|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is biblegod pro life? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Izanaqi writes: Where in those two versions does it state to wait to see what damage was done to the fetus. I challenge you to find in Exodus 21:22 the exact sequence of words that states to wait until birth to see what damage is done to the fetus and then to apply the fine. im not interested in those two versions. they are translations from the original... the translators could have it wrong. The original does not mention miscarriage it mentions the birth of the child 'and goes forth her child and is not injury' I look at this verse and can see that the hebrew writer was focused on the baby and whether it was injured or not. The only way to know is to wait until the child 'goes forth' and then to determine if any injury had resulted.
Izaniqi writes: They were only concerned if the man caused the woman to miscarry or if the woman received physical damage. If the woman miscarried but was otherwise unhurt, then the penalty would be a fine. no for the reason stated above. the original writing is speaking about injury to the child, not the woman. Under the mosaic law if the woman died, the one who struck her would have to pay the penalty of the law. In this case it is clear that the 'injury' being spoken of is to the unborn child, not the woman.
Izanaqi writes: I challenge you to show me how you could interpret that passage in any other way. by going to the original language you can see. here is another translation which shows more correctly the Hebrew meaning:
quote: again, here is the original hebrew word for word (this time i've rearranged it left to right for you)
quote: If you look carefully you'll see that if the CHILD GOES FORTH injured or not, the striker was still to be fined and go before the juges if it turned out that the CHILD GOES FORTH injured, then soul for soul was the punishment. Either way you look at it, the child is what the original writer had in mind, not the mother. Perhaps the later translators did not know ancient hebrew as well as we do today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Um... Yeah...
Purpledawn and I went over all of this already. I've made a concession to his point, at least on the use Exodus 21:22. Read the other posts. He made an argument and showed evidence that supported his argument. I made my argument, but was willing to look at his evidence in an objective way. After considering the evidence objectively, I realized that my use of that particular passage from Scripture could not be used because of the variations of translations. I admitted my argument was flawed and that there was no need to debate that point anymore as the observed evidence clearly fit in with what he was saying despite what I may believe. Therefore, I discontinued my attempt to use that particular passage of Scripture to support my belief. And Perdition made a very persuasive argument for why my idea of what it is to be pro-choice is probably not the the best definition. I will certainly give his argument the consideration it deserves as it relates to my idea that God is pro-choice. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
im sorry, i picked up where i left
Just on the pro-choice issue...God has laws that he does not want us to overstep. One of those laws is about taking the life of another... would you agree that murder is the willfull taking of a life? If you do, then surely you have to agree that abortion is the willfull taking of life. just to show that even the unborn are considered special to God the Psalmist David wrote this under inspiration:
quote: I also like these inspired words from Ecclesiaties 11:5"Just as you are not aware of what is the way of the spirit in the bones in the belly of her that is pregnant, in like manner you do not know the work of the [true] God, who does all things" God wants us to respect life because he is the maker of all living things. Life belongs to him, it doesnt belong to us to take and do what we want with.The unborn are living beings, why should it be our decision if they live or die? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
I think the problem with this topic and your argument to try to convince me God is pro-life is that we don't really know what God will or will not approve of. It is clear from Scripture that God has condoned war, the killing of infants and woman, the conquering of land, etc if it is God's will. But what is God's will?
I am reminded of the story of the farmer and the flood. One day as he was watching TV, he heard a news report that a flood was going to strike the town and the valley it was in, in short time. But he turned off the TV and said that God would save him. As the floodwaters came in and rose higher and higher, he went up to the second floor of his house and say a man in a boat. The man in the boat offered to carry the farmer, but the farmer politely refused saying that God would save him. The floodwaters kept getting higher and higher and finally the farmer was on the roof of his house. A helicopter flew overhead and a man in the helicopter dropped down a rope and told the farmer that they would carry him to safety. The farmer refused, secure in his faith that God would save him. The floodwaters eventually closed up around the farmer and the farmer died. When the man awoke, he was in Heaven and saw God. The farmer said to God, "I appreciate being here and all, but why didn't you save me?" God replied, "Didn't save you? I told you the flood was coming, sent you a boat, and a helicopter. What more did you want me to do?" This story is often used by Christians to show that we are unaware of God's will and seemingly non-miraculous happenings may be the answer to our prayers. It offers the lessons that God works in mysterious ways. So how do we know that God wouldn't use an abortion if it suited his will? How do we know that person who claimed God told him to kill isn't telling the truth? We don't know for certain. What we do know is what we know and believe about topics personally and the ways we justify what we believe. What my arguments with Perdition and Purpledawn should show is that a person can twist the evidence to fit their beliefs when an objective look at the evidence would never support such beliefs. I had the mistaken notion that God was pro-choice, but Purpledawn showed me that my choice of passage could not support my argument and Perdition showed me that if God applies punishment to abortion, then God is not pro-choice even is God allows such a choice to be made. In the end, I realized that I was using God to try and justify my belief in the face of the evidence that my justifications was wrong. Is God pro-life? I could never prove it to you so I am not going to argue this point anymore. You could argue Scripture, but I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. I know I could try to use Scripture to justify what I believe, but that would be disingenuous because I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and I couldn't tell you what really is God's will. What I can tell you is what I believe and why I believe it. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
God's will is clear enough, according to the Bible, which states that nothing in this world, not even life itself, is worth a bad conscience, and if people in the past died to show that, it's a pretty good demonstration for people today, for whom God offers salvation from a bad conscience through Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Izanaqi writes: You could argue Scripture, but I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. I know I could try to use Scripture to justify what I believe, but that would be disingenuous because I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and I couldn't tell you what really is God's will. What I can tell you is what I believe and why I believe it. so what do you believe with regard to abortion and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
I am pro-choice, although I think late-term abortions should not be used except in situations where the life of the mother is in danger. Otherwise I personally wouldn't want an abortion to occur, although ultimately it wouldn't be my choice (seeing as I can't get pregnant.) I believe in personal responsibility and if two people can't use the multitude of birth control options out on the market, then those people need to be responsible for their actions.
But I am a pro-choice simply because I believe people have the right to choose. In the USA, the right to choose is inherent in many of the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. Of course, that doesn't mean it is a blank check to do as a one pleases, but that does mean that people need to be able to use their own judgments to make a decision for themselves. That's why I agree with the current way abortions are handled in the US, that is, the doctor will find out why a woman wants the abortion, discuss risks and alternatives, and have the woman wait 24 hours before making a decision. It informs the woman's choice and gives them time to reconsider. I also agree that human life does not begin at conception simply because it is not viable. But once a fetus becomes viable, then even more careful considerations must be made as the fetus is now able to develop outside the mother's womb. For me, the argument using God was a way to counter fundamentalists who use religion to justify anything they want. It was a way to turn the argument around on them. To continue to use it would be wrong simply because I know that my argument is wrong in the face of evidence. I hope that you can learn from my error. Belief is a strange thing, at once a blessing and a curse. It can release us free from doubt and fear, but lock us in ignorance and irrationality. Belief should only inform us about how we should live our personal lives, not how we can force others to live the lives we want them to live. Whether or not God is pro-life or pro-choice shouldn't matter. That's our personal reason for our personal choice. What we shouldn't do is let fanaticism in our beliefs blind us to the truth of our reality, to the evidence laid out before us. To me, that goes against the spirit of Christianity. I think I have strayed a bit from the topic with this post, so any further discussion about my views should be discussed in a new topic to which I would gladly participate. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Izanaqi writes: For me, the argument using God was a way to counter fundamentalists who use religion to justify anything they want. It was a way to turn the argument around on them. To continue to use it would be wrong simply because I know that my argument is wrong in the face of evidence. i agree with you on this point...its not for fundamentalists to insist on how everyone else should act or behave. God does not force people to behave a certain way and he forbids his followers to try and do so. "Stop judging that you may not also be judged" is a warning to christians not to concern themselves with what other people do. He has not given them any authority to condemn anyone, that is for him alone to do. so you are quite right in that God allows everyone to choose, but as was mentioned by another poster, God will judge us for our decisions and at his appointed time he will deliver the appropriate pentalty to them. Its up to individuals to search out what Gods requirements are and then try to act in accord with them. this is why most christians would never choose to have an abortion because they view the life as something that belong to no one else but God....and in harmony with the laws against murder, they believe that it is against Gods law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
If the christians have suddenly turned "pro life" it hypocrytic and a sham unless they expunge and repudiate and condemn such passages of bible. You make a good point. I have pointed this out too. Everyone has various justifications, however, and different reasons they assume this or that. For instance in many eastern religions, Hinduism included, it is an affront to kill anything at all. And yet some justify abortion for the same reason others do. Are these duplicitous and hypocritical Hindu's? Maybe. Perhaps more likely is everyone a little duplicitous and hypocritical; a sad but true fact. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
So when I say God is pro-choice, what I mean is that God will allow you the option, but God does say that if you take the option there are consequences. I disagree with the whole verbiage of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, as if pro-lifers are against choosing things or as if Pro-Choicers are against life! It should be just called "anti" or "pro" abortion because that is what we are dealing with. You either fundamentally believe that it should be prohibited or not. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
It should be just called "anti" or "pro" abortion because that is what we are dealing with. You either fundamentally believe that it should be prohibited or not. Not quite, for I am anti abortion , but pro choice. I don't feel that it should be up to me what "Mary"(figurative) wants. If she chooses to abort, that is her business, not mine. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Not quite, for I am anti abortion , but pro choice. I don't feel that it should be up to me what "Mary"(figurative) wants. If she chooses to abort, that is her business, not mine. You're either for the premise of abortion or against it on a fundamental level. If you think that abortion is the murder of an individual, you are anti-abortion. If you think that allowing each individual the choice to have an abortion makes you pro-abortion. No one is anti-choice or anti-life. Every one is pro-choice and pro-life. These terms were invented by both sides to illicit sympathy to their cause. Besides it seems meaningless to say that you are against abortion for yourself but for it for everyone else being that, by your physiology, you could never conceive. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Besides it seems meaningless to say that you are against abortion for yourself but for it for everyone else being that, by your physiology, you could never conceive. You are missing the point. I am saying that my views should have no effect on a person who wants an abortion. My point is that I don't believe that a person should be making decisions on the views of some one else, whether abortion, gay-marriage, war or the death penalty. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You are missing the point. I am saying that my views should have no effect on a person who wants an abortion. My point is that I don't believe that a person should be making decisions on the views of some one else, whether abortion, gay-marriage, war or the death penalty. Then it appears you missed my point. All I was saying is that I don't like the terminology. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024