Abortion supporters

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

24 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

You would have us to believe that God is just sitting around on his throne waiting to drop a soul into a body at the right time.... laughable.

Did you laugh at the account of Adam? What about the account of the valley of dry bones? What of Ecclesiastes 11:5?

Odder to me is the idea that 1 in every 2 zygotes that are being discarded as we speak are considered human beings by those who believe a human being is formed at conception.

Here are extracts from my book (I put a key point in bold):

Despite that soul reproduction appears to have been made innately transferable, it remains a challenge to determine the starting point of personhood in human offspring. It would seem reasonable to conclude that each zygote is an entire living soul from conception. However, it may be that the soul remains untriggered for weeks after conception has occurred.

This delay would be not unlike the eyes opening in the womb during fetal development. Such a delay seems plausible, especially considering the high spontaneous loss in pregnancy in the first trimester. Should one view these tragedies as the loss of children, or are they the tragic loss of valuable material and the potential of children?

. . .

It remains unclear whether or not personhood gets established at conception, i.e., during fertilization, which can occur as quickly as 30 minutes after ejaculation of semen into a woman’s vagina right up until five days later, or during the implantation of the zygote into the uterus, which is another 5-6 days after that. Nor whether it’s from around 5 ½ weeks when a heartbeat can be detected or later. But one thing is biblically clear; personhood does begin in the womb.

ABORTION AND THE BIBLE: Can Pro-life and Pro-choice Both Be Right? 
Dr. Robert S. Morley

[BrotherTony]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Did you laugh at the account of Adam? What about the account of the valley of dry bones? What of Ecclesiastes 11:5?

Odder to me is the idea that 1 in every 2 zygotes that are being discarded as we speak are considered human beings by those who believe a human being is formed at conception.

Here are extracts from my book (I put a key point in bold):

Despite that soul reproduction appears to have been made innately transferable, it remains a challenge to determine the starting point of personhood in human offspring. It would seem reasonable to conclude that each zygote is an entire living soul from conception. However, it may be that the soul remains untriggered for weeks after conception has occurred.

This delay would be not unlike the eyes opening in the womb during fetal development. Such a delay seems plausible, especially considering the high spontaneous loss in pregnancy in the first trimester. Should one view these tragedies as the loss of children, or are they the tragic loss of valuable material and the potential of children?

. . .

It remains unclear whether or not personhood gets established at conception, i.e., during fertilization, which can occur as quickly as 30 minutes after ejaculation of semen into a woman’s vagina right up until five days later, or during the implantation of the zygote into the uterus, which is another 5-6 days after that. Nor whether it’s from around 5 ½ weeks when a heartbeat can be detected or later. But one thing is biblically clear; personhood does begin in the womb.

ABORTION AND THE BIBLE: Can Pro-life and Pro-choice Both Be Right? 
Dr. Robert S. Morley

More from yourself....go figure. Human life begins at conception. Trying to compare it to the creation of Adam is like comparing apples and bananas. When someone has a miscarriage, do you say they lost the baby, or do you say they lost the fetus? Your arguments don't fly scripturally. 

[Jim_Alaska]

4 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

You're not carefully listening to my biblical presentation.

1) I have given a biblical case that we don't know know when ensoulment occurs.

2) I have presented biblical evidence of a two stage process in human formation.

3) I've suggested this means we have a window in which to act.

Consequently, I don't believe Jesus would have us kill any human being in the womb.

For someone that doesn't believe that, "Jesus would have us kill any human being in the womb," you make a pretty good set of pro-abortion, pro-choice arguments. As a matter of fact, most, if not all of your pro-abortion arguments are from those standpoints.

1. You admit that you don't know when "ensoulment" (your terminology) occurs, but then go right on to presume that it has to occur at a point after conception.

2. Your comparison of the valley of dry bones to the formation of a viable baby in the womb is ludicrous, unbiblical, uncharacteristic of a man with your professed theological education. Not to mention a perfect example of twisting Scripture to fit your belief, rather than allowing Scripture to form your belief.

ensoulment is not a Biblical word, but assuming that you are trying to indicate when a " person" (my term) receives a soul, I would submit the following as an example:

Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

I believe that this Scripture would (more than) indicate that God considered the Prophet a "person."

Your use of the term "zygote" serves as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to dehumanize and lessen the fact that a "baby" in the womb is exactly that, a baby.

If all of this seems harsh, it is meant to be so. I, as well as the God who formed me have no tolerance for baby killers, or those who support the pro-abortion platform.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

20 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

More from yourself....go figure. Human life begins at conception. Trying to compare it to the creation of Adam is like comparing apples and bananas. When someone has a miscarriage, do you say they lost the baby, or do you say they lost the fetus? Your arguments don't fly scripturally. 

I have given what I have thought through in order to be helpful, clear, and thorough.

I think that generally speaking, people may have different responses depending on when the loss occurs. I think a late miscarriage would be far more painful for most to bear than say a very early spontaneous abortion. With a late miscarriage, many people would speak of the loss of a baby. In the case of a very early spontaneous abortion, they may not.

Again, as sad as it is, I don't believe the 1 in 2 zygotes that are only days old and constantly being lost are human beings yet.

I would prefer to not add any more of my opinions to this thread anymore. Thank you to all for the discussion. There are many more Scriptures relevant to the topic. As most of you know, many prove human beings begin in the womb. We've just scratched the surface.

"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend" (Prov. 27:17).

Love you all, Rob

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

4 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

For someone that doesn't believe that "Jesus would have us kill any human being in the womb." you make a pretty good set of pro-abortion, pro-choice arguments. As a matter of fact, most, if not all of your pro-abortion arguments are from those standpoints.

1. You admit that you don't know when "ensoulment" (your terminology) occurs, but then go right on to presume that it has to occur at a point after conception.

2. Your comparison of the valley of dry bones to the formation of a viable baby in the womb is ludicrous, unbiblical, uncharacteristic of a man with your professed theological education. Not to mention a perfect example of twisting Scripture to fit your belief, rather than allowing Scripture to form your belief.

ensoulment is not a Biblical word, but assuming that you are trying to indicate when a " person" (my term) receives a soul, I would submit the following as an example:

Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

I believe that this Scripture would (more than) indicate that God considered the Prophet a "person."

Your use of the term "zygote" serves as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to dehumanize and lessen the fact that a "baby" in the womb is exactly that, a baby.

If all of this seems harsh, it is meant to be so. I, as well as the God who formed me have no tolerance for baby killers, or those who support the pro-abortion platform.

Hi Jim,

Your message came in as I was signing myself off from this thread. Let me just say that I come from a similar belief and sentiment to yours so I understand you.

I have considered Jeremiah 1:5. Here are my thoughts:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Notes:
•    This verse speaks of God having intimate knowledge of Jeremiah before he existed.
•    It also speaks of appointing Jeremiah as a prophet before he was born.
•    The term “formed” is the same root word used to describe the forming of Adam before God breathed into his nostrils and he became “a living soul” (Gen. 2:7).
•    The verse indicates a time in the womb, but does not indicate the onset of personhood.
•    This verse initially speaks to the idea of the person before personhood.
•    “Before I formed thee” could refer to an initial physical phase before the soul becomes manifest.
•    “before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations,” may concern a subsequent phase in the womb when the soul has become manifest and able to interact.

If you respond, I will read it, but I am stopping with this thread. I hope you understand.

God bless,

Rob

[TheGloryLand]

1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Hi Jim,

Your message came in as I was signing myself off from this thread. Let me just say that I come from a similar belief and sentiment to yours so I understand you.

I have considered Jeremiah 1:5. Here are my thoughts:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Notes:
•    This verse speaks of God having intimate knowledge of Jeremiah before he existed.
•    It also speaks of appointing Jeremiah as a prophet before he was born.
•    The term “formed” is the same root word used to describe the forming of Adam before God breathed into his nostrils and he became “a living soul” (Gen. 2:7).
•    The verse indicates a time in the womb, but does not indicate the onset of personhood.
•    This verse initially speaks to the idea of the person before personhood.
•    “Before I formed thee” could refer to an initial physical phase before the soul becomes manifest.
•    “before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations,” may concern a subsequent phase in the womb when the soul has become manifest and able to interact.

If you respond, I will read it, but I am stopping with this thread. I hope you understand.

God bless,

Rob

I think you did a pretty good job with your presentation. Just to confusing for me. I think you have been eating so much steak, The Word of God, you might need to taste the sweetness of baby food. Where you can taste the basic food, The Word of God, with hunger. You use the Bible, like if it was a dictionary. Amazingly good, I look like an ant next to you. An ant that is Saved. Don’t give up posting 

[DaveW]

I rarely post now but this has me incensed.

And as with the few other posts I have made over the last few years, I almost certainly will not respond here. I have here following discredited the misuse of these Bible passages, and unless there is biblical evidence against my statements there is no reason for me to respond. I will not be arguing about this.

Gen 2:7

(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.

 

 

Eze 37:7-10

(7)  So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.

(8)  And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.

(9)  Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.

(10)  So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

 

Ecc 11:5

(5)  As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

 

Let’s look at this…… explanation…. Of this man’s opinions from an actual Biblical perspective.

 

 

“Dr. Robert S. Morley

(Here's my post without the examples of how Ecclesiastes 11:5 is translated in the ESV and NAB, which some might find displeasing. I've only used the KJV and have included Clarke and Benson as examples of how others interpret the KJV.)”

First thing to note is that this man has been told to use KJV as it is this site’s rule to do so. He has been informed of this officially by at least one Mod, so this is a deliberate and knowing breach of forum rules, showing that he has no respect for the forum rules or the mods.

“I believe early abortion is a solution for incest, rape, and other unwanted pregnancies that avoids "killing" human beings.”

What you “believe” is irrelevant – what does the Bible actually say? And it is interesting that he not only uses the very rare situations of “incest, rape” but then extends it to the far more common “unwanted pregnancies”. These are his words, and as such he obviously believes in abortion for any reason. He includes the limiters of “incest, rape” to make it seem like he is reasonable, but he then removes the limits by making it “”other unwanted pregnancies” without limitation or definition. This is deceitful presentation.

“The creation account of Genesis 2:7 and the reassembling of human life in Ezekiel 37:7-10 show a two stage process where the physical precedes the soul. They read as follows:

"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" (Gen. 2:7 KJV).”

First instance is the original special creation of the first man, Adam, not the natural birth process. This is in no way a representation of “normal” pregnancy and birth. There is no womb mentioned, there is no conception mentioned, there is no pregnancy mentioned. This is not in any way a normal natural pregnancy, and as a result of it being unique and special in every way, this passage CAN NOT be used in the way that this man is using it. It is simply not relevant to the argument.

“"So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army" (Ezek. 37:7-10 KJV)”

This also is in no way speaking of the natural and normal way of birth. This is a miraculous re-formation of people – if this man’s theory is correct then we also MUST accept that tehw ay a body is formed follows every aspect of this account. That means that a baby forms in this order – the bones first, then the sinews, then the flesh, and then the skin forms over it, and ONLY then the breath comes upon that child FROM THE FOUR WINDS…….

Clearly this is not true, and therefore neither is his premise that the creation of a child is a two part formation. This account ahs NOTHING to do with the creation of a child in the womb.

“Ecclesiastes 11:5 reads, "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all" (KJV). Some commentries on this verse suggest the possibility of a two-phase process in human formation. For example, Clarke's commentry reads, "thou canst not tell . . . how their soul is united to their body, how it came to inform that body, or how the child was formed in the womb of its mother."

The Benson Commentary of Ecclesiastes 11:5 interprets the KJV similarly. It reads, "As thou knowest not the way of the spirit — Of the soul of man, how it comes into the child in the womb; or how it is united with the body; or how, and whether it goes out of the body."”

Ecc 11:5

(5)  As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

 

Where does this in any way indicate a “Two stage human formation” – if anything it indicates that the spirit is not a part of the physical formation of a person, but it doesn’t indicate in any way that such formation is done in two separate stages.

This is in my opinion a deceitful misuse of this verse as there is simply nothing in it which indicates what is represented by this man. Even Benson in his commentary does not suggest what this man is suggesting. He talks of the soul of man but not of a separate timing of it being joined into the physical form of a baby. To suggest otherwise is twisting the commentators words, let alone the Bible itself.

“If the biblical accounts that show two stages of human formation are a template for how human life develops, which some commentators of Ecclesiastes 11:5 suggest possible, then ensoulment occurs some time after conception. Consequently, a human zygote would not have a soul and would not yet be a human being.”

But the Biblical accounts simply DO NOT show this. The first is an event of special creation, not even a pregnancy, the second is an account of special re-formation not normal birth and again not pregnancy, and the third makes note only of the spirit as being distinct from the physical, and nothing at all of the separate formation of these things or of the timing being separate in any way.

There is nothing in these verses that indicate a separate “ensoulment” (not a biblical term by the way), and absolutely nothing that indicates that some sort of “ensoulment occurs some time after conception”. This is 100% this man's theory based apparently upon his ideas that he has imposed upon certain verses that CLEARLY don't say what he is telling us they say.

Since these three passages are erroneously used, and they clearly do not say what this man suggests they say, his conclusion is obviously incorrect.

A human Zygote – which I will note has everything that it needs to grow into a full and complete human being, including a protective environment provided by the Lord – as far as I can see has a soul as soon as it is created. There is no verse that this man has shown that would indicate otherwise.

“Furthermore, “the 1 in 2 loss of zygotes, spontaneous abortions, and the human response to them, may corroborate that a gap exists between conception and personhood” (Preface – Abortion and the Bible: Can Pro-life and Pro-choice Both Be Right?).”

This last phrase comes from a man who has no idea of what he is speaking. My wife and I have suffered 5 miscarriages, and to call them spontaneous abortions, whilst medically correct, shows that he has no compassion for those who have suffered such.

The loss of a child through natural sin affected means is not the same as a deliberate act of ending a life, but it is still a devastating event in the life of a couple.

So this one instance of a “human response to the loss of a zygote” disproves emphatically your last paragraph.

You sir are not qualified to teach the Bible, and that is obvious by your travesty of the misuse of these three passages at least, and corroborated by your absolute lack of compassion for those who have suffered in this way. And in any case, if someone has no apparent response of loss and grief, that doesn't mean there is any gap between personhood and conception. People respond differently to different events, but a different response does not change the event.

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by DaveW

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

9 hours ago, DaveW said:

I rarely post now but this has me incensed.

And as with the few other posts I have made over the last few years, I almost certainly will not respond here. I have here following discredited the misuse of these Bible passages, and unless there is biblical evidence against my statements there is no reason for me to respond. I will not be arguing about this.

Gen 2:7

(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.

 

 

Eze 37:7-10

(7)  So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.

(8)  And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.

(9)  Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.

(10)  So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

 

Ecc 11:5

(5)  As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

 

Let’s look at this…… explanation…. Of this man’s opinions from an actual Biblical perspective.

 

 

“Dr. Robert S. Morley

(Here's my post without the examples of how Ecclesiastes 11:5 is translated in the ESV and NAB, which some might find displeasing. I've only used the KJV and have included Clarke and Benson as examples of how others interpret the KJV.)”

First thing to note is that this man has been told to use KJV as it is this site’s rule to do so. He has been informed of this officially by at least one Mod, so this is a deliberate and knowing breach of forum rules, showing that he has no respect for the forum rules or the mods.

“I believe early abortion is a solution for incest, rape, and other unwanted pregnancies that avoids "killing" human beings.”

What you “believe” is irrelevant – what does the Bible actually say? And it is interesting that he not only uses the very rare situations of “incest, rape” but then extends it to the far more common “unwanted pregnancies”. These are his words, and as such he obviously believes in abortion for any reason. He includes the limiters of “incest, rape” to make it seem like he is reasonable, but he then removes the limits by making it “”other unwanted pregnancies” without limitation or definition. This is deceitful presentation.

“The creation account of Genesis 2:7 and the reassembling of human life in Ezekiel 37:7-10 show a two stage process where the physical precedes the soul. They read as follows:

"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" (Gen. 2:7 KJV).”

First instance is the original special creation of the first man, Adam, not the natural birth process. This is in no way a representation of “normal” pregnancy and birth. There is no womb mentioned, there is no conception mentioned, there is no pregnancy mentioned. This is not in any way a normal natural pregnancy, and as a result of it being unique and special in every way, this passage CAN NOT be used in the way that this man is using it. It is simply not relevant to the argument.

“"So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army" (Ezek. 37:7-10 KJV)”

This also is in no way speaking of the natural and normal way of birth. This is a miraculous re-formation of people – if this man’s theory is correct then we also MUST accept that tehw ay a body is formed follows every aspect of this account. That means that a baby forms in this order – the bones first, then the sinews, then the flesh, and then the skin forms over it, and ONLY then the breath comes upon that child FROM THE FOUR WINDS…….

Clearly this is not true, and therefore neither is his premise that the creation of a child is a two part formation. This account ahs NOTHING to do with the creation of a child in the womb.

“Ecclesiastes 11:5 reads, "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all" (KJV). Some commentries on this verse suggest the possibility of a two-phase process in human formation. For example, Clarke's commentry reads, "thou canst not tell . . . how their soul is united to their body, how it came to inform that body, or how the child was formed in the womb of its mother."

The Benson Commentary of Ecclesiastes 11:5 interprets the KJV similarly. It reads, "As thou knowest not the way of the spirit — Of the soul of man, how it comes into the child in the womb; or how it is united with the body; or how, and whether it goes out of the body."”

Ecc 11:5

(5)  As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

 

Where does this in any way indicate a “Two stage human formation” – if anything it indicates that the spirit is not a part of the physical formation of a person, but it doesn’t indicate in any way that such formation is done in two separate stages.

This is in my opinion a deceitful misuse of this verse as there is simply nothing in it which indicates what is represented by this man. Even Benson in his commentary does not suggest what this man is suggesting. He talks of the soul of man but not of a separate timing of it being joined into the physical form of a baby. To suggest otherwise is twisting the commentators words, let alone the Bible itself.

“If the biblical accounts that show two stages of human formation are a template for how human life develops, which some commentators of Ecclesiastes 11:5 suggest possible, then ensoulment occurs some time after conception. Consequently, a human zygote would not have a soul and would not yet be a human being.”

But the Biblical accounts simply DO NOT show this. The first is an event of special creation, not even a pregnancy, the second is an account of special re-formation not normal birth and again not pregnancy, and the third makes note only of the spirit as being distinct from the physical, and nothing at all of the separate formation of these things or of the timing being separate in any way.

There is nothing in these verses that indicate a separate “ensoulment” (not a biblical term by the way), and absolutely nothing that indicates that some sort of “ensoulment occurs some time after conception”. This is 100% this man's theory based apparently upon his ideas that he has imposed upon certain verses that CLEARLY don't say what he is telling us they say.

Since these three passages are erroneously used, and they clearly do not say what this man suggests they say, his conclusion is obviously incorrect.

A human Zygote – which I will note has everything that it needs to grow into a full and complete human being, including a protective environment provided by the Lord – as far as I can see has a soul as soon as it is created. There is no verse that this man has shown that would indicate otherwise.

“Furthermore, “the 1 in 2 loss of zygotes, spontaneous abortions, and the human response to them, may corroborate that a gap exists between conception and personhood” (Preface – Abortion and the Bible: Can Pro-life and Pro-choice Both Be Right?).”

This last phrase comes from a man who has no idea of what he is speaking. My wife and I have suffered 5 miscarriages, and to call them spontaneous abortions, whilst medically correct, shows that he has no compassion for those who have suffered such.

The loss of a child through natural sin affected means is not the same as a deliberate act of ending a life, but it is still a devastating event in the life of a couple.

So this one instance of a “human response to the loss of a zygote” disproves emphatically your last paragraph.

You sir are not qualified to teach the Bible, and that is obvious by your travesty of the misuse of these three passages at least, and corroborated by your absolute lack of compassion for those who have suffered in this way. And in any case, if someone has no apparent response of loss and grief, that doesn't mean there is any gap between personhood and conception. People respond differently to different events, but a different response does not change the event.

 

I said “I would prefer to not add any more of my opinions to this thread.” Nevertheless, I am prompted to respond to the long comment filled with accusations that DaveW brought against me and have added relevant material.

DaveW wrote,

I rarely post now but this has me incensed.

Being incensed is a natural response when our religious views get stepped on and especially if we have been hurt in an area. However, it’s not very productive for a discussion, especially since we all see through a glass dimly. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

It also moves us outside of the spirit with which we are to handle opposition. “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

. . . unless there is biblical evidence against my statements there is no reason for me to respond . . .

I could similarly argue that unless there is clear biblical evidence that a zygote is an entire human being (i.e., human life with a soul included), I will not respond either. The truth is we do not know how or when a soul is given/activated. I have given biblical evidence of a possible template having been revealed that suggests a two-stage process.

First thing to note is that this man has been told to use KJV as it is this site’s rule to do so. He has been informed of this officially by at least one Mod, so this is a deliberate and knowing breach of forum rules, showing that he has no respect for the forum rules or the mods.

Firstly, “this man” is a brother. That tone is condescending. It smacks of the same spirit that accused Jesus, referring to Him as, “This fellow” (Matt. 12:24, 26:61). Secondly, I never intentionally violated the rules. The other versions were part of work I quoted. I saw myself quoting material as one would other outside material or commentaries. I am very new here and had no idea that wouldn’t fly. I was never intentionally trying to get away with anything.

And it is interesting that he not only uses the very rare situations of “incest, rape” but then extends it to the far more common “unwanted pregnancies”.

Firstly, calling rape and incest rare situations appears to diminish the magnitude of those situations and the need to be able to help people in them. Secondly, it is a fallacy to say pregnancy through rape and incest is rare in the way you do. “Rare” in a huge population can still account for many people.  “Recent estimates suggest that rape conception happens between 25,000 and 32,000 times each year in the U.S.” - Pregnancy from rape.

“Almost 3 million women in the U.S. experienced RRP during their lifetime” - Understanding Pregnancy Resulting from Rape in the United States.

Furthermore, “. . . the prevalence of rape-related pregnancies is difficult to capture because it's one of the most underreported crimes in the country. About 7 of 10 sexual assaults go unreported, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network” - How many young girls get pregnant by rape isn't known, experts say. But the health risks are clear.

As for incest, “11% of pregnant adolescents reported becoming pregnant as a result of sexual assault, mostly incest . . . Boyer, Debra, and David Fine. Sexual Abuse as a Factor in Adolescent Pregnancy and Child Maltreatment. 24 Family Planning Perspectives (Jan. 1992)” - Incest Aware.

"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" (Gen. 2:7 KJV).”

First instance is the original special creation of the first man, Adam, not the natural birth process . . . It is simply not relevant to the argument.

Adam is the first construct and, therefore, the account is relevant for consideration. The two stage process may well be replicated within his offspring, in the womb of a mother.

"So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army" (Ezek. 37:7-10 KJV)

This also is in no way speaking of the natural and normal way of birth. This is a miraculous re-formation of people – if this man’s theory is correct then we also MUST accept that the way [sic] a body is formed follows every aspect of this account. That means that a baby forms in this order – the bones first, then the sinews, then the flesh, and then the skin forms over it, and ONLY then the breath comes upon that child FROM THE FOUR WINDS…….

This is a reconstruct that may reveal a delay in the onset of the soul in the womb. The reason for the physical process can be explained this way: “’The sequence involving bones, sinews, flesh, and skin reflects an understanding of anatomy available to anyone who had witnessed the slaughter of an animal; it also reverses the decomposition process.’ (Block)”

The breath of life came subsequently, as at creation. “’The second action was tantamount to praying, as Ezekiel besought the Spirit of God to effect the miracle of re-creation, to breathe into man’s nostrils the breath of life (cf. Genesis 2:7). This time the effect was devastating. What preaching by itself failed to achieve, prayer made a reality.’ (Taylor)” - EZEKIEL 37 – LIFE TO DRY BONES AND UNITY TO GOD’S PEOPLE.

As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Where does this in any way indicate a “Two stage human formation” – if anything it indicates that the spirit is not a part of the physical formation of a person, but it doesn’t indicate in any way that such formation is done in two separate stages.

I don’t understand what you mean by, “if anything it indicates that the spirit is not a part of the physical formation of a person,” as this seems to contradict your position.

My input on Ecclesiastes 11:5 was previously completed work that already included references to the ESV, NAB, and NRSV. I was told that I may not include the passages, so I gave the KJV and two commentaries instead. I then said “Some commentaries [sic] on this verse suggest the possibility of a two-phase process in human formation.” Note that I used the term “possibility.” I can see how what I said can be ambiguous. To be clear, I was not intimating that the commentators were saying anything one way or another. I was simply recognizing that the commentaries left the door open to the possibility.

. . . “ensoulment” (not a biblical term by the way) . . .

Neither is the Trinity.

. . . as far as I can see has a soul as soon as it is created.

Here we come to the truth of the matter. No one really knows. By faith you have taken a position from your reading (and hopefully deep study) of Scripture, and so have I.

There is no verse that this man has shown that would indicate otherwise . . .

If anything, considering what I have presented, the burden of proof lies more with you to show that a zygote is fully human (i.e., a human life with a soul). I know neither of us can prove it one way or another. I am just not so certain we should be foisting our views onto a nation based on the standpoint, “as far as I can see . . . “

“Furthermore, “the 1 in 2 loss of zygotes, spontaneous abortions, and the human response to them, may corroborate that a gap exists between conception and personhood” (Preface – Abortion and the Bible: Can Pro-life and Pro-choice Both Be Right?).”

My wife and I have suffered 5 miscarriages, and to call them spontaneous abortions, whilst medically correct, shows that he has no compassion for those who have suffered such.

I am deeply sorry for what you and your wife experienced, however, I can assure you that my words aren’t conveying the sentiment you suppose.

So this one instance of a “human response to the loss of a zygote” disproves emphatically your last paragraph.

It seems that you misunderstand. "The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days” - What Is a Zygote?

 

[BrotherTony]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

I said “I would prefer to not add any more of my opinions to this thread.” Nevertheless, I am prompted to respond to the long comment filled with accusations that DaveW brought against me and have added relevant material.

DaveW wrote,

I rarely post now but this has me incensed.

Being incensed is a natural response when our religious views get stepped on and especially if we have been hurt in an area. However, it’s not very productive for a discussion, especially since we all see through a glass dimly. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

It also moves us outside of the spirit with which we are to handle opposition. “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

. . . unless there is biblical evidence against my statements there is no reason for me to respond . . .

I could similarly argue that unless there is clear biblical evidence that a zygote is an entire human being (i.e., human life with a soul included), I will not respond either. The truth is we do not know how or when a soul is given/activated. I have given biblical evidence of a possible template having been revealed that suggests a two-stage process.

First thing to note is that this man has been told to use KJV as it is this site’s rule to do so. He has been informed of this officially by at least one Mod, so this is a deliberate and knowing breach of forum rules, showing that he has no respect for the forum rules or the mods.

Firstly, “this man” is a brother. That tone is condescending. It smacks of the same spirit that accused Jesus, referring to Him as, “This fellow” (Matt. 12:24, 26:61). Secondly, I never intentionally violated the rules. The other versions were part of work I quoted. I saw myself quoting material as one would other outside material or commentaries. I am very new here and had no idea that wouldn’t fly. I was never intentionally trying to get away with anything.

And it is interesting that he not only uses the very rare situations of “incest, rape” but then extends it to the far more common “unwanted pregnancies”.

Firstly, calling rape and incest rare situations appears to diminish the magnitude of those situations and the need to be able to help people in them. Secondly, it is a fallacy to say pregnancy through rape and incest is rare in the way you do. “Rare” in a huge population can still account for many people.  “Recent estimates suggest that rape conception happens between 25,000 and 32,000 times each year in the U.S.” - Pregnancy from rape.

“Almost 3 million women in the U.S. experienced RRP during their lifetime” - Understanding Pregnancy Resulting from Rape in the United States.

Furthermore, “. . . the prevalence of rape-related pregnancies is difficult to capture because it's one of the most underreported crimes in the country. About 7 of 10 sexual assaults go unreported, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network” - How many young girls get pregnant by rape isn't known, experts say. But the health risks are clear.

As for incest, “11% of pregnant adolescents reported becoming pregnant as a result of sexual assault, mostly incest . . . Boyer, Debra, and David Fine. Sexual Abuse as a Factor in Adolescent Pregnancy and Child Maltreatment. 24 Family Planning Perspectives (Jan. 1992)” - Incest Aware.

"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" (Gen. 2:7 KJV).”

First instance is the original special creation of the first man, Adam, not the natural birth process . . . It is simply not relevant to the argument.

Adam is the first construct and, therefore, the account is relevant for consideration. The two stage process may well be replicated within his offspring, in the womb of a mother.

"So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army" (Ezek. 37:7-10 KJV)

This also is in no way speaking of the natural and normal way of birth. This is a miraculous re-formation of people – if this man’s theory is correct then we also MUST accept that the way [sic] a body is formed follows every aspect of this account. That means that a baby forms in this order – the bones first, then the sinews, then the flesh, and then the skin forms over it, and ONLY then the breath comes upon that child FROM THE FOUR WINDS…….

This is a reconstruct that may reveal a delay in the onset of the soul in the womb. The reason for the physical process can be explained this way: “’The sequence involving bones, sinews, flesh, and skin reflects an understanding of anatomy available to anyone who had witnessed the slaughter of an animal; it also reverses the decomposition process.’ (Block)”

The breath of life came subsequently, as at creation. “’The second action was tantamount to praying, as Ezekiel besought the Spirit of God to effect the miracle of re-creation, to breathe into man’s nostrils the breath of life (cf. Genesis 2:7). This time the effect was devastating. What preaching by itself failed to achieve, prayer made a reality.’ (Taylor)” - EZEKIEL 37 – LIFE TO DRY BONES AND UNITY TO GOD’S PEOPLE.

As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Where does this in any way indicate a “Two stage human formation” – if anything it indicates that the spirit is not a part of the physical formation of a person, but it doesn’t indicate in any way that such formation is done in two separate stages.

I don’t understand what you mean by, “if anything it indicates that the spirit is not a part of the physical formation of a person,” as this seems to contradict your position.

My input on Ecclesiastes 11:5 was previously completed work that already included references to the ESV, NAB, and NRSV. I was told that I may not include the passages, so I gave the KJV and two commentaries instead. I then said “Some commentaries [sic] on this verse suggest the possibility of a two-phase process in human formation.” Note that I used the term “possibility.” I can see how what I said can be ambiguous. To be clear, I was not intimating that the commentators were saying anything one way or another. I was simply recognizing that the commentaries left the door open to the possibility.

. . . “ensoulment” (not a biblical term by the way) . . .

Neither is the Trinity.

. . . as far as I can see has a soul as soon as it is created.

Here we come to the truth of the matter. No one really knows. By faith you have taken a position from your reading (and hopefully deep study) of Scripture, and so have I.

There is no verse that this man has shown that would indicate otherwise . . .

If anything, considering what I have presented, the burden of proof lies more with you to show that a zygote is fully human (i.e., a human life with a soul). I know neither of us can prove it one way or another. I am just not so certain we should be foisting our views onto a nation based on the standpoint, “as far as I can see . . . “

“Furthermore, “the 1 in 2 loss of zygotes, spontaneous abortions, and the human response to them, may corroborate that a gap exists between conception and personhood” (Preface – Abortion and the Bible: Can Pro-life and Pro-choice Both Be Right?).”

My wife and I have suffered 5 miscarriages, and to call them spontaneous abortions, whilst medically correct, shows that he has no compassion for those who have suffered such.

I am deeply sorry for what you and your wife experienced, however, I can assure you that my words aren’t conveying the sentiment you suppose.

So this one instance of a “human response to the loss of a zygote” disproves emphatically your last paragraph.

It seems that you misunderstand. "The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days” - What Is a Zygote?

You sound like the"pious" Pharisees who believed that their twisting of the scriptures to fit their traditions and beliefs made them right. It's been clearly presented that your interpretation of scriptures and your self righteous and self aggrandizing attitude are not accepted or wanted here. You made mention of "iron sharpening iron' in a post in one of the threads you're trying to inundate with your ludicrous interpretations and applications of scriptures, and it's clear that this is not your intent. You're introducing false doctrine and ideology, and most of us here find this offensive and unacceptable and not in line with the purpose of this website. My suggestion is that you find a group and forum that would be open to your unscriptural views.

[TheGloryLand]

49 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

I said “I would prefer to not add any more of my opinions to this thread.” Nevertheless, I am prompted to respond to the long comment filled with accusations that DaveW brought against me and have added relevant material.

DaveW wrote,

I rarely post now but this has me incensed.

Being incensed is a natural response when our religious views get stepped on and especially if we have been hurt in an area. However, it’s not very productive for a discussion, especially since we all see through a glass dimly. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

It also moves us outside of the spirit with which we are to handle opposition. “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

. . . unless there is biblical evidence against my statements there is no reason for me to respond . . .

I could similarly argue that unless there is clear biblical evidence that a zygote is an entire human being (i.e., human life with a soul included), I will not respond either. The truth is we do not know how or when a soul is given/activated. I have given biblical evidence of a possible template having been revealed that suggests a two-stage process.

First thing to note is that this man has been told to use KJV as it is this site’s rule to do so. He has been informed of this officially by at least one Mod, so this is a deliberate and knowing breach of forum rules, showing that he has no respect for the forum rules or the mods.

Firstly, “this man” is a brother. That tone is condescending. It smacks of the same spirit that accused Jesus, referring to Him as, “This fellow” (Matt. 12:24, 26:61). Secondly, I never intentionally violated the rules. The other versions were part of work I quoted. I saw myself quoting material as one would other outside material or commentaries. I am very new here and had no idea that wouldn’t fly. I was never intentionally trying to get away with anything.

And it is interesting that he not only uses the very rare situations of “incest, rape” but then extends it to the far more common “unwanted pregnancies”.

Firstly, calling rape and incest rare situations appears to diminish the magnitude of those situations and the need to be able to help people in them. Secondly, it is a fallacy to say pregnancy through rape and incest is rare in the way you do. “Rare” in a huge population can still account for many people.  “Recent estimates suggest that rape conception happens between 25,000 and 32,000 times each year in the U.S.” - Pregnancy from rape.

“Almost 3 million women in the U.S. experienced RRP during their lifetime” - Understanding Pregnancy Resulting from Rape in the United States.

Furthermore, “. . . the prevalence of rape-related pregnancies is difficult to capture because it's one of the most underreported crimes in the country. About 7 of 10 sexual assaults go unreported, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network” - How many young girls get pregnant by rape isn't known, experts say. But the health risks are clear.

As for incest, “11% of pregnant adolescents reported becoming pregnant as a result of sexual assault, mostly incest . . . Boyer, Debra, and David Fine. Sexual Abuse as a Factor in Adolescent Pregnancy and Child Maltreatment. 24 Family Planning Perspectives (Jan. 1992)” - Incest Aware.

"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" (Gen. 2:7 KJV).”

First instance is the original special creation of the first man, Adam, not the natural birth process . . . It is simply not relevant to the argument.

Adam is the first construct and, therefore, the account is relevant for consideration. The two stage process may well be replicated within his offspring, in the womb of a mother.

"So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army" (Ezek. 37:7-10 KJV)

This also is in no way speaking of the natural and normal way of birth. This is a miraculous re-formation of people – if this man’s theory is correct then we also MUST accept that the way [sic] a body is formed follows every aspect of this account. That means that a baby forms in this order – the bones first, then the sinews, then the flesh, and then the skin forms over it, and ONLY then the breath comes upon that child FROM THE FOUR WINDS…….

This is a reconstruct that may reveal a delay in the onset of the soul in the womb. The reason for the physical process can be explained this way: “’The sequence involving bones, sinews, flesh, and skin reflects an understanding of anatomy available to anyone who had witnessed the slaughter of an animal; it also reverses the decomposition process.’ (Block)”

The breath of life came subsequently, as at creation. “’The second action was tantamount to praying, as Ezekiel besought the Spirit of God to effect the miracle of re-creation, to breathe into man’s nostrils the breath of life (cf. Genesis 2:7). This time the effect was devastating. What preaching by itself failed to achieve, prayer made a reality.’ (Taylor)” - EZEKIEL 37 – LIFE TO DRY BONES AND UNITY TO GOD’S PEOPLE.

As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Where does this in any way indicate a “Two stage human formation” – if anything it indicates that the spirit is not a part of the physical formation of a person, but it doesn’t indicate in any way that such formation is done in two separate stages.

I don’t understand what you mean by, “if anything it indicates that the spirit is not a part of the physical formation of a person,” as this seems to contradict your position.

My input on Ecclesiastes 11:5 was previously completed work that already included references to the ESV, NAB, and NRSV. I was told that I may not include the passages, so I gave the KJV and two commentaries instead. I then said “Some commentaries [sic] on this verse suggest the possibility of a two-phase process in human formation.” Note that I used the term “possibility.” I can see how what I said can be ambiguous. To be clear, I was not intimating that the commentators were saying anything one way or another. I was simply recognizing that the commentaries left the door open to the possibility.

. . . “ensoulment” (not a biblical term by the way) . . .

Neither is the Trinity.

. . . as far as I can see has a soul as soon as it is created.

Here we come to the truth of the matter. No one really knows. By faith you have taken a position from your reading (and hopefully deep study) of Scripture, and so have I.

There is no verse that this man has shown that would indicate otherwise . . .

If anything, considering what I have presented, the burden of proof lies more with you to show that a zygote is fully human (i.e., a human life with a soul). I know neither of us can prove it one way or another. I am just not so certain we should be foisting our views onto a nation based on the standpoint, “as far as I can see . . . “

“Furthermore, “the 1 in 2 loss of zygotes, spontaneous abortions, and the human response to them, may corroborate that a gap exists between conception and personhood” (Preface – Abortion and the Bible: Can Pro-life and Pro-choice Both Be Right?).”

My wife and I have suffered 5 miscarriages, and to call them spontaneous abortions, whilst medically correct, shows that he has no compassion for those who have suffered such.

I am deeply sorry for what you and your wife experienced, however, I can assure you that my words aren’t conveying the sentiment you suppose.

So this one instance of a “human response to the loss of a zygote” disproves emphatically your last paragraph.

It seems that you misunderstand. "The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days” - What Is a Zygote?

You sound like the"pious" Pharisees who believed that their twisting of the scriptures to fit their traditions and beliefs made them right. It's been clearly presented that your interpretation of scriptures and your self righteous and self aggrandizing attitude are not accepted or wanted here. You made mention of "iron sharpening iron' in a post in one of the threads you're trying to inundate with your ludicrous interpretations and applications of scriptures, and it's clear that this is not your intent. You're introducing false doctrine and ideology, and most of us here find this offensive and unacceptable and not in line with the purpose of this website. My suggestion is that you find a group and forum that would be open to your unscriptural views.

Expand  

Never say never, you lock yourself out.  Then your words are just words. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

2 hours ago, TheGloryLand said:

Never say never, you lock yourself out.  Then your words are just words. 

I did not say never. "I said I'd prefer not to . . . "

There are several instances of the Lord changing His mind. 

[TheGloryLand]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

I did not say never. "I said I'd prefer not to . . . "

There are several instances of the Lord changing His mind. 

True, with Moses, The Lord, was going to wipe them out.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

On 4/26/2023 at 10:55 PM, HappyChristian said:

Oh, knock off the whining about being judged. In a discussion forum, ALL comments are judged. Just as you judged me as possibly presuming. I should ask a question? I don't need to, thanks. When you make reference to something you've been asked not to, it is obviously a work around, whether or not you say it is. Just don't do it anymore and that aspect of "judging" will be over.

No, you didn't say his parents were in "any particular sin," but you did say "This verse appears to refer to the sin of the parents carried through at conception..." Context shows that to be wrong. I know why we are born sinners. And I know that David recognized it as being passed down via conception. You know, kinda like what I said when I said he was talking about we are all born sinners...perhaps that is what you intended with your comment about the sin of the parents, but it didn't come off as that. Ergo it seemed you were saying his parents were sinning when they conceived him. There is a cadre of people who believe that to be the case (that they were sinning when he was conceived).

The accounts of the creation of Adam & Eve and the Valley of Dry Bones have nothing to do with the conception of a baby, no matter how you might try to twist them. Ecc. 11: 5 has nothing to do with either of those occurrences. Dovetailing of scripture is necessary for rightly dividing. But to take disparate instances and try to make them dovetail is not rightly dividing. 

Where did you presume about pride? Oh, mayhap in your comments on humility. You know, in the excerpt from your book. Where it seems (now, this is presumption on my very-educated mind part) that you are saying if folks don't agree with you, there's no unity because there is pride. On their parts. If you didn't intend that, there was no need for you to add it to the discussion. Because it gives the appearance that you are saying if folks disagree with you they are prideful.

 

The following was originally meant for you, but I felt compelled to be gracious and approach this issue more holistically by starting a new thread where we can all help one another interact more lovingly. You indicated your position there, so here it is for all to see:

You justified your judging, saying, "In a discussion forum, ALL comments are judged." The Bible distinguishes between two forms of judging. I was referring to you being in sin by your attitude and intent. You assumed the worst and wanted to put me in my place. May I remind you, myself, and all who are involved here we're always in God's presence, even "[i]n a discussion forum."

You added, "Just as you judged me as possibly presuming." You'll notice I asked a question. This can help prevent sinful judging. Though, I admit, my question was probably said somewhat rhetorically  as you'd already indicated in the short comment what spirit you were in by assuming the worst of me. If it was rhetorical, it was justifiably used to call you out.

More shocking, however, was your rude and ungracious tone when you said, "Oh, knock off the whining about being judged."

Your behavior is not uncommon on this forum, where bullying is prevalent...

You've read the rest. 

[Pastor Matt]

An accusation of judgmental and bullying are subjective to how one wants to interpret a reply. We all can do that, but subjectiveness does not equal truth. So I take that for what's its worth. Life is better by sticking to the Word of God rather than personal opinions. We all have them.

Here's what I do...instead of trying to "correct" people all the time, I try to follow Jesus example and let them know you I'm praying for them. Not every one agrees with me (Hard to believe I know ), instead of me trying to "push" my will on them, I pray for them. 

Matthew 5:44 
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

26 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Your behavior is not uncommon on this forum, where bullying is prevalent...

I'm trying to understand this comment. Please help me understand, it seems you're using the same type of behavior as those you are accusing. 

[TheGloryLand]

I’m the only certified judge here… when my wife is not present.