Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What About Abortion in Cases of Rape and Incest? Women and Sexual Assault
Life News ^ | 4/5/10 | Amy Sobie

Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee

LifeNews.com Note: Amy Sobie is the editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute. The organization is a widely respected leader in research and analysis of medical, mental health and other complications resulting from abortions.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

“How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?”

Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this “fact,” it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a “rapist’s child.”

But in fact, the welfare of a mother and her child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. As the stories of many women confirm, both the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

Sadly, however, the testimonies of women who have actually been pregnant through sexual assault are routinely left out of this public debate. Many people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, may be forming opinions based on their own prejudices and fears rather than the real life experiences of those people who have been in this difficult situation and reality.

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.1

Several reasons were given for not aborting. Many women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not believe in abortion, believing it would be a further act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Further, many believe that their children’s lives may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

The woman may also sense, at least at a subconscious level, that if she can get through the pregnancy she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength, and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture.

Adding to the Trauma

Many people assume that abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and get on with her life. But evidence shows that abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back the clock to make a woman “un-pregnant.”

Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with deep ramifications for a woman’s life, then we must look carefully at the special circumstances of the pregnant sexual assault victim. Evidence indicates that abortion doesn't help and only causes further injury to an already bruised psyche?

But before we even get to this issue, we must ask: do most women who become pregnant as a result of sexual assault want to abort?

In our survey of women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, many women who underwent abortions indicated that they felt pressured or were strongly directed by family members or health care workers to have abortions. The abortion came about not because of the woman's desire to abort but as a response to the suggestions or demands of others. In many cases, resources such as health workers, counselors and others who are normally there to help women after sexual assault pushed for abortion.

Family pressure, withholding of support and resources that the woman needed to continue the pregnancy, manipulative an inadequate counseling and other problems all played a role into pushing women into abortions, even though abortion was often not what the woman really wanted.

Further, in almost every case involving incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of these women reported having any input into the decision. Each was simply expected to comply with the choice of others. In several cases, the abortion was carried out over the objections of the girl, who clearly told others that wanted to continue the pregnancy. In a few cases, victim was not even clearly aware that she was pregnant or that the abortion was being carried out.

"Medical Rape"

Second, although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault.

This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. Even if she protests and asks the abortionist to stop, chances are she will be either ignored or told that it's too late to stop the abortion.

For many women this experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not the aborted child was conceived during an act of assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than are other women.

Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them. Jackie wrote:

I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.2

Those encouraging, pushing or insisting on abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with sexual assault victims, or perhaps because they harbor some prejudice against victims whom they feel “let it happen.” Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a “quick and easy” way to avoid dealing with the woman’s true emotional, social and financial needs. As Kathleen wrote:

I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child “conceived in rape,” feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story.

Trapping the Incest Victim

The case against abortion for incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a truly loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

But while the girl may see her pregnancy as a possible way of release from her situation, it poses a threat to her abuser. It is also poses a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge the abuse. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced or forced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.

For example, Edith, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child:

Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss . . . The abortion which was to “be in my best interest” just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only ‘saved their reputations,’ ‘solved their problems,’ and ‘allowed their lives to go merrily on.’ . . . My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."

Abortion businesses who routinely ignore this evidence and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest are actually contributing to the victimization of young girls. Not only are they robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.

For example, the parents of three teenaged Baltimore girls pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape and child sexual abuse. The father had repeatedly raped the three girls over a period of at least nine years, and the rapes were covered up by at least ten abortions. At least five of the abortions were performed by the same abortionist at the same clinic.3

Sadly, there is strong evidence that failing to ask questions about the pregnancy and to report cases of sexual abuse are widespread at abortion clinics. Undercover investigations by pro-life groups have found numerous cases in which clinics agreed to cover up cases of statutory rape or ongoing abuse of minor girls by older men and simply perform an abortion instead.

In 2002 a judge found a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona negligent for failing to report a case in which a 13-year-old girl was impregnated and taken for an abortion by her 23-year-old foster brother. The abortion business did not notify authorities until the girl returned six months later for a second abortion. A lawsuit alleged that the girl was subjected to repeated abuse and a second abortion because Planned Parenthood failed to notify authorities when she had her first abortion. The girl's foster brother was later imprisoned for abusing her.4

Finally, we must recognize that children conceived through sexual assault also deserve to have their voices heard. Rebecca Wasser-Kiessling, who was conceived in a rape, is rightfully proud of her mother’s courage and generosity and wisely reminds us of a fundamental truth that transcends biological paternity: “I believe that God rewarded my birth mother for the suffering she endured, and that I am a gift to her. The serial rapist is not my creator; God is.”

Similarly, Julie Makimaa, who works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault, proclaims, “It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.”

That’s a slogan we can all live with.


Citations

1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

2. David C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1987), 206.

3. Jean Marbella, "Satisfactory explanations of sex crime proved elusive," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31, 1990; M. Dion Thompson, "GBMC, doctor suspected nothing amiss," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31. 1990; "Family Horror Comes to Light in Story of Girls Raped by Father," Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1990; Raymond L. Sanchez, "Mother Sentenced in Rape Case," Baltimore Sun, Dec. 6, 1990.

4. "Planned Parenthood Found Negligent in Reporting Molested Teen's Abortion," Pro-Life Infonet, attributed to Associated Press; Dec. 26, 2002.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; moralabsolutes; prolife; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 521-524 next last
To: P-Marlowe

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!


401 posted on 04/07/2010 9:07:43 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!


402 posted on 04/07/2010 9:09:14 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Thanks AG. I needed that. :-)


403 posted on 04/07/2010 9:09:29 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It seems to me there cannot really be a "legal consensus" without an underlying social/moral consensus. Which evidently we do lack.

Indeed, and it gets worse every day in the name of tolerance.

Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

404 posted on 04/07/2010 9:13:31 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
These world-beaters use the same old tired arguments and methods that have always failed in human history. But they don't let that discourage them. All they care about is "rhetorical plausibility" in the face of what they consider to be "dimwits," for so long as it takes to secure "unchallengeable" power for themselves and their cohorts. They know that, once securely in power, they can quell "dissent" in many, many highly effective ways....

If history is any guide; that is, if past tells us anything about future, many of those who are presently "most certainly alive" perish under such regimes.

Indeed.

Maranatha, Jesus!!!

405 posted on 04/07/2010 9:16:19 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
You do realized that your position on the Trinity is not only heretical,

Go back to my listing a few posts ago. Find the false ones. Oh. They don't exist.

God cannot equal Christ and Christ cannot equal God if there is even one small difference.

Remember, it was the organized religious leaders of Christ's time that had him killed. The refuge of Satan has been in false religion since the fall of man.

Do you think Isreal fell to idolotry because they were stupid? No. They were tricked by (sincere) religious leaders who lead them astray bit by bit. Seduction by a counterfeit.

IMO the trinity has more in common with baal worship than with Christ.

There is one God. God is one.

That flies in the face of a three person godhead or a god that is three.

The Bible states clearly and unambiguously in dozens of places that Jesus is the son of God and that God is the father of Jesus.

Those clear and unambiguous verses should be the foundation for interpretation and not twisted to fit philosophies built on unclear or ambiguous verses, just as Leviticus 17:11 is clear about life being in the blood, I have to look at God being the invisible spirit father of Christ as a different entity than Christ.

Sons often resemble their fathers but they are not their father. If a son so perfectly represents his father in will and purpose then they are one. Jesus stated that his followers were one with him as well.

Jesus so perfectly represented the Father (since he is the sole mediator between men and God) that he was able to state that seeing him was (the same as) seeing the invisible father!

Most people accept what they are taught in church without question. The accept the illogical idea that one is three and three is one when they are told it is a mystery or that God can do what ever he wants and that we are not to question it.

My KJV says that God has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness (meaning an understanding and relationship with God) and so there may be things that we don't always understand but there should be nothing held back universally to prevent us from knowing and understanding God as He wants us to.

If me being an earthly father want good things for my kids and want them to know me, how much more can God want those same things?

Romans 10:9,10 are key to salvation. I believe them and also believe that they hold the conditions for salvation. You either do or you don't.

It is clear to me that Paul (who was a Jew of Jews) was totally monotheistic and understood the difference between God and Christ.

God sent Christ. Paul saw Christ. Paul did not see God since no man has seen God at any time. Christ cannot be God.

When the ambiguous verses are used for the foundation then there are numerous contradictions.

When the clear verses are used for the foundation then the ambiguous verses can be examined closely and the truth determined from them.

Bottom line is that if I am incorrect then I have wrongly divided the word of truth, but if trinitarians are wrong then they are worshipping in idolotry.

406 posted on 04/08/2010 5:33:29 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Do you attend a formal church which shares your position on the Trinity? The only formal religious organization of which I am aware which shares your view is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you are not a JW, then are you a member of any specific sect or denomination?

I am very curious about this.

Thanks

Marlowe


407 posted on 04/08/2010 5:52:55 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Eagle Eye

I know I said I was going to drop the subject on this thread, but I would be interested in knowing Eagle Eye’s view of Matthew 28:19.

In EVERY translation of this verse that I have ever seen the word NAME is singular, it is not plural.

If the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have ONE Name, They are ONE, not separate, not “one mind”, simply ONE.


408 posted on 04/08/2010 6:09:01 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
The Bible states clearly and unambiguously in dozens of places that Jesus is the son of God and that God is the father of Jesus.

The bible also describes Jesus as "The first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, and the Almighty."

409 posted on 04/08/2010 6:13:57 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; P-Marlowe

How about y’all looking at those verses in light of the clear and unambiguous verses?

Remember, sometimes the KJV is poorly translated and/or sometimes our understanding is skewed.

If God is invisible, if he is not a man, if he is the father, and Jesus is visible, a man, and God’s son, then what does that do to those isolated verses?

Does it put those verses at odds with the clear verses?

I certainly believe that there are verses that on the surface support trinitarian ideas, but those verses end up contradicting the clear, unambiguous verses.

There are a few cases where legitimate figures of speech and ancient customs come into play and most westerners do not recognize or understand these terms.

I will always strive to stand firm on the clear verses and try to understand the others in light of them rather than take an ambiguous or indirect verse and interpret it regardless of what the clear verses say.

Once upon a time I was taught to tithe regularly, but my research could not find the use of tithing in the NT at all. Gifts and offerings, yes. Tithing, no. And no, that did not make me popular with clergy. God loves a hilarious giver, not one simply following the law.


410 posted on 04/08/2010 6:45:31 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe; xzins
Remember, sometimes the KJV is poorly translated and/or sometimes our understanding is skewed.

I am unaware of ANY translation of Matthew 28:19 where the word NAME is pluralized into names.

If God is invisible, if he is not a man, if he is the father, and Jesus is visible, a man, and God’s son, then what does that do to those isolated verses?

I suggest you read the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John. He spells it out very clearly, the in beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word WAS God and then the Word became flesh.

I certainly believe that there are verses that on the surface support trinitarian ideas, but those verses end up contradicting the clear, unambiguous verses.

As P-M and I have both asked, do you belong to some specific religious group or is this all just based on your personal interpretation of Scripture?

I will always strive to stand firm on the clear verses and try to understand the others in light of them rather than take an ambiguous or indirect verse and interpret it regardless of what the clear verses say.

Do you actually do that or do you just pick and choose which ones to stand clear on?

411 posted on 04/08/2010 6:52:38 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
How about y’all looking at those verses in light of the clear and unambiguous verses?

How about y'all answering my question about what church you belong to or attend?

Remember, sometimes the KJV is poorly translated and/or sometimes our understanding is skewed.

And you obviously know that because you are a much better Hebrew and Greek Scholar than the team of scholars who translated the KJV, right?

BTW since you use the KJV rather than the original languages, don't you find it odd that literally NONE of the KJV Scholars who translated the KJV held to your view of the Trinity?

Does it put those verses at odds with the clear verses?

Have you studied Biblical Hermenutics?

I certainly believe that there are verses that on the surface support trinitarian ideas, but those verses end up contradicting the clear, unambiguous verses.

Have you studied the Original Languages and the Early Church Fathers theological papers? Do you not find it incongruous that those who Cannonized the scripture held to a view of scripture that is wholly opposed to your own? If you trust them on the idea of which books and which verses properly belong in the Bible, then should you not also give some deference to what their interpretation of the Scripture was when they so Cannonized it?

So tell me, what Church, if any, do you attend or are a member? Does your Church agree with your position regarding the Deity of Christ?

412 posted on 04/08/2010 6:57:27 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe
Trinitarianism is the mark of historic Christianity.

It is evident at the baptism of Jesus when (1) The Son is Baptised, (2) The Father speaks, (3) The Holy Spirit descends.

Believe what you want, Eagle, but you'll not be following the same faith as the Church founded by Jesus Christ if you follow anything other than historic Christian Trinitarianism.

As Wagglebee cited: "...and the Word was God."

413 posted on 04/08/2010 7:12:36 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: xzins
As Wagglebee cited: "...and the Word was God."

If Jesus is God then no body saw him and we know that is not the case.

What you are doing is what I emphatically cautioned against!

By using isolated verses like John 1 you end up with a model that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You assert that John 1 proves that Jesus is God but then totally ignore that God is invisible, etc etc.

Based on the clear and unambiguous verses, Jesus Christ cannot be God and God cannot be Jesus Christ!

With all due respect, your research is not even to the same level of integrity of the man made global warming 'scientists'!

John 1 is a very beautiful section but it doesn't mean what you claim.

Again, in order for Jesus to be God you have to contradict dozens and dozens of clear, unambiguous scriptures and concepts.

Can God be tempted with evil? No. Was Jesus tempted with evil. Yes.

It is really very simple, but it takes years even centuries of indoctrination to get people to accept that when the Bible says that there is one God and that God is one that that really means that there are 3 Gods and/or that God is 3 and not one.

And the best part is....it is all a mystery, right?

Whenever we can't explain the broken logic and contridictory verses we can always claim it a Divine Mystery! Yes!

414 posted on 04/08/2010 7:35:45 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
And you obviously know that because you are a much better Hebrew and Greek Scholar than the team of scholars who translated the KJV, right?

Have you ever used an interlinear? or even a concordance? It is amazing what simple tools like Berry's or Young's and Strong's can show you.

Why did it take until the 4th Century to formalize Jesus as God? And why does that doctrine cause so many major contridictions?

When y'all can explain how those many clear verses and concepts that show differences between God and Jesus work then I'll return the favor on the other verses, but until then it just shows that you have failed to look at your religious template with an honest and critical eye.

Jesus taught STRONGLY about truth versus tradition...maybe it is time for y'all to look at some of your traditions in light of the truth of God's word instead of what centuries of traditions have taught?

415 posted on 04/08/2010 7:46:25 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe; wagglebee

It sounds like your issues are “invisibility” and “temptation”....is that right?

Abraham ate dinner with the Lord prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Didn’t he?

Temptation: It says that God can’t be tempted with evil? Jesus wasn’t tempted because the temptor came to him. In fact, the point of the story was that He was NOT tempted

Both synonyms and various usages of the same word are common in most languages. That is true of Greek and Hebrew as well.

One usage of “temptation” is “enticed to sin.” God cannot be enticed to sin.

Another usage is “put to the test.”

In Jesus’ case, Satan put Jesus to the test, but Jesus was not enticed.

As I said before: you are not in the tradition of historic Christianity, EE.


416 posted on 04/08/2010 7:50:09 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; xzins; P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
By using isolated verses like John 1 you end up with a model that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You assert that John 1 proves that Jesus is God but then totally ignore that God is invisible, etc etc.

The first chapter of the Gospel of Saint John is very clear.

Based on the clear and unambiguous verses, Jesus Christ cannot be God and God cannot be Jesus Christ!

And people wonder why the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura.

With all due respect, your research is not even to the same level of integrity of the man made global warming 'scientists'!

So, you think that two thousand years of orthodox Christian belief has less integrity than a hoax?

Why are you so reluctant to answer the simple question of what denomination you belong to?

417 posted on 04/08/2010 7:53:20 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee; Buggman; Calvinist_Dark_Lord
Have you ever used an interlinear? or even a concordance? It is amazing what simple tools like Berry's or Young's and Strong's can show you.

I'll accept that response as a "no".

Why did it take until the 4th Century to formalize Jesus as God?

Because the clear teachings of the first century were being perverted by heretics who thought they knew more than the Apostles and their immediate disciples. Error was creeping into the Church and the various churches got together to make a formal statement as to what the Church Fathers and the Apostles had been teaching for 400 years.

When y'all can explain how those many clear verses and concepts that show differences between God and Jesus work then I'll return the favor on the other verses, but until then it just shows that you have failed to look at your religious template with an honest and critical eye.

If I were to show you the clear verses in the Bible that confirm that Jesus Christ is God Almighty, would you change your view? Are you open to being taught on this subject, or is your current view the one you plan on taking to the grave?

So what Church do you attend or what church are do you hold membership? Or are you just a "Lone Christian" making up your theology as you go?

BTW I am pining our resident Greek and Hebrew Scholars to this thread in case there is a question regarding the original intent of the scriptures.

418 posted on 04/08/2010 8:09:09 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
And people wonder why the Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura.

Eagle Eye is not practicing "sola scriptura". Sola Scriptura is a historic-grammatical interpretation of scripture that takes into account all scripture, its history, and its correct interpretation.

EE is obviously not doing that.

419 posted on 04/08/2010 8:19:46 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I don’t know what this is, but it clearly illustrates the danger of simply handing a person a Bible and telling them to figure it out on their own.


420 posted on 04/08/2010 9:00:51 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 521-524 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson