Did I say that? My statement was in rebuttal to your sweeping and incorrect statement about the position on abortion that is in the Bible. Please leave out the logical fallacies and stick to what I wrote.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you an R/PC?
- Thread starter Jeremiah Ames
- Start date
Earthling
David Henson
Last edited:
Earthling
David Henson
Your statement was ridiculous, and besides that I asked you a question.
Last edited:
My statement is based on the evidence. Your response was ridiculous. You wrote a statement and put a question mark at the end of it. That does not make it a legitimate question. I have seen that done before. Your 'question' was not about anything I wrote either.
Earthling
David Henson
I'll leave it to the reader to decide. I'm not going to argue against an idiotic position with the painfully obvious.
My position is based on the facts. Your so called question did not even go to what I posted. I take it you have nothing rational to post in response, since the preponderance of evidence is on my side.
The reader can do as they like. I just made the mistake of thinking I would get a rational argument from someone that responds emotionally.
Women who miscarry in this manner are prone to infections, which can be fatal if not treated. (They didn't have antibiotics back in those days.)
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Not what that verse is talking about. You're interpreting scripture wildly again, and according to your theory, this needs to be a direct command from specified tetragrammaton, anyway, as any other word could mean anything. Could be commands from satan.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
Earthling
David Henson
It's kind of like a puzzle. Conversation, that is. All of the pieces have to fit in order to get the picture.
Sometimes, people think that religious discussion is the exception to that rule. I don't.
In other words, you are not making any sense and you certainly aren't going to get anywhere by holding my capacity to reason hostage by your abstract religious ideology.
Earthling
David Henson
What is your point? I'm missing it.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Look at the larger context of the scripture:
18 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or his fist, and the injured man does not die but is confined to bed, 19 if he can later get up and walk around outside leaning on his staff, then the one who struck him will be exempt from punishment. Nevertheless, he must pay for his lost work time and provide for his complete recovery.
20 “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse, the owner must be punished. 21 However, if the slave can stand up after a day or two, the owner should not be punished because he is his owner’s property.
22 “When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. 23 If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound.
A woman who miscarries can often "stand up after a day or two," before any infection takes hold and goes septic, but can then die from the infection when it develops and goes septic, which can take longer than "a day or two." Therefore, the "after a day or two" exemption from punishment does not apply in the case where a pregnant woman was the victim. The person who caused the injury is still liable if she developed an infection from the induced miscarriage after the "day or two" time period.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
@Ellen Brown
Biblical, & mystical.
Biblical, & mystical.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
That's a lot of ideas for 'the verse isn't talking about that'. And 'your methodology for deific name interpretation is unique and isn't going to match Scripture', however , ok.
Earthling
David Henson
Will you please just explain what "deific name interpretation" is and how I might have got that wrong, especially given Psalms 82:1; Psalms 82:6; which refers to the human judges of Israel as gods (Hebrew elohim), and was quoted by Jesus at John 10:34-35. (Greek the·oi′ e·ste; Latin, di′i e′stis; Hebrew ʼelo·him′ ʼat·tem′) And Exodus 4:16 which says, of Moses: "And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God (Hebrew leʼ·lo·him′; Greek the·on′; Latin De′um) to him. And at Exodus 7:1 which says, of Moses: "Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God (Hebrew ʼelo·him′; Greek the·on′; Latin De′um) to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet."
You see? Deity is only a term that means mighty and or venerated or respected. Men can be gods. Just like the pagan Sumerian King Tammuz was a god. (Ezekiel 8:14)
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Why don't we just go with it's contextual, that's fine. However, like in Genesis 1:26
The name there is 'Elohim', without specification. Now, you could say, 'you get specification later in the text', that's interpretive, and, same word inference for different interpretations.
In other words, the deity names without specification , it isn't that they can 'mean anything', it's that it's contextual, and varies by religious belief.
The English Bible, though I believe it does tend to 'interpret', verses, does have a methodology, 'Lord', and 'G- d', that basically works, and maintains meaning throughout the text. Important to note, besides specification, use of 'g-d', and 'G- d', even though 'G- d' without specification means the Biblical deity, anyways.
Anyways, this discussion is somewhat off topic
Last edited:
SeekingAnswers
Member
So I have a distaste for both parties as I think the American two-party system is corrupt, broken, and needs to end (in its current state). I hate this "my team is better!" "no my team is!" that political debates have devolved into these days.
That said, I do find myself to be more right-leaning on fiscal matters and so I will say that for many there is a BIG difference between my own person deciding to donate freely to my brothers and sisters to help support them and some known-to-be-corrupt government TAKING what is mine and distributing it how they see fit. I see this argument a lot, the whole idea that "Liberals" want to help everyone so Christians should be de facto Democrats, but believing we all should give to each other according to our means and forcing people to surrender their goods to service the needs of others are absolutely not the same.
Addition:
If you can find a Bible verse where Jesus forcibly took the possessions of one party and gave them to another, I will concede that you are correct here. Or even one where he advocates doing so.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
'I am the Lord, your G- d' , works in English, did not need a transliteration in that verse.
Last edited:
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Well its evidence that you have no clue or idea what the Republican Platform is about.
The Republicans support that babies have a life.
While Democrats wants to kill babies just within minutes before babies are born or even within minutes after the babies are born.
Had you any clue or idea that God did say
" You shalt not kill"
But yet Democrats goes directly and indirectly against God.
Republicans believe all men are free
Democrats had men and women and children in Slavery.
Republicans believe to come into the United States, is to do it legally. And not jumping ahead of those, who are doing it legally.
Republicans believe that to preserve freedom, is by a show a strength.
That even Christ Jesus supports this.
But Democrats believe,to lay down and let whosoever walk all over you.
Republicans showed the whole world, That the United States will not be anyone's walk on No More,
Democrats believe in giving hand outs to people.
But yet Democrats own Presidents JFK said. ( Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country)
In other words Democrats shouldn't be giving hands outs, But asking people what are you willing to do for your country.
Democrats are the ones who went out destroying their own college campuses burning them.
Destroying other people place of business.
Democrats shows themselves as being a destructive people.
While Republicans shows themselves as being a non-destructive people.
As there is not one time, where Republicans went out destroying other peoples property.
Or beating on people because who they vote for.
As did Democrats.
There's nothing you say about me, As for 45,50 years i was a strong Democrat supporter.
Until i finally open my eyes to destruction caused by Democrats.
So before you say that i don't anything about Democrats, i know alot about democrats.
Since i was 21 yrs of age was a strong Democrat supporter and now at the age of 68 i wouldn't give Democrats nothing.
Democrats will say Socialism is great, But yet people over in Venezuela are out by the millions protesting against socialism. Why is that if to what Democrats say socialism is to be so great.
Have you tried to convince people of Venezuela that, try it and see what will happen.
Last edited: