God, the Bible, and the overly-ambiguous titel "Pro Life"
A Spirited discussion over the validity of the "God" argument, specifically the one from the Bible.
I feel confident in saying that, as far as abortion goes, there is ample Biblical evidence to SUPPORT abortion. Let the games begin.
I don't feel it's necessarily relevant to appeal to the Bible for either side, since we're dealing with a secular morality.
Oh but lets hear what he thinks is a biblical defense for abortion from ANY religious tome...
I prefer a defensive stance. I'll take an offence when I see an opening.
Is a game of dueling bibles going to change your mind? Unless you come as a little child you shall not enter the kingdom of God. Thou shalt not kill and love your neighbor as yourself is more than enough for me to be pro-life.
Not to mention "thou shalt not kill" from the Ten Commandments?
I looked up all the places in which unborn children are mentioned a while ago, and I can put them on here once I find them again...
the most inspirational story I can think of that is pro-life is the story of the annunciation where an angel tells Mary that she has been chosen to concieve the savior. There is a painting of this story by Bartolome Esteban Murillo. My computer dosn't alow me to inter a URL but I can give an address if someone can make it work.
oh I guess it did work, well good
I don't have much patience with people who want to play games while thousands of babies are being killed everyday, Ike.
I don't have much patience with people who want to play games while thousands of babies are being killed everyday, Ike.
That was my sentiment also.
Based on his postings, ScreamingIke is one of the strangest characters I've come across.
Specifically, i believe that the actual quote is that thou shalt not murder, not kill. Killing is shown as acceptable in numerous places.
so put your opinions on the board.... where do YOU find abortion to be acceptable within Biblical limits.... Show you cards .
Is everyone ok with me using a pastor's essay verbatim instead of simply rehashing it? if so, i'll post.
i have no problem with that.
I don't particularly like the fact that people have to compare religion with something as wrong as abortion. Killing is wrong nevertheless. You don't have to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect to know that killing a human is wrong. IMO I think alot of pro-lifers should stop using that as thier shield and just know in thier hearts and minds that abortion is wrong. I am pro-life and still believe in Jesus, but I don't need to bring him into an arguement about abortion.
I don't think anyone in authority will object, Ike, but if it's long not too many will read it.
I agree. Religion is fine, and on a board devoted to religion I'd expect to read about it in every post. But this board is dedicated to opposing abortion, and no religion has a monopoly on that.
My Bibles say "kill". Besides, abortion is murder.
Murder according to my dictionary:
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully (even though it it is not unlawful YET).
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. (ripping apart unborn babies alive sounds entirely barbaric.)
3. To put an end to; destroy (in other words, abortion)
Killing is not acceptable in God's eyes unless in self-defense, and the baby is the defenseless one. Or in self-preservation, such as killing animals in order to eat. Or in war, where he/she is protecting his/her country.
In the Old Testament, Exodus 21 mentioned Hammurabi's "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth" idea (which I suppose could have inculded "life for a life", possibly), however; Jesus came with a new convenant in the New Testament, saying that God would be merciful, etc.
And now that I've found where the unborn are mentioned in Genisis 25:22-24, Job 31:15, Pslam 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Hosea 12:2-3, Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41, Exodus 21:22-24. In these, they do not imply anything that suggests that a fetus has less status than a born person.
And that website, http://elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html , is an abomination of Bible interpretation in its whole.
Not only that, but Elroy's other page, "Is abortion moral?" is philosophically unsound and completely circular. I'm getting sick of people like Elroy trying to pass off their own emotional opinions as some sort of reasoned argument.
Let's start with probably the most glaring error -- Elroy's claim that embryos are potential human persons. If you are talking about something "potentially" being, rather than "actually" being you mean that it possess that power but isn't using it. So, "personhood" is then an attribute, not an ontological term. (i.e. it's not a term that designates something that susbsists on its own) "Personhood" either means a human being (an ontloglical term) or it means HAVING rights, social status, etc. If it means simpy a human being than that is a scientific, self-evident fact -- of course an embryo is a human being.
If, on the other hand, personhood means a human being HAVING a particular attribute only potentially you are still saying they have that power or attribute. A fetus has potential self-consciousness, just as it has potential sight, hearing, smelling, etc. To say that a fetus doesn't have eyesight just because it is currently seeing anything would be silly. If it has it in potentiality, it still possesses that attribute. Potency or actuality is simply not relevent.
what about it, specifically, is an abomination?
also, his moral argument is weak. i'veseen much better. but his biblical argument is sound.
Religion, politics, birth control, quality of life ect... are all related issues, but separate issues from prolife. I have always thought of prolife to refer to right to life as mentioned in the constitution, which the supreme court failed to recognize as being more important than the right to privacy in the Roe v. Wade case.
I am open to other subjects as long as they don,t distract from the main issue which is, all people deserve the right to life and the protection of the law, born or unborn, citizen or non-citizen.
"Ambiguous title Pro-Life" ? It has been my expereience that the choicers are constantly changing the subject and complicating the issue.
I could find many things wrong with it...I won't mention all of them for the sake of my time. And please excuse any mis-spellings or typos.
First off, Elroy saying that we can't trust God in saying that a fetus is fully a person is BS.
"Even before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." That quote does not describe a non-person fetus. God loves every single one of the individuals he created, not just prophets (EVERYONE has equal importance to him), no matter how small or developed that person is.
And when the Bible describes the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, John the Baptist lept for joy in the presence of Mary. Does that sound like a non-person to anyone? He had perception, a characteristic of people, especially spiritually. What Elroy, however, wants to assert that only prophets or people of importance or power deserve the love of God before they're born. I cannot exert enough force into the fact that GOD LOVES EVERYONE. Size and development are NOT important to Him. And, it is a proven fact that unborn children can perceive and take in their surroundings, even if it is not outside the womb. Studies have shown that a baby's heart rate beats faster when there is a sudden noise (even ouside of the mother). It can feel a sense of fear or surprise. Studies have also shown that an unborn child's heart rate slows down when it hears its mother's voice, which implies calmness.
And Elroy's "mauling children to death if they make fun of a bald guy who just happens to be in God's favor" stance is also a rather stupid interpretation. To make a long explination short, WE ARE NOT GOD. Just because he may have sent bears to beat down on kids doesn't mean we get to rip innocent children alive in the womb. So God sent lightning bolts on people, but that doesn't mean we get to electrecute innocent people.
And in Elroy's example with Ecclesiastes and Job and their "evience for the support euthanasia and abortion", he is essentially saying that what Solomon's and Job's word is law. There is one thing he is forgetting, and that is SOLOMON AND JOB ARE NOT GOD. Sympathy is human. Everyone feels that way once in a while. However, God did not accomodate either of them in their quotes.
And lastly, Elroy tried to use Exodus 21:22-25 as an excuse for lowering the status of a fetus. What the verse is saying is that if the man had the intent to kill or hurt the woman, but the baby is killed in the process and the woman lives, then the man would be punished lesser than that of actually killing the woman. If the man accidently killed the baby instead, that would be called manslaughter today. A manslaughter is not as severe as a first degree murder charge. An abortion is killing the baby with the intent of killing the baby.
Now, what I'd like to see is any pro-abort giving me an ACTUAL ACCOUNT of a baby being aborted, and God acknowledging that he finds it all right. No, miscarriage does not count. Those are the not the intential killing of a human being by another. For heaven's sake, even the Greeks understood that killing an innocent life for the convenience of another is not right whatsoever. The original Hippocratic Oath states that euthanasia and abortion are wrong (taking of an innocent life, it says), but not very many schools use that version today.
So THAT is why that website is an abomination of Bible interpretation today. I am probably still not going to change your mind, but I thought I'd make things clearer.
Like all proaborts, Elroy puts his foot squarely in his mouth:
# Is it a person?
Here Elroy runs like a coward to the legal definition of "person", ignoring centuries of vernacular usage which DOES refer to unborn humans.
# Is it physically independent?
Here Elroy goes off on an unrelated tangent. Physical independence has no moral implications.
# Does it have human rights?
Here Elroy shows his colors by another cowardly retreat into legalisms. We all know that Roe and Doe took away all legal rights to life for the unborn. What else is new?
# Is abortion murder?
Once again Leroy makes a cowardly retreat into legal jargon.
Is this really the best you can do?
the "abortion answers" page was just for further reading. i have no interest in discussing that on this thread...
This guy, Elroy, is an ordained pastor. His reading of the bear incident was fececious. It was intended to indicate the absurdity of assuming that God means for us all to be prophets. I entirely agree with his reading of Psalms. His reading of all of the Jewish texts, in fact, I find to be contextually accurate. Like Solomon's endosement of euthanasia...
The fact that Elroy is an ordained minister just goes to show that a fourteen-year-old girl makes more sense than a "minister" of the Lord.
You can go ahead and agree with him, but in the end it's just going to come around and kick you in the butt.
And I say that in the most respectful manner.
I pray for that man's soul.
I did not read everything in those articles, he wasn't making enough sense to make it worth my time.
Let me ask you a question ScreamingIke.
First of all what is your connection with the bible? Do you believe it?
I will make one point about one of the verses that man used.
""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."
Exodus 21:22-25 "
After reading the BS this man has written, he has no respect from me. Here's what my bible says. (And I have the King James version which I believe is the most acurate. You may disagree but that is your choice.)
"If 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.
23. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."
Now, if this is the woman dieing, then it isn't very clear. And if this is the death of the baby, then it is most certainly clear that it is a life. But look at this. Both versions say "a woman with child". What is a child? You may brush it off as a "misuse of the word" or "meaningless" but I think it is quite clear.
Here's a verse for you to look at ScreaminIke. Proverbs 6:16 and 17
"These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood"
Is a child before birth innocent or not?
with a belief in original sin, i contend that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god."
his article, which you said you did not entirely read, IS my stance on what the Bible says about abortion. I am a Bible-believing Christian. However, I am disgusted by the current nature of the culture that surrounds modern American Christianity. It is that disgust that actually led me to read some of Elroy's other works.
He is one of the few reasonable pastors I've read.
I am not happy with the current american Christian culture either. But I don't see that it is that different from your pastor friend.
This is a serious question.
Is it okay for a mother to kill a baby up to a month old if she doesn't want it?
I'm not especially happy with American Christian, either. If 5% of churches, Catholic or Protestant, 5% of chuches stood up and spoke out against abortion, then all would be lost for the abortion lobby. I'm not sure if that's true, I read it somewhere, but it sure is a beacon of hope. The Church is that powerful.
Unfortunately, a lot of churches just kind of ignore the pro-life Christians and look the other way when we ask for their help. They insist on "focusing on other social problems". I don't know why, but that's the way it seems to be.
And I read the whole entire article, and I was thouroughly disgusted by Elroy's "reasoning" and his "evidence" based on conjecture. Maybe HE should read his entire Bible and see what God ACTUALLY says. I've read the Bible since I was about five or six and I've NEVER gotten ANY impression that God allows the slaughter of innocent children by other humans beings. Even before reading Elroy's articles, and not to mention after. Many other people who've read the Bible haven't ever thought that it endorses abortion.
Christianity and pro-abortion cannot be together at all. If a Christian is pro-abortion, then they are incredibly ignorant. I say that in the most respectful way also.
hereforareason, according to Jewish law, i contend yes.
So you encourage the slaughter of innocent children???
That's reeeaallll compassionate...
yea, well... i don't think they're innocent, and i never said to slaughter them. i said i wasn't opposed to it, not that i support it.
when they came for me there was no one left to protest....
Of WHAT are "they" guilty, Ike?
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Do you propose to contradict the bible on this thread?
Ike, this forum is NOT a religious forum. I am NOT a religious person. (And apparently you aren't either.)
So why are you beating your gums about scripture to me?
I thought Ike said he was "a bible-believing Christian" in another thread. Ike, is that so? Do you seriously propose that unborn children are guilty of "original sin" and if so, do you propose that the verse you have quoted ("all have sinned") is the proof of this? Do you further propose that abortion is not immoral solely because of the concept of "original sin"? If so, why is murder immoral? What of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill/murder"? Just wondering. As yoda points out, this is not a religious forum, and not all of us here are religious.
unborn are guilty because of original sin.
that verse is proof.
abortion, however, has a much stronger biblical (at least, jewish) basis than original sin.
murder is immoral because god said "no".
this thread IS religious. i'm not going to debate off-topic per thread.
So you believe all human beings, born and unborn, are guilty--and that that guilt means they can be killed by those whose lives they inconvenience in any way?
Murder is immoral because "god said 'no'"? What makes you think that this "no" did not apply to the murder of those yet unborn?
Answer in religious terms if you feel that is more in line with the thread.
The only thing that unborn children are "guilty" of is exsisting and therefore being an inconvenience to the born.
Just because the unborn have original sin doesn't mean that they get to die! They have committed nothing malicious or evil at ALL! They are THE most innocent, defenseless forms of the human race. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING justifies the murder of innocent, defenseless children.
And by what you said in an earlier that "you never said to slaughter them", I am assuming that you are extremely ignorant about what abortion does. If tearing a baby apart while it's still alive is not slaughter, then I don't know what it.
Let's say for a fleeting moment that we give your statement the benefit of the doubt.
How does being "guilty of sin" make us guilty of a capital offense?
If you claim it does, why wouldn't born people also be elgible for capital punishment for this "sin"?
How does a mother qualify as DA, arresting officer, judge, jury, and executioner of her child for it's "sin", when she is equally guilty?
Are you even remotely aware of the vernacular usage of the word "innocent"?
Main Entry: in·no·cent Function: adjective1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : BLAMELESS <an innocent child> b : harmless in effect or intention www.m-w.com
Does it make you feel "superior" to try to use religion to make fun of people?
i did not say that they WERE guilty of a capital offense. i said that they were not "innocent".
Sorry ike, but i've spoken to a priest, 2 rabbi, and several ministers on the subject of your quote. Every one of them and myself included think that you and yours have come up with a twisted version of what the meaning is. It seems that you have forgotton the context and the intended meaning of the entire passage, which was H. law. In other words, because a man's children were his legacy in Jewish life, and because the felt that to be remembered was the only way to "live' after death, in the eyes of the participants, during that period of time, to kill his offspring would be to kill his chance at immortality, and as such be considered a capitol offense.
NOT an ok thing to do.
i did NOT say anything that should provoke that kind of response. wtf?
What can't handle people of substance discussing you posts... don't post on the net then....
I'll follow you into the dark.
? what substance are you talking about? can you pull out the quote that that refers to?
looked at your page... completely juvy... Did you read the entire sermon link you posted??
And what, pray tell, part of your last post referrs directly to me??
I'll follow you into the dark.
oh... did you talk to those rabbis about that "sermon" specifically... like... hand it to them? or did you just sum it up? and what are you talking about?
nope and it was your website... came up as part of your post O3.
The Rabbi come here to the shelter and to my home to discuss the shelter... we all enjoy reading this forum and some of us post under this persona... we sign out real names though so you can tell us apart.
The woman who originally started this avatar died a few months ago... to keep her name is a memorial.
I'll follow you into the dark.
ah. so... you don really wear a beret?
it was as close to Goth as we could get.
I'll follow you into the dark.
goth's are.... you know what? can you define "goth"?
go to this site....
I've been "Goth" since before we were called Goth... before 1978...
Goths are also very intelligent and creative.
pfft. prove that.
Your talking to one, and one who has more degrees in her little finger than you will ever get behinde your name. I've earned my right to have my opinions and to back them up... what about you start backing up yours with a few original ideas... not just American Pie quotes.
I'll follow you into the dark.
I think that trying to make sense of abortion from the Bible is rediculous. We arent supposed to be running around fornicating out of wed-lock (or in these days, at least a very serious relationship) ANYWAY.
yep but some people just like the idea of HIV>>>>>
I'll follow you into the dark.
biased sample. what degrees?
Masters nursing admn.
Working on a PHd
3 textbooks over 150 articles in various scientific and psychological journals, as well as magazines
BTW your turn, back yourself up.
Mary i'll follow you into the dark.
holy schnikes. i'm an undergrad. i'm likely to have not read your stuff... HOLY CRAP.... you sure you're married? i dig brainy girls...
This is a discussion between pro-life and pro-abortion, not a dating service.
nobody asked you, tabitha.
Then why didn't you PM her on the matter instead of putting out here for everyone to see?
Oh...I'm BURNING from jealousy. [sarcasm]
he just won't go away.
BTW he doesn't have the guts to PM me... I'd blow him away...
what does that mean, galen? it's just a hassle. quick-reply is a life-saver...
it means that you want everyone to listen to your opinions and you can't keep a straight thought in you head. You are rude, mean, and uninformed. If I were prochoice then you as a rep from that camp would definately make me want to change my mind.
lol. i'm not MEAN. and my rudeness is intended in the most lighthearted way possible.
Oh really? Do the words "idiot pro-lifer" ring a bell?
that's you opinion.
You also shoot from the hip and your cerebral processes are that of a 14 yo... entirely without rational thought for the most part. When you back up yourself you use the most ludicris people to do so. Do you really believe everything you see written on the net?? ie, you latest sermon quote.....
Do you relly fall into the trap of every 2 bit shyster out there for his own gratification?? or does it just seem that way.
See Ike, I don't need to belittle you, your words do enough on thier own. Grow a set already, your immaturity keeps showing and it is getting old.
galen, i actually believe that sermon from elroy. i believe it is an accurate biblical treatment of the pro-life movement, though not a biblical endorsement of abortion.
glad to see you're in the peanut gallery, where you belong, bradensmommy.
Did someone drop you on your head as a child?? Have you ever READ the Bible from cover to cover....?? its not what one line says, or 2 or 3 its the WHOLE MESSAGE.. and that goes for every branch of theology I can think of. NONE of the messages state killing an innocent is moral or correct in any way.
Hope your up to a bible lesson.
I've seen a lot of preachers get things wrong but this guy flat out lies. The only thing he says that is true is that too few people read and study the bible for themselves. This is the only part that you seem to ignore unfortunatly. He does seem to conceed at least that these specific prophets were fully persons before they were born. Go back and read it again. Don't you agree?
Now let's move forward.
Ecclesiastes6:3 "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 saw the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he."
Here this man has recieved incredible blessings from God such as Many children, a long life and good things. Yet the mans soul is not satisfied. To find out what the passage means read on. ECC 6:5-6 "Though it never saw the sun or knew anything, it has more rest than does that man- even if he lives a thousand years twice over but fails to enjoy his prosperity. Do not all go to the same place?"
McKinley left out the last part. wonder why? maybe it could be the fact that this passage actually makes the pro-life point. Living 2000 yrs or dying in the womb does not make you more or less of a person to God.
"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."
Why would anyone bury a clump of tissue in a tomb? Remember the book of Job is about a man who was severely tested yet would not curse God. The fact that he says he would have prefered to die in the womb shows his trust for god. Even if he had died in the womb, he trust that God would have been watching over him. Again Mckinley gets it wrong.
Its late and time to wrap some presents. I'll continue later
i do not ignore his "eleventh commandment" (read your bible) he says himself that many of his statements are INTENTIONALLY taken out of context to show relative inaccuracies in pro-life arguments.
...Right. So his arguement is sound, yet it's not even in context...?
didn't you say you were a student of philosophy and logic? Simply because Mckinley used the scriptures out of context does not mean that pro-lifers do. If person (A) tells a lie it does not mean that person (B) is also lying unless they are saying the same thing. In this case they are opposed. So Mckinley is really trying to use deception to make his point. Since he is not capable of an honest debate I have a very low opinion of him. Furthermore if the best arguement that an ordained pastor can make can be shot down by a mere high school grad (majored in partying and hot rods) then it is likely because the facts are on my side. As much as I'd like to say that it's because I have superior debating skills, the truth is simply that he (and you) have chosen the losing side. Don't feel bad. Many of us pro-lifers were over there too, at one time.
By the way, it is nice discussing this with you in a more civil way.
Also Ike Mckinley says the hebrew word "yalad" is a verb that means to come out. I don't know what his source is but either he needs to get a new one or he is simply lying. after all he knows few will bother to check. The word used is "yeled" and it refers to the child or fruit or offspring. the word used for coming out , coming forth with a purpose , or being born, or delivered , is "yatsa".
I think you should give some consideration to who you study under. You are smart enough to recognize that studying under some one who ignores the truth and teaches his opinion instead is pointless. You won't learn the facts you'll only learn his opinion. Is that what you work so hard for?
i couldn't have spelled it out better.
The definition of MURDER is killing an INNOCENT person.
Can't get any more innocent than an unborn baby.
Actually, in the noun form, it's usually defined as the illegal killing of a human being.
However, in the verb form, this is how it's commonly defined:
Main Entry: 2murderFunction: verb2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY 3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE ,TORMENT c : MUTILATE>, MANGLE
Bumped back up , just so ike could respond. IF he will.
I want to see what Ike has to say also.
?? Are you saying jewish law says that it's ok to have intercourse with a three-year-old girl? ??
This thread was specifically God and the Christian Bible.
Anyway, you know the Bible very well. Have you ever heard of the new convenany created by Jesus Christ?
No I'm not saying that. You are free to draw your own logical conclusions from the quote I posted. Apparently Jewish law says a girl under three years old is not suitable for sexually intercourse, and that if a man has sex with a girl who is 3 years and 1 day old, they are considered husband and wife. I find the implications to be quite offensive, but that's just based on my personal interpretation, you are, of course, free to arrive at your own conclusions.
yeah, i think my conclusions are pretty similar to yours!
No wonder there are so many pedophiles in this world! I don't know why people have to be so sick to have sex with a toddler, that is just so wrong on sooo many levels!
On the other thread I tried to be pretty respectful of you, but this one proves that you don't have an honest bone in you. Niddah says nothing about having sex with 3 yr olds. I had to wonder where you got that garbage and I found your source. https://http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm
This is a muslim website that does nothing but spread hate toward Christians and Jews. It is disgusting and so are you. I don't know what other Muslim web sites are like but I don't think they would be as hateful as this. I would expect that most others at least attempt to be honest. I doubt that your muslim. The fact that you would be spreading these lies tells me a lot about you. I wonder if your prolife position is genuine.
And if you don't want religion should be part of the debate, then why do you keep posting to the religious threads. Could it be that you want to spread your religion of lies.
You know CP showed up about the same time that Ike came back.
I seem to recall Ike used to put forth a bunch of false info that he claimed came from the bible. Wild accusations that never stood up. He seemed to hope that either nobody knew the bible or that nobody would check. Now CP throws a twist and lies about the talmud. Funny thing is, Lies are Lies no matter who says them or who someone says they are.
Was that addressed to me, or just a general comment? Just wondering.
Hey, there is some crazy, messed up stuff in every type of scripture--Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and probably even Buddhist! That doesn't mean that normal adherents of those religions are using that stuff to justify heinous acts today. I have no idea who is right about this 3-years-and-one-day thing, and to be honest I really don't even care whether it's in there or not, except at this point just out of curiousity to see whether CP or dad is correct. But I am sorry to see such anger towards each other and I hope that will change.
To be perfectly frank, dadserna, I think you were a bit harsh on CP in your post where you claim the passage he mentions doesn't appear. You could have simply stated that you see no evidence of this, and asked him to provide some. Instead you called him a liar. Maybe he was lying, but from his other posts he doesn't seem at all like a liar. It might be, if he did tell an untruth, that he was simply mistaken, not lying. Anyway, as I said, I don't know which is true, but I do hope you and CP can work this out in a way that means you end as friends again. I suppose it's none of my business, so if what I just said offends you in any way, just chalk it up to my desire for peace and don't let it stress you out. For the record, I like you both, a whole lot, and I hope you both stick around here.
Triple that .
maybe you guys... you and Dad should remember that Jewish law was written for the time period that was quite diffrent than ours. Many cultures have the same veiw of women... including the Muslims, that were held by the writers of jewish law back in the time of Moses. Women back then were property and as such has to be treated as if they were lost or damaged goods to thier fathers, should an unspeakable act such as rape occured. And please make no mistake, that the act reported was considered rape. The fact was that if the girl lived she would have carried the stigma with her, and if she died she was worth compensation to her father. ( note it was his right to call her death murder, but also his right to ask for monetary compensation, as he would forfit the help she gave his household for the time she would have lived in it ) Please also remember thet no modern jewish Rabbi i have ever spoken with would apply these rules in this age where women ( at least in this country) are not considered property.
Dad, lying is a pretty big charge, and I am willing to bet that Jesus would have gone to rabbinical knowlege before he ever found someone guilty of it.
Contemplative and bookish men must of necessity be more quarrelsome than others, because they contend not about matter of fact, nor can determine their controversies by any certain witnesses, nor judges. But as long as they go towards peace, that is Truth, it is no matter which way.
First you presented your bogus evidence that Jewish law encouraged sex with a girl 3yrs and one day old. Then you said Numbers 31 corresponds to it. I don't believe I mis read your post? It sure looks like thats what your saying. I did read Niddah54 and Numbers31 theres nothing there about sex with 3 yr olds. I take great offense to your position that we christians may not be willing to accept things in the bible, since the things your talking about are not in the bible. I don't know where you get your info, but before you accuse me and a billion other people of promoting pedophilia, I suggest you verify your source.
As for your current posturing to show how you have been wronged, lets see.
You say I (and other christians) promote pedophilia.
I called you a liar.
Don't wait for my apology
I resent that. I have not made any statement that I do not believe is true. I do not believe you can show any statement of mine that is even questionable. I do not believe everything in the Bible is true, but when I post a scripture, I do not claim it to be true, I say "this is what the Bible says," or "according to the Bible."
Quoting a statement does not necessarily imply acknowledgement of the accuracy of the statement, or agreement.
Yo, I am your biggest defender, so just relax. I think it is obvious that I thought you were not lying, and just included that for the sake of respecting dadserna's position by allowing the possiblity, however remote.
The quote in context:
In case you didn't notice, even if you had been wrong about what you'd posted, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I still am. I understand how offensive it is to be called a liar. It is really offensive, especially to someone who is meticulous about telling the truth--as you seem to be. Ok?
I'll accept the that there is a slight possibility that you did not know the information was false. In which case you would not be a liar. You did however do a lot to promote this garbage and even made some of the people here believe that you had some knowledge superior to most. Since that which you have learned is false, I do not consider it superior. Nor do I consider your intentions to be honest.
I will be happy to drop this now since you have now admitted that you have not personally seen anything in the Mishah. Instead the situation would be more accurately described as :
that a website says
that Rabbi Nuesner says
that the Mishnah says
Hardly authoratative. You may be interested to know that Nuesner wrote most of this in the mid 1980s and early 1990s. Jewish scholars treat older writings as more accurate. So a translation from Nuesner has about as much credibility as would a translation from the Jewish lady at the end of my block.
As for everyone else who found the preceding exchange distasteful, I have this to say. I'm sorry that you feel that way. I do not apologize for defending the bible or the jewish scripture. I believe it is important to realize that whether or not you are motivated by your religion many others are. There are too many churches that have fallen away from the truth and now consider abortion as acceptable. I find it incredibly sad that too many christians cannot or will not speak up about what the bible REALLY says. Furthermore, since we on this forum hone our skills at refuting all other proabortion agruements I see no reason why we should not refute those based on misinterpretations of scripture. Make no mistake, an attack on the bible is simply a flanking manuever to discredit a large portion of the pro-life movement. Left unchallenged, these charges would create a false impression of many (not all) prolifers.
Posted by ScreamingIke:
Oh if only I had joined a month before I did...ScreamingIke-You only take the defensive stance because you HAVE no offensive stance. You, like every other on this thread, do not read entire articles, and if you do, you do not read their counters.
It is of course easier to sit back and let others decide why your reasoning is false or incorrect, meanwhile you find more things to debate and post. When someone responds to this thread, you take their theories and google them, finding JUST enough information to refute them.
When you say that the websites you hyperlinked in your postings were just for further readings and do not wish to discuss them in this thread, what could possibly be the reasoning for that? In order to see who is correct and to come to an ultimate conclusion, one needs to discuss and debate. You of all people should know this. So post another thread that discusses these hyperlinks. Personally, I believe you do not wish to discuss them at all because you know you will be bested, having not read them in their entirety yourself.
Bring it on Ike. Bring it on...
I'm sorry that you've spoken to that many delegates, too. For by doing that you seem to think that yourself and the others you have spoken to in the matter of what the meaning of that article is are indefinately correct.
Isn't the whole basis of religion one's interpretation on the matter? Just because you think that Biblical passages and sermons that were written 10's or 100's of thousands of years ago mean, you seem to concur that you know all. Religion has no more meaning than one of it's followers chooses to give to it. If Christianity didn't have so many different interpretations, it would not be here today.
So don't state that Ike's arguments and examples of articles and sermons are incorrect and twisted simply because YOU went to a priest, 2 rabbi, and several ministers on such examples. That's what we call a fallacy. Look it up sometime. Come to think of it, look up as many as you can find, then come back at us with something legit.
On a side note, A priest, 2 rabbi, and several ministers sounds like some sort of religious joke...roflmaolol5555lawl
I'll correct this now, as to not lull you all into a false sense of security and into thinking I'm an idiot. The first paragraph in the last posting ended with "correct". It was indeed meant to be "incorrect", and I was going to address that later, but I'll go ahead now.
I tend to think that people who ahve spent thier lives in serious study of something give a bit more weight than someone who is twisting things around as much as ANy fanatic out there. ( take the Tliban or Jerry Falwell for instance) Study for truth is worth something. Study so that you can controll others is not.
AND YES I read all of his posts and THAT is why I've taken the opposing side with him. I also try to research the backrounds of people I see links for. I feel that it is my best intrest and the intrest of people that i help to have a truely informed opinion.
Since you were not here for the start of that debate and did not get the PMs from this little clown maybe you should back off the crtitcism a bit. People on this forum tend to be better educated than you think.
Yes I too took freshman Philososphy and Logic....
I choose not to use them in this debate, as they tend to leave out emotions and emotions, being part of the human experience must always be considered. Only someone without empathy for others would discard it so callously.
Have YOU, Galen?
Galen doesn't seem to understand the conceptual thought processes and acceptable components of how an argument works. I'll help out a bit, Galen. First off, when formulating or debating an issue like this, it is very "juvy" to criticize the person behind the argument rather than the argument itself. ScreaminIke's "use of the most ludicris people to do so" is his perogative, and so too it is yours to comment that his sources are any less reliable than your own.
Do you really believe everything you hear from a priest, 2 rabbi, and a select few other religious delegates? It works both ways.
Out of respect for those on this forum, please think before you speak. Thanks.
Whoops, sorry. Didn't see the other pages. NM this.
I Do think before I speak ( and type)... once again you've missed that you were not in in the whole convesation....
An Yes I've read the Bible from cover to cover... several times in fact. Also many other religious tomes...
that was the point of that statement.