Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

any combination of those?
congratulations, you've just lumped everyone in christendom as an extremist.
i dont blame you though, Christ did say to follow him is to go against the world.

Eh, over here pretty much all christians does what he say - the majority are not extremist.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

2 - As to referring to God as a jealous God, we have to be careful when we use that terminology. He's certainly not jealous in the sense that you or I get jealous, and I'm sure that's not what's meant to be implied in the text of the scriptures.

God's jealousy is very much like a macho man's jealousy relating to his lover(s). God not only kills people for worshiping other Gods, he even curses their families for 4 generations (i.e. he curses people for the beliefs of one of their great grandparents Exodus 20:4-5).

3 - To clarify, it was the prophet Elisha that called the bears that killed those children. An odd passage, to be certain. Do I believe it? Not really. Do I need to believe everything stated in the Old Testament? I don't think so. Obviously, that can run into the problem of a person just picking and choosing what they do and don't want to agree with and throwing out the rest. I'm not suggesting to do that. But I don't think that verses in the Old Testament like that imply that Christians must believe in a spiteful God who loses his temper over small things and lashes out like a child. I don't believe in the infallibility of the Bible. I believe it contains the word of God, but is imperfect due to the weaknesses of the humans entrusted with its care. In essence, do I need to abandon a lifetime of experiences, feelings, and beliefs because of passages in the Old Testament that are hard to come to terms with?

If you believe in the Bible then you have to believe the bolded - that God loses his temper, does things that he would normally never consider, and then calms down; this happens multiple times. If you only believe the parts of the Bible that you like, then this doesn't apply to you. Just for the record, I don't consider either of these 2 options to be inherently better than the other.

4 - In what way does God "recognize his mistakes" in the Bible? The scriptures repeatedly refer to God as perfect and unchanging.

This is all from Genesis: Human's used to live for almost 1000 years. Then God realized that people tended to anger/annoy him if allowed to live for so long. So he corrected this mistake and cut the human lifespan down to about 10% of what it originally was.

After making this change, God fell into a depression:
The LORD regretted ever having made humans and putting them on the earth. It broke his heart.
And the LORD said, "I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing--all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them."

Then God recovered slightly from his depression, but not enough to stop him from making the Noah's flood mistake. He regretted this mistake so much that he must have rewound time and effectively removed it from history (since there are millions upon millions of pieces of geological and biological evidence that such a flood did not occur).

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

After making this change, God fell into a depression:
The LORD regretted ever having made humans and putting them on the earth. It broke his heart.
And the LORD said, "I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing--all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them."

So God is like me playing Civilization when I've realized I've fucked up and restart the game?

 

[GhaleonQ]

In regards to those giving analysis or comments to scripture: have you had any training or tutorship when younger doing so, or is it a mixture of reading it on your own along with commentary by those more learned and then coming to a conclusion? Because there seems to be a lot of emphasis on "I think", or some indicative of personal interpretation

Do you want people to be formalized, necessarily?

I mean, I did parochial school, teach Sunday School and Vacation Bible School, am a religion major at a stellar but secular college, go to church, and generally read a lot of theological texts compared to your average person, but I've made 0 progress toward any sort of exegesis certification.

On the other hand, when people say "I think," they're usually still repeating some ninth- or tenthhand version of 1 of the great thinkers' works or they've stumbled on something previous conceived and found traces of it on the internet.

It's hard to draw a bright line for who is and isn't "qualified." I think figuring out who's "informed" is a lot more useful, which might be what you mean.

 

[JackEtc]

Just checking in.

Catholic, but not exactly the biggest fan of some of the stuff that is associated with them (mainly opinions on cultural topics).

 

[Shanadeus]

Do you want people to be formalized, necessarily?

I mean, I did parochial school, teach Sunday School and Vacation Bible School, am a religion major at a stellar but secular college, go to church, and generally read a lot of theological texts compared to your average person, but I've made 0 progress toward any sort of exegesis certification.

On the other hand, when people say "I think," they're usually still repeating some ninth- or tenthhand version of 1 of the great thinkers' works or they've stumbled on something previous conceived and found traces of it on the internet.

It's hard to draw a bright line for who is and isn't "qualified." I think figuring out who's "informed" is a lot more useful, which might be what you mean.

And doesn't the bible say that you don't need formal people to explain it?

Just checking in.

Catholic, but not exactly the biggest fan of some of the stuff that is associated with them (mainly opinions on cultural topics).

Excommunicating raped kids who have abortions?

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

God's jealousy is very much like a macho man's jealousy relating to his lover(s). God not only kills people for worshiping other Gods, he even curses their families for 4 generations (i.e. he curses people for the beliefs of one of their great grandparents Exodus 20:4-5).

If you believe in the Bible then you have to believe the bolded - that God loses his temper, does things that he would normally never consider, and then calms down; this happens multiple times. If you only believe the parts of the Bible that you like, then this doesn't apply to you. Just for the record, I don't consider either of these 2 options to be inherently better than the other.

This is all from Genesis: Human's used to live for almost 1000 years. Then God realized that people tended to anger/annoy him if allowed to live for so long. So he corrected this mistake and cut the human lifespan down to about 10% of what it originally was.

After making this change, God fell into a depression:
The LORD regretted ever having made humans and putting them on the earth. It broke his heart.
And the LORD said, "I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing--all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them."

Then God recovered slightly from his depression, but not enough to stop him from making the Noah's flood mistake. He regretted this mistake so much that he must have rewound time and effectively removed it from history (since there are millions upon millions of pieces of geological and biological evidence that such a flood did not occur).

Wow, just wow.

this demands a trailer of an uncertain future...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0mt7UDpHo0&feature=related

 

[slidewinder]

I mean, I did parochial school, teach Sunday School and Vacation Bible School, am a religion major at a stellar but secular college, go to church, and generally read a lot of theological texts compared to your average person, but I've made 0 progress toward any sort of exegesis certification.

On the other hand, when people say "I think," they're usually still repeating some ninth- or tenthhand version of 1 of the great thinkers' works or they've stumbled on something previous conceived and found traces of it on the internet.

It's hard to draw a bright line for who is and isn't "qualified." I think figuring out who's "informed" is a lot more useful, which might be what you mean.

So you've been steeped in this stuff basically since you could think?

 

[JackEtc]

Excommunicating raped kids who have abortions?

Haha. I think gay people should be treated the same as everyone else and be allowed to marry, I think abortion should be "outlawed", but still available in cases of rape (so it isn't done in a back alleyway), I think doctor-assisted suicide is okay, and a bunch of other stuff.

I don't really agree with the Catholic church at all when it comes to opinions on that sort of stuff.

 

[GhaleonQ]

And doesn't the bible say that you don't need formal people to explain it?

Right, in the sense that while formalized teachers are likely going to be the best of the best, it's because they're the most talented/experienced at it. Obviously, it contains characters (and commentary on similar ones) who are idiotic authorities and incredibly virtuous amateurs. I think that's what people have experienced in the "real world," too.

So you've been steeped in this stuff basically since you could think?

I think you're generally agin' it, so you're actually asking if I've experienced other things, right?

In terms of all religious beliefs, I did spend about 6 months intellectually detached from Christianity when I was 14 after someone said that I was only Christian because I was born into it. I decided he was right and spent a bunch of time researching and thinking. I decided I really did think Missouri Synod Lutheranism was right.

In terms of alternate paths within Christianity, well, I don't want to bore you. I've done some HARD turns within it. Had things gone differently (and assuming I didn't change back afterward), I could see myself as the dumb sort of nondenominational evangelical, Orthodox, atheist, or super-Lutheran-fundamentalist. Luther, Kierkegaard, and Dostoevskii are where I think I'll be for most of my life, now. harsh theology + existential grace = perfect

In terms of others testing my beliefs without necessarily wanting to convert me, I can only say that my college is excellent and packed with people from all walks of life. I'd suppose 80 percent of faculty and students would actively dislike my beliefs disaggregated from me, the person.

But, you're right, I have no memory of a time when I wasn't at least nominally Christian.

I think you need people of all experience levels in any ideology, though, so I don't think there's anything objectionable to my path.

 

[JGS]

In regards to those giving analysis or comments to scripture: have you had any training or tutorship when younger doing so, or is it a mixture of reading it on your own along with commentary by those more learned and then coming to a conclusion? Because there seems to be a lot of emphasis on "I think", or some indicative of personal interpretation

TBH, I say I think a lot for a couple of reasons:

1. Out of respect for those who believe differently
2. For non-believers, it diffuses a lot of "Prove it" statements which is not my goal in stating my beliefs.

However, in most instances unless I say otherwise (Like with the Genesis account) I firmly believe my stance which I've found by reading the Bible and researching the context of what was said. Ususally when I state my opinon, I try to tie some kind of example unless there are too many of them.

EDITS: Analysis is based on reading and research. I'm a modern day Berean. I do believe that Christianity has an organization requirement. In other words organized religion should be a good thing since organization is through the Bible. However, I will not blindly accept a teaching just because a preacher says it.

I don't believe God works in mysterious ways either. I think most of the things that he does make sense, so when something doesn't make sense (Like a loving God burning people forever and ever), I research it and then reject it regardless of the size of the religion teaching it.

Question. Do you guys believe in a literal physical heaven. Like a city of gold type deal? Or do you believe it is a purely spiritual one devoid of any physicality; basically, your soul becomes a part of the body of God...and that's it.

Do you believe there is consciousness in either scenario?

The Bible describes three heavens

1. Physical heavens or atmosphere
2. The universe
3. The spiritual heavens.

Spiritual heavens definitely exist, but not in relation to being one with God. It's simply another realm with different creations. We know their seperate because the angels in heaven can make the choice to serve God or Satan and some have specific assignments.

 

[Chaplain]

God's jealousy is very much like a macho man's jealousy relating to his lover(s). God not only kills people for worshiping other Gods, he even curses their families for 4 generations (i.e. he curses people for the beliefs of one of their great grandparents Exodus 20:4-5).

It is important to note that those curses come from breaking the Law. As the Bible says:

For the Scriptures say, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.

The nation of Israel was under the law. They kept on breaking the law. So the curses of the law continued to happen for them. God said if you do this, this will happen to you. That is why this continued to happen to them.

If you believe in the Bible then you have to believe the bolded - that God loses his temper, does things that he would normally never consider, and then calms down; this happens multiple times. If you only believe the parts of the Bible that you like, then this doesn't apply to you. Just for the record, I don't consider either of these 2 options to be inherently better than the other.

God hates sin because he sees the damage it will do to the people committing the sin and those around them. God hates evil because He loves.

This is all from Genesis: Human's used to live for almost 1000 years. Then God realized that people tended to anger/annoy him if allowed to live for so long. So he corrected this mistake and cut the human lifespan down to about 10% of what it originally was.

The key to God flooding the world is found in the first couple of verses of Genesis 6. I suggest you read it.

After making this change, God fell into a depression:
The LORD regretted ever having made humans and putting them on the earth. It broke his heart.
And the LORD said, "I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing--all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them."

God didn't fall into a depression. He saw that people who were created in His image were behaving like little demons because they were infected by demons. Read Genesis 6.

 

[slidewinder]

I think you're generally agin' it, so you're actually asking if I've experienced other things, right?

More or less, and thank you for the answer.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Haha. I think gay people should be treated the same as everyone else and be allowed to marry, I think abortion should be "outlawed", but still available in cases of rape (so it isn't done in a back alleyway), I think doctor-assisted suicide is okay, and a bunch of other stuff.

I don't really agree with the Catholic church at all when it comes to opinions on that sort of stuff.

Why do people say this when it comes to controversial topics such as same-sex marriage, condoms and anything else that are odds with our social values? Feels like an indirect way of saying "I don't agree with the Bible on this".

 

[JackEtc]

Why do people say this when it comes to controversial topics such as same-sex marriage, condoms and anything else that are odds with our social values? Feels like an indirect way of saying "I don't agree with the Bible on this".

It's not, because when the Bible was written, there wasn't such thing as doctor-assisted suicide, or abortion, or The Pill. It's the Catholic church making up an opinion on 21st century issues, and then insist that you're going to Hell if you don't agree, which I don't like (probably because I'll be the one going to Hell if that's true :\ ).

 

[JGS]

I'm really trying to understand what the bible says (note that word, not various denominations corporate beliefs, etc.) about sexuality.

Generally I think I have a good handle on biblical attitudes about sex, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc., but issues like masturbation and pornography I find the bible to be somewhat convoluted about.

Any illumination on the subject would be helpful.

The Bible discusses self-control and deadening your members which seems to be talking about sexuality. So although it may be next to impossible to stop masturbation considering some of it is involuntary and humans by nature are horndogs more often than we are in relationships and/or having sex with our spouses, the thought is we should control our urges. This goes for a lot of things though.

Also, Jesus indicated that even lusting after a woman by looking at her is adultery in the heart and condemned it. So unless ones are watching/reading porn for instruction purposes or for the articles, it's likely condemned- especially since it tends to encourage fornication and hedonism.

It's funny because the Bible overall has no problems with sex, but it does make it a pretty sacred thing between a husband and wife (The Jews had it "better" in that they could have concubines, basically second, third, and in Solomons case hundreth wife).

It's not, because when the Bible was written, there wasn't such thing as doctor-assisted suicide, or abortion, or The Pill. It's the Catholic church making up an opinion on 21st century issues, and then insist that you're going to Hell if you don't agree, which I don't like (probably because I'll be the one going to Hell if that's true :\ ).

The 21st century issues are largely the same as the 1st century issues. There is nothing new under the sun, just a technology that makes it easier.

My problem with the Catholic Church and other religions (& it's minor in all honesty since they are losing) is they interfere in things that have nothing to do with them. They shouldn't concern themselves with what the planet does as long as they let their worshippers realize they are condemned for practicing them. Basically, they need to provide full disclosure.

 

[Mike M]

Then God recovered slightly from his depression, but not enough to stop him from making the Noah's flood mistake. He regretted this mistake so much that he must have rewound time and effectively removed it from history (since there are millions upon millions of pieces of geological and biological evidence that such a flood did not occur).

I'm just a sporadic voyeur of this thread so I'm not familiar with what side of the fence people sit on for the most part. That said, is this something you actually believe, or are you just poking fun at the dearth of evidence for Noah's flood?

 

[KtSlime]

Why do people say this when it comes to controversial topics such as same-sex marriage, condoms and anything else that are odds with our social values? Feels like an indirect way of saying "I don't agree with the Bible on this".

Yes, I must ask, if a person says "I don't agree with the Bible (or church) on this" why even consider yourself a member of that flavor of religion?

 

[JGS]

Yes, I must ask, if a person says "I don't agree with the Bible (or church) on this" why even consider yourself a member of that flavor of religion?

Well, the Bible one is complex because you have people having different opinions about it. There are ones who think it's 100% literal, who think it 100% accurate, who think it's flawed. If you think the Bible is 100% accurate, but don't agree with it, then you have problems. Otherwise, not so much.

I agree on the religion one though. I don't understand Pro-abortion Catholics. I'm not saying that to insult, I just literally don't get it considering the Churches' stand on it.

Now the religion I belong to doesn't address a lot of things that I question. It also would have a particular political view (If it engaged in politics which it doesn't) that I myself would not have. The easiest example is gay marriage. All the members of my church would be arrested and in prison before they would ever be forced to hold a gay wedding. That's fine by me too.

However, from a secular viewpoint I see no reason why the USA would deny those rights to someone if they don't worship as I do and considering the USA shoudn't consider religious matters into the decision except freedom to practice as seen fit.

 

[GhaleonQ]

More or less, and thank you for the answer.

Sure. 1 of the worst things about Internet discussions is that you don't the perspective anyone enters with (which sometimes makes people mean), so I get your point.

I agree on the religion one though. I don't understand Pro-abortion Catholics. I'm not saying that to insult, I just literally don't get it considering the Churches' stand on it.

Well, I mean, you GET it but don't like it. National and ethnic ties, affection for the culture, history, public usefulness, and self-help all tie into religious affiliation. It doesn't make sense if people purely associate with what faith they "match," though.

For the record, I try to stay out of these topics, but it's fun to read. Keep it up, all!

 

[KtSlime]

Well, the Bible one is complex because you have people having different opinions about it. There are ones who think it's 100% literal, who think it 100% accurate, who think it's flawed. If you think the Bible is 100% accurate, but don't agree with it, then you have problems. Otherwise, not so much.

I agree on the religion one though. I don't understand Pro-abortion Catholics. I'm not saying that to insult, I just literally don't get it considering the Churches' stand on it.

Now the religion I belong to doesn't address a lot of things that I question. It also would have a particular political view (If it engaged in politics which it doesn't) that I myself would not have. The easiest example is gay marriage. All the members of my church would be arrested and in prison before they would ever be forced to hold a gay wedding. That's fine by me too.

However, from a secular viewpoint I see no reason why the USA would deny those rights to someone if they don't worship as I do and considering the USA shoudn't consider religious matters into the decision except freedom to practice as seen fit.

It shouldn't yet unfortunately does. I don't really mind personal beliefs, as I have said before, however it seems they have a way of affecting US Law - and if it comes down between Human Rights, and Freedom of Religion - to me there is no contest, Human Rights will win every time.

 

[JGS]

Well, I mean, you GET it but don't like it. National and ethnic ties, affection for the culture, history, public usefulness, and self-help all tie into religious affiliation. It doesn't make sense if people purely associate with what faith they "match," though.

For the record, I try to stay out of these topics, but it's fun to read. Keep it up, all!

I agree with that to an extent. It's just, the Pope REALLY hates birth control and abortion. I mean condoms are good for gay male prostitutes only type of hatred.

Considering there are churches that may very well teach everything the Catholic Church does except a little more leniency on birth control and/or abortion, sometimes I think some of the bigger religious organization are mostly for cultural purposes or family ties.

It shouldn't yet unfortunately does. I don't really mind personal beliefs, as I have said before, however it seems they have a way of affecting US Law - and if it comes down between Human Rights, and Freedom of Religion - to me there is no contest, Human Rights will win every time.

Human rights take precedent in religion too- by law if nothing else. However, Christianity is about having the freedom to not be a Christian.

They just aren't required to include worship as a human right. You can do whatever you want that's legal, but you still can't worship against the rules of the religion if they don't allow it.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

It's not, because when the Bible was written, there wasn't such thing as doctor-assisted suicide, or abortion, or The Pill. It's the Catholic church making up an opinion on 21st century issues, and then insist that you're going to Hell if you don't agree, which I don't like (probably because I'll be the one going to Hell if that's true :\ ).

Anyone else agree with this?

 

[Bungalow Bob]

stuff

The Bible's God has anger management issues and is prone to depression. It says right in Genesis 6:6 that God was heartbroken (i.e. depressed) to the point where he was leaning towards wiping out not only our species, but all other animals too. It's fine to disregard all the parts of the Bible that you don't like, but then don't represent yourself as someone who believes in the Bible.

And God WILL curse you for your great-grandparents infidelity to him (then again he might not if he happens to be in a good mood): You must not bow down to any of the other gods or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected--even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me will suffer my curse. (Exodus 20:5)

 

[KtSlime]

Human rights take precedent in religion too- by law if nothing else. However, Christianity is about having the freedom to not be a Christian.

They just aren't required to include worship as a human right. You can do whatever you want that's legal, but you still can't worship against the rules of the religion if they don't allow it.

Well, that's when don't manipulate the law to mimic "God's Law", or have world leaders say things like "Atheists are not Americans". Much policy here in the US is affected by Christians, and while I know not all Christians are actively trying to limit my rights, there are some, and they seem to be gaining traction at an alarming rate. Things such as DOMA are a joke, and to propose they get any time in the Senate to me is not much different then a bill to try and re-instate slavery, or take away a female's right to vote.

 

[JGS]

Well, that's when don't manipulate the law to mimic "God's Law", or have world leaders say things like "Atheists are not Americans". Much policy here in the US is affected by Christians, and while I know not all Christians are actively trying to limit my rights, there are some, and they seem to be gaining traction at an alarming rate. Things such as DOMA are a joke, and to propose they get any time in the Senate to me is not much different then a bill to try and re-instate slavery, or take away a female's right to vote.

Agreed

 

[Chaplain]

The Bible's God has anger management issues and is prone to depression. It says right in Genesis 6:6 that God was heartbroken (i.e. depressed) to the point where he was leaning towards wiping out not only our species, but all other animals too. It's fine to disregard all the parts of the Bible that you don't like, but then don't represent yourself as someone who believes in the Bible.

And God WILL curse you for your great-grandparents infidelity to him (then again he might not if he happens to be in a good mood): You must not bow down to any of the other gods or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected--even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me will suffer my curse. (Exodus 20:5)

God's curses fall on those who are under the Law. But Christ came to fulfill the law:

"But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

"Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised."

"Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian."

I have broken many of God's Laws. This is true. But Christ paid for my sins when He died on the cross and His blood continually cleanses me of my sins.

If you isolated scripture, you will fall into a huge trap of made up doctrines.

 

[SmokyDave]

"But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

How on earth does this make sense?

Really. I've read this three or four times and I cannot make head nor tails out of it. He was hung on a cross and took on our curse and that somehow makes sense because everyone hung on a tree is cursed? Then why wasn't he hung from a tree?

 

[VanMardigan]

Checking in: Evangelical Protestant

I'm currently reading through the whole Bible. If anyone else wants to take that on, I would strongly recommend googling Youversion Bible. Great reading plans, and they have apps for iPhone, android, and wp7.

I combined that with my Kindle, which of course has apps everywhere so my reading is synchronized across devices. I had no idea it would be this difficult, but its been really rewarding.

 

[Chaplain]

How on earth does this make sense?

Really. I've read this three or four times and I cannot make head nor tails out of it. He was hung on a cross and took on our curse and that somehow makes sense because everyone hung on a tree is cursed? Then why wasn't he hung from a tree?

The cross was made out of a tree. Was it not?

 

[Shanadeus]

Why Abortion is Biblical

One sided. That's the abortion stance of most Christians -- one sided. We hear the Christian Coalition speak against abortion. We hear Focus on the Family tell Republican candidates it will not support them unless they state their opposition to abortion. We hear Operation Rescue's Christian members praying God will turn back the clock and make abortion illegal again. Over and over we are bombarded with the "Christian" perspective that abortion is outright wrong, no exceptions.

With all these groups chanting the same mantra, there must be some pretty overwhelming biblical evidence of abortion's evil, right?

Wrong. In reality there is merely overwhelming evidence that most people don't take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don't actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a verse to support a view they heard from someone else. By definition, most Christians, rather than reading for themselves, follow the beliefs of a Culture of Christianity -- and many of the Culture's beliefs are based on one or two verses of the Bible, often taken out of context.

This is most definitely the case when it comes to abortion. Ask most anti-abortion Christians to support their view, and they'll give you a couple of verses. One, quite obviously, is the Commandment against murder. But that begs the question of whether or not abortion is murder, which begs the question of whether or not a fetus is the same as a full-term human person. To support their beliefs, these Christians point to one of three bible verses that refer to God working in the womb. The first is found in Psalms:

"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for Thou art fearfully wonderful (later texts were changed to read "for I am fearfully and wonderfully made"); wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."

Although this passage does make the point that God was involved in the creation of this particular human being, it does not state that during the creation the fetus is indeed a person. According to Genesis, God was involved in the creation of every living thing, and yet that doesn't make every living thing a full human person. In other words, just because God was involved in its creation, it does not mean terminating it is the same as murder. It's only murder if a full human person is destroyed.

But even if we agreed to interpret these verses the same way that anti-abortion Christians do, we still have a hard time arguing that the Bible supports an anti-abortion point of view. If anything, as we will soon see, abortion is biblical.

Anytime we take one or two verses out of their context and quote them as doctrine, we place ourselves in jeopardy of being contradicted by other verses. Similarly, some verses that make perfect sense while standing alone take on a different feel when seen in the greater context in which they were written. And we can do some rather bizarre things to the Scriptures when we take disparate verses from the same context and use them as stand-alone doctrinal statements. Some prime examples of this come from the same book of the Bible as our last quote. Consider these verses that claim that God has abandoned us:

"Why dost Thou stand afar off, O Lord? Why dost Thou hide Thyself in times of trouble?"

"How long, O Lord? Wilt Thou forget me forever? How long wilt Thou hide Thy face from me?"

"O God, Thou hast rejected us. Thou hast broken us; Thou hast been angry; O, restore us.

Not only can we use out-of-context verses to support that God doesn't care for us anymore, we can even use them to show how we can ask God to do horrible and vile things to people we consider our enemies. In this example, King David even wanted God to cause harm to the innocent children of his enemy:

"Let his days be few; let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children wander about and beg; and let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes. Let the creditor seize all that he has; and let strangers plunder the product of his labor. Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him, nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children."

Are we indeed to interpret that God, speaking through David in these Psalms, is saying we have been abandoned by God and that when wronged we can ask God to cause our enemies to die and cause our enemies' children to wander hungry and homeless? Indeed, it would seem the case.

But rather than interpret that God is with us as a fetus, but forgets us as adults, and yet will allow us to plead for the death of our enemies, we need to look at the greater context in which all these verses are found: songs.

Called Psalms, these are the songs of King David, a man of great faith who was also greatly tormented. He was a man of passions. He loved God, lusted for another man's wife, and murdered him to get her. He marveled at nature and at his own existence. All his great swings in emotion are recorded in the songs he wrote, and we can read them today in the Book of Psalms. What we cannot do is take one song, or one stanza of a song, and proclaim that it is indeed to be taken literally while taking other stanzas from David's songs and claim they should not be taken literally.

Yet that is exactly what anti-abortion Christians are asking us to do. They use those few verses from the Psalms to support their dogma that abortion is wrong. They proclaim those verses as holy writ and the other verses as poetry that we should not be following. Clearly, this is a perfect example of taking verses out of context. And it leads us to only one conclusion: if we cannot trust that God wants to kill our enemies and abandon us, we must also conclude that we cannot trust that God has defined the fetus as being a person.

For indeed, if we allow that kind of thinking we could also make an argument that God is willing to maul children to death if they make fun of a bald guy who just happens to be in God's favor. You think I'm joking, but I'm not. In the book of Second Kings, our hero, the Prophet Elisha, who was quite bald, so it seems, was taunted by a group of young boys. Elisha's response was bitter and cruel:

"...as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, 'Go up, you baldhead; go up you baldhead!' When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number."

Did God kill those forty-two kids for making fun of a bald prophet? We can certainly make an argument for that if we use the anti-abortionists' kind of thinking.

Likewise we can also use the anti-abortionists' methods to establish that God approves of pornography, as seen in these following verses by Solomon as he pondered the female body:

"How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince's daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks for mixed wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle."

"Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine."

Pretty steamy stuff. Taken by itself, it would appear God is indeed promoting a written form of pornography. But just like Psalm 139:13-16, we cannot take it by itself. Instead we must take it within the context it was written.

 

[Shanadeus]

The same is true with the other two verses used by anti-abortion Christians to defend their cause. From the book of Jeremiah, these Crusaders are fond of quoting the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee," from the first chapter. But they never quote the entire passage, which changes the meaning considerably:

"Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 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. Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant."

This is a special event -- the birth of a prophet. God brought the prophet Jeremiah into the world for a divine purpose, and because of that, God was planning Jeremiah's life "before" he was even conceived. God was preparing him to do miraculous things, such as speak on behalf of God while still a child and setting him up as an overseer of nations and kingdoms. But the anti-abortionists simply overlook this on their way to claiming that the one phrase they quote proves God sees us as individual people while still in the womb. God saw Jeremiah in that way, but to claim it applies to all of us is akin to saying that we were all prepared as children to speak for God, and that God has placed all of us "over the nations and over the kingdoms" of the world. In essence, to claim this verse applies to anyone other than Jeremiah is to claim that we are all God's divine prophets. We are not; therefore, we cannot apply these verses to our own lives.

Another problem in this passage is the phrase, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." In Psalm 139:13-16 the anti-abortionists claim that because God was active in the creation of King David in his mother's womb that we must conclude the fetus is recognized by God as being a person. But here we see God stating that he knew Jeremiah "before" he was formed in the womb. By anti-abortionist logic, we would have to conclude that we are a human person even before conception. Since this is a ridiculous notion, we must, therefore, conclude that the anti-abortionist is interpreting these verses incorrectly.

The last verse most often quoted by anti-abortion Christians relates the story of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, while both were pregnant. When they meet, the pre-born John the Baptist leaps in his mother's womb at Mary's salutation. Let's read the original:

"And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:"

As much as the anti-abortion lobby would like this to mean that all fetuses are sentient persons because one is recorded as knowing Mary's words and then leapt inside the womb, the logic is as flawed as the Isaiah misquote. Again we have a miraculous event. Again we have a divine prophet whom God had ordained since before he was conceived. And this time it's even more miraculous, because the gestating John the Baptist is reacting to the approach of Mary, who at the time was pregnant with Jesus. Unless we believe all of us are chosen before birth to be the divine prophet ordained by God to herald the arrival of Christ on earth, then we cannot claim this passage refers to us. And indeed, it does not. While gestating fetuses are known to move and kick as their nervous systems and muscles are under construction, only divinely-inspired babies understand the spoken words of the mother of Jesus and can leap in recognition.

The point to all this is simple: we cannot take the verses we like and interpret them to support what we want to support. And, more to the point, we cannot simply accept what some Christian leaders proclaim as being God's word on a given subject without carefully reading the full text of the book and taking into consideration the entire context. We cannot, as we have shown, simply interpret those few verses from Psalms, Isaiah, and Luke as a reason to be against abortion. And, as we will see in a moment, there are still other verses -- if interpreted in the sloppy manner demonstrated by anti-abortion Christians -- in the Bible that could easily lead us to argue that indeed God, at times, supports abortion. Let's take a look.

In the full context of Ecclesiastes, King Solomon makes the point that much of life is futile. Over and over he writes that if life is good then we should be thankful. But when life is not good, Solomon makes some interesting statements:

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"

Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life. This is made even more clear in these following verses:

"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."

Here we have an argument for both euthanasia and abortion. When quality of life is at stake, Solomon seems to make the argument that ending a painful life or ending what will be a painful existence is preferable. Now remember, we're not talking about David's songs here. We're reading the words of the man to whom God gave the world's greatest wisdom.

And Solomon was not alone in this argument. Consider the words of Job, a man of great faith and wealth, when his life fell upon the hardest of times:

"And Job said, 'Let the day perish on which I was to be born, and the night which said, "a boy is conceived." May that day be darkness; let not God above care for it, nor light shine on it.'"

"Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with silver,. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master."

And again a few chapters later Job reiterates the greater grace he would have known if his life had been terminated as a fetus:

"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."

Clearly there is a strong argument here that the quality of a life is as important if not more important than the act of being born. Indeed, we could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life. And taking these verses to their extreme, I could claim that abortion is not just a good idea, it is a sacrament.

Actually, I will stop short of making that claim. In fact, I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all. It does neither. The condemning and supporting comes not from the words of the Bible but from leaders within our Culture of Christianity who use verses out of context -- the same way I just did to support abortion -- to support their views against abortion. The condemning and the supporting comes not from the Scriptures but from average Christians who take the easy way out, accepting one or two verses of the Bible as proof that their leaders are speaking the gospel truth. The condemning and supporting comes not from God but from those who do not take the time to read the Bible, in its own context, and decide for themselves the meanings therein.

For indeed, there is one passage in the Bible that deals specifically with the act of causing a woman to abort a pregnancy. And the penalty for causing the abortion is not what many would lead us to believe:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offence, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.

It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.

Others have looked to the actual Hebrew words, themselves, to try and refute these verses. They note that the word "yalad" is used in verse 22 to describe the untimely birth, and that yalad is also used in other places to describe a live birth. They then go on to say other places in the Bible use the words "nefel" and "shakol" to describe a miscarriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the baby in Exodus 21:22 must have been born alive. It's easy to see how a novice might make this mistake, but a closer look at the words in question reveal the flaw in this argument.

The word yalad is a verb that describes the process of something coming out - the departing of the fetus. Since it is describing the process, and not the result, it could be used to describe either a live birth or a miscarriage. Shakol which shows up in Hosea 9:14, is also a verb, but its meaning is to make a woman barren. Now a barren woman certainly might miscarry, but with this understanding of the word, it's clear why the writer of Exodus would not have used it since this miscarriage was caused by an accident, not by barrenness. And the word nefel is not even a verb. It's a noun. True, as a noun it is the term for a miscarried fetus, but the writer wasn't using a noun. He was using a verb to describe the coming out of the fetus. Thus, if I were describing a man falling to his death, I would use the verb "to fall" which can be used for both those who die and those who survive a fall, but to describe the man himself I would use the word the "fatality." So we can see that while a novice might mistake a verb for a noun and come to the wrong conclusions about the original Hebrew words used in the Exodus passage, a more careful look proves that the words only describe the action of losing the fetus, not the fetus itself. And that being the case, we can't use the Hebrew translations to determine if the fetus was alive or not when it came out - so we are forced to accept that in all certainly, considering the medical knowledge at the time, the preemie died. This makes it even more clear that the "tooth for a tooth" passage refers only to the mother, not to the miscarried fetus.

What has been so clearly demonstrated by the passage in Exodus - the fact that God does not consider a fetus a human person - can also be seen in a variety of other Bible verses. In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period.

It is time to stop the one-sided view of abortion being proclaimed by Christian leaders. These leaders do not -- despite their claims -- have a biblical mandate for their theologies. It is time to stop preaching that the Bible contains an undeniable doctrine against abortion. It is time to stop the anger and hatred being heaped on abortion doctors and upon women who have abortions, especially when it's done in the name of a God who has not written such condemnations in his Bible. It is time to stop, because the act of making a judgment against people in God's name, when God is not behind the judging, is nothing short of claiming that our own beliefs are more important than God's. We must stop, because if we don't, then indeed the very type of theological argument being used against abortion can be turned around and used to proclaim that abortion is biblical.

 

[SmokyDave]

The cross was made out of a tree. Was it not?

Probably. It isn't a tree though. I don't place my books on a tree, I place them on a bookcase. I don't own a coffee tree, I own a coffee table. Tree =/= Cross.

Also, what's this 'cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree'. Presumably all those crucified before Jesus were cursed too? And those crucified after? And, in fact, many victims of lynching throughout the ages. Were they cursed too? Should it read 'cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree until Jesus does it at which point he inherits the curse and from then on, all those who are hung on a tree are merely unfortunate'?

It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Chaplain]

Shanadeus:

At 6 months old and still in the womb, John the Baptist was happy about Jesus coming into the world:

"A few days later Mary hurried to the hill country of Judea, to the town where Zechariah lived. She entered the house and greeted Elizabeth. At the sound of Mary’s greeting, Elizabeth’s child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Elizabeth gave a glad cry and exclaimed to Mary, “God has blessed you above all women, and your child is blessed. Why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should visit me? When I heard your greeting, the baby in my womb jumped for joy.”

God talking to Jeremiah about planning his life before he was ever born:

“I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.
Before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.”

The Apostle Paul said the same thing:

"But even before I was born, God chose me and called me by his marvelous grace."

Had either been aborted, God's plan for their lives would have been stopped.

 

[Shanadeus]

Shanadeus:

At 6 months old and still in the womb, John the Baptist was happy about Jesus coming into the world:

"A few days later Mary hurried to the hill country of Judea, to the town where Zechariah lived. She entered the house and greeted Elizabeth. At the sound of Mary’s greeting, Elizabeth’s child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Elizabeth gave a glad cry and exclaimed to Mary, “God has blessed you above all women, and your child is blessed. Why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should visit me? When I heard your greeting, the baby in my womb jumped for joy.”

God talking to Jeremiah about planning his life before he was ever born:

“I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.
Before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.”

The Apostle Paul said the same thing:

"But even before I was born, God chose me and called me by his marvelous grace."

Had either been aborted, God's plan for their lives would have been stopped.

Those latter two points are covered in the article I believe.
As for the first one, no one wants to legalize free abortion of 6 months old fetuses.

 

[Chaplain]

Probably. It isn't a tree though. I don't place my books on a tree, I place them on a bookcase. I don't own a coffee tree, I own a coffee table. Tree =/= Cross.

Also, what's this 'cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree'. Presumably all those crucified before Jesus were cursed too? And those crucified after? And, in fact, many victims of lynching throughout the ages. Were they cursed too? Should it read 'cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree until Jesus does it at which point he inherits the curse and from then on, all those who are hung on a tree are merely unfortunate'?

It simply doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Jesus was sinless and hung on a tree made for sinners. Someone innocent died in place for those who are guilty.

Everyone is cursed because they have broken God's commands. This is why everyone is separated from God and going to die. One of the curses of the law is that the person who sins will have to die for their sins. The only way to be un-cursed is by receiving Christ as their pardon.

 

[Chaplain]

Those latter two points are covered in the article I believe.
As for the first one, no one wants to legalize free abortion of 6 months old fetuses.

I find it strange that only people that are alive are the ones who want to allow abortion.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

more stuff

Well let's see what Jesus had to say about this, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Jesus also says that if you're sexually attracted to someone who's not your spouse you should gouge your eyes out or go to hell. And if you are tempted to masturbate you should cut off your hands or accept the same eternal punishment. (Matthew 5:29-30)

The point is that God changes his mind all the time (he's very emotional). He might have cursed you before you were born because your great-grandmother on your father's mother's side did something to make him jealous, or maybe God happened to be in a forgiving mood. I think you either have to accept this or accept the fact that you don't believe in the Bible (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

[Shanadeus]

I find it strange that only people that are alive are the ones who want to allow abortion.

It's because it's only living people that can decide to allow or not allow things.

 

[SmokyDave]

It makes perfect sense. Jesus was sinless and hung on a tree made for sinners. Someone innocent died in place for those who are guilty.

No he wasn't, he was crucified. Totally different thing. I won't post pictures but I assure you that being hung from a tree is not the same as being crucified on a cross.

I find it strange that only people that are alive are the ones who want to allow abortion.

Wow. I wish you'd said this before the stupid tree thing. I'd have known to ignore you. I can't imagine who else you think ought to have a say, the dead or the unborn? Or both?

Wow.

 

[JGS]

The intersting thing is that Roman crucified people in any number of ways so it's not 100% certain he died on a cross to begin with. He could have died on a tree, a stake, a plank, or whatever. The primary point is that Jesus died. How he died has nothing to do with his perfection except in terms of prophecy fulfillment and the pain suffered to deliever mankind. It was a bad way to die- especially considering how badly he was treated prior to getting crucified.

I'll admit to never actually hearing the idea of the curse having to do with the tree although hanging victims were not to be left on a tree overnight.

FAKE EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Honestly, I always was uncomfortable with the idea of the murder weapon being the thing Jesus is remembered by. It would seem better to have Jesus earrings and neckalaces and tatoos (lol) than it would the thing that killed him. But then you get in trouble for making an image which I guess might apply to the cross too.

 

[Chaplain]

Well let's see what Jesus had to say about this, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Just like the scripture I gave said.

Jesus also says that if you're sexually attracted to someone who's not your spouse you should gouge your eyes out or go to hell. And if you are tempted to masturbate you should cut off your hands or accept the same eternal punishment. (Matthew 5:29-30)

Jesus said that the law was not just physical but spiritual. He said sin originates in the mind and then expresses itself through actions.

“It is what comes from inside that defiles you. For from within, out of a person’s heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you.”

Jesus again is saying to get rid of anything that is going to make a person sin. I know of someone who was blind but had lustful thoughts. This is what Jesus is referring to.

The point is that God changes his mind all the time (he's very emotional).

The plan to send the Messiah and save mankind originates in Genesis. This was God's plan from the beginning because he knew mankind would mess up.

He might have cursed you before you were born because your great-grandmother on your father's mother's side did something to make him jealous, or maybe God happened to be in a forgiving mood.

I was born with sin. We are all cursed when we are born. We can also come into a household that is cursed because parents are alcoholics or drug addicts, and these behaviors are then copied by a child.

I think you either have to accept this or accept the fact that you don't believe in the Bible (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I believe what the Bible says and ask God to give me the strength to do his will everyday.

You have continued to isolate scripture. The writings of Jesus and the Apostles explain everything written in the Old Testament.

A good rule of thumb is that the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.

 

[Chaplain]

Wow. I wish you'd said this before the stupid tree thing. I'd have known to ignore you. I can't imagine who else you think ought to have a say, the dead or the unborn? Or both?

Wow.

My wife had an abortion before she became a Christian. She knows and agrees with what I say because she has experienced it.

 

[Shanadeus]

My wife had an abortion before she became a Christian. She knows and agrees with what I say because she has experienced it.

Then what do you have to say about the article I posted which made a very strong case for the bible (and thus, christianity) not being against abortions?
You should forward the article to her and allow her to make up her mind.
Perhaps if she realize that it's fine that she had an abortion then whatever emotional pain she might experience might be reduced.

 

[SmokyDave]

My wife had an abortion before she became a Christian. She knows and agrees with what I say because she has experienced it.

That doesn't change anything. It isn't even related to what you said, nor does it make sense in the context of what you said. Allow me to remind you...

I find it strange that only people that are alive are the ones who want to allow abortion.

What on earth does this mean? Of course the only people that want to allow abortion are alive. You'll notice that the only people that want to ban abortion are alive too. It's almost as if consciousness is a pre-requisite when giving ones opinion, not that you'd know it sometimes.

 

[JackEtc]

Anyone else agree with this?

I'm guessing you...don't?

And to answer the question about if we don't agree with certain religious points why we stay that religion: Currently, I'm 17, and don't really have a choice. I was raised that way, and no matter how hard I try, I'll never get that brainwashed part of me that tells me that God exists out of my head. I'll probably always be Christian, whether or not I'll always be Catholic is another story.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Shanadeus, again, I don't have time for detailed responses, but you should edit out some of the arguments.

For instance, the entire story of Job in almost all exegeses is that while he makes a genuine case about theodicy, Jehovah smacks him down and says, partially, "BOW AND OBEY, DOOD. You think you have a perspective that transcends your own and you don't. I do. Deal with it." Now, arguably, even good Christians could dissent from that without being un-Christian, but I'm pretty sure abortion would still fall to that critique. "Deal with your identity in the universe." I'm certain the main argument of the Bible is not, "Christianity is advantageous in everyday life."

 

[SmokyDave]

I'm guessing you...don't?

And to answer the question about if we don't agree with certain religious points why we stay that religion: Currently, I'm 17, and don't really have a choice. I was raised that way, and no matter how hard I try, I'll never get that brainwashed part of me that tells me that God exists out of my head. I'll probably always be Christian, whether or not I'll always be Catholic is another story.

If it's any consolation, I don't think I believe anything that I believed at 17. Time changes everything. You do have a choice.

 

[JackEtc]

If it's any consolation, I don't think I believe anything that I believed at 17. Time changes everything. You do have a choice.

I'd like to think I've thought about religion more than most 17 year olds.

I did go through a phase where I was considering agnostism (sorry if that's spelled wrong). My co-workers (who are all older than me), talked to me about religion a lot, and logically, I began to drift towards agnostism. I had a tough time with it, thinking about if there was a Heaven, I wouldn't be going to it. I read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, which helped me make my decision. Right around the time when I was considering telling my parents, my Grandpa was diagnosed with Leukemia, which I took as a sign (I know, sounds cheesy), and now I'm back to Christianity.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

The Bible describes three heavens

1. Physical heavens or atmosphere
2. The universe
3. The spiritual heavens.

Spiritual heavens definitely exist, but not in relation to being one with God. It's simply another realm with different creations. We know their seperate because the angels in heaven can make the choice to serve God or Satan and some have specific assignments.

According to a theologian with thirteen years of studies from the catholic church, the spiritual heaven is only you and god, a fusion of mind unity with god.

Lucifer, the brightest angel, the most beloved angel by god, shares the powers of god as well as his body. That is why 99.9% of christians choose the antichrist over the real christ, they're fundamentally indistinguishable.

The cross represents the symbol of venus, women, the ultimate temptation, the final bet, your final gamble, choose god willingly or unwillingly without punishment.... god or women choose wisely, celibacy or abstinence or even sexuality. A satanist goes to heaven, and jesus goes to hell along with innocents.

Related video on body appearance of god from child's perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNZmx95vp1w

PS

With regards to abortion, there exists spontaneous natural abortion. God chooses abortion via evolution, thus it cannot be fundamentally wrong as it is implemented via gene expression in the body of women naturally... women naturally abort defective children, that is the divine law embodied in their genetic code.