Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Parts do, but mostly it doesn't.
-
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!
The Bible and the Unborn
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Parts do, but mostly it doesn't.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Yes...we are supposed to meet and talk to God. Again you need to read and believe scripture.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
All of them? That would seem quite problematic.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
In what way would it be a problem? The different prophets and messengers has been on earth on different times, with different people to speak to.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
You forgot to mention the part that makes it problematic - the different messages.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I can only speak for my own belief and understanding
Bathos Logos
Active Member
Hmmm... the part in your previous post about "The different prophets and messengers has been on earth on different times, with different people to speak to." sure seemed like that was you speaking about a pretty wide swath of time and a pretty open/inclusive set of beliefs. You sure you were only talking about your own beliefs in that one?I can only speak for my own belief and understanding
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Yes, I believe all religions holds truth told in different ways to different cultures and people
Bathos Logos
Active Member
So therefore you can speak for others beliefs and understanding, correct?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
No absolutely not, in this thread I only speak from my understanding, and it could be a wrong understanding.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
Ah, so those other religions and beliefs don't necessarily contain "truth told in different ways to different cultures and people" - you just believe that they do, correct? Is this more like a belief in Santa Claus or more like someone's belief in gravity? Just trying to judge what form of justification you can have for this particular belief if you also state that you can "only speak for [your] own belief and understanding". Also trying to establish whether you know what a contradiction is or not to recognize when two or more religions' "messages" contain conflicting information, and what that would mean to your idea that God is merely doling out information across the generations. The fact that it is supposed to be the "same god" but with "different messages" is precisely the problem I was getting at originally.
Um, we can make changes?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
It is my belief yes.
That you have a problem with my personal belief is not on me
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
It shouldn't be changed. But, if properly interpreted and understood, it already reflects the rights of unborn.
Well, what do you mean by the unborn anyways? I thought, a child in the womb.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
I'm trying to establish whether or not your belief is consistent at all in the first place... which very much becomes your problem if you don't and that can be demonstrated. For example, you may be considered completely lacking credibility if it is discovered that you hold conflicting ideas and feel that it is "everyone else's problem".It is my belief yes.
That you have a problem with my personal belief is not on me
God appears to have no trouble with ideas like abortion and infanticide. [He]'s the author of every miscarriage in nature, for example, humans included.
And the bible sets the tone eg :
Exodus 22:29-30 You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.
(That was later adjusted by negotiation, but it was God's idea and God's starting point.)
And
Hosea 13: 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
and so on.
I wonder if your question is directed to God because He is Author of both the OT & NT __________
In Scripture it was a High Crime to abort for selfish reasons just to get rid of an unwanted child.
However, remember both fornicators and adulterers were put to death.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But an abortion, even an unwanted one, did not merit the death penalty in the Old Testament. An unwanted abortion resulted only in a fine. And if a wife was suspected of cheating a husband could get an abortion at the temple.
I find it is one thing to post a verse or two such as Exodus 22:29-30 but why without application.
Those verses are explained for us at Luke 2:21-24.
On the 8th day was circumcision, and when Jesus was 40 days old he was taken to Jerusalem.
Hosea 13:16 and 2 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 17:17-18; 21:6; besides Hosea 10:14 dealing with enemies.
Who 'dashed the little ones in pieces' but the Assyrian enemies in battle.
The magnitude of that prophecy came true - Isaiah 13:16- as in 'meaning' their 'family line' would be wiped out.
Their 'family name' would be wiped out - Psalms 137:9; Nahum 3:10 - when it says little ones dashed in pieces.
The people were warned by the prophets in advance as to what would happen if they did Not change their ways.
This is even true today - 2 Peter 3:9 - 'repent' or 'perish' (be destroyed).
When one perishes, as in being destroyed, that will be the end of their line and name.
Very little in the NT explains anything about the Tanakh. Instead the Tanakh is used in a kind of far out Christian midrash manner to be reimagined for whatever fables pleased the author.
Hosea 13 is addressed on behalf of the Jewish God against the Israelites who are accused of forsaking that God.
The God who causes the threats to be made thinks nothing of ripping open pregnant women [he] takes a dislike to.
Roe v Wade doesn't sink to barbarism like that. It brought knowledge and reason together to allow a coherent and sane setting for women to have control of their own fertility.