Life Issues - Revision history

Wakefien: /* An Old Testament Passage */

2018-11-28T14:44:11Z

‎An Old Testament Passage

Wakefien: /* An Old Testament Passage */

2018-11-28T14:43:56Z

‎An Old Testament Passage

Wakefien: /* Death Culture */

2018-11-15T15:08:16Z

‎Death Culture

Wakefien: /* The Case of George */

2018-11-14T15:16:56Z

‎The Case of George

Wakefien: /* The Case of George */

2018-11-14T15:15:53Z

‎The Case of George

Wakefien: /* The Case of George */

2018-11-14T15:15:42Z

‎The Case of George

Wakefien: /* Power */

2018-11-14T15:14:21Z

‎Power

Wakefien: /* Introduction */

2018-11-14T15:03:13Z

‎Introduction

Wakefien: /* Abortion */

2018-11-09T17:16:35Z

‎Abortion

Wakefien: /* The Selfishness of Abortion */

2018-11-09T17:12:29Z

‎The Selfishness of Abortion

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 ===An Old Testament Passage===
 *One passage that appears to at least be related to abortion is Exodus 21:22-24.  How might this passage be interpreted?
-**there are two basic approaches to interpreting this passage, a minimalist and a maximalist approach. <blockquote>The Old Testament scholar C. F. Keil adopts the maximum view, arguing that the “there is no harm” clause refers to both mother and child. The idea is that if the premature baby survives, recompense is limited to damages paid for the inconvenience and mental anguish suffered by the mother, as claimed by the husband and awarded by the judge. But if the child is harmed or dies, the full measure of the lex talonis (eye for eye) is to apply. In this reading, the unborn fetus is so highly valued by Scripture that the life-for-life principle is applied, and the unintentional causing of abortion in the midst of an unrelated violent act warrants the death penalty. If this interpretation is correct, we would have decisive evidence that Scripture considers the unborn fetus as “life” in the fullest legal sense.<ref>ibid. pg 84</ref></blockquote>
+**there are two basic approaches to interpreting this passage, a minimalist and a maximalist approach. <blockquote>The Old Testament scholar C. F. Keil adopts the maximum view, arguing that the “there is no harm” clause refers to both mother and child. The idea is that if the premature baby survives, recompense is limited to damages paid for the inconvenience and mental anguish suffered by the mother, as claimed by the husband and awarded by the judge. But if the child is harmed or dies, the full measure of the lex talonis (eye for eye) is to apply. In this reading, the unborn fetus is so highly valued by Scripture that the life-for-life principle is applied, and the unintentional causing of abortion in the midst of an unrelated violent act warrants the death penalty. If this interpretation is correct, we would have decisive evidence that Scripture considers the unborn fetus as “life” in the fullest legal sense.<ref>ibid. pg 84</ref></blockquote> <blockquote>The minimal view of the text argues that the “there is no harm” clause refers exclusively to the mother. Under this schema, the abortion of the fetus would not invoke the lex talonis or legally be considered murder or loss of life. Only if further complications affect the mother does the “eye for eye, life for life” equation apply. The inference then would be that Scripture does not regard the fetus as “life.” The fetus would be protected by the law, however, and its value could be established via a lawsuit. Some push this position further by arguing that though legal indemnities may be imposed, they are initiated by the claims of the husband. The unspoken presumption is that the “value” of the fetus is determined to some degree by the subjective values attached by the parents. In this “case,” the Scriptures deal with an abortion or miscarriage imposed from without, apart from the design of the parents, who presumably desire the pregnancy to reach its full term. The passage is then made of no consequence to the question of an intentional abortion performed according to the will and design of the parents. The minimal view thus protects the parents and not the fetus.<ref>ibid. pg 84-85</ref></blockquote>
 **What does all of this mean?  In effect what we need is to apply the entire Bible to the debate instead of looking at a single passage.  I am convinced that once we look at the rest of scripture we see that a consistent perspective from scripture is that of a maximum interpretation of the passage.

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 ===An Old Testament Passage===
 *One passage that appears to at least be related to abortion is Exodus 21:22-24.  How might this passage be interpreted?
-**there are two basic approaches to interpreting this passage, a minimalist and a maximalist approach. <blockquote>The Old Testament scholar C. F. Keil adopts the maximum view, arguing that the “there is no harm” clause refers to both mother and child. The idea is that if the premature baby survives, recompense is limited to damages paid for the inconvenience and mental anguish suffered by the mother, as claimed by the husband and awarded by the judge. But if the child is harmed or dies, the full measure of the lex talonis (eye for eye) is to apply. In this reading, the unborn fetus is so highly valued by Scripture that the life-for-life principle is applied, and the unintentional causing of abortion in the midst of an unrelated violent act warrants the death penalty. If this interpretation is correct, we would have decisive evidence that Scripture considers the unborn fetus as “life” in the fullest legal sense.<ref>ibid. pg 84</ref></blockquote> <blockquote>The Old Testament scholar C. F. Keil adopts the maximum view, arguing that the “there is no harm” clause refers to both mother and child. The idea is that if the premature baby survives, recompense is limited to damages paid for the inconvenience and mental anguish suffered by the mother, as claimed by the husband and awarded by the judge. But if the child is harmed or dies, the full measure of the lex talonis (eye for eye) is to apply. In this reading, the unborn fetus is so highly valued by Scripture that the life-for-life principle is applied, and the unintentional causing of abortion in the midst of an unrelated violent act warrants the death penalty. If this interpretation is correct, we would have decisive evidence that Scripture considers the unborn fetus as “life” in the fullest legal sense.<ref>ibid. pg 83</ref></blockquote>
+**there are two basic approaches to interpreting this passage, a minimalist and a maximalist approach. <blockquote>The Old Testament scholar C. F. Keil adopts the maximum view, arguing that the “there is no harm” clause refers to both mother and child. The idea is that if the premature baby survives, recompense is limited to damages paid for the inconvenience and mental anguish suffered by the mother, as claimed by the husband and awarded by the judge. But if the child is harmed or dies, the full measure of the lex talonis (eye for eye) is to apply. In this reading, the unborn fetus is so highly valued by Scripture that the life-for-life principle is applied, and the unintentional causing of abortion in the midst of an unrelated violent act warrants the death penalty. If this interpretation is correct, we would have decisive evidence that Scripture considers the unborn fetus as “life” in the fullest legal sense.<ref>ibid. pg 84</ref></blockquote>
 **What does all of this mean?  In effect what we need is to apply the entire Bible to the debate instead of looking at a single passage.  I am convinced that once we look at the rest of scripture we see that a consistent perspective from scripture is that of a maximum interpretation of the passage.

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 *What do 1 Corinthians 15:26 and Genesis 2:7 teach us about life and death?
 **Death is the enemy, we should not worship death, rather we should recognize life as a gift from God.  We do not need to fear death because of Christ, but we must recognize that death is not a good thing, death is the consequence of sin.
-*What did God call Israel to choose in Deuteronomy 20:19?
+*What did God call Israel to choose in Deuteronomy 30:19?
 **God called upon Israel to choose life.

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 ====The Case of George====
-*George is a 5 year old boy.  Last Wednesday George's parents noticed he was missing from the dinner table and went looking for him.  They found George face down in the swimming pool, not breathing, cold, and blue.  George's father immediately started CPR while his mother called 911.  The EMT's arrived, detected a very faint heart beat, inserted a ventilator, and called for the helicopter.  George was airlifted to Children's hospital and has been in the ICU for the last 6 days.  The neurologist initially told his parents that there was significant brain damage backs the brain had gone too long without oxygen.  Yesterday the neurosurgeon let the parents know that there was no brain activity.  The parents are in a really tough position, they can see their son lying in the bed, his heart is beating, but a machine is breathing for him.  They ask you "do you think it would be wrong for us to turn off the machine?"  What do you say?
+*George is a 5 year old boy.  Last Wednesday George's parents noticed he was missing from the dinner table and went looking for him.  They found George face down in the swimming pool, not breathing, cold, and blue.  George's father immediately started CPR while his mother called 911.  The EMT's arrived, detected a very faint heart beat, inserted a ventilator, and called for the helicopter.  George was airlifted to Children's hospital and has been in the ICU for the last 6 days.  The neurologist told his parents that there was significant brain damage because the brain had gone too long without oxygen.  Yesterday the neurologist let the parents know that there was no brain activity.  The parents are in a really tough position, they can see their son lying in the bed, his heart is beating, but a machine is breathing for him.  They ask you "do you think it would be wrong for us to turn off the machine?"  What do you say?
 ====The Case of Steve====

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 ====The Case of George====
-*George is a 5 year old boy.  Last Wednesday Georg's parents noticed he was missing from the dinner table and went looking for him.  They found George face down in the swimming pool, not breathing, cold, and blue.  George's father immediately started CPR while his mother called 911.  The EMT's arrived, detected a very faint heart beat, inserted a ventilator, and called for the helicopter.  George was airlifted to Children's hospital and has been in the ICU for the last 6 days.  The neurologist initially told his parents that there was significant brain damage backs the brain had gone too long without oxygen.  Yesterday the neurosurgeon let the parents know that there was no brain activity.  The parents are in a really tough position, they can see their son lying in the bed, his heart is beating, but a machine is breathing for him.  They ask you "do you think it would be wrong for us to turn off the machine?"  What do you say?
+*George is a 5 year old boy.  Last Wednesday George's parents noticed he was missing from the dinner table and went looking for him.  They found George face down in the swimming pool, not breathing, cold, and blue.  George's father immediately started CPR while his mother called 911.  The EMT's arrived, detected a very faint heart beat, inserted a ventilator, and called for the helicopter.  George was airlifted to Children's hospital and has been in the ICU for the last 6 days.  The neurologist initially told his parents that there was significant brain damage backs the brain had gone too long without oxygen.  Yesterday the neurosurgeon let the parents know that there was no brain activity.  The parents are in a really tough position, they can see their son lying in the bed, his heart is beating, but a machine is breathing for him.  They ask you "do you think it would be wrong for us to turn off the machine?"  What do you say?
 ====The Case of Steve====

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 *According to Hebrews 9:27, "it is ___________________ for men to die once,"  What is the meaning of that word?
-**The word for appointed caries the meaning of reserved.  The idea here is that God is in complete control.
+**The word for appointed caries the meaning of reserved.  The idea here is that God is in complete control.  The greek word is αποκειται which has root αποκειμαι which, according to TDNT, "expresses the certainty of man's future as this is established in the will of God.  Whether for good or evil, this is already fixed and cannot be changed (3.655)."
 ===Suffering===

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 =Introduction=
 *Suppose you have an uncle who has been comatose for 3 weeks.  The uncle is hooked up to a machine that is breathing for him and there are no signs of life in his brain.  Is it okay to unplug the machine?
 *Suppose you have an uncle who is at home, lays in bead all day, eats almost nothing and drinks almost nothing, is it okay to inject a high dose of drugs to stop his heart?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 9 November 2018
Line 119:		Line 119:
	===The Ultimate Issue===		===The Ultimate Issue===
	*When it comes down to it, what does Exodus 20:13 say?		*When it comes down to it, what does Exodus 20:13 say?
		+
		+	===Forgiveness===
		+	*What does Psalm 103:11-13 teach?
		+	**God grants forgiveness to all who ask. In fact, we are all sinners and all deserve hell. Yet God provides forgiveness through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross to all those who place their faith in Christ for their forgiveness. We should take a stand against sin, and abortion is sin, but in so doing we also must be declare the mercy of God available to those who have had an abortion, have performed an abortion, who support abortion.

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 **The woman must have had a relationship with a man that God has reserved exclusively for marriage. Such actions are not absolutely necessary and have natural consequences.  If a women is completely unwilling to have a child or is not ready to have a child then abstinence is the only fool-proof approach.  As a note, this is not an argument for or against preventative birth control.  The simple fact is that the only guaranteed method of birth control is abstinence.
+*What about cases of incest or rape?
 ===Some Arguments For Abortion===