-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Good Morning Men,
It seems to me that men continue to discuss this subject like they know how it actually feel to be violently against which they DO NOT! I do observe that men into room do not show RESPECT for women who might be reading in secret. Seriously, I believe subject needs to END. Abortion has been Legal since 1881 also from what I have read it begin in Egypt in different methods. Killing children began in Egypt of the undesirables. Why is abortion legal because to destroy certain population the UNDESIRABLES. Let' s be realistic about the issue because many Christians have gotten abortions secretly because I have seen the census. Maybe if the church speaks out against rape, sexual immorality, and teach about what is a relationship between Man & Woman built on love, respect, integrity, compassion, unconditional love and forgiveness. Below are two evidence so read for yourselves!!
[h=3]Abortion in America : The Origins and Evolution of ...[/h]https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0199726876
James C. Mohr Professor of History University of Oregon - 1979 - Social Science
North Carolina Session Laws (1881), in Quay, "Justifiable Abortion," 502; Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of North ...
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion History
This is very long so you must read for yourselves above website:
[h=4]PAGE SUMMARY:[/h][h=5]For those who support abortion, there is a tendency to argue that it has always been widely practiced and broadly accepted. Those who oppose abortion, however, generally argue that its permissive and widespread use is a recent phenomena. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.[/h]
Anyone who is honestly interested in the history of abortion in the United States, and is willing to put in the time to get it, need look no further than Marvin Olasky's Abortion Rites. It is thorough, honest, meticulously well-researched, and will defy the over-simplified history that people on both sides of the debate often give it.
For those who support legal abortion, there is a tendency to argue that abortion has always been widely practiced and broadly accepted in America. Those who oppose abortion generally argue that the permissive and widespread use of abortion is a recent phenomena. The research of Mr. Olasky puts the truth somewhere in between. On the one hand, abortion has been used with alarming frequency for much of the nation's history. On the other hand, though abortion has long been popular on the fringes of society, it was not until recently that it began to enjoy anything like "mainstream" support. The research provided in Abortion Rites is the foundation for the brief survey of abortion history below. Unless otherwise noted, all quotes come from Mr. Olasky's book.
Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification. Add to this the fact that solid statistics about abortion and/or unwed pregnancy simply do not exist for the time period, and you begin to see why it is so difficult to compile an accurate history of abortion in early America. Individual accounts, from journals, periodicals or court records, are all we can rely on for acquiring the anecdotal evidence necessary to make some conclusions.
The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652.[SUP]1[/SUP] Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify.[SUP]2[/SUP] A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby.[SUP]3[/SUP] Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder.[SUP]4[/SUP] Olasky notes that at this point in history, "infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children."[SUP]5[/SUP]"Abortifacients were known and used in early America," but since using them "was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers."[SUP]6[/SUP]
While individual state laws were varied and didn't always have specific legislation for abortion and/or infanticide, those that did all shared a common problem. It was almost impossible to produce the evidence necessary to convict. Pregnancy was hard to confirm, there was almost never a corpse or witness, and there was always a great deal of jury sympathy for desperate and abandoned women. Nevertheless, there were plenty of non-legislative factors working against the widespread use of abortion and infanticide. One of the chief of these factors was the existing social pressure that expected a man to "act honorably" and propose marriage if he impregnated a woman out of wedlock. "In one Massachusetts county during the 1760's, over 80 percent of non-maritally conceived births were legitimated by the marriage of their parents, and counties in other colonies had similar records... Where fathers resolutely refused marriage, courts in Virginia and other colonies ordered payment. Thus economic desperation was unlikely to drive most unmarried, pregnant women to infanticide or abortion."[SUP]7
[/SUP]
Adding to the influence of society in general was a religious community that uniformly condemned abortion, both for the way the Bible speaks of unborn children and for the testimony of well-known church pillars, the likes of John Calvin, who explicitly forbade abortion. The scientific community, from the 1600's all the way through to the 1800's, believed that babies actually existed before conception, in either the sperm or the egg. Such thinking, faulty though it was, was another anti-abortion influence. Finally, the very difficulty of confirming pregnancy before quickening, made early abortions almost impossible, and late term abortions ruined marriage prospects and were extremely dangerous. "With physical, social, theological and 'scientific' reasons all making abortion unacceptable, only those in extreme duress or with contempt for existing standards would resort to it."[SUP]8[/SUP]
Nevertheless, as America grew and expanded, many of the support mechanisms which helped provide for women during "crisis pregnancies" began to wane. Increased social isolation and separation through urbanization removed the societal and familial safety nets which pregnant, unwed women had been able to fall back on. "The probability of premarital intercourse leading to marriage declined as mobility increased and community enforcement of moral codes decreased."[SUP]9[/SUP] Because of the physical obstacles and risks still associated with abortion, concealment of pregnancy before birth and the smothering of the baby after birth, was a more likely "choice." Nevertheless, abortion itself was starting to gain a foothold. It was still not considered legitimate or legal, but its frequency increased as more young women found themselves pregnant and alone, and more men were willing to pressure towards and perform abortions. It was at this point in the nation's history that Dr. John Trader of Missouri, "contended that men were (the ones) pushing women into abortion: 'We do not affirm, neither would we have you think for a moment, that the onus of this guilt lies at the feet of women. Far from it. In the majority of cases, they are more sinned against than sinning.'"[SUP]10[/SUP]
Historically, "the impulse of short-sessioned early nineteenth-century legislatures was to pass laws only when necessary, and generally only after near unanimity was achieved."[SUP]11[/SUP] Social pressure and education had been effective abortion deterrents in the past, but as the morality of America grew more relaxed, "non-governmental means of containment seemed inadequate."[SUP]12[/SUP] Abortion gained a larger foothold in American life, so lawmakers had to start dealing with it specifically and explicitly. In 1821, the first abortion legislation was passed in Connecticut, and lawmakers elsewhere did their best to keep up (New York legislation changed on abortion 10 times between 1828 and 1881).[SUP]13[/SUP] The frequency of abortion, however, continued to increase.
Newly established abortion laws, like the less explicit laws that had gone before, still faced a real problem of convictability. Since juries would not generally convict a person of a capital crime without conclusive proof, the penalties associated with abortion were often reduced in an attempt to secure more convictions.
It seems to me that men continue to discuss this subject like they know how it actually feel to be violently against which they DO NOT! I do observe that men into room do not show RESPECT for women who might be reading in secret. Seriously, I believe subject needs to END. Abortion has been Legal since 1881 also from what I have read it begin in Egypt in different methods. Killing children began in Egypt of the undesirables. Why is abortion legal because to destroy certain population the UNDESIRABLES. Let' s be realistic about the issue because many Christians have gotten abortions secretly because I have seen the census. Maybe if the church speaks out against rape, sexual immorality, and teach about what is a relationship between Man & Woman built on love, respect, integrity, compassion, unconditional love and forgiveness. Below are two evidence so read for yourselves!!
[h=3]Abortion in America : The Origins and Evolution of ...[/h]https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0199726876
James C. Mohr Professor of History University of Oregon - 1979 - Social Science
North Carolina Session Laws (1881), in Quay, "Justifiable Abortion," 502; Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of North ...
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion History
This is very long so you must read for yourselves above website:
[h=4]PAGE SUMMARY:[/h][h=5]For those who support abortion, there is a tendency to argue that it has always been widely practiced and broadly accepted. Those who oppose abortion, however, generally argue that its permissive and widespread use is a recent phenomena. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.[/h]
Anyone who is honestly interested in the history of abortion in the United States, and is willing to put in the time to get it, need look no further than Marvin Olasky's Abortion Rites. It is thorough, honest, meticulously well-researched, and will defy the over-simplified history that people on both sides of the debate often give it.
For those who support legal abortion, there is a tendency to argue that abortion has always been widely practiced and broadly accepted in America. Those who oppose abortion generally argue that the permissive and widespread use of abortion is a recent phenomena. The research of Mr. Olasky puts the truth somewhere in between. On the one hand, abortion has been used with alarming frequency for much of the nation's history. On the other hand, though abortion has long been popular on the fringes of society, it was not until recently that it began to enjoy anything like "mainstream" support. The research provided in Abortion Rites is the foundation for the brief survey of abortion history below. Unless otherwise noted, all quotes come from Mr. Olasky's book.
Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification. Add to this the fact that solid statistics about abortion and/or unwed pregnancy simply do not exist for the time period, and you begin to see why it is so difficult to compile an accurate history of abortion in early America. Individual accounts, from journals, periodicals or court records, are all we can rely on for acquiring the anecdotal evidence necessary to make some conclusions.
The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652.[SUP]1[/SUP] Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify.[SUP]2[/SUP] A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby.[SUP]3[/SUP] Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder.[SUP]4[/SUP] Olasky notes that at this point in history, "infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children."[SUP]5[/SUP]"Abortifacients were known and used in early America," but since using them "was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers."[SUP]6[/SUP]
While individual state laws were varied and didn't always have specific legislation for abortion and/or infanticide, those that did all shared a common problem. It was almost impossible to produce the evidence necessary to convict. Pregnancy was hard to confirm, there was almost never a corpse or witness, and there was always a great deal of jury sympathy for desperate and abandoned women. Nevertheless, there were plenty of non-legislative factors working against the widespread use of abortion and infanticide. One of the chief of these factors was the existing social pressure that expected a man to "act honorably" and propose marriage if he impregnated a woman out of wedlock. "In one Massachusetts county during the 1760's, over 80 percent of non-maritally conceived births were legitimated by the marriage of their parents, and counties in other colonies had similar records... Where fathers resolutely refused marriage, courts in Virginia and other colonies ordered payment. Thus economic desperation was unlikely to drive most unmarried, pregnant women to infanticide or abortion."[SUP]7
[/SUP]
Adding to the influence of society in general was a religious community that uniformly condemned abortion, both for the way the Bible speaks of unborn children and for the testimony of well-known church pillars, the likes of John Calvin, who explicitly forbade abortion. The scientific community, from the 1600's all the way through to the 1800's, believed that babies actually existed before conception, in either the sperm or the egg. Such thinking, faulty though it was, was another anti-abortion influence. Finally, the very difficulty of confirming pregnancy before quickening, made early abortions almost impossible, and late term abortions ruined marriage prospects and were extremely dangerous. "With physical, social, theological and 'scientific' reasons all making abortion unacceptable, only those in extreme duress or with contempt for existing standards would resort to it."[SUP]8[/SUP]
Nevertheless, as America grew and expanded, many of the support mechanisms which helped provide for women during "crisis pregnancies" began to wane. Increased social isolation and separation through urbanization removed the societal and familial safety nets which pregnant, unwed women had been able to fall back on. "The probability of premarital intercourse leading to marriage declined as mobility increased and community enforcement of moral codes decreased."[SUP]9[/SUP] Because of the physical obstacles and risks still associated with abortion, concealment of pregnancy before birth and the smothering of the baby after birth, was a more likely "choice." Nevertheless, abortion itself was starting to gain a foothold. It was still not considered legitimate or legal, but its frequency increased as more young women found themselves pregnant and alone, and more men were willing to pressure towards and perform abortions. It was at this point in the nation's history that Dr. John Trader of Missouri, "contended that men were (the ones) pushing women into abortion: 'We do not affirm, neither would we have you think for a moment, that the onus of this guilt lies at the feet of women. Far from it. In the majority of cases, they are more sinned against than sinning.'"[SUP]10[/SUP]
Historically, "the impulse of short-sessioned early nineteenth-century legislatures was to pass laws only when necessary, and generally only after near unanimity was achieved."[SUP]11[/SUP] Social pressure and education had been effective abortion deterrents in the past, but as the morality of America grew more relaxed, "non-governmental means of containment seemed inadequate."[SUP]12[/SUP] Abortion gained a larger foothold in American life, so lawmakers had to start dealing with it specifically and explicitly. In 1821, the first abortion legislation was passed in Connecticut, and lawmakers elsewhere did their best to keep up (New York legislation changed on abortion 10 times between 1828 and 1881).[SUP]13[/SUP] The frequency of abortion, however, continued to increase.
Newly established abortion laws, like the less explicit laws that had gone before, still faced a real problem of convictability. Since juries would not generally convict a person of a capital crime without conclusive proof, the penalties associated with abortion were often reduced in an attempt to secure more convictions.
The refusal to make abortion a capital crime did not mean that the committee was viewing the unborn child as less than human life; the committee explicitly stated that the being in question was 'alive from conception and all intentional killing of it is murder.' The question was one of how best to put abortionists out of business... The New York Times praised the bill as one 'far-reaching enough to catch hold of all who assist, directly or indirectly in the destruction of infant life; it constitutes the crime of felony, and it imposes an imprisonment of not less than four years on... the rogues male and female who carry on their hideous trade.[SUP]14[/SUP]
I couldn't care less who's reading this or anything else. I am a voice for the unborn, that they may enjoy the gifts of life and liberty and to be victorious over the murderous swine doing the enemy's work in abortion clinics and their little cohorts who vehemently scream for the continued right to murder those unborn. I spit on all of you.
I've read a fair bit about this practice in the US. Basically, a woman who has had an abortion procedure will be asked by, presumably a doctor, whether she consents for the feotal tissue to be used for medical research, and if she consents, the hospital will sell the material to companies or scientific bodies that carry out stem cell research.
I can't find any reason why this is illegal, but it does make my stomach turn a little bit. I suppose the only heart I can take from this is that, according to many stem-cell researchers, this is becoming obsolete, because stem cell researchers are very close to being able to create stem cells from adult tissue alone, which means no need for this practice anymore.
Aside from that, I don't trust your source of information as unbiased news. The ACLJ report (as do many other dubious institutions) on another article that on average, 30% of European pregnancies end in abortion. That fact is just plain wrong. Out of all European women between the ages of about 15 and 40 (average age of consent in Europe and childbearing age), across all European states, on average there are about 15 abortions per 1000 women (it's slightly higher in some countries and slightly lower in others). In Europe, in all countries, on average, about 70% of women have children at some point between age of consent and sterility, so if we apply those statistics:
(1000/100) x 70 = 700 -- the proportion of childbearing age-women who have kids
700 + 15 = 715 (the proportion of childbearing age women who have kids, and the number of abortions per the same number, year on year, added together)
15/712 = 0.021 ..... 0.021 x 100 = 2.1 (the percentage of abortions per the number of child-bearing women)
Therefore, with a fair margin of error (to include abortion rates out of every one thousand pregnancies) on average about 2.1% of European pregnancies end in abortion. Nowhere near 30%.
I can't find any reason why this is illegal, but it does make my stomach turn a little bit. I suppose the only heart I can take from this is that, according to many stem-cell researchers, this is becoming obsolete, because stem cell researchers are very close to being able to create stem cells from adult tissue alone, which means no need for this practice anymore.
Aside from that, I don't trust your source of information as unbiased news. The ACLJ report (as do many other dubious institutions) on another article that on average, 30% of European pregnancies end in abortion. That fact is just plain wrong. Out of all European women between the ages of about 15 and 40 (average age of consent in Europe and childbearing age), across all European states, on average there are about 15 abortions per 1000 women (it's slightly higher in some countries and slightly lower in others). In Europe, in all countries, on average, about 70% of women have children at some point between age of consent and sterility, so if we apply those statistics:
(1000/100) x 70 = 700 -- the proportion of childbearing age-women who have kids
700 + 15 = 715 (the proportion of childbearing age women who have kids, and the number of abortions per the same number, year on year, added together)
15/712 = 0.021 ..... 0.021 x 100 = 2.1 (the percentage of abortions per the number of child-bearing women)
Therefore, with a fair margin of error (to include abortion rates out of every one thousand pregnancies) on average about 2.1% of European pregnancies end in abortion. Nowhere near 30%.
Last edited:
In order for the 30% statistic to be correct, every single one of those women who have an abortion would need to have fourteen abortions each. It's ludicrously overestimated. A more realistic estimate, assuming each of those women have two abortions each, is 4.2 %
It's also important to note how these statistics are gathered. Prescriptions for abortion bills as emergency contraceptives aren't uncommon in less developed European countries.
It's also important to note how these statistics are gathered. Prescriptions for abortion bills as emergency contraceptives aren't uncommon in less developed European countries.
Last edited:
L
Lol contradictory at the same post.
First the child is an 'an innocent human life is growing inside her womb' and it is 'the obvious fact that this child has done nothing wrong'.
One paragraph after, the child is 'the genetic furtherance of a dirty, vile, rapist. They are the same species; the child, and the rapist.'
First the child is an 'an innocent human life is growing inside her womb' and it is 'the obvious fact that this child has done nothing wrong'.
One paragraph after, the child is 'the genetic furtherance of a dirty, vile, rapist. They are the same species; the child, and the rapist.'
The bible was once used, throughout the American south, to condone slavery. It was also legal to hold slaves. It was illegal to help a slave run away. It was taught in schools that whites were superior to blacks. And there were separate churches for white folks and black folks. If a slave escaped, his life was forfeit, and if a white man helped him escape, he could be arrested and prosecuted.
Yet I would challenge anybody who said helping a slave escape wasn't the right thing to do.
Now, I didn't make that moral conclusion from the laws of the time, nor from the church's teachings, nor from the bible's instructions on slavery, nor from the schools of the time. You know how I made that moral conclusion? By thinking of what it would be like to be a slave, and deciding that I wouldn't like to be forced into it, so why should anyone else?
Natural morality isn't deontological, it's innate and empathetic. And if you try to tell me that the human race, before it got to Mount Sinai, had no concept of morals, no concept of not killing, not stealing, not raping, not pillaging, and that everyne just raped and pillaged and killed at will, then I'm going to say to you there is no way that humanity would even have gotten as far as Mount Sinai.
Moral instructions, contrary to your opinion, existed long, long before Judaism. Take the Hindus, and the Hindu Vedas. The Hindus were a civilization that culminated at their most prosperous in the Indus Valley, nearly two thousand years before the supposed time of Moses (but they can be traced right back to the Shangam Shivan, around 11,500 years ago). The Vedic writings themselves, which existed in oral tradition, began being written down about 400 years before the supposed time of Moses, and by then the Hindu religion and civilization was already vast. Far, far vaster than the Jewish one.
And the most central Hindu teaching is some form or other of this: "it is the sum of all duty: do naught unto others that you would not have them do unto you".
Morality didn't start (or end) with the bible Leonard. The moralities written in books like the Vedas, the Dhammapada, the Quran, the Bible, they come from cultural-religious beleifs, they vary slightly, but their core mral values (don't kill, don't steal, don't do unto others what you wouldn't like them to do unto you), those are morals that transcend religious divisions. The reason for that is because empathizing with other people is an innate human trait: we're all born with it (though, admittedly, a small percentage of us, known as psychopaths and arguably narcissists, do grow out of empathy).
Yet I would challenge anybody who said helping a slave escape wasn't the right thing to do.
Now, I didn't make that moral conclusion from the laws of the time, nor from the church's teachings, nor from the bible's instructions on slavery, nor from the schools of the time. You know how I made that moral conclusion? By thinking of what it would be like to be a slave, and deciding that I wouldn't like to be forced into it, so why should anyone else?
Natural morality isn't deontological, it's innate and empathetic. And if you try to tell me that the human race, before it got to Mount Sinai, had no concept of morals, no concept of not killing, not stealing, not raping, not pillaging, and that everyne just raped and pillaged and killed at will, then I'm going to say to you there is no way that humanity would even have gotten as far as Mount Sinai.
Moral instructions, contrary to your opinion, existed long, long before Judaism. Take the Hindus, and the Hindu Vedas. The Hindus were a civilization that culminated at their most prosperous in the Indus Valley, nearly two thousand years before the supposed time of Moses (but they can be traced right back to the Shangam Shivan, around 11,500 years ago). The Vedic writings themselves, which existed in oral tradition, began being written down about 400 years before the supposed time of Moses, and by then the Hindu religion and civilization was already vast. Far, far vaster than the Jewish one.
And the most central Hindu teaching is some form or other of this: "it is the sum of all duty: do naught unto others that you would not have them do unto you".
Morality didn't start (or end) with the bible Leonard. The moralities written in books like the Vedas, the Dhammapada, the Quran, the Bible, they come from cultural-religious beleifs, they vary slightly, but their core mral values (don't kill, don't steal, don't do unto others what you wouldn't like them to do unto you), those are morals that transcend religious divisions. The reason for that is because empathizing with other people is an innate human trait: we're all born with it (though, admittedly, a small percentage of us, known as psychopaths and arguably narcissists, do grow out of empathy).
Who said it started with Moses?
Romans 2:14-15 KJV
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Morality has been written on man's heart who was created in God's image.
Romans 2:14-15 KJV
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Morality has been written on man's heart who was created in God's image.
You're obviously not familiar with the concept of contradictory emotions, or "mixed-feelings". Ever heard of those? Oh no, wait that's right you don't have feelings. "Emotions" aren't a factor -- right? What I was doing in that post was attempting to empathize with a woman who had a rapist's child growing inside her. The child is a rapist's child -- that's a fact. The child is an innocent and has done nothing wrong -- that's also a fact. And those two facts are likely to be where the contradictory emotions of a pregnant-rape-victim come from. So, yes, the post did have contradictions in it, because that was the point, Leonard.
Can you understand that?
Can you understand that?
Who said it started with Moses?
Romans 2:14-15 KJV
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Morality has been written on man's heart who was created in God's image.
Romans 2:14-15 KJV
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Morality has been written on man's heart who was created in God's image.
If Adam and Eve existed 5,000 - 7,000 years ago, then how do you account for earlier humans with moral traditions?
we trace God's revelation of the origins of mankind back about 6000 years ago in a place called the Garden of Eden.
Jesus, attested to this ...
Mark 10:6-7 KJV
[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
So we have Jesus, who also claimed to be God, being witnessed as such by His resurrection, giving us an anchor in human history. Now what witnesses to the veracity of their claim did you say the Hindus have?
I'll take the testimony of One who hundreds of prophecies pointed to, who did many miracles accompanied by many witnesses as well as rise from the dead and seen by over 500 and who prophesied many things we are beginning to see come to pass as well as somethings that have been already fulfilled over that of religions and philosophies that come from man's imagination.
Jesus, attested to this ...
Mark 10:6-7 KJV
[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
So we have Jesus, who also claimed to be God, being witnessed as such by His resurrection, giving us an anchor in human history. Now what witnesses to the veracity of their claim did you say the Hindus have?
I'll take the testimony of One who hundreds of prophecies pointed to, who did many miracles accompanied by many witnesses as well as rise from the dead and seen by over 500 and who prophesied many things we are beginning to see come to pass as well as somethings that have been already fulfilled over that of religions and philosophies that come from man's imagination.
V
The written tradition is about 3,465 years old, give or take a year here and there. The Exodus was about 1450 BC, and Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the first five books of our Old Testament, in the desert during the forty years of wandering, perhaps all of them collectively near the end of that time frame as the Israelites were preparing to go into the Promised Land.
Perhaps in evolutionists' time line. Not in what is actually and empirically known. Reliable history of man extends no further back that six - to ten thousand years. Which makes your next few lines ...
... nothing more than pure speculation, and that influenced by secularists who desperately want to disprove the Bible and its history.
I just did.
Perhaps in evolutionists' time line. Not in what is actually and empirically known. Reliable history of man extends no further back that six - to ten thousand years. Which makes your next few lines ...
... nothing more than pure speculation, and that influenced by secularists who desperately want to disprove the Bible and its history.
I just did.