Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

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."

I don't quite see what what you wrote has to do with the article I posted.
The argument made in that article is, from what I can see, that God doesn't value fetuses and that killing a fetus isn't disapproved of in the bible.

From reading the various supporting scriptures I can see their point and would be interested in seeing counter arguments to them.

I guess this explains how christians around here can be supportive of abortions, I just never looked into it before.

Posting for new page:

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.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Shanadeus, that's going to take several hours to read. You know that right?

ps
opposing abortion is an antichrist perspective take on abortion.

 

[Shanadeus]

Shanadeus, that's going to take several hours to read. You know that right?

ps
opposing abortion is an antichrist perspective take on abortion.

Never heard that before.

Now that I think of it I've never really looked into why some religious people oppose abortions. I know that abortion is permissible until "the soul is breathed into the fetus" in Islam so theoretically abortions shouldn't be illegal in Islamic countries, but I doubt that's the case.

 

[JackEtc]

Just so it doesn't get lost in the Great Wall of Text (not even gonna bother), I responded to you last page, SmokyDave.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26502766&postcount=1200

 

[JGS]

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.

No offense, but the theologian simply doesn't match up with Biblical teaching that God and Satan are enemies. It would disprove the trinity though.

I disagree with the idea that they are indistinguishable. People choose to side with Satan (Antichrist is a subset of his rule) because they want to do more than what God allows or recommends. It's true that the Antichrist is about religious deception but it's still tied to giving people what they want rather than what is realy taught.

 

[afternoon delight]

For a thread of love and understanding, we're getting some great posts on condemnation.

 

[SmokyDave]

Just so it doesn't get lost in the Great Wall of Text (not even gonna bother), I responded to you last page, SmokyDave.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26502766&postcount=1200

Cheers chap, I was just nipping back to check for that.

I guess what I'd say is, as long as you aren't getting hurt, it's all good. Don't worry too much about which label you wear, just work things out for yourself as you go along. There isn't a right or wrong answer and as long as you don't go around forcing your views on others (which you obviously don't) it's nobodies business but your own. It sounds like you'll be wavering for a while!

I don't really remember when I 'lost my religion'. I never formally had a religion but I assumed I was Christian because we said prayers before assembly and sang hymns at school. At that age (infant school) I just thought everybody was Christian as a matter of fact. It was only when I was old enough to discover other religions and question the existence of a god or gods that I discovered I was probably an agnostic atheist. My mother is an atheist and my father is Christian (and has even been ordained!) but they left me to figure it out for myself.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

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.

When I was 16 or so I considered myself religious, though never claimed any specific sect. My parents are both religious, so I had no choice growing up. But in my search to solidify my views on God and religious beliefs, as an overly analytical teenager I ran into a lot that put my faith into question. I also would take events in my life as "signs", but I quickly got over that. It's childish and I'm embarrassed I ever took such things as "signs".

A year or so back my parents asked me if I believed in God, I told them no and they flipped out for a few weeks. There wasn't a discussion just bs like how do you expain X or Y. So I would explain to them those things and they'd say "you're missing the point!"

Telling your parents that you don't believe is unnecessary. You get nothing out of it, and at best your relationship will someday return to how it was when you believed.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

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.

Don't make fun of bald men. See lex luthor or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54OyHBo3Z2s

You can end up dead, bald men with richess and power are dangerous and god will indeed standby while they massacre and kill even children that wrong them. And if they have erectile disfunction you can bet they're willing to kill even children.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

No offense, but the theologian simply doesn't match up with Biblical teaching that God and Satan are enemies. It would disprove the trinity though.

I disagree with the idea that they are indistinguishable. People choose to side with Satan (Antichrist is a subset of his rule) because they want to do more than what God allows or recommends. It's true that the Antichrist is about religious deception but it's still tied to giving people what they want rather than what is realy taught.

satan is god's prosecutor against man, from man's perspective as seen in the book of job
http://thebricktestament.com/job/index.html

Fundamentally evil, from god's perspective satan is neither evil nor good, he's a nihilist beyond good and evil and god's angelic metatronic trumpet of victory over death.

Man chooses celibacy or wife, will you love an invisible woman from the sky more than your real wife? Will you love mother/father/asexual/omnisexual god.

It took me a while to prove mathematically the face of god exists, and alice=kid=schala=god=12year old girl.

It took even longer to prove that sex with god is possible but forbidden.

See shiki, the girl there is a metaphor for god hidden between the lines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boJ36l1llMc

 

[Fernando Rocker]

satan is god's prosecutor against man, from man's perspective as seen in the book of job
http://thebricktestament.com/job/index.html

Fundamentally evil, from god's perspective satan is neither evil nor good, he's a nihilist beyond good and evil and god's angelic metatronic trumpet of victory over death.

Man chooses celibacy or wife, will you love an invisible woman from the sky more than your real wife? Will you love mother/father/asexual/omnisexual god.

It took me a while to prove mathematically the face of god exists, and alice=kid=schala=god=12year old girl.

It took even longer to prove that sex with god is possible but forbidden.

See shiki, the girl there is a metaphor for god hidden between the lines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boJ36l1llMc

Seriously? Seriously?

 

[JGS]

Seriously? Seriously?

Actually I forgot who he was and got tricke. Mea Culpa just for responding.

 

[kinggroin]

satan is god's prosecutor against man, from man's perspective as seen in the book of job
http://thebricktestament.com/job/index.html

Fundamentally evil, from god's perspective satan is neither evil nor good, he's a nihilist beyond good and evil and god's angelic metatronic trumpet of victory over death.

Man chooses celibacy or wife, will you love an invisible woman from the sky more than your real wife? Will you love mother/father/asexual/omnisexual god.

It took me a while to prove mathematically the face of god exists, and alice=kid=schala=god=12year old girl.

It took even longer to prove that sex with god is possible but forbidden.

See shiki, the girl there is a metaphor for god hidden between the lines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boJ36l1llMc

Anyone else feel like they did at the very end of the second Matrix movie?

 

[bengraven]

One of these days I'm going to read this entire thread. It seems fascinating.

 

[KtSlime]

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.

You're preforming a form of confirmation bias. That's cool and all if you want to do that, as long as you know you are doing that. I find your stance on laws and social issues to be quite similar to mine so I take no offense with your personal beliefs, however I do think it should be pointed out to you that the reason you think it sounds cheesy is there is no correlation between cancer and paranormal messages.

For what it is worth, since you have read The God Delusion, I'm sure you will understand this - I am an atheist, but that does not mean that I do not think there is a possibility of a god, I can imagine a universe where one exists and where one doesn't, however that does not change anything, as a skeptic I have to use evidence to interpret the world, things without evidence such as the celestial teapot must be rejected. I find that there is no more evidence for any particular brand of religion over another.

As GhaleonQ pointed out, personal beliefs, such as belief in a god are often tied up with community groups and social organizations - I had my doubts about god since I was 5, and it took me a long time before I was able to fully embrace them, it was hard being part of a community, helping volunteer at events such as VBS, and assist my grandparents with church preparations, growing up and being friends with the pastors kids all while not believing. I thought it was easier to simply not rock the boat, just to go along with Pascal's wager. But when you consider that any religion could be on the other end, that they are all equal in their lack of evidence, and what they ask you to give in faith, you realize that they are not worth your time - there is one thing I know, and that is that I am alive right now.

The kind of compassion I expect from God is the same that I am given by Amida Buddha - I'm not going to try an tell you to believe in him, I don't believe him to exist, or to ever have however he promised to never rest until he ended all suffering of all sentient beings in the universe - and you don't even have to believe in him. This is what I expect from an all benevolent, all loving God. I am human, I make mistakes, I don't believe my lack of faith is a mistake but if it is, I also believe that I will be forgiven, because this simply is who I am.

I'm very sorry for the ailment that is afflicting your grandfather, and I wish him the best of luck in overcoming it; and I wish you and your family unending courage in dealing with it. My best friend had died from leukemia many years back, and I know what a terrible disease it is. I hope you can find it possible to ever be vigilant in your skepticism, because I truly believe it to be a worthwhile endeavor. As SmokeyDave said, opinions/beliefs are fluid and change over time.

If you are interested in other works similar to The God Delusion, look up the author Sam Harris - he argues one can keep 'spirituality' while rejecting religion.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

I find that there is no more evidence for any particular brand of religion over another.

come now, that is not true. There is a religion where the internet=god=lain=jesus=schala. And you can't plausibly deny the existence of the internet.

it even has a series about good and evil called panty and stocking, psg.

The kind of compassion I expect from God is the same that I am given by Amida Buddha - I'm not going to try an tell you to believe in him, I don't believe him to exist, or to ever have however he promised to never rest until he ended all suffering of all sentient beings in the universe - and you don't even have to believe in him. This is what I expect from an all benevolent, all loving God. I am human, I make mistakes, I don't believe my lack of faith is a mistake but if it is, I also believe that I will be forgiven, because this simply is who I am.

I won't get into the details to avoid confusion but fundamentally chicken and cows are human. Ponder that for a moment as you eat at kfc, mcdonalds, taco bell.... or eat meat.

Anything with a brain is sentient, only lab grown meat is allowed by following the bible, or else you're a cannibal.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Anyone else feel like they did at the very end of the second Matrix movie?

the matrix trilogy is fundamentally what you get if you compress the bible creatively into a modern mythology for man to follow and find deus ex machina, god amongst his creations.

 

[KtSlime]

come now, that is not true. There is a religion where the internet=god=lain=jesus=schala. And you can't plausibly deny the existence of the internet.

it even has a series about good and evil called panty and stocking, psg.

Sorry, I can't believe a religion that doesn't account for Jesus and the Internet being bodhisattva - and I also don't believe in the duality of the Universe - I believe the Universe to be empty (get it?) Is Panty and Stocking worth watching BTW?

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Sorry, I can't believe a religion that doesn't account for Jesus and the Internet being bodhisattva - and I also don't believe in the duality of the Universe - I believe the Universe to be empty (get it?) Is Panty and Stocking worth watching BTW?

duality?, we're talking monism. Oneness.

Hinduism is considered to be the primary proponent of Monism. In the Hindu religion, Brahman (Devanāgarī: ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools and the Brahman religious belief is just seen as different paths to the one god. [1]-wiki

The only thing sure in life is death, real death unavoidable.

os
ps
i kn ow hyperconversion algorithms, that is why people avoid talking to people like me, given canonical representation of statement evaluation under boolean logical interpretation of all possible statements in a skeptical rational manner it is impossible to debate my belief system without contradicting logic.... thus to debate me is to engage in selfcontradicting paradoxical statements, that must be false via logical conclusion.

 

[KtSlime]

duality?, we're talking monism. Oneness.


The only thing sure in life is death, real death unavoidable.

Oh okay, I think I'm down. What's your religion's stance on Cylons? Sentient beings worthy of Nirvana/Heaven or not?

<- studied Buddhism, knows of the god Brahmin.

 

[GhaleonQ]

I don't quite see what what you wrote has to do with the article I posted.
The argument made in that article is, from what I can see, that God doesn't value fetuses and that killing a fetus isn't disapproved of in the bible.

To respond to a very narrow point:

"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. "

You know people who can't separate the "winner" of a work of ideas from it being "validated" or from it being the author's viewpoint? It's like that. Well, it's worse than that, because Job "loses," anyway.

Basically, Job was whining illogically. That he vocalized a sentiment about how he wished he hadn't been born doesn't mean it validates the idea any more than David getting a man killed to have sex with the man's wife does adultery.

I'm choosing the least offensive one to Christian theology, too. The others (Solomon's, especially) actually argues that having the Holy Spirit prevents wrong action and thought. Solomon ruined A LOT. I don't think God supports anarchy and civil war because Jehovah made him wise and it's in the Bible.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Oh okay, I think I'm down. What's your religion's stance on Cylons? Sentient beings worthy of Nirvana/Heaven or not?

I don't think they're sentient, sentience is fundamentally a near logical impossibility, but by the same token human sentience is impossible. YEt that would be to deny consciousness, and descartes cogito ergo sum.

In sum,
if humans are sentient, cylons are sentient. As the brain is merely a living computer, and by the principle of computational equivalence, even a glass of water is equivalent to the brain.

See a new kind of science from stephen wolfram

A New Kind of Science is a book by Stephen Wolfram, published in 2002. It contains an empirical and systematic study of computational systems such as cellular automata. Wolfram calls these systems simple programs and argues that the scientific philosophy and methods appropriate for the study of simple programs are relevant to other fields of science.-wiki

This is advanced science of patterns a science of spirituality that does have a say about the divine, god, soul, and pretty much a science of religious belief.

princess=solution=answer= zelda=triforce= anniversary=god

Consider that cows and chicken are sentient human, god must be of a very strange nature... as far as I can see twilight zone the movie child and haruhi suzumiya are descriptions of god.

ps

also physical resurrection is scientifically possible.

 

[KtSlime]

This is advanced science of patterns a science of spirituality that does have a say about the divine, god, soul, and pretty much a science of religious belief.

Is that along the lines of where I am the Universe is me-ing, right next to that area the Universe is laptop-ing, and over on the other other side of the internet where you are at the Universe is Ultima ratio regum-ing?

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Is that along the lines of where I am the Universe is me-ing, right next to that area the Universe is laptop-ing, and over on the other other side of the internet where you are at the Universe is Ultima ratio regum-ing?

lol, yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SPBJRzW2HM

an artificial god is possible, technological birth of god a real one is possible.

 

[JGS]

Never heard that before.

Now that I think of it I've never really looked into why some religious people oppose abortions. I know that abortion is permissible until "the soul is breathed into the fetus" in Islam so theoretically abortions shouldn't be illegal in Islamic countries, but I doubt that's the case.

I'm trying to stay out of the abortion is good debate since it was talked about to death in anoth thread. however, I couldn't understand where this version of Exodus 21:22-25 is:

"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."

Other ones read it as:

22"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall (A)pay as the judges decide.

23"But if there is any further injury, (B)then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24(C)eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound,

Exodus 21:22-25 (King James Version)

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

These were all taken from here:http://www.biblegateway.com/

I didn't actually read the entiriety of text so you may have explained it.

 

[JGS]

Regarding abortion, there is a huge difference between what God views as a valuable life and what we view it as. After all, Scripture indicates that most people are going to croak as a result of judgement by God, that doesn't mean people have the right to make that judgement.

So no matter how many kids God kills, in womb or teenagers, or full grown adults, or old people, it has no bearing on what we can kill unless he tells us to do so.

Christians are not instructed or encouraged to kill prekids. It's all well and good for you to do that yourself since it's a free country, but there's no basis, no matter how many verses are rattled off, to think that Christians are doing God's will by killing their own children prior to birthing them or after.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Regarding abortion, there is a huge difference between what God views as a valuable life and what we view it as. After all, Scripture indicates that most people are going to croak as a result of judgement by God, that doesn't mean people have the right to make that judgement.

So no matter how many kids God kills, in womb or teenagers, or full grown adults, or old people, it has no bearing on what we can kill unless he tells us to do so.

Christians are not instructed or encouraged to kill prekids. It's all well and good for you to do that yourself since it's a free country, but there's no basis, no matter how many verses are rattled off, to think that Christians are doing God's will by killing their own children prior to birthing them or after.

physical law, evolution, the existence of spontaneous natural abortion. Clearly following the example of evolution, the actual creation the actions of god supercedes any divine text such as the bible.

Antinoob philosophy, moderator, and censorship, are antithesis of god, satanic behavior. But then again if you have no censorship, you get southpark.

In any case, I'm pro artificial wombs, sterilization of the masses, and legislation to require a license to reproduce regulated by the state. I'm also pro social welfare and the abolition of work. Every citizen deserves a meal, a roof, and should not be required to work at all no matter how poor. And obviously decent welfare not third world U.S.A. token welfare in a slum.

 

[JackEtc]

You're preforming a form of confirmation bias. That's cool and all if you want to do that, as long as you know you are doing that. I find your stance on laws and social issues to be quite similar to mine so I take no offense with your personal beliefs, however I do think it should be pointed out to you that the reason you think it sounds cheesy is there is no correlation between cancer and paranormal messages.

I'm not exactly sure what confirmation bias is, could you explain? Also, the reason I took the cancer as a sign was because my grandpa was in perfect health, and was really fit for his age.

I'm very sorry for the ailment that is afflicting your grandfather, and I wish him the best of luck in overcoming it; and I wish you and your family unending courage in dealing with it. My best friend had died from leukemia many years back, and I know what a terrible disease it is. I hope you can find it possible to ever be vigilant in your skepticism, because I truly believe it to be a worthwhile endeavor. As SmokeyDave said, opinions/beliefs are fluid and change over time.

Thanks. He had one month of chemo left, and was doing great, but got an infection, so he's back in the hospital.

I honestly think I'll always be Christian, because of the brainwashing that church does to you. If I became an Agnostic / Atheist, I would constantly be thinking in the back of my head "What if you go somewhere after you die?" and would be scared. I also feel like that, despite being more of a man of science, that God exists (maybe it's the brain washing).

The biggest gripe I have with Christianity is the hatred of gays (I'm not gay, it's just unfair to them though), and their opinions on controversial topics today. The thing I'm REALLY not a fan of is the scoffing of birth control, and being anti-masturbatory. But maybe that's just Catholicism, and not all of Christianity, I wouldn't really know.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

I'm not exactly sure what confirmation bias is, could you explain? Also, the reason I took the cancer as a sign was because my grandpa was in perfect health, and was really fit for his age.

.

confirmation bias is taking a bias towards data that verifies or reassures your belief, your current beliefs while dismissing or minimizing the importance of data that contradicts your current beliefs. It is a spontaneous reflex of defense humans have.

ps
on god
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeDECMBgVL8

 

[Herpes Reasons]

viakado: So which of those crossed the line? I hope you understand why I can't believe in the random musings of unknown authors that has been manipulated over the past several thousand years.

manipulation?
there's roughly over 5,300 original greek manuscripts of the new testaments.
and they have the same wordings. word for word. Some of the earliest manuscripts dates back as early as 30yrs from crucifixion. from an archeological standpoint, that's as solid as it gets. so i dont get where you're getting this manipulation theory from.

 

[JackEtc]

confirmation bias is taking a bias towards data that verifies or reassures your belief, your current beliefs while dismissing or minimizing the importance of data that contradicts your current beliefs. It is a spontaneous reflex of defense humans have.

ps
on god
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeDECMBgVL8

Oh yeah, I'm totally doing that, I agree. Like I said, it's the brainwashing, and I'm not joking. I was raised for 17 years being a Catholic, and it's gotten to the point where you can't really think rationally about it after a while.

On the other hand, I do have a lot of opinions about things that totally go against the ideas in the bible though. I believe the universe was created scientifically, I believe in evolution, I believe in all the scientific shit. It's just I also believe (or want to) believe in God, and in Heaven.

And If I'm wrong, so what? I won't go anywhere when I die. But If I'm right, I'll be going to heaven. Worth an hour a Sunday impo.

I still really don't like the whole birth control and anti-masturbation stand that Catholics have, though. Birth control is a necessity in the 21st century. And as for masturbation, it's a natural feeling, and everyone does it. It's bullshit that my religious ed teacher can look us all in the eye and say "You are going to Hell if you masturbate".

Speaking of masturbation, I really hate confession. I HATE IT. I don't care that a priest promises not to tell, it's human nature to see a person and immediately think "Oh, that's Jack, the one who _____". Why can't I just confess to God directly? Why does the priest have to be my messenger?

I know I'm going out on tangents, but I'm just talking about gripes in general while talking about my religious..."instability".

 

[Shanadeus]

Regarding abortion, there is a huge difference between what God views as a valuable life and what we view it as. After all, Scripture indicates that most people are going to croak as a result of judgement by God, that doesn't mean people have the right to make that judgement.

So no matter how many kids God kills, in womb or teenagers, or full grown adults, or old people, it has no bearing on what we can kill unless he tells us to do so.

Christians are not instructed or encouraged to kill prekids. It's all well and good for you to do that yourself since it's a free country, but there's no basis, no matter how many verses are rattled off, to think that Christians are doing God's will by killing their own children prior to birthing them or after.

Are they discouraged or banned from having abortions then?
That is, if having an abortion doesn't go against God's will then who are you to say that it isn't doing God's will?

If one is for the use of birth control and leans towards scriptual evidence that supports you and even glorify the use of birth control for a noble purpose than the same should be the case for abortions, the destruction of something that in the Bible lack value.

I have another question:

Are the moral lessons of My little pony compatible with the teachings of Christianity?

I'm trying to stay out of the abortion is good debate since it was talked about to death in anoth thread. however, I couldn't understand where this version of Exodus 21:22-25 is:

Other ones read it as:



These were all taken from here:http://www.biblegateway.com/

I didn't actually read the entiriety of text so you may have explained it.

Yeah, it's explained in the article:

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.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Oh yeah, I'm totally doing that, I agree. Like I said, it's the brainwashing, and I'm not joking. I was raised for 17 years being a Catholic, and it's gotten to the point where you can't really think rationally about it after a while.

On the other hand, I do have a lot of opinions about things that totally go against the ideas in the bible though. I believe the universe was created scientifically, I believe in evolution, I believe in all the scientific shit. It's just I also believe (or want to) believe in God, and in Heaven.

And If I'm wrong, so what? I won't go anywhere when I die. But If I'm right, I'll be going to heaven. Worth an hour a Sunday impo.

I still really don't like the whole birth control and anti-masturbation stand that Catholics have, though. Birth control is a necessity in the 21st century. And as for masturbation, it's a natural feeling, and everyone does it. It's bullshit that my religious ed teacher can look us all in the eye and say "You are going to Hell if you masturbate".

Speaking of masturbation, I really hate confession. I HATE IT. I don't care that a priest promises not to tell, it's human nature to see a person and immediately think "Oh, that's Jack, the one who _____". Why can't I just confess to God directly? Why does the priest have to be my messenger?
I know I'm going out on tangents, but I'm just talking about gripes in general while talking about my religious..."instability".

not familiar with pascal's wager?

 

[JackEtc]

not familiar with pascal's wager?

Hm. I am now...I think I understand.....

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

manipulation?
there's roughly over 5,300 original greek manuscripts of the new testaments.
and they have the same wordings. word for word. Some of the earliest manuscripts dates back as early as 30yrs from crucifixion. from an archeological standpoint, that's as solid as it gets. so i dont get where you're getting this manipulation theory from.

And from what I understand there are little to no words, if any, that have been changed from today's versions which is quite a feat. It always interest me though that people assume that its been changed either by ignorance or simply unbelief.

Historically the NT and OT are probably the most well preserved writings ever.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Hm. I am now...I think I understand.....

It's not as easy as
believe = heaven and non-belief = hell.

And even if it was there are so many religions and Gods that your chances of "betting" on the right one are pretty slim.

 

[JackEtc]

It's not as easy as
believe = heaven and non-belief = hell.

And even if it was there are so many religions and Gods that your chances of "betting" on the right one are pretty slim.

Well, I lose nothing either way...

 

[JGS]

Are they discouraged or banned from having abortions then?

In relation to what you were trying to prove, it doesn't matter since the point was it's not encouraged in the slightest by the verses you mentioned. If you have more, please feel free to divulge them. But if it has to be one or the other, then the obvious answer would be that the life of the unborn was valued so an abortion would be discouraged. However, none of that matters as it's based on the religion's particular stance.

My argument in the abortion thread never had anything to do with religion and it doesn't now. It had to do with me personally thinking the life of a prekid was way too valuable to dismiss as easily as you do and me lamenting that others didn't feel that way and using lame excuses to justify it.

I could be agnostic and think it's a bad thing to kill a pre-kid (I was definitely non-religious and held that thought), just like an atheist could view the killing of a mass murderer who is legally being killed for his crimes to be a bad thing too.

 

[Dever]

manipulation?
there's roughly over 5,300 original greek manuscripts of the new testaments.
and they have the same wordings. word for word. Some of the earliest manuscripts dates back as early as 30yrs from crucifixion. from an archeological standpoint, that's as solid as it gets. so i dont get where you're getting this manipulation theory from.

It's pretty common knowledge that the manuscripts weren't all the same. Even my Bible has small annotations on John 8 and the last chapter of Matthew saying they're not found in the earliest manuscripts and were later additions.

 

[Shanadeus]

In relation to what you were trying to prove, it doesn't matter since the point was it's not encouraged in the slightest by the verses you mentioned. If you have more, please feel free to divulge them. But if it has to be one or the other, then the obvious answer would be that the life of the unborn was valued so an abortion would be discouraged. However, none of that matters as it's based on the religion's particular stance.

My argument in the abortion thread never had anything to do with religion and it doesn't now. It had to do with me personally thinking the life of a prekid was way too valuable to dismiss as easily as you do and me lamenting that others didn't feel that way and using lame excuses to justify it.

I could be agnostic and think it's a bad thing to kill a pre-kid (I was definitely non-religious and held that thought), just like an atheist could view the killing of a mass murderer who is legally being killed for his crimes to be a bad thing too.

I don't think the point of those verses was that abortion was to be encouraged, but rather that there is no scriptural support for discouragement of an abortion (aside from it being a way of not having children which is a whole different question.)

The whole point of that article is that the life of an unborn isn't equal to that of a child and the arguments made sound pretty solid (such as what's said in Exodus 21:22-25.)

I don't want to bring in the abortion debate here either but I just found it interesting that the bible doesn't seem to be against abortions.

 

[JGS]

Are they discouraged or banned from having abortions then?
That is, if having an abortion doesn't go against God's will then who are you to say that it isn't doing God's will?

You added so I'll add:
So since Heroin isn't mentioned in the Bible, one should asume that heroin use is encouraged.
What if one wants to eat crap? Since Christinaity doesn't condemn eating crap, that means it's encourages.
That's a very ying/yang approach to looking at things imo.

Yeah, it's explained in the article:

First, there is still no indication of the translation being used (Is there?). From the paragraphs it appears that it is older than the "politically correct" King James version.

In any event, the argument is simply defining the verse to your own beliefs rather than even what the words actually say. I'll keep looking at other translations, but that one is the only one worded that way.

It's still based on an accidental misscarriage and not the purposeful killing of a prekid so the verse still doesn't apply unless you maneuver it to.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Well, I lose nothing either way...

You potentially lose a lot of time worshiping vapor.

 

[JackEtc]

You potentially lose a lot of time worshiping vapor.

Meh, I'd be sleeping that early anyway. But yeah, I see what you are getting at.

I don't think you guys are going to sell me on going Agnostic or Atheist a second time, though.

 

[Shanadeus]

You added so I'll add:
So since Heroin isn't mentioned in the Bible, one should asume that heroin use is encouraged.
What if one wants to eat crap? Since Christinaity doesn't condemn eating crap, that means it's encourages.
That's a very ying/yang approach to looking at things imo.

But it condemns what heroin/eating crap causes to your body I presume.
It'd be the same thing for abortions, as they'd be analogous to birth control ("choosing not to have a child") which may or may not be be okay to use dpending on your interpretation of the Bible.

First, there is still no indication of the translation being used (Is there?). From the paragraphs it appears that it is older than the "politically correct" King James version.

In any event, the argument is simply defining the verse to your own beliefs rather than even what the words actually say. I'll keep looking at other translations, but that one is the only one worded that way.

It's still based on an accidental misscarriage and not the purposeful killing of a prekid so the verse still doesn't apply unless you maneuver it to.

I think the point of the argument is that the punishment for killing a fetus is null, meaning that the fetus isn't really considered as valuable as other human beings:

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.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Meh, I'd be sleeping that early anyway. But yeah, I see what you are getting at.

I don't think you guys are going to sell me on going Agnostic or Atheist a second time, though.

I have no problem with people worshiping whoever they please, but there is a difference between believing in God and acting accordingly, and worshiping out of fear, it's just cowardly.

 

[JackEtc]

I have no problem with people worshiping whoever they please, but there is a difference between believing in God and acting accordingly, and worshiping out of fear, it's just cowardly.

Woah woah woah, I don't worship out of fear. I was saying that that is what I would constantly be thinking if I decided to become Atheist or Agnostic.

I still go to Church, I wear a small gold cross that I've had since my first Holy Communion, and I say prayers everyday. It's definitely not out of fear. It's just that I don't like a lot of the things about the religion that isn't the worshiping parts.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Woah woah woah, I don't worship out of fear. I was saying that that is what I would constantly be thinking if I decided to become Atheist or Agnostic.

I still go to Church, I wear a small gold cross that I've had since my first Holy Communion, and I say prayers everyday. It's definitely not out of fear. It's just that I don't like a lot of the things about the religion that isn't the worshiping parts.

The way you said you became religious again after your grandfather's unfortunate bad health made it seem like you turned to religion as a comfort thing.

Either way, you don't need to label your skepticism, the same way you don't need to label your faith. The church isn't infallible and you should question things as you see fit.

 

[JackEtc]

The way you said you became religious again after your grandfather's unfortunate bad health made it seem like you turned to religion as a comfort thing.

Either way, you don't need to label your skepticism, the same way you don't need to label your faith. The church isn't infallible and you should question things as you see fit.

When he got cancer I had some conversations with him over skype about religion and stuff, and I started praying more, and he started getting better. I didn't turn as a comfort, I almost felt like it was a warning, if anything.

And I don't question the belief as much as I question things like having to go to a priest for confession instead of right to God and not being able to use birth control.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

When he got cancer I had some conversations with him over skype about religion and stuff, and I started praying more, and he started getting better. I didn't turn as a comfort, I almost felt like it was a warning, if anything.

And I don't question the belief as much as I question things like having to go to a priest for confession instead of right to God and not being able to use birth control.

So you feel God may have warned you about losing faith by giving your grandfather cancer?