.
The last three statements pretty much take care of the "it's my body!" claim.
The second statement takes care of the "is it a human being?" question.

The question "is it a person?" is one I've seen, but it's a red herring: It all hinges on the definition of "person," and it begs the question: Why make such a distinction? It only serves to circumvent science, reasoning, and God in an attempt to rationalize it.

I haven't even touched the Bible yet - and the Bible only solidifies my position. Killing is a sin. Jesus values even the little children. I'm sorry, I cannot find adequate justification in the Bible, in science, or anywhere else to justify the idea that an unborn child should be treated any differently from those who are born.

There's also some excellent articles about the subject here:
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/abort.html

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

[This message has been edited by bennythebear (edited November 15, 2004).]

------------------
Soterion Studios

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

------------------
* Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked in jet engines.

quote:

---

When you say God decides who lives and whoe dies, what about wars?

---

I say we do not try to second guess what is and isn't God's will. We follow his word, and that should determine our path.

quote:

---

I had a friend who researched into it a little (abortion that is) and it turned out that in areas that are very similar, but one abortion was against law, other wasn't, the one with them had lower cold blood death of babies

---

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "cold blood death".

quote:

---

and also many in the anti-abortion place were raising children and ruining there lives.

---

And how does that give them the right to kill an innocent child? If inconvenience and ruined lives are enough to justify murder, perhaps I should kill the bully I had in high school who ruined my life.

Abortions are almost never neccessary. I'd say the only time when an abortion would be neccessary would be when the mother's life is in danger. And even then, the mother should probably have the right to give up her life for the child if that's what she wants.

quote:

---

I don't think abortion is wrong

---

I do not see anywhere in the Bible that makes an exception to the sixth commandment for unborn children.

quote:

---

I don't think I am a lesser Christian for it despite what you guys may say.

---

Of course not. Misguided, but not lesser.

quote:

---

If a child is aborted, it is God's will, no?

---

If a man is murdered in the street, is it God's will? Does that make the act of murder any less wrong?

quote:

---

Oh well, you guys probly won't understand

---

I understand, I just think that simply saying "it's God's will anyways" is not a valid excuse. We are not to jude what is and isn't God's will, for we cannot read his mind.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited November 16, 2004).]

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

It is a fact, in scripture, that God sometimes allows people to do evil so that he can judge them.

In one sense, you could say that there is nothing that happens in the world that is contrary to the will of God, but there is still plenty of sin. God does not will, or purpose evil, but he takes whatever we do, and whatever satan does and makes it serve his purposes. There is always the great debate between free will vs. God sovereignly determining everything.. well I believe we have free will (most of the time) but that in no way removes or infringes upon God's sovereignty. Even the Haulocaust served God's purposes and that was possibly the most evil act of the 20th century. Incidentaly abortion is one of the few things that can actually rival the haulocaust and the communist purges in Russia and China for sheer destruction of life (the most innocent life at that).

The truth is there is nothing you, or I, or even Satan can do, no matter how vile and wicked, that God will not make serve his will. That doesn't remove the responsability for our deeds from us.

I would like to be nice and pat everyone on the back and say, yes we're all good christians and sing cum by ya, but I can't. If abortion is not an evil act, then nothing is. The only thing that could possibly mitigate some of the responsability due to those who condone it is that perhaps it is out of ignorance.

"their angels do always behold the face of my father"
"if anyone offend one of these or cause them to stumble, it were better for that man that he were never born, or that he be cast into the sea with a millstone around his neck".

There is always the possability that I'm wrong, but I would consider being burned to death in saline, or choppped into little pieces, or having a scisors jabbed into the back of my skull and my spinal cord cut to be offending.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

ps (if i saw someone about to kill an abortion doctor i would completely ignore it cause i enforce the idea that it is a crime and murder) sorry bye

------------------
Im looking down the road of life and.....all i can see is CRAP!!!!