I am not the one hurling insults.

I strongly oppose abortion. In almost every case, abortion is foolish and sinful. But the Lord God has no mercy for the false witness, so I dare not label abortion as murder, as do so many, blinded by emotion.

The true Christian loves truth, irrespective of how unpalatable that truth may be to him. He must love truth more than he loves his tradition.

Where am I going with this? I am distressed that, time after time, the enemies of the Lord God and of his Christ have used false issues to divide the people of God, and to set them at the throat, one of a another.

Slavery and abortion are such issues. The Scripture does not condemn slavery; rather, in Scripture we see slavery as one of many judgments which the Lord God himself brings upon the wicked. Yet "Christians" in this land, thinking they were doing service to God, fought and killed one another over slavery, failing to perceive that both sides -- North and South -- were but pawns in the hands of the enemies of God.

Any thinking individual who has observed a living infant of any age should be able to apprehend the fact that the infant, from birth, is perceiving, reasoning, and giving expression to thought, albeit on a primitive level.

And a foetus at any stage of development, including a stillbirth, is no less human because it is not alive. The quality which is termed "humanity" is distinct from the quality which is termed "life". A human is no less human before life is imparted or after death.

The foetus neither heard nor recognized the voice of Mary.

You ask "what if?" But the evidence -- both scriptural and physical -- as well as reason militates against the possibility.

The issue at point is viability -- the presence and operation of all organs and systems which are vital to life above the cellular level.

If the brain is excised from a living being, the being dies, for a brain is essential to life. The same is true of the heart and other vital organs, except that death may not be immediate.

This being the case, it is unreasonable to argue that life may be imparted to a developing organism which has not reached the point of viability.

Human life is more than existence on the cellular level; it is the ability to perceive, to reason, and to give expression to thought -- all of which require the presence and proper function of the brain.

Most Christians think, erroneously, that the essence of man is a spiritual entity called a "soul" which has life -- including perception, thought, and expression -- apart from the body.

2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 - For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The distinguishing factor is not the mode of respiration; rather, it is the fact that the Creator has imparted the spirit of life to one and not (yet) to the other.

Impartation of life is the prerogative of the Lord God; it is not automatic.

While the Lord could impart life to a viable foetus within the womb, he has not chosen to do so. It is the Creator -- not his creatures -- who makes the rules.

There is life on a cellular level in every cell of the body, including sperm and ovum. There is life on a cellular level in the developing foetus. This life is characterized by growth and movement.

And the fact that a foetus is not alive in the womb does not make it less human; human parents produce human offspring.

But the life which transforms a viable foetus into a living being -- that is, the life which animates the foetus -- is imparted directly by the Creator.

The scripture describes the animating agent as "the spirit of life" or "the breath of life" -- this is the human spirit.

Upon death of the being, life at the cellular level does not immediately cease. But once the human spirit returns to the Creator, the creature is dead, irrespective of life at the cellular level.

So you are a Papist? Every Christian ought to have a copy of Actes and Monuments (popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs) on his book shelf, along with several copies to lend out. And he ought to read it about once a year.

You have no right to call yourself a Christian -- you thereby do blaspheme.

"Good Catholics" have murdered upward of fifty million Christians, torturing them and countless others.

You never shall understand the Scripture so long as you persist in confounding race, ethnicity, and nationality.

And I wonder if perhaps it is the case that you do understand, but deliberately are creating a diversion.

A man is English as a matter of nationality, but he may be a white man of French or German descent, or a yellow man of Japanese or Chinese descent, or a black man of African descent.

And a man or woman is Indian likewise as a matter of nationality, but that says nothing regarding her ethnicity and race.

A watch might say, "Of steel the watchmaker formed me", yet the watch does not exist until all the parts have been fashioned and have been assembled.

From numerous passages of Scripture we know that the flesh -- both human and animal -- is alive by virtue of an animating spirit, that the spirit is imparted to give life, and that death takes place when the spirit is withdrawn and returns to the Creator.

Isaiah 42:5, Psalm 104:24-30, Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59 are but a few passages which I could cite.

From the example of Adam, it appears that it is with the first inhale upon exiting the womb that the spirit of life is imparted. Premature birth is of no consequence. But a stillbirth never takes the first inhale.

RE Romans 5:12: You rightly state that original sin is imputed. As Paul shows in this chapter, this is a judicial imputation, and not a mystical matter involving a genetically-transmitted "sin nature".

But if prior to birth it is impossible to do good or evil (and that clearly is the assertion of Paul in the 9th chapter), then clearly life is not imparted until the point of birth.

The term "the dust of the earth" means "the chemical elements". According to Jesus, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Man -- whether Adam or the progeny of Adam -- is a chemical organism -- "flesh" -- which is animated by a God-given spirit, which may be termed "the human spirit". Upon death, the body decomposes into the chemical elements and the human spirit returns to the Creator, Ecclesiastes 12:7.

Inasmuch as the human spirit becomes (irreversibly) associated with the individual to which it is imparted, it appears that the spirit acts as the repository for the personality, character, and memories of the individual, to be used to animate the resurrection body.

Both of you are refusing to accept the plain declaration of the Scripture.

Man did not become a living soul until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

And the twins in the womb were without sin.

Now which determines the truth of the matter? Your reasoning and logic, or the Word of God?

But Christians today are obsessed with the matter of abortion, and this is wrong.

That which you missed is Romans 9:11 - "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil..."

and Genesis 2:7 - "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

It is not until the breath of life -- that is, the human spirit -- is imparted to man that man becomes a living creature.

In the progeny of Adam, this event takes place at birth, with the first inhale. Life begins with that first inhale, not at conception.

Adam and the woman considered arbitrary and absurd the command not to partake from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Many other prohibitions and instructions of God likewise appear arbitrary and nonsensical to the natural mind. Namaan the leper found absurd the command to wash in the Jordan. And so forth.

But that which God demands of man is trust and obedience, even when we cannot fathom the basis of his commands.

Did it never occur to you that differences in appearance are the means whereby God provides instruction in this matter?

Seriously. In the Middle Ages, the Turks almost conquered Europe, so there were a great many Turks back then. And there appear always to have been a great many Chinese. So who evangelized these people? Did all of them hear the Gospel? I dare say that many of the Chinese even today live and die without hearing the Gospel.

And what about the African continent and South America? What about those who lived and died before the missionaries were sent out? Do they get another chance after death? Or are they automatically "saved"? These are questions worthy of thought.

I think that, if you are objective and honest, you are going to be forced to the conclusion that God does not owe anyone resurrection to life everlasting -- that God is not unfair to impart life without also imparting the opportunity of life after death.

You ask, "What do people of mixed race do?" If this matter is of concern to you, then there is a matter of infinitely greater magnitude which you should ponder.

Nothing can be plainer in the Scripture -- both Old Covenant and New -- than the fact that God is not trying to "save" everyone.

In every age of history, multiple millions of people have lived and died without hearing the Gospel. To Israel alone -- and then only to a small remnant, comprising less than ten percent of the physical descendants of the line Abraham-Isaac-Jacob -- was the Law of God and the Scripture made known.

It's a waste of time to answer you. You either haven't read my previous postings, or else you haven't understood them.

You find it queer that commandments concerning animals and plants should apply to mankind? Perhaps you should give Moses and Paul benefit of your profound wisdom in this matter. (See my reply below to "777".)

"protestant" -

Any number of Bible dictionaries and commentaries point out that, in the days of Moses, there were at least two regions, widely separated, both of which were called "Cush" or "Ethiopia".

Moses was not stupid, nor was he degenerate and rebellious. Moses married within his own race -- the Adamic race. Moses did not marry a black woman. The objections to his marriage were not based upon race.

You need to understand that ethnicity and race are two distinct matters. For example, the French and Germans are of the same race, but of different ethnicity.

That the prohibition regarding hybridization of plants and animals applies to humans should be apparent from I Corinthians 9:9-10:

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

If you truly love Jesus, take note of John 14:15:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Your perception of your personal state is irrelevant and does not provide evidence that the Word of God may be violated with impunity.

chris -