Biblical Opposition to Abortion

[thrasymachus]

I'm just curious. Other than "Thou Shalt Not Kill" what passages in the Bible oppose abortion?

For example, is there anything in the Bible that makes reference to when life begins.

I am ignorant to this topic. Any of you able to help me out?

[KinjaKahn]

I'm just curious. Other than "Thou Shalt Not Kill" what passages in the Bible oppose abortion?

For example, is there anything in the Bible that makes reference to when life begins.

I am ignorant to this topic. Any of you able to help me out?

Guess what,,, i didn't find where it said i cant kill thrasymachus...

[Jiddy78]

Guess what,,, i didn't find where it said i cant kill thrasymachus...


Cut him some slack...You know the thread's in trouble when you say "Other than one of the ten commandments, what says you can't do this?"

[thrasymachus]

Cut him some slack...You know the thread's in trouble when you say "Other than one of the ten commandments, what says you can't do this?"
Haha. Well, there are obvious exceptions to that commandment. I'm just looking for some Biblical support to show it falls within that commandment.

[Hotpapa666]

I don't know if you are going to find what you are looking for but there is Biblical support for giving your daughters over to an angry mob intent on rapping them. What a good holsum value that is.

[Smoke681]

I do not believe the Bible dictates at what point life begins. I'm unsure off the top of my head though.

That's why it's such a controversial subject. When does the baby's heart develop and start beating? 12 weeks isn't it? Some would say that is when the life is begun. For me, it is my OPINION that life begins with conception. But the reality is that the Bible doesn't make this crystal clear, which is why even Christians squabble over this topic.

[LSU]

I do not believe the Bible dictates at what point life begins. I'm unsure off the top of my head though.

That's why it's such a controversial subject. When does the baby's heart develop and start beating? 12 weeks isn't it? Some would say that is when the life is begun. For me, it is my OPINION that life begins with conception. But the reality is that the Bible doesn't make this crystal clear, which is why even Christians squabble over this topic.


Does a heart make a life?

When do the liver, kidneys, lungs, and brain develop?

In college, I took chicken cells (from an partially developed embryo in an egg) and in a few days, we had heart tissue that was beating? Was there a chicken in that dish?


I'm not writing that to be a smart ass, only to get across the point that an arbitrary point in development does not equate to life.

I have no problem with you believing life begins at conception. I would disagree, but that's for another thread. Anyway, the beating of a heart does not equate to life as there are a few other vital organs that are nowhere near completion.

[Smoke681]

Does a heart make a life?

When do the liver, kidneys, lungs, and brain develop?

In college, I took chicken cells (from an partially developed embryo in an egg) and in a few days, we had heart tissue that was beating? Was there a chicken in that dish?


I'm not writing that to be a smart ass, only to get across the point that an arbitrary point in development does not equate to life.

I have no problem with you believing life begins at conception. I would disagree, but that's for another thread. Anyway, the beating of a heart does not equate to life as there are a few other vital organs that are nowhere near completion.
Point taken. Hadn't thought of it that way. The reality, as I stated, is that it's certainly debateable at which point life "begins". I believe it certainly is before delivery. Beyond that, I'm not qualified to give an absolute answer.

I do know that on a study of partial birth abortions, the one where the vacuum is used (?), the babies being aborted exhibited reactions to the vacuum, attempting to avoid the vacuum. That's action and reaction, and to me is life, and consequently murder.

[LSU]

Point taken. Hadn't thought of it that way. The reality, as I stated, is that it's certainly debateable at which point life "begins". I believe it certainly is before delivery. Beyond that, I'm not qualified to give an absolute answer.

I do know that on a study of partial birth abortions, the one where the vacuum is used (?), the babies being aborted exhibited reactions to the vacuum, attempting to avoid the vacuum. That's action and reaction, and to me is life, and consequently murder.


Oh, there's definitely a point at which there is viable life in there. And, once that point is reached, the ONLY way I would see it logical that an abortion be an option is if the mother's life is about to be lost. Not "in danger" or "complications could arise" but, she's about to flatline...where it's the choice of mother or child.

Then, I think that should be an option.

Beyond that, I think there is a point of viability, and before that point, an abortion is acceptable (I'd never have one for my wife, nor would ever advise anyone to have one, but...). So, I'm not with you on the life at conception point. But pretty much right on par with you on the partial birth stuff.

[thrasymachus]

Point taken. Hadn't thought of it that way. The reality, as I stated, is that it's certainly debateable at which point life "begins". I believe it certainly is before delivery. Beyond that, I'm not qualified to give an absolute answer.

I do know that on a study of partial birth abortions, the one where the vacuum is used (?), the babies being aborted exhibited reactions to the vacuum, attempting to avoid the vacuum. That's action and reaction, and to me is life, and consequently murder.
I believe that type of abortion is known as "dilation and extraction" or D & X.

I've heard about some sort of reaction to the vacuum, but that could be a witness injecting emotion/belief into the fetus that isn't there (misinterpreting the movement). I'm not sure. It's something I'd need to witness for myself and I honestly have no desire at all to witness that. I'm also not sure whether it would affect my opinion or not on abortion.

[ryr8828]

I'm just curious. Other than "Thou Shalt Not Kill" what passages in the Bible oppose abortion?

For example, is there anything in the Bible that makes reference to when life begins.

I am ignorant to this topic. Any of you able to help me out?

"And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God"
(Mark 10:13-14).

[LSU]

Isn't there something out there about the spirit not being in the body until the first breath is drawn?

Does a human (in the biological sense) have human life (in the religious sense) without a soul?

[Roy Munson]

Isn't there something out there about the spirit not being in the body until the first breath is drawn?

Does a human (in the biological sense) have human life (in the religious sense) without a soul?
breath of air, or amniotic fluid?

[LSU]

breath of air, or amniotic fluid?



I thought it was in regards to the first breath of air once the head passes the labia.

[ryr8828]

Isn't there something out there about the spirit not being in the body until the first breath is drawn?

Does a human (in the biological sense) have human life (in the religious sense) without a soul?


I'll wait for you to post that passage of scripture.

[LSU]

I'll wait for you to post that passage of scripture.

Did you miss that it was a question?

[Vegas]

Exodus 21:22-25 22 "If men who are fighting 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, bruise for bruise.

[Roy Munson]

Exodus 21:22-25 22 "If men who are fighting 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, bruise for bruise.
ok, so this one scenario is covered, which obviously is different from abortion...

[LSU]

Exodus 21:22-25 22 "If men who are fighting 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, bruise for bruise.


Doesn't it say what happens when the father or mother ask for the guy to punch her in the gut or even pay him to do so?

[Vegas]

ok, so this one scenario is covered, which obviously is different from abortion...

You don't see that the unborn baby is still considered a human life?

[LSU]

You don't see that the unborn baby is still considered a human life?


It doesn't say whether it's in regards to the baby or the mother receiving the serious injury.

[Roy Munson]

You don't see that the unborn baby is still considered a human life?
that certainly isn't mentioned. I'd have to read something into it in order to come to that conclusion. Hell, it doesn't even even mention the baby. I could read it as serious injury to the mother, and nothing about the baby.

[LSU]

A problem with Bible citations is that it depends on the Bible. I did a quick search on Vegas' quote and from a different version, there's a bit more wording, specifically speaking of the fruit of the woman (baby in womb).

Of course, in that case, you have to wonder why one quote would have the fruit part and why one wouldn't. Which one added or deleted it from the original writing?

[thrasymachus]

The serious injury is probably only a concern for the Husband/Father as a property concern, anyway, and not a right to life concern.

If the woman were unmarried and pregnant...well she would be stoned to death (most likely). This practice certainly doesn't give any respect to the unborn child.

[LSU]

The serious injury is probably only a concern for the Husband/Father as a property concern, anyway, and not a right to life concern.

If the woman were unmarried and pregnant...well she would be stoned to death (most likely). This practice certainly doesn't give any respect to the unborn child.



Hey, that would be a way to get rid of the dirty fucking whores.

[thrasymachus]

Hey, that would be a way to get rid of the dirty fucking whores.
But then you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or in this case, irresponsible fucking skank whore who deserves to die or something like that.)

[LSU]

But then you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or in this case, irresponsible fucking skank whore who deserves to die or something like that.)



Save the baby, kill the whore.


But now the baby has no parents and becomes a ward of the state. And requires tax money to live.

Shit.

Oh wait, there are PLENTY of people out there looking for kids to adopt. That must be why there are empty orphanages and a shortage of kids for foster parents.

[Hotpapa666]

This thread got really funny. Good work guys.

[ryr8828]

Laugh at it in regards to your own child.

[LSU]

Laugh at it in regards to your own child.


You mean the one that was in NICU for two weeks?

OK.


Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

That was fun.

[Hotpapa666]

Laugh at it in regards to your own child.

Don't have one don't want one, probably won't ever have one.

I'll still laugh at this thread though.

[Roy Munson]

You mean the one that was in NICU for two weeks?

OK.


Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

That was fun.
Did 2 men fighting bump into your wife? If so, one of them owes you some money, and you get to put them in the ICU.

[LSU]

Did 2 men fighting bump into your wife? If so, one of them owes you some money, and you get to put them in the ICU.



No, but we did eat Mexican that night. Fuckin' illegals.

[pnkpanther]

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[pnkpanther]

God doesnt appear to be opposed to killing children in some cases

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ESV “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, (19) then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, (20) and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ (21) Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

[Ed Who?]

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. --Psalm 139:13-14

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. --Matthew 10:29-31

Just a couple.

[Ed Who?]

God doesnt appear to be opposed to killing children in some cases

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ESV “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, (19) then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, (20) and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ (21) Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I think you need to put these verses in perspective. They all demonstrate a point, and it's not that one should kill an innocent child to the benefit of the parent. And again, many of the "laws" in the OT were for the benefit of a rebellious people.

[pnkpanther]

I think you need to put these verses in perspective. They all demonstrate a point, and it's not that one should kill an innocent child to the benefit of the parent. And again, many of the "laws" in the OT were for the benefit of a rebellious people.

By rebellious, you mean non hebrew?

[LSU]

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.



Adam never would've been in a womb, so his acquisition of a soul would be quite different than that of others.


Of course, does it ever say that Eve obtained a soul? Perhaps women are soul-less.

I'd buy that.

[KinjaKahn]

I do not believe the Bible dictates at what point life begins. I'm unsure off the top of my head though.

That's why it's such a controversial subject. When does the baby's heart develop and start beating? 12 weeks isn't it? Some would say that is when the life is begun. For me, it is my OPINION that life begins with conception. But the reality is that the Bible doesn't make this crystal clear, which is why even Christians squabble over this topic.
Life does begin at conception, if you consider the division of the egg part of conception, upon division of the fertilized egg, cells have a distinct and complete DNA, a genetic code that does not exist in any other living entity on the earth. So to extinguish that DNA, is criminal. Whereas, killing eggs or sperm is not the end of a unique complete DNA. So to actually call it an opinion is inaccurate. Prior to the blastocyst attaching to the endomedtrial lining of the mother's uterus, the embryo hatches from its protein shell triggering the blastocyst to produce a hormones that attach to the mothers uterus and stop menstruation.

A babies heart starts beating around week 6, life doesn't require a heart.

[hannitykillspuppies]

You mean the one that was in NICU for two weeks?

OK.


Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

That was fun.is it wrong that i laughed at this?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Life does begin at conception, if you consider the division of the egg part of conception, upon division of the fertilized egg, cells have a distinct and complete DNA, a genetic code that does not exist in any other living entity on the earth. So to extinguish that DNA, is criminal. Whereas, killing eggs or sperm is not the end of a unique complete DNA. So to actually call it an opinion is inaccurate. Prior to the blastocyst attaching to the endomedtrial lining of the mother's uterus, the embryo hatches from its protein shell triggering the blastocyst to produce a hormones that attach to the mothers uterus and stop menstruation.

A babies heart starts beating around week 6, life doesn't require a heart.right.

[domenick2x]

Life does begin at conception, if you consider the division of the egg part of conception, upon division of the fertilized egg, cells have a distinct and complete DNA, a genetic code that does not exist in any other living entity on the earth. So to extinguish that DNA, is criminal. Whereas, killing eggs or sperm is not the end of a unique complete DNA. So to actually call it an opinion is inaccurate. Prior to the blastocyst attaching to the endomedtrial lining of the mother's uterus, the embryo hatches from its protein shell triggering the blastocyst to produce a hormones that attach to the mothers uterus and stop menstruation.

A babies heart starts beating around week 6, life doesn't require a heart.
So women who have their eggs get fertilized but do not have their eggs embed into the wall of the uterus are guilty of manslaughter.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m013.htm

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

[domenick2x]

A babies heart starts beating around week 6, life doesn't require a heart.

right.
I could name half a dozen Republicans as proof..

[Jiddy78]

Life does begin at conception, if you consider the division of the egg part of conception, upon division of the fertilized egg, cells have a distinct and complete DNA, a genetic code that does not exist in any other living entity on the earth. So to extinguish that DNA, is criminal. Whereas, killing eggs or sperm is not the end of a unique complete DNA. So to actually call it an opinion is inaccurate. Prior to the blastocyst attaching to the endomedtrial lining of the mother's uterus, the embryo hatches from its protein shell triggering the blastocyst to produce a hormones that attach to the mothers uterus and stop menstruation.

A babies heart starts beating around week 6, life doesn't require a heart.

A simple "Look...I know in my heart that this sh*t is wrong" would do much better than this...smirks...."homage to the religion of science."

[Roy Munson]

Life does begin at conception, if you consider the division of the egg part of conception, upon division of the fertilized egg, cells have a distinct and complete DNA, a genetic code that does not exist in any other living entity on the earth. So to extinguish that DNA, is criminal. Whereas, killing eggs or sperm is not the end of a unique complete DNA. So to actually call it an opinion is inaccurate. Prior to the blastocyst attaching to the endomedtrial lining of the mother's uterus, the embryo hatches from its protein shell triggering the blastocyst to produce a hormones that attach to the mothers uterus and stop menstruation.

A babies heart starts beating around week 6, life doesn't require a heart.
I'm pretty sure we require a heart to live...

[Roy Munson]

I could name half a dozen Republicans as proof..
If thats your evidence, then I doubt a brain is needed for life either.

[domenick2x]

If thats your evidence, then I doubt a brain is needed for life either.
Exactly. Just DNA.

[Roy Munson]

Exactly. Just DNA.
So killing cells that include DNA is murder?

[LSU]

So killing cells that include DNA is murder?


Regrettably, I must step into this free for all with the recognition of diploid vs haploid.

[domenick2x]

So killing cells that include DNA is murder?
Apparently.

Correction: Human DNA. So those cow-people being created in Britain would count.

[domenick2x]

If thats your evidence, then I doubt a brain is needed for life either.
Or courage.

[KinjaKahn]

Regrettably, I must step into this free for all with the recognition of diploid vs haploid.
Perhaps you could send them a scratch n sniff picture book.

[KinjaKahn]

ok, so this one scenario is covered, which obviously is different from abortion...
Not different from abortion at all... unless in your universe abortions are performed on women who are NOT pregnant prior to the abortion.

[thrasymachus]

Not different from abortion at all... unless in your universe abortions are performed on women who are NOT pregnant prior to the abortion.
There is no difference in the situation from abortion? Hey, maybe you're right. Next time I pass by the local abortion clinic I'll stop in to see if the process includes to males wrestling around with each other and then accidentally hitting the pregnant girl to abort the baby.

[LSU]

Regrettably, I must step into this free for all with the recognition of diploid vs haploid.



Of course, the kicker with that one is that skin cells are diploid, and have all the DNA a human needs to be a human.

As are every other cell type in the body, sans sperm or egg.

[KinjaKahn]

It doesn't say whether it's in regards to the baby or the mother receiving the serious injury.
If it was meant to cover just the woman there is no need for the term "pregnant", as shes still a woman regardless of pregnancy.

[LSU]

If it was meant to cover just the woman there is no need for the term "pregnant", as shes still a woman regardless of pregnancy.

Sounds like an interpretation.

Which, I thought the Bible was taken at face value, word for word, no interpretation required?

[KinjaKahn]

Sounds like an interpretation.

Which, I thought the Bible was taken at face value, word for word, no interpretation required?
How often do you intentionally refer to women as pregnant when they aren't?

[LSU]

How often do you intentionally refer to women as pregnant when they aren't?



My wife had a friend that was pregnant and even in the 9th month, it wasn't noticeable.

I'm sure fat people get that all the time.

But the point is that it doesn't say, at least per the passage Vegas provided, that the damage is meant to be to the baby. Just serious injury. I could mean to the baby, I'm not denying that (in fact, I would put forth that that is how I would interpret it). But it's still my interpretation. It would be just as logical that it would be damage to a woman that is capable of producing a child for the man (as evidenced by her being pregnant), but not referring to the actual child itself. You take away a man's ability to reproduce (a fertile wife) and you take away a lot. I would imagine.

But that's just a possible interpretation.

[KinjaKahn]

(in fact, I would put forth that that is how I would interpret it).
So for sake of the being able to slaughter children in the womb you make a case for the ignorant.

[domenick2x]

So for sake of the being able to slaughter children in the womb you make a case for the ignorant.
Wow. Considering he was taking the passage as 'damage to the baby', I guess that would put you in that category?

[LSU]

So for sake of the being able to slaughter children in the womb you make a case for the ignorant.



In a black in white world where you can only see one view and recognize solely that view, then I guess that would be accurate.

But in the "gray" world I live in, I can see the different shades and understand how those come about. And in order to understand my shade better, I try to know and understand the other shades just as well.

I'm quirky that way.

And there are no ignorant when it's an interpretation. Because there are other interpretations. Unless you care to show me exactly where it's explicitly defined that there shouldn't be an interpretation.

[LSU]

Essentially, my point is that the specific passage given isn't enough evidence of the Bible being against abortion because the passage isn't specific enough in what it's saying.

I would interpret it to mean what Kinja and Vegas and others would say it means, but interpretation is a strange thing because it's not absolute.

[domenick2x]

In a black in white world where you can only see one view and recognize solely that view, then I guess that would be accurate.

But in the "gray" world I live in, I can see the different shades and understand how those come about. And in order to understand my shade better, I try to know and understand the other shades just as well.

I'm quirky that way.

And there are no ignorant when it's an interpretation. Because there are other interpretations. Unless you care to show me exactly where it's explicitly defined that there shouldn't be an interpretation.
Didn't you know that the third tablet included "Thou shalt not interpret"?

[LSU]

Didn't you know that the third tablet included "Thou shalt not interpret"?



It's too bad Mel Brooks dropped that other tablet.

But it's also interesting because there are more than a couple people here that don't believe there's anything to interpret in the Bible...it's word for word accurate. No interpretation required.

Which intrigues me because this is definitely an instance where the words that are found there aren't enough to say definitively what is meant.

So there must be some interpretation of the Bible needed.

And interpretation differs. Even when you're not trying to make the case for the slaughter of the innocent.

[domenick2x]

It's too bad Mel Brooks dropped that other tablet.

But it's also interesting because there are more than a couple people here that don't believe there's anything to interpret in the Bible...it's word for word accurate. No interpretation required.

Which intrigues me because this is definitely an instance where the words that are found there aren't enough to say definitively what is meant.

So there must be some interpretation of the Bible needed.

And interpretation differs. Even when you're not trying to make the case for the slaughter of the innocent.
Agreed.

I take 'thou shalt not kill' much more literally than most.... I don't eat meat.

[MTVike]

It's too bad Mel Brooks dropped that other tablet.

But it's also interesting because there are more than a couple people here that don't believe there's anything to interpret in the Bible...it's word for word accurate. No interpretation required.

Which intrigues me because this is definitely an instance where the words that are found there aren't enough to say definitively what is meant.

So there must be some interpretation of the Bible needed.

And interpretation differs. Even when you're not trying to make the case for the slaughter of the innocent.

Thou shalt not kill works for me.

[KinjaKahn]

Another translation...

22 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.

[LSU]

Agreed.

I take 'thou shalt not kill' much more literally than most.... I don't eat meat.



Right... "thou shalt not kill"

Doesn't say "thou shalt not murder" or "thou shalt not manslaughter".

Kill. Death penalty, war, self defense, accidents, all can and do result in "kill".


But, the interpretation becomes "thou shalt not take another's life without proper cause".

Another interpretation from something that isn't to be interpreted.

I don't get it.

Of course, this won't result in any real conversation about the topic, just how I'm trying to undermine others' belief systems. Yeah, that's it.

[LSU]

Another translation...

22 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.


Yeah, you must've missed the post where I brought this up.

So why are there different translations? Different interpretations? You mean there can be more than one way of reading it? Or did one add or subtract something. And if one added or subtracted something, what else was added or subtracted along the way?

Pandora's Box right there.

[LSU]

Thou shalt not kill works for me.


Then see my other post. And if you subscribe to all forms of killing being wrong, without exception, then that's great.

[KinjaKahn]

Right... "thou shalt not kill"

Doesn't say "thou shalt not murder" or "thou shalt not manslaughter".

Kill. Death penalty, war, self defense, accidents, all can and do result in "kill".
I would say its not interpretation as much as it is lack words during translation. It would be asinine to assume that you may not fight off a rabid frothing human.

[KinjaKahn]

Yeah, you must've missed the post where I brought this up.

So why are there different translations? Different interpretations? You mean there can be more than one way of reading it? Or did one add or subtract something. And if one added or subtracted something, what else was added or subtracted along the way?

Pandora's Box right there.
Clue: Every word in one language is not ALWAYS accurately translated into another language


The whole point is the woman loses her child from her womb.... whether its damaged or not... you will pay for your crime.

[domenick2x]

I would say its not interpretation as much as it is lack words during translation. It would be asinine to assume that you may not fight off a rabid frothing human.
Then why doesn't it say "Thou shalt not kill, except to fight off a rabid frothing human."?

[LSU]

I would say its not interpretation as much as it is lack words during translation. It would be asinine to assume that you may not fight off a rabid frothing human.



I would assume so as well, regarding the rabid human. But only God really knows.

To cover your bases, if you had to kill an attacking rabid human, would you beg forgiveness for it or just assume that it's alright and all will be good at the pearly gates?

But beyond that, if there are a lack of words for translation... how can anyone be sure that what is written is accurate to intent or meaning? If that seemingly simple commandment can have caveats because of a lack of words, how many other passages and such could have the same?

[KinjaKahn]

Then why doesn't it say "Thou shalt not kill, except to fight off a rabid frothing human."?
ummm maybe there was no room on the tablet.... or perhaps see Clue above...

[MTVike]

Then see my other post. And if you subscribe to all forms of killing being wrong, without exception, then that's great.

I imagine that in God's eyes, all killing of his children by his other children is wrong.

[LSU]

Clue: Every word in one language is not ALWAYS accurately translated into another language


The whole point is the woman loses her child from her womb.... whether its damaged or not... you will pay for your crime.

Thanks for that clue. I really needed it.

But we're talking about it being translated to the same language (English) and in one translation, it speaks of fruit. In another translation to the same language, it doesn't mention fruit.

Don't skip over that clue.

[LSU]

I imagine that in God's eyes, all killing of his children by his other children is wrong.



Perhaps.

[domenick2x]

Thanks for that clue. I really needed it.

But we're talking about it being translated to the same language (English) and in one translation, it speaks of fruit. In another translation to the same language, it doesn't mention fruit.

Don't skip over that clue.
Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?

[LSU]

Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?


Seed bearing, so fruit.

And I bear seed, so I'm a fruit, too.

[domenick2x]

ummm maybe there was no room on the tablet.... or perhaps see Clue above...
I don't disagree.

Another translation: Thou shall do no murder.

Clearly, that would exclude a number of situations (self defense, for example).

Yet it WOULD include the death penalty, I believe. Intentional killing of another individual.

Correct?

[domenick2x]

Seed bearing, so fruit.

And I bear seed, so I'm a fruit, too.
That, I knew.

[KinjaKahn]

I imagine that in God's eyes, all killing of his children by his other children is wrong.
So to kill a madman running through a daycare center with a ninja sword beheading toddlers would be something you couldn't bring yourself to do?

[LSU]

I don't disagree.

Another translation: Thou shall do no murder.

Clearly, that would exclude a number of situations (self defense, for example).

Yet it WOULD include the death penalty, I believe. Intentional killing of another individual.

Correct?



Which then gets into a direct contradiction. From "thou shalt not kill" to "a life for a life".

Or maybe it's not a contradiction, but a clarification?

So, is it alright to kill a person if that person has taken a life?

If so, justification for killing in war or capital punishment could be excused.

But self defense still isn't, unless that person has already killed someone.

[KinjaKahn]

I don't disagree.

Another translation: Thou shall do no murder.

Clearly, that would exclude a number of situations (self defense, for example).

Yet it WOULD include the death penalty, I believe. Intentional killing of another individual.

Correct?
Whats the origin of the word "murder"... or "bust a cap in that ass" for the hip hoppers...

Words are just used to express ideas and many times they just don't fit like you want them too.

[LSU]

So to kill a madman running through a daycare center with a ninja sword beheading toddlers would be something you couldn't bring yourself to do?


Depends on if my sword was bigger.

But doing what you think is right isn't always "right".

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Would it require forgiveness? Or do you think God might have some leeway?

Either way, once God grants leeway for one thing, where does his leeway end?

[LSU]

Whats the origin of the word "murder"... or "bust a cap in that ass" for the hip hoppers...

Words are just used to express ideas and many times they just don't fit like you want them too.


Words are what The Bible is made up of. So that's an interesting second statement.

[domenick2x]

So to kill a madman running through a daycare center with a ninja sword beheading toddlers would be something you couldn't bring yourself to do?
I'm not saying that I wouldn't do the 'right' thing. As defined by my personal ethics.

What I see though, is a conflict with the Bible.

I don't see where I'm supposed to kill people.

[domenick2x]

Which then gets into a direct contradiction. From "thou shalt not kill" to "a life for a life".

Or maybe it's not a contradiction, but a clarification?

So, is it alright to kill a person if that person has taken a life?

If so, justification for killing in war or capital punishment could be excused.

But self defense still isn't, unless that person has already killed someone.
Turn the other cheek?

[KinjaKahn]

Depends on if my sword was bigger.

But doing what you think is right isn't always "right".

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Would it require forgiveness? Or do you think God might have some leeway?

Either way, once God grants leeway for one thing, where does his leeway end?

I wouldn't contemplate the consequences, I would act and hope I did the right thing.

[KinjaKahn]

I don't see where I'm supposed to kill people.
Nor do you want to....

[KinjaKahn]

Words are what The Bible is made up of. So that's an interesting second statement.
The bible is not limited to the dictation of God.

[LSU]

I wouldn't contemplate the consequences, I would act and hope I did the right thing.


Exactly. "Hope you did the right thing."


It's easy to do that with such an extreme example, though. But not everything is to that extreme.

[domenick2x]

Nor do you want to....
Don't get me wrong, if that's the only way to stop the carnage, I take the bastard out.

God apparently requires me to burn in hell because of that. So be it, and I'd take the issue up with him when I got the chance.

A quaker wouldn't do violence on someone. Even in self defense.

In my opinion, one does not pass by on the other side of the road.

[LSU]

The bible is not limited to the dictation of God.


But your understanding of God is limited to some extent by those words.

[KinjaKahn]

Recognition of this extreme, dispels the absoluteness of the "Kill" idea.

[domenick2x]

The bible is not limited to the dictation of God.
Wait a minute.

Who else am I reporting to then?

[domenick2x]

Recognition of this extreme, dispels the absoluteness of the "Kill" idea.
I thought we had moved on to 'murder'. Intentional killing of another human.

[LSU]

Exodus 21:22-25 22 "If men who are fighting 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, bruise for bruise.


Interesting...didn't think about this before, but this is an interesting part of this passage...

the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

[LSU]

Recognition of this extreme, dispels the absoluteness of the "Kill" idea.


But it raises more questions about where the border exists between killing that is right and killing that is wrong.

[domenick2x]

Interesting...didn't think about this before, but this is an interesting part of this passage...
Litigation sucks donkey balls.

[LSU]

I thought we had moved on to 'murder'. Intentional killing of another human.



But isn't 'murder' a legal term? Gross negligence (drunk driving fatality) can carry a heavy term, but it's not intentional.

[LSU]

Litigation sucks donkey balls.



The court doesn't allow for prosecution of abortions, does it? Unless they're performed illegally.

[KinjaKahn]

I thought we had moved on to 'murder'.

Have you moved on?

[domenick2x]

But isn't 'murder' a legal term? Gross negligence (drunk driving fatality) can carry a heavy term, but it's not intentional.
It's in a Bible reference I found, so it must therefore be a religious term. Otherwise we violate the seperation of Church and State.

[domenick2x]

The court doesn't allow for prosecution of abortions, does it? Unless they're performed illegally.
I don't know. But if the woman has no husband, isn't it all null and void anyway?

Let the stoning commence!

[KinjaKahn]

But it raises more questions about where the border exists between killing that is right and killing that is wrong.
These questions pool where there is an absence of love in the heart.

[LSU]

These questions pool where there is an absence of love in the heart.



Yeah, I lack love in my heart. That puts this conversation to rest.

[KinjaKahn]

Yeah, I lack love in my heart. That puts this conversation to rest.
lol :)

[LSU]

Yeah, I lack love in my heart. That puts this conversation to rest.

And I don't mean that as in I'm done with this conversation; it was sarcastic relative to the answer being as simple as the one kinja gave. Not to say that answer doesn't have merit, but it's quite subjective.

[domenick2x]

These questions pool where there is an absence of love in the heart.
What if there's no heart? Is there still life?

[LSU]

Interesting...didn't think about this before, but this is an interesting part of this passage...


Blah, reread again, and I'll strike this conversation and anything I've said in regards to it from the record. Irrelevant in regards to "the courts" at least in the context we're discussing.

[MTVike]

So to kill a madman running through a daycare center with a ninja sword beheading toddlers would be something you couldn't bring yourself to do?

I'm not saying I wouldn't. I'm saying God made the commandments for us to follow, knowing we were a fallen people.

If we weren't, we'd still be running around naked in a cool garden. I guess.

[domenick2x]

I'm not saying I wouldn't. I'm saying God made the commandments for us to follow, knowing we were a fallen people.

If we weren't, we'd still be running around naked in a cool garden. I guess.
And banging any tail that happened to be around.

Those were the days, right?

[LSU]

I'm not saying I wouldn't. I'm saying God made the commandments for us to follow, knowing we were a fallen people.

If we weren't, we'd still be running around naked in a cool garden. I guess.



"We" wouldn't be. Just a guy and a chick that don't realize anything.

[LSU]

And banging any tail that happened to be around.

Those were the days, right?


Nope. No banging. Just chillin'.

[thrasymachus]

I thought we had moved on to 'murder'. Intentional killing of another human.
But the law speaks of justification. Some intentional killing is justified because it's the right thing to do.

Well how do we know something is the right thing to do? Good question. And it's beyond the scope of humans to answer it with certainty. Although we all have our own beliefs regarding it.

[domenick2x]

Nope. No banging. Just chillin'.
Are you saying that Adam and Eve weren't doing it?

Just because it took her so long to get pregnant... that proves nothing.

[domenick2x]

But the law speaks of justification. Some intentional killing is justified because it's the right thing to do.

Well how do we know something is the right thing to do? Good question. And it's beyond the scope of humans to answer it with certainty. Although we all have our own beliefs regarding it.
I thought there was only one true belief system.

Everyone else is wrong... right?

[thrasymachus]

I thought there was only one true belief system.

Everyone else is wrong... right?
Wright.

[LSU]

But the law speaks of justification. Some intentional killing is justified because it's the right thing to do.

Well how do we know something is the right thing to do? Good question. And it's beyond the scope of humans to answer it with certainty. Although we all have our own beliefs regarding it.



So let's move to the next step of the discussion. The good and bad killing has been covered.

Now let's get to the good stuff. The sinning.

Is all killing a sin, even though it may be considered the right thing to do?

And if so, if you believe you are in the right for said action, but it's still a sin, do you realize it as a sin and ask forgiveness for sinning? Or does justifiable homicide wipe out the "sin" factor?

Any sin is forgiven with repentance, right? What if you don't repent for something that is ultimately right, but technically wrong?

Still go to Hell? Or perhaps a place other than Heaven (limbo maybe)?

Here's the reasoning. A guy that shoots a person invading his home obviously will think he's in the right. Will he ask for forgiveness?

The guy that throws the switch on the electric chair or pushes the button for lethal injection, does he need to repent for his role in killing? Or the soldier that mows down the guy trying to harm his buddy or himself, does he need to ask forgiveness for that action?

And if they don't, do they get a pass for feeling in their heart that it's the right thing, even though it's explicitly stated to not do it?


And if there is a pass for not asking forgiveness for something like that, is killing the only thing that is in the "gray" area, or are there other "sins" that could be forgiven without a formal apology, if in the heart of the sinner, they don't believe they're doing wrong?

[LSU]

Are you saying that Adam and Eve weren't doing it?

Just because it took her so long to get pregnant... that proves nothing.


They didn't even realize they were naked until they ate the fruit, how would they know that part A inserts into part B?

[thrasymachus]

So let's move to the next step of the discussion. The good and bad killing has been covered.

Now let's get to the good stuff. The sinning.

Is all killing a sin, even though it may be considered the right thing to do?

And if so, if you believe you are in the right for said action, but it's still a sin, do you realize it as a sin and ask forgiveness for sinning? Or does justifiable homicide wipe out the "sin" factor?

Any sin is forgiven with repentance, right? What if you don't repent for something that is ultimately right, but technically wrong?

Still go to Hell? Or perhaps a place other than Heaven (limbo maybe)?

Here's the reasoning. A guy that shoots a person invading his home obviously will think he's in the right. Will he ask for forgiveness?

The guy that throws the switch on the electric chair or pushes the button for lethal injection, does he need to repent for his role in killing? Or the soldier that mows down the guy trying to harm his buddy or himself, does he need to ask forgiveness for that action?

And if they don't, do they get a pass for feeling in their heart that it's the right thing, even though it's explicitly stated to not do it?


And if there is a pass for not asking forgiveness for something like that, is killing the only thing that is in the "gray" area, or are there other "sins" that could be forgiven without a formal apology, if in the heart of the sinner, they don't believe they're doing wrong?
God doesn't deal with technicalities. Whatever is just needs no repentance. Now, that's just my belief. And I'm not even sure if God exists, so my opinions on what he is or does should be taken with a grain of salt.

Old Testament God would probably send you to Hell for eternity for not obeying his explicit commands. New Testament God seems a little more reasonable.

[thrasymachus]

They didn't even realize they were naked until they ate the fruit, how would they know that part A inserts into part B?
On accident. Or perhaps by random chance. But I don't think Adam was able to experience erections until after the fall.

[LSU]

On accident. Or perhaps by random chance. But I don't think Adam was able to experience erections until after the fall.



Maybe there was some good oral at least.

[LSU]

God doesn't deal with technicalities. Whatever is just needs no repentance. Now, that's just my belief. And I'm not even sure if God exists, so my opinions on what he is or does should be taken with a grain of salt.

Old Testament God would probably send you to Hell for eternity for not obeying his explicit commands. New Testament God seems a little more reasonable.


What is and isn't just? And how do "we" know for sure?

[thrasymachus]

Maybe there was some good oral at least.
Perhaps that explains Jesus' affinity for fish.

[LSU]

Perhaps that explains Jesus' affinity for fish.


Maybe the burning bush, too.

[MTVike]

So let's move to the next step of the discussion. The good and bad killing has been covered.

Now let's get to the good stuff. The sinning.

Is all killing a sin, even though it may be considered the right thing to do?

And if so,

......
And if there is a pass for not asking forgiveness for something like that, is killing the only thing that is in the "gray" area, or are there other "sins" that could be forgiven without a formal apology, if in the heart of the sinner, they don't believe they're doing wrong?

Cripes, are you a theology major now?

[thrasymachus]

What is and isn't just? And how do "we" know for sure?
Each situation needs to have its circumstances taken into consideration. While there is an objective morality and overarching rule of law, it is so comprehensive that we struggle to understand even the basic maxims and principles of it.

The Categorical Imperative was a good try. But even the brilliant Kant couldn't create a perfect system.

[MTVike]

They didn't even realize they were naked until they ate the fruit, how would they know that part A inserts into part B?

The snake had more to share than how to make apple pie.

[LSU]

Cripes, are you a theology major now?



No.

But I missed out in my philosophy class my freshman year, so I have to make up for it now.

[KinjaKahn]

Maybe the burning bush, too.
I thought the cult of math and matter came up with a drug for that.

[LSU]

The snake had more to share than how to make apple pie.

So that's where "warm apple pie" comes from.

[LSU]

I thought the cult of math and matter came up with a drug for that.


Depends on what kind of fire there is.

Antibiotics will take care of a couple fires.

Acyclovir (and derivatives) attempts to control another fire. But won't cure it.


Speaking of antibiotics...

is that what Jesus used to cure leprosy?

[domenick2x]

God doesn't deal with technicalities. Whatever is just needs no repentance. Now, that's just my belief. And I'm not even sure if God exists, so my opinions on what he is or does should be taken with a grain of salt.

Old Testament God would probably send you to Hell for eternity for not obeying his explicit commands. New Testament God seems a little more reasonable.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Old Testament God must be PISSED.

[LSU]

God doesn't deal with technicalities. Whatever is just needs no repentance. Now, that's just my belief. And I'm not even sure if God exists, so my opinions on what he is or does should be taken with a grain of salt.

Old Testament God would probably send you to Hell for eternity for not obeying his explicit commands. New Testament God seems a little more reasonable.



Or perhaps there's a good and a bad bucket, and whichever has more in it, regardless of asking for forgiveness, will be the way you are judged?

Perhaps certain actions would take up more room in their respective buckets?


Essentially, you're judged on your entire life rather than a few bits and pieces of it that may or not have been formally repented.

[domenick2x]

Or perhaps there's a good and a bad bucket, and whichever has more in it, regardless of asking for forgiveness, will be the way you are judged?

Perhaps certain actions would take up more room in their respective buckets?


Essentially, you're judged on your entire life rather than a few bits and pieces of it that may or not have been formally repented.
I'm holding out for the deathbed repentance.

Clean the slate only at the end...

[thrasymachus]

Or perhaps there's a good and a bad bucket, and whichever has more in it, regardless of asking for forgiveness, will be the way you are judged?

Perhaps certain actions would take up more room in their respective buckets?


Essentially, you're judged on your entire life rather than a few bits and pieces of it that may or not have been formally repented.
I'm not sure repentance is necessary anyway. How can you repent something if you don't know it's wrong? "Sorry for everything I ever did. Sorry for living, God."

[KinjaKahn]

God doesn't deal with technicalities. Whatever is just needs no repentance. Now, that's just my belief. And I'm not even sure if God exists, so my opinions on what he is or does should be taken with a grain of salt.

Sure about what you aren't sure about?

[thrasymachus]

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Old Testament God must be PISSED.
That's what he gets for sending his only son to die for our sins.

[LSU]

I'm holding out for the deathbed repentance.

Clean the slate only at the end...



I've wondered about that. Would a general "I'm sorry for everything I did wrong" at the end of your life suffice?

The reason this has come up is because of discussions regarding homosexuality. And therefore, perhaps it should be saved for a thread that deals with homosexuality.

But the premise is the same. At the end, ask forgiveness for every wrong doing.

There's no way you'd be able to list off everything you did wrong specifically, just a general "oops" statement.

[thrasymachus]

Sure about what you aren't sure about?
Yeah. Why not.

[LSU]

I'm not sure repentance is necessary anyway. How can you repent something if you don't know it's wrong? "Sorry for everything I ever did. Sorry for living, God."


Pretty much what I'm wondering.

Some will say that it's all in The Bible, and if you read it with your heart, you'll know what's right or wrong.

Even if that's the case, peoples' hearts are different, and that gets into the interpretation stuff that was discussed earlier.

[Ed Who?]

Or perhaps there's a good and a bad bucket, and whichever has more in it, regardless of asking for forgiveness, will be the way you are judged?

Perhaps certain actions would take up more room in their respective buckets?


Essentially, you're judged on your entire life rather than a few bits and pieces of it that may or not have been formally repented.

If you profess (and continue to profess) Christ to have died and risen for your sins, you are saved regardless of your future actions. Your sins become obstacles that prevent you from receiving the blessings that God has for you. Confession and repentance will remove the obstacle from being in true communion with God.

[thrasymachus]

Pretty much what I'm wondering.

Some will say that it's all in The Bible, and if you read it with your heart, you'll know what's right or wrong.

Even if that's the case, peoples' hearts are different, and that gets into the interpretation stuff that was discussed earlier.
It's an endless cycle.

God is a good guy. He'll do what's right in the end.

[thrasymachus]

If you profess (and continue to profess) Christ to have died and risen for your sins, you are saved regardless of your future actions. Your sins become obstacles that prevent you from receiving the blessings that God has for you. Confession and repentance will remove the obstacle from being in true communion with God.
So is there then a difference between being saved by Jesus and blessed by God?

[LSU]

If you profess (and continue to profess) Christ to have died and risen for your sins, you are saved regardless of your future actions. Your sins become obstacles that prevent you from receiving the blessings that God has for you. Confession and repentance will remove the obstacle from being in true communion with God.


I understand that part. But in your confession and repentance, are you required to individually confess and repent everything you've done wrong, and if you miss something either because it's from a long time ago or because you don't know that you've done wrong, is that held against you down the road?

[MTVike]

If you profess (and continue to profess) Christ to have died and risen for your sins, you are saved regardless of your future actions. Your sins become obstacles that prevent you from receiving the blessings that God has for you. Confession and repentance will remove the obstacle from being in true communion with God.

Nicely done.

[Ed Who?]

I understand that part. But in your confession and repentance, are you required to individually confess and repent everything you've done wrong, and if you miss something either because it's from a long time ago or because you don't know that you've done wrong, is that held against you down the road?

I'm praying that God's love transcends the inadequacies of the human brain.

[Ed Who?]

So is there then a difference between being saved by Jesus and blessed by God?

I think God has purposes for us, and within that purpose He wants us to live life abundantly and well. I think that our humanity prevents us from experiencing that which God has for us.

And I'm not necessarily talking cash, land, children, or other things. Our brains can't fathom that which God cherishes. He said the last would be first and the first last, so that kind of puts in perspective that God probably doesn't assign the same value to things that we do.

[LSU]

I'm praying that God's love transcends the inadequacies of the human brain.




I assume that would account for lapses in memory.

What about lapses in understanding. That is, if you do something you genuinely do not view as a sin because of how you read or interpret, but it turns out it really is considered a sin. Does your misunderstanding or bad interpretation get treated the same way as a memory lapse?

[domenick2x]

It's an endless cycle.

God is a good guy. He'll do what's right in the end.
Ineffable.

[Ed Who?]

I assume that would account for lapses in memory.

What about lapses in understanding. That is, if you do something you genuinely do not view as a sin because of how you read or interpret, but it turns out it really is considered a sin. Does your misunderstanding or bad interpretation get treated the same way as a memory lapse?

It will be interesting to see. I think we all have times when we do things that are questionable. As a Christian, the best thing to do is look for Scriptural references and/or speak with your pastor. S/he's probably had a lot more theology training that I have.

[domenick2x]

It will be interesting to see. I think we all have times when we do things that are questionable. As a Christian, the best thing to do is look for Scriptural references and/or speak with your pastor. S/he's probably had a lot more theology training that I have.
I've already emailed Rev. Wright, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet.

[LSU]

It will be interesting to see. I think we all have times when we do things that are questionable. As a Christian, the best thing to do is look for Scriptural references and/or speak with your pastor. S/he's probably had a lot more theology training that I have.


No doubt. But I think a lot of times, even though they're trained in the area, they have their own heart to interpret with, and you must have your own, too.

And the clergy, as we know, aren't always great role models themselves, unfortunately.

I recently found out that my boss used to attend the Church I currently attend. The reason they left is that the pastor was making passes at his wife. No one in the church believed them, and were kinda marginalized, so they found another church. Later on, it was discovered that the pastor was sleeping with another woman in the church, a married woman.

He's no longer there, so I don't have to contend with that. But it's still something to consider when looking up to them for guidance. They have flaws just like the rest of us.

[Ed Who?]

No doubt. But I think a lot of times, even though they're trained in the area, they have their own heart to interpret with, and you must have your own, too.

And the clergy, as we know, aren't always great role models themselves, unfortunately.

I recently found out that my boss used to attend the Church I currently attend. The reason they left is that the pastor was making passes at his wife. No one in the church believed them, and were kinda marginalized, so they found another church. Later on, it was discovered that the pastor was sleeping with another woman in the church, a married woman.

He's no longer there, so I don't have to contend with that. But it's still something to consider when looking up to them for guidance. They have flaws just like the rest of us.

They are human, just like the rest of us. And they are probably subject to more temptation than the average human being. That doesn't excuse their behavior, though.

[Roy Munson]

Not different from abortion at all... unless in your universe abortions are performed on women who are NOT pregnant prior to the abortion.
This case is accidental, abortion is not. Even if you make the leap to the bible referring to the baby itself.

[Roy Munson]

Thou shalt not kill works for me.
if you make the leap that life begins at conception.

[Roy Munson]

Clue: Every word in one language is not ALWAYS accurately translated into another language


The whole point is the woman loses her child from her womb.... whether its damaged or not... you will pay for your crime.
Clue: You're copying the same passage from english and its different in 2 instances...

[Roy Munson]

I'm holding out for the deathbed repentance.

Clean the slate only at the end...
Lutheran, eh?

[Roy Munson]

I've already emailed Rev. Wright, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet.
have you been forgiven for being a Vegetarian yet?

[swordfish]

Heres a link to an artificial heart for all the haters. Not to mention almost every organ can be replaced/mechanized except for the lungs. They can keep you breathing but they cant repair them. Your body could live without your brain as well. You guys can argue about when you have a soul.

http://www.worldhealth.net/p/393,1172.html

[Roy Munson]

Heres a link to an artificial heart for all the haters. Not to mention almost every organ can be replaced/mechanized except for the lungs. They can keep you breathing but they cant repair them. Your body could live without your brain as well. You guys can argue about when you have a soul.

http://www.worldhealth.net/p/393,1172.html
do they make one that fits in the womb?

[swordfish]

do they make one that fits in the womb?

Japanese are working on it.

[MTVike]

if you make the leap that life begins at conception.

I do.

That's when I began, anyway.

[Hotpapa666]

It looks like we have a definitive answer. The Bible is a confusing book that offers very little in the way of definitive answers to real moral questions.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Heres a link to an artificial heart for all the haters. Not to mention almost every organ can be replaced/mechanized except for the lungs. They can keep you breathing but they cant repair them. Your body could live without your brain as well. You guys can argue about when you have a soul.

http://www.worldhealth.net/p/393,1172.html

an artificial heart is a heart, no?

[Ed Who?]

It looks like we have a definitive answer. The Bible is a confusing book that offers very little in the way of definitive answers to real moral questions.

For someone without a relationship with God, it's very confusing. It says as much.

[Hotpapa666]

For someone without a relationship with God, it's very confusing. It says as much.

I don't buy the premise that a better replationship with allows one to understand and explain the Bible. If it were true than the Christians posting on this thread would have a very easy job answering the original question. We are nine pages into this thing and there is still no difinitive answer to one of the great moral questions of our age.

[domenick2x]

Lutheran, eh?
Nope. But if it fits my worldview, I'm more than willing to accept it.

[domenick2x]

I don't buy the premise that a better replationship with allows one to understand and explain the Bible. If it were true than the Christians posting on this thread would have a very easy job answering the original question. We are nine pages into this thing and there is still no difinitive answer to one of the great moral questions of our age.
I asked Rev. Wright that, too.

I'm still waiting for the reply.

[Hotpapa666]

I asked Rev. Wright that, too.

I'm still waiting for the reply.

Good. Ask him also why god needs so much money and why his preachers need such fancy cars and houses. I've always wondered why a guy who preaches to poor to working class people needs a closet full of three thousand dollar suits, a couple of forty thousand dollar cars and a $$$$ house just to minister. The mysteries of the universe....

BTW, care to address the actual question?

[domenick2x]

Good. Ask him also why god needs so much money and why his preachers need such fancy cars and houses. I've always wondered why a guy who preaches to poor to working class people needs a closet full of three thousand dollar suits, a couple of forty thousand dollar cars and a $$$$ house just to minister. The mysteries of the universe....

BTW, care to address the actual question?
Well, I'll take a shot.

I don't usually understand women. I do okay with my wife - the better my relationship with her, the better I can guess about how she might react to anything stupid I might do. The better I can understand her body language and such, the better I know where I stand and what's going on.

I think you COULD choose to equate that to the Bible. The more into it you are, the more you could see correlations between points of view, and how the different writers of the different books filtered the information. It's further complicated by various translations, and by the differences between society then and society now - multiple wives, slaves, etc.

How's that?

[Jiddy78]

Good. Ask him also why god needs so much money and why his preachers need such fancy cars and houses. I've always wondered why a guy who preaches to poor to working class people needs a closet full of three thousand dollar suits, a couple of forty thousand dollar cars and a $$$$ house just to minister. The mysteries of the universe....

BTW, care to address the actual question?

False prophets.

[Hotpapa666]

Well, I'll take a shot.

I don't usually understand women. I do okay with my wife - the better my relationship with her, the better I can guess about how she might react to anything stupid I might do. The better I can understand her body language and such, the better I know where I stand and what's going on.

I think you COULD choose to equate that to the Bible. The more into it you are, the more you could see correlations between points of view, and how the different writers of the different books filtered the information. It's further complicated by various translations, and by the differences between society then and society now - multiple wives, slaves, etc.

How's that?

Good enough. And I thank you for your effort.

But, it raises again the question of why, a multitude of people, all claiming to have a relationship with god, all claiming to have an understanding of Biblical scriptures, can't come up with a difinitive answer.

We'll put aside the fact that the Bible that is often quoted around here, King James, was written by poets who likely had little Hebrew or Greek, and all of literary perils that arise from that for now.

[domenick2x]

Good enough. And I thank you for your effort.

But, it raises again the question of why, a multitude of people, all claiming to have a relationship with god, all claiming to have an understanding of Biblical scriptures, can't come up with a difinitive answer.

We'll put aside the fact that the Bible that is often quoted around here, King James, was written by poets who likely had little Hebrew or Greek, and all of literary perils that arise from that for now.
My relationship with Jiddy is VERY different from Jiddy's Wife's relationship with Jiddy. I might think I know a lot about him, but I might be wrong about his true feelings about some things.