Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if that were correct it's still not a reason I have to be jabbed to save your life. I am responsible for my risk.

What that tells me is that you feel that you have no responsibility to others including me. Yet you want to force more people to be born. Why? You don't seem to have much concern for the ones already around you.

Have you thought it through? Why do you want all of these unwanted fetuses as neighbors? Are you just helping procure souls for heaven by finding them a fleshy home on earth first?

I am not without sympathy. I would be right there with you if we were talking about actual babies and children, or even sentient fetuses. Or sentient puppies.

We are

No, we are not. I am not. I am talking about insentient fetuses. As I've explained, with me, they have no standing in the matter in that state. Calling them children before sentience changes nothing. As I explained before, even if I adopted your language, I wouldn't change my position, which could then (but not now using my present definition of a child) be described as my considering abortion of presentient children acceptable. I can't state enough that no use of language is relevant to the matter for me. There is nothing that you can call a fetus that would change how I view it.

you can terminate him now only because he's not fully developed

No, because it can't suffer now. When it can, then I will stand with the fetus.

 

[InChrist]

You are not reading that in context. You are adding your own context. Worse yet the interpretation of that verse was changed after the right to life movement became a thing. None of them said "gives birth prematurely". That change was done to poison one's interpreation.

And I am not surprised that you are unaware of the Test of an Unfaithful Spouse. Right to lifers like to pretend that it does not exist or do some extreme hoop jumping to do that.

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-29 - New International Version

Who says the interpretation was changed; you, an atheist or pro-abortion website? It’s very clear by simple reading what it says and means. All versions are basically similar. There’s no way the pro-life movement caused biblical scholars to change the interpretation. Whether it says “ give birth prematurely” or “ hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart”, the meaning and intent is the same.

“And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life..”
Exodus 21 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre


Exodus 21:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

If you think Numbers 5:11-29 is somehow allowing chemical abortion, rather than showing God’s exposure and/or judgement upon the sin of adultery, you are either ignorant and lack reading comprehension or your are deliberately twisting the scriptures. I don’t think you are ignorant, nor lacking in comprehension.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who says the interpretation was changed; you, an atheist or pro-abortion website? It’s very clear by simple reading what it says and means. All versions are basically similar. There’s no way the pro-life movement caused biblical scholars to change the interpretation. Whether it says “ give birth prematurely” or “ hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart”, the meaning and intent is the same.

“And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life..”
Exodus 21 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre


Exodus 21:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

If you think Numbers 5:11-29 is somehow allowing chemical abortion, rather than showing God’s exposure and/or judgement upon the sin of adultery, you are either ignorant and lack reading comprehension or your are deliberately twisting the scriptures. I don’t think you are ignorant, nor lacking in comprehension.

Well, they did. At least Thomas Aquinas did so. We have been over that before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who says the interpretation was changed; you, an atheist or pro-abortion website? It’s very clear by simple reading what it says and means. All versions are basically similar. There’s no way the pro-life movement caused biblical scholars to change the interpretation. Whether it says “ give birth prematurely” or “ hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart”, the meaning and intent is the same.

“And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life..”
Exodus 21 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre


Exodus 21:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

And you should be able to see that you are the one adding context. It does not say "premature birth" . Birth is a very loaded term in this discussion. It say "fruit depart" that implies that she lost the fetus if anything. That is a monetary fine when that happens, Not a death penalty. If the wife died due to the miscarriage that would have resulted in the death penalty. The punishment was for harming the woman and not the fetus.

Also, my older Bible says that hey changed the verse. Go ahead and find a Bible printed in the 1960's or earlier and read that verse. It will not have the word "birth" in it.

If you think Numbers 5:11-29 is somehow allowing chemical abortion, rather than showing God’s exposure and/or judgement upon the sin of adultery, you are either ignorant and lack reading comprehension or your are deliberately twisting the scriptures. I don’t think you are ignorant, nor lacking in comprehension.

Come on, you can do better than that. You either did not read it or did not understand it. I am willing to break it down for you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It’s very clear by simple reading what it says and means. “And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life..”

Agree. The meaning is clear, but it doesn't mean to me what you say it means to you. It says that if a woman loses a fetus because of trauma, that no harm has been done if that is all that happened, although that seems to be contradicted by giving a monetary value to the lost pregnancy.

If you think Numbers 5:11-29 is somehow allowing chemical abortion, rather than showing God’s exposure and/or judgement upon the sin of adultery, you are either ignorant and lack reading comprehension or your are deliberately twisting the scriptures.

It was not claimed that that scripture allows for chemical abortion. It says that God will abort an illegitimate fetus using dusty holy water.

In the nearly two decades I have participated in forums such as this one, whenever I've seen a believer and unbeliever disagree about the meaning of scripture, the believer never holds my position, and the skeptic always does.

You suggested that that is because the believer is "either ignorant and lack reading comprehension or [is] deliberately twisting the scriptures." I say that it is because the believer is trying to make it conform to what he or she believes by faith. If you start with the belief that God disapproves of abortion, then you will make the words say that, as you did when you decided that departing fruit referred to premature birth. Why? Probably because you saw how cavalier God was about it all, so it couldn't have been a lethal miscarriage.

Likewise with the test for the unfaithful wife. The test clearly involves causing a chemical abortion of illegitimate fetuses not just sanctioned by God, but also performed by this deity, unless you believe dusty holy water is an abortifacient even without divine interference.

Are you familiar with what a confirmation bias is, who has them, and how they manifest? The believer wears a confirmation bias that translates what he sees into what he wants to see. Because the unbeliever does not, whenever they disagree, one will always get a more objective answer from the unbeliever.

Think of yourself and your ability to decide what a Quranic verse means. Suppose a Muslim and you disagreed in a big way about the meaning of a verse as you and skeptics are doing with biblical verses now. Which of you is more likely to be twisting the meaning, you or the believer? Which of you do you think atheists would agree with? I'm pretty sure that I would read the words the way you did, because we would both be looking at them without the influence of a confirmation bias trying to make those words seem wise and correct however much they seemed otherwise to us. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you and I would agree on the meaning of just about any intelligible passage of text EXCEPT your Bible.

 

[F1fan]

I don't have any extremist views.

False. You are repeating all sorts of right wing disinformation, from vaccination, to negative views of mandates for public health, to incorrect percentages of public options, to dubious moral standards for life, to incorrect language use, to politically charged words and phrases, etc. Your posts demonstrate an indifference to facts and truth, and that is the cornerstone of extremism.

We offer you opportunities to correct your errors and your refusal is also what extremists do. We observe you behaving like an extremist so if you aren’t one then you are acting like one.

Your personal attacks show me your know you are wrong.

My criticisms of you are deserving because you have indifference to facts and truth. Does it feel personal? Well its your choice to hold factually untrue beliefs and its our choice to point them out in a public debate forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agree. The meaning is clear, but it doesn't mean to me what you say it means to you. It says that if a woman loses a fetus because of trauma, that no harm has been done if that is all that happened, although that seems to be contradicted by giving a monetary value to the lost pregnancy.



It was not claimed that that scripture allows for chemical abortion. It says that God will abort an illegitimate fetus using dusty holy water.

In the nearly two decades I have participated in forums such as this one, whenever I've seen a believer and unbeliever disagree about the meaning of scripture, the believer never holds my position, and the skeptic always does.

You suggested that that is because the believer is "either ignorant and lack reading comprehension or [is] deliberately twisting the scriptures." I say that it is because the believer is trying to make it conform to what he or she believes by faith. If you start with the belief that God disapproves of abortion, then you will make the words say that, as you did when you decided that departing fruit referred to premature birth. Why? Probably because you saw how cavalier God was about it all, so it couldn't have been a lethal miscarriage.

Likewise with the test for the unfaithful wife. The test clearly involves causing a chemical abortion of illegitimate fetuses not just sanctioned by God, but also performed by this deity, unless you believe dusty holy water is an abortifacient even without divine interference.

Are you familiar with what a confirmation bias is, who has them, and how they manifest? The believer wears a confirmation bias that translates what he sees into what he wants to see. Because the unbeliever does not, whenever they disagree, one will always get a more objective answer from the unbeliever.

Think of yourself and your ability to decide what a Quranic verse means. Suppose a Muslim and you disagreed in a big way about the meaning of a verse as you and skeptics are doing with biblical verses now. Which of you is more likely to be twisting the meaning, you or the believer? Which of you do you think atheists would agree with? I'm pretty sure that I would read the words the way you did, because we would both be looking at them without the influence of a confirmation bias trying to make those words seem wise and correct however much they seemed otherwise to us. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you and I would agree on the meaning of just about any intelligible passage of text EXCEPT your Bible.

One advantage that a skeptic has in reading the Bible is that they have less of a need for the Bible to agree with them. They can often more accurately understand what the authors meant since they have very little agenda.

 

[InChrist]

And you should be able to see that you are the one adding context. It does not say "premature birth" . Birth is a very loaded term in this discussion. It say "fruit depart" that implies that she lost the fetus if anything. That is a monetary fine when that happens, Not a death penalty. If the wife died due to the miscarriage that would have resulted in the death penalty. The punishment was for harming the woman and not the fetus.

Also, my older Bible says that hey changed the verse. Go ahead and find a Bible printed in the 1960's or earlier and read that verse. It will not have the word "birth" in it.

I don’t have a 1960’s Bible available.
Like I said, the meaning is the same whether the word birth is used or not. If the text says...

...hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart ... it means the child comes out of her. And the text says CHILD, not fetus. The child could come out alive, in which case there would be a monetary fine. It the child came out dead or died as a result of the fight, it was the death penalty, the same as if the woman was killed. Read the text in a Hebrew-English concordance.

Come on, you can do better than that. You either did not read it or did not understand it. I am willing to break it down for you.

I read it and I understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t have a 1960’s Bible available.
Like I said, the meaning is the same whether the word birth is used or not. If the text says...

...hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart ... it means the child comes out of her. And the text says CHILD, not fetus. The child could come out alive, in which case there would be a monetary fine. It the child came out dead or died as a result of the fight, it was the death penalty, the same as if the woman was killed. Read the text in a Hebrew-English concordance.

Your earlier quote did use the word "birth". In your concordance translation it appears to imply that she lost her fetus. "her fruit depart". That is not a phrase that one would use if a baby was delivered early. And once again you are using an interpretation where you add context. In the Old Testament "life" began with the first breath. A child did not even have any value until it was one month old in the Old Testament.

I read it and I understand it.

You clearly did not understand it. Why did the husband demand the abortion? (test if you wish). Why do you think that it was not an abortion? I can tell you why it was.

 

[Wildswanderer]

if you want to avoid going in public and are quarantined with other nonvaxers then fine, you pose no threats. But if you refuse vaccination for political reasons and still go out in public, then you have a low moral interest in society and other people.

No, because it spreads through vaxxed or unvaccinated. As you have already illustrated.
It's highly ironic also that you are all up in arms over an unvaccinated person supposedly being a tiny risk of death but you are ok with whole sale slaughter of babies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, because it spreads through vaxxed or unvaccinated. As you have already illustrated.
It's highly ironic also that you are all up in arms over an unvaccinated person supposedly being a tiny risk of death but you are ok with whole sale slaughter of babies.

That is an incredibly poor excuse that only demonstrates that you do not know how vaccines work. It is not a valid excuse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, because it spreads through vaxxed or unvaccinated. As you have already illustrated.
It's highly ironic also that you are all up in arms over an unvaccinated person supposedly being a tiny risk of death but you are ok with whole sale slaughter of babies.

There are not babies slaughtered. But since this is about slaughtered babies I like mine pre-marinated and then grilled. What is your favorite?

 

[Father Heathen]

No, try to stay on topic.
Apples to oranges.
BTW what is the so called legitimate use for things like the sex trade?
Possession of firearms are guaranteed in the constitution...I don't remember anything in there about hookers.

Let's just agree then that conservatives are clearly not about upholding and expanding freedom, despite what you've claimed.
BTW, if conservatives value the constitution why do they constantly try to defy the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment?

 

[InChrist]

Agree. The meaning is clear, but it doesn't mean to me what you say it means to you. It says that if a woman loses a fetus because of trauma, that no harm has been done if that is all that happened, although that seems to be contradicted by giving a monetary value to the lost pregnancy.

The text says that if the “child” departs from the mother, as in miscarriage or premature birth there will be a monetary penalty or the death penalty if the child dies.

“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no harm follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any harm follow, then you shall give life for life..”

It was not claimed that that scripture allows for chemical abortion. It says that God will abort an illegitimate fetus using dusty holy water.

It was claimed:

”Also it does not even mention the fact that priests in the Old Testament could administer a chemical abortion, against the mother's consent”
Post 282

You suggested that that is because the believer is "either ignorant and lack reading comprehension or [is] deliberately twisting the scriptures." I say that it is because the believer is trying to make it conform to what he or she believes by faith. If you start with the belief that God disapproves of abortion, then you will make the words say that, as you did when you decided that departing fruit referred to premature birth. Why? Probably because you saw how cavalier God was about it all, so it couldn't have been a lethal miscarriage.

Likewise with the test for the unfaithful wife. The test clearly involves causing a chemical abortion of illegitimate fetuses not just sanctioned by God, but also performed by this deity, unless you believe dusty holy water is an abortifacient even without divine interference.

I don’t consider God to be cavalier or arbitrary at all. I consider God to be the Creator of heaven and earth, the Giver of all life. God is defined as Love and the only source of love and life. As well as justice, compassion, goodness and truth. So if God determines a time to take life He does so with valid reasons. He is never cavalier about it.

 

[InChrist]

Your earlier quote did use the word "birth". In your concordance translation it appears to imply that she lost her fetus. "her fruit depart". That is not a phrase that one would use if a baby was delivered early. And once again you are using an interpretation where you add context. In the Old Testament "life" began with the first breath. A child did not even have any value until it was one month old in the Old Testament.



You clearly did not understand it. Why did the husband demand the abortion? (test if you wish). Why do you think that it was not an abortion? I can tell you why it was.

I used the word (premature) birth because the versions I initially looked up used that word, probably to give more clarity and understandably for modern readers. The Hebrew or even KJV use depart or gone from her. That does not necessarily indicate the baby is dead or alive.

I think according to the OT or NT life begins at conception. There are scriptures and accounts which make reference to life in the womb, before birth.


In the scriptures you’ve referenced in Numbers, the husband did not go to the priest to demand abortion. The subject was concerning the sexual sin of adultery. The wife may not have even been pregnant.

 

[InChrist]

There are not babies slaughtered. But since this is about slaughtered babies I like mine pre-marinated and then grilled. What is your favorite?

Is that really supposed to be funny?

The scriptures say in the last days the love of many will grow cold. I love good humor, but some things are just plain callous and cold-hearted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is that really supposed to be funny?

The scriptures say in the last days the love of many will grow cold. I love good humor, but some things are just plain callous and cold-hearted.

Well, we do it differently. Some people call women who have an abortion murders. To me that is just plain callous and cold-hearted. It cuts both ways.

 

[Secret Chief]

Is that really supposed to be funny?

The scriptures say in the last days the love of many will grow cold. I love good humor, but some things are just plain callous and cold-hearted.

I think it was in response to the word choice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it was in response to your word choice.

It wasn't InChrist, but yes in response to the rhetoric.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you infect a mother and newborn with Covid due to your lack of vaccination are you guiltless of their deaths? Was it their choice to be exposed to Covid by a careless person?

No one can control who gets or spreads covid. You are grasping.