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 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 521-524 next last
To: P-Marlowe; Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee; Calvinist_Dark_Lord
*chuckle* Remember a few years ago when I was called a modalist and a heretic because I questioned whether "three Persons" was the best way of expressing the Godhead? I've since come to the conclusion that I was right, but that the original Nicene and Athenasian Creeds are technically right as well.

The confusion stems from the fact that the meaning of the key terms--"person" and "begotten" in particular--has changed over time, but the translations haven't kept up and the churches haven't done a good job of educating their people.

The fact is that the Diety of Messiah isn't that difficult to illustrate if one simply accepts that He is the embodiment of what Scripture calls God's Word, His Glory, His Face, His Right Arm, His Wisdom, His Light, His Torah--that which the rabbis call the Sh'khinah. He is generated rather than created or fashioned from God, who is the Father. Just as the Sun doesn't sit down with tools and fashion light, but rather generates light as part of its quintessential nature, so God generates (begets) His Light as a part of His nature.

That illustration, btw, was used by both Tertullian and Irenaeus (if anyone wants to challenge their credentials as Christians, go right on ahead), and by R. Eliezer in explaining the Sh'khinah, the Divine Presence.

Pretty much my only problem with Trinitarianism is its tendency to overemphasize "Tri-". HaShem Echad. Too many Christians are functional Tri-theists, utterly ignorant of their own creeds (even though they'll instantly question the salvation of someone who questions them) and incapable of answering even basic questions about Trinitarianism themselves.

I'm not shooting this at anyone being pinged here. I'm just lamenting the situation in general, especially since it personally impacted me a few years ago, including the loss of at least one FRiend. I still greatly appreciate the support I got from my fellow Neeners.

If I hadn't gotten that support, and if I hadn't delved into this matter through not only Scripture directly, but through both the Christian and the Jewish commentators, I too might have come to the conclusion that "Trinity" was a 4th Century heresy that needed to be expunged rather than being simply misunderstood by the vast majority of its adherants.

Shalom.

421 posted on 04/08/2010 9:49:05 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

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

Nope. If anyone has issues with them it isn't me. I certainly believe God is invisible and that no one has seen him at any time. You don't.

You believe that Jesus is God and therefore God was seen.

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

Are you seriously trying to say because of the word Lord (referring to God) you are making a case that Jesus is God? Remember, God is one and there is one God. Saying that God has multiple personalities or beings is more like baal worship than worshipping El Shaddai, the father of Jesus Christ who had not yet been born when Abraham was alive.

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

Speakinf Jesus: Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Yes, Jesus WAS tempted even though you disagree. The Bible clearly says he was.

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted. If he was not enticed then there was no testing, no proving of anything!

Jesus is different than God. When the Bible says God it means God and when it says Jesus it means Jesus, the two are not interchangable.

It actually encouraged me to be separated from historical traditional Christianity. I have the heartfelt belief that the Church was infiltrated just as was Isreal's priesthood. The parallels between worshipping The Baalim and The Trinity are too uncanny to be coincidence.

And face it, if Baal worship wasn't a seduction then there would have been no deciept or trickery involved.

You have remarkably demonstrated straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!

You reject the obvious and dwell on the sublime.

Hey, my place isn't to convince you, it is just to present it to you. If I do that then when you reject it, and you will, I have done my part.

You haven't refuted any of the scriptures I have presented, you have only tried to play 'gotchya' with isolated verses sometimes taken terrible out of context.

This is something that a child can grasp easily; Jesus is God's son by miraculous conception. God is the father of Jesus. The son is not the father and the father is not the son. They are two, but one in purpose. Remember, they even had separate wills...Jesus prayed that not my will but thine be done? How can God say that to or about himself?

422 posted on 04/08/2010 10:02:50 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 416 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Oh...I don’t think the Trininty is 4th century at all.

I think it is one of many polytheistic seductions that have been around since Lucifer was kicked out of heaven.


423 posted on 04/08/2010 10:05:55 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 421 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Excellent post! Thanks.


424 posted on 04/08/2010 10:06:40 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
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?

I'm by no means a Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic scholar. I do have several reference materials for those languages, however.

The interlinear, for instance shows several discrepancies between the Stephen's text with it's translation and the KJV. Also having studied in Germany with Christians that do not use the KJV but the German translation of the same texts, it amuses them of the use of holy ghost instead of holy spirit. They just shake their heads at it due to the INCONSISTENT translation in the KJV.

Additionally, the KJV has punctuation which in many cases is totally subjective and even simply incorrect at times. Man's private interpretation since the ancient texts did not include punctuation. Or capitals.

425 posted on 04/08/2010 10:12:24 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 415 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

see above one or two posts. I boo-booed.


426 posted on 04/08/2010 10:13:15 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
Thus proving my point about functional tri-theism.

For the record, the rabbis have always understood the Sh'khinah, the Divine Presence, and the Holy Spirit to be simultaneously of God and sent from God. They teach that the Torah is God's wisdom (thus, an attribute of the Holy One rather than a creation) which was with Him in the beginning and which He used to create the universe. The Talmud and other rabbinic sources frequently portray conversations between the Holy One and the Sh'khinah, or the Holy One and the Torah. And yet we still affirm, HaShem Echad.

Your "polytheism" charge betrays an ignorance of Christianity's Jewish roots. It also betrays a lack of understanding in Scripture. The Glory (Kevod) of God filled the Holy Place from the days of Moses to the days of Ezekiel. Does that mean that God was not on His throne in Heaven?

Shalom.

427 posted on 04/08/2010 10:18:26 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

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

Maybe the same. Both are systematic approaches to fool people.

Let me ask you this: In all honesty, why doesn't the Christian Church today manifest even a minute portion of the power that it manifested in the first century?

Didn't Jesus say that those that believed on him would do the same AND GREATER works than he did?

Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Wow. If Jesus is God, then he just promised us that his believers would do works greater than God's!

Hey, I don't believe that but you must!

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

Quite frankly it isn't relevant or of anyone else's business. Jesus did not create denominations. I belong to the Church Of the Body of Christ. I am a member of that body; one that some might find offensive but necessary. LOL.

428 posted on 04/08/2010 10:22:19 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 417 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
For the record, the rabbis have always understood the Sh'khinah, the Divine Presence, and the Holy Spirit to be simultaneously of God and sent from God.

I'm not in any disagreement there.

As I would understand it, God is spirit and God is holy. God is THE Holy Spirit and that which eminates from him is holy spirit. (and yes, I believe in unholy spirit)

The Glory (Kevod) of God filled the Holy Place from the days of Moses to the days of Ezekiel. Does that mean that God was not on His throne in Heaven?

No more than JEHOVAH-JIREH, JEHOVAH-NISSI, or JEHOVAH-SHALOM, etc. demonstrate a pluralistic JEHOVAH.

The old testament is clear...hear o isreal the lord thy God is one God.

429 posted on 04/08/2010 10:36:20 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 427 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
As I would understand it, God is spirit and God is holy. God is THE Holy Spirit and that which eminates from him is holy spirit.

No real problems so far. You acknowledge that though God is One, He has a Spirit and is the Spirit which nevertheless can go forth from Him to brood over the waters, inspire the prophets, and live in the Redeemed.

The old testament is clear...hear o isreal the lord thy God is one God.

Agreed, and I recite the Shema every morning and evening. Nevertheless, you have not answered my question: Does the indwelling of God's Glory in the Mikdash mean that He left His throne in Heaven? And if not, why could that same Glory not dwell in the Temple Not Built With Hands, Yeshua the Messiah while His Father also remained on His Throne in Heaven?

Shalom.

430 posted on 04/08/2010 10:40:56 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee; Buggman
It's nice to know that a guy like you armed with an interlinear bible with absolutely no training in Greek or Hebrew and a copy of Strongs is more qualified to interpret the scriptures than all the Hebrew and Greek scholars in the Catholic and Protestant churches who have lived over the past 2000 years.

You should teach a class or maybe start your own Religion. But I have a feeling that your religion was started about 150 years ago by one Charles Russell.

431 posted on 04/08/2010 10:41:36 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; xzins; P-Marlowe
Truthfully, I'm not interested in debating the Trinity with you.

You hold beliefs that I and nearly EVERY Christian in the past two thousand years has held to be heretical. Moreover, you have been resolute in your refusal to say where you learned these beliefs (I have never seen anything in any Christian concordance like Strong's that rejects the Holy Trinity). Additionally, you speak at length about the KJV, but then you turn around and fault it's translation. If you find a translation of the Bible where the word NAME in Matthew 28:19 is pluralized, please let me know.

432 posted on 04/08/2010 11:01:11 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee
To be fair, there are several passages that are routinely mis-translated, Marlowe. Nearly all translations misrepresent the tens of thousands of Jewish believers in Acts 21:20 as merely "thousands," and I've only found one translation that gets Hebrews 4:9 correct--it's not "rest," nor is it "Sabbath-rest"--the word means "Sabbath-keeping," just for two examples.

Still, simply saying, "Look, I have a Strong's!" is non-starter. So do a ton of the people who believe in the Trinity. If one's going to try to overthrow a whole theology, one had better be prepared with actual arguments.

Shalom.

433 posted on 04/08/2010 11:11:38 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Well, you seem not to have caught the significance of Abe’s eating with the Lord.

Hint: we were talking about the invisible part.


434 posted on 04/08/2010 11:44:24 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 422 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
You should teach a class or maybe start your own Religion.

If anyone is planning to start a new religion, especially one that denies two thousand years of Christian belief, I would suggest a "megachurch" and eventually a weekly TV show. The trick is to get as many members as possible and to give regular (at least monthly) sermons on tithing. Then speak of how God wants everyone to be very wealthy and use yourself as an example.

Know that you will probably burn in Hell for leading so many astray and you will be ridiculed endlessly for your bizarre beliefs; but if you do it right, your earthly rewards will at least be plentiful.

435 posted on 04/08/2010 12:13:50 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
(I have never seen anything in any Christian concordance like Strong's that rejects the Holy Trinity).

I don't think that was the issue. I was asked about my ability to understand the ancient languages and I offered a partial list of reference I use.

Howver, I believe there is a section in the back of each that compares translations and versions. In these sections it highlights some areas where the KJV has text that is totally unsupported by the Greek texts, words simply added by the KJV authors.

Moreover, you have been resolute in your refusal to say where you learned these beliefs

Where do I get my beliefs? I can read the Bible! Obviously you and your collegues have not done so with enough thoroughness for this conversations since I have corrected some obvious error. Even as a child I thought the trinity was hooey. There are too many obivous contradictions and suspensions of logic in that theory to be plausible and frankly I'm astonished that it fools as many people as it does.

Funny thing is that you cannot defend your theory and you fail to debunk the clear scriptures and scriptural concepts that I have listed for you.

You demand that I answer your questions about this verse or that verse yet you do answer my questions at all.

If you cannot explain how Jesus can be God when he clearly states that his followers will do greater works than he (Jesus) did, or how Jesus can be God if God is not a man and is invisible, or how Jesus can be God if God raised Jesus from the dead, or how Jesus can be God if Jesus sits at the right hand of God, then your whole theory goes up in smoke.

436 posted on 04/08/2010 12:58:24 PM 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 432 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Know that you will probably burn in Hell for leading so many astray and you will be ridiculed endlessly for your bizarre beliefs; but if you do it right, your earthly rewards will at least be plentiful.

Sheol? Hades? Thanatos? Or the lake of fire?

Your statement clearly shows that you are judging my salvation and standing with God. Nothing in Romans 10:9,10 says that I have to confess Jesus as God, but as Lord, and there is a huge difference.

I wonder if you tell your kids to follow the crowds because what is popular is probably right?

Or do you tell your kids that if the world pats them on the back then so will God?

Believing that Jesus is the Son of God shouldn't seem so odd to you.

437 posted on 04/08/2010 1:01:45 PM 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 435 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
It's nice to know that a guy like you armed with an interlinear bible with absolutely no training in Greek or Hebrew and a copy of Strongs is more qualified to interpret the scriptures than all the Hebrew and Greek scholars in the Catholic and Protestant churches who have lived over the past 2000 years.

Your sarcasm is noted.

Do you really think that one must attend a seminary to understand the Bible?

If the concordances, interlinears, etc aren't for the lay person then what good are they?

I was under the impression that Martin Luther shattered the elitist notion that only the Chosen Few could read and interpret God's will for us....but maybe I was wrong?

Funny how you saw and defended the clarity of the verse in Leviticus as being solid, clear, and straight forward enough to possibly adjust your thinking but now you can't or won't.

Look at the many differences between Jesus and God.

Now if someone wants to claim that Jesus has divine blood because of his miraculous conception (you do agree with me on that, don't you?) and that his blood never mixed with humans descended from Adam then I can't argue with you. That pure, innocent blood is the only means by which our sins could be cleansed and forgiven.

438 posted on 04/08/2010 1:10:00 PM 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 431 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe; xzins
Howver, I believe there is a section in the back of each that compares translations and versions. In these sections it highlights some areas where the KJV has text that is totally unsupported by the Greek texts, words simply added by the KJV authors.

As I said, when you find a translation where NAME is pluralized in Matthew 28:19, let me know. If you do, it will be a mistranslation because ALL of the known Greek manuscripts use the word onoma and it is singular.

Where do I get my beliefs? I can read the Bible! Obviously you and your collegues have not done so with enough thoroughness for this conversations since I have corrected some obvious error.

No, you have shown where your beliefs depart from two thousand years of Christian beliefs.

439 posted on 04/08/2010 1:15:15 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe; xzins
Your statement clearly shows that you are judging my salvation and standing with God.

Unless you have started your own church and are preaching heresy I have done nothing of the sort.

440 posted on 04/08/2010 1:16:53 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 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