 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Before Roe v. Wade, most of these babies in the lowest group were NOT being aborted. After Roe v. Wade, they WERE being aborted. It is pretty clear that this would have had an impact on crime 20 years later. |
What evidence do you base this assertion on exactly?
Your statistics do not cover abortions prior to Roe vs. Wade so you have nothing to compare and thus nothing but your own opinion on which to make your assertions.
Make your claims based on facts and evidence. That is truly a more 'scientific' approach, is it not? |
You are right, and I'd like to back up my arguments with evidence, but unfortunately I have not been able to find anything relevant.
However, I think that this is a case where evidence is not really necessary, since we can perform the following simple thought experiment:
If babies that will become criminals are allowed to grow up, then they will contribute to the crime rate. If they are aborted, then they will not contribute to the crime rate.
If abortion is legal, then some of these babies will be aborted.
Therefore, abortion lowers the crime rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think that this is a case where evidence is not really necessary |
I thought you only believed and accepted that which is based on good evidence. Surely that has been your stance on almost every argument you've presented on this board, hasn't it?
Your thought experiment sounds good on the surface, but one barely needs to scratch that surface to unveil all sorts of problems.
| Quote: | | If babies that will become criminals are allowed to grow up, then they will contribute to the crime rate. If they are aborted, then they will not contribute to the crime rate. |
The first sentence is a major assumption with no basis in fact, no chance of being proven, and no way of being supported. Who can say what babies will grow up to become criminals? What evidence is there to determine such other than assumption, gross generalizations, biased and bigoted profiling?
I'm sorry but your whole argument is still born. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | I think that this is a case where evidence is not really necessary |
I thought you only believed and accepted that which is based on good evidence. Surely that has been your stance on almost every argument you've presented on this board, hasn't it?
|
It is based on evidence. We know for a fact that some percent x of people become criminals. We know this from the evidence. We also know that some percent y > x of people who come from poor, desparate backgrounds become criminals. We know that some percent z of y never get the chance to become criminals because they get aborted.
I can't tell you exactly what x, y, and z are, but they are all greater than zero, and they prove my point. So I might not be able to give you specific evidence, but my argument is based on evidence nonetheless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger459
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 709
Location: Pinellas Park, FL, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:58 am Post subject: AN EXCUSE FOR ABORTION ? ? ? |
|
|
AN EXCUSE
A SKIN OF A REASON
STUFFED WITH A LIE!
Perhaps a casual reading of The Nazi Doctors, Would change one's mind! Eugenics and Ethnic Cleansing = are Fancey words for MURDER!
"THOSE that do not know history = = Are Soon to Repeat IT"
Abortion IS MURDER = = BECAUSE GOD SAID SO!
WILL YOU ARGUE WITH GOD? ? ?
Thanks, RR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: Re: AN EXCUSE FOR ABORTION ? ? ? |
|
|
| ROGER459 wrote: | AN EXCUSE
A SKIN OF A REASON
STUFFED WITH A LIE!
Perhaps a casual reading of The Nazi Doctors, Would change one's mind! Eugenics and Ethnic Cleansing = are Fancey words for MURDER!
"THOSE that do not know history = = Are Soon to Repeat IT"
Abortion IS MURDER = = BECAUSE GOD SAID SO!
WILL YOU ARGUE WITH GOD? ? ?
|
If you can prove to me that God exists and that He said this, then I'll believe you. But you're going to have to give me some pretty good physical evidence, and I doubt that you'll be able to find any. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5914
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hell, you don't even have to prove he exists. Prove the bible in any conclusive way condemns abortion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Hell, you don't even have to prove he exists. Prove the bible in any conclusive way condemns abortion. |
I think that there are a lot of commonly-believed things that the Bible doesn't conclusively say.
And I also think that there are a lot of bad things that people used to believe that made their way into the Bible. A good example is how it is constantly driving home the point that women are sinful, evil temptresses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| **cough** strawman **cough** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jmj
Greetings folks! I thought I would weigh in a little here, hope nobody minds too much. 
FFT – I can relate to how you feel, I truly can.  You made a comment asking for proof from the bible – that abortion is “conclusively” condemned. So, what you’re looking for… is for the bible to say something like: “Abortion is a grave sin.” – or something along those lines… correct?
It may be true, that those words cannot explicitly be found within the pages of Sacred Scripture. I have even had a (semi-formal) debate with a pro-choice “Christian” where they whipped out that seemingly bizarre ritual from Numbers 5. (I was prepared for that though luckily! Having done a study on those particular verses shortly before. )
But, consider this – Christianity is not a “religion of the book” as Judaism or Islam might be thought of – but a religion of the Word. And the same authoritative Church that closed the cannon of Scripture in the 4th century HAS explicitly condemned abortion – without exception! And not just recently… the Church has ALWAYS taught that abortion is gravely immoral and ALWAYS will.
My argument is this. Logically, your request for proof from Scripture would require you to either submit to the proof if it was provided, or at least acknowledge that the point is definitely not in your favor – otherwise your integrity is in question. So, you are implicitly acknowledging (in some manner) the authority of Scripture. However, by allowing Scripture as an authoritative source (in any regard) – you are ALSO implicitly acknowledging the authority of the Church that closed the cannon on Scripture. (Because the Bible, with all the books included the New Testament as we know it today, did not fall from the sky. )
So, by using pure reason, I believe I can provide an answer to your request. Though you are free to disagree with my logic. You must admit that it is not “unsound.” I humbly ask you to please allow me to at least present the view of the Catholic Church on abortion! Most of what follows can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church – and the teachings within are (objectively) binding upon all Catholics.
“You shall not kill.”
'Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.'
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (Jer 1:5; cf Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-1 1)
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. (Ps. 139:15)
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.' (Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf Ep.Barnabae 19, 5: PG 2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5, 6: PG 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1,371.)
Note that the Didache is THE Oldest Christian literature outside the cannon of Scripture itself. Proof that Christians have ALWAYS believe this!  )
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (GS 51 § 3)
Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. 'A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae by the very commission of the offence', and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law . The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.'
'The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.'
Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
In any case – what you asked for proved (by your own choice of words) that what you were really looking for was an authoritative Christian pronouncement that abortion is immoral. Your mistake was that you assumed that the Bible is the complete and sole source of truth for all Christians.
No doubt you may argue that you do not accept the authority of the Church – to that I answer, “Your free will is a gift, whose Giver you do not acknowledge only because He has allowed you to." But your own intelligence, wisdom, and personal reasoning cannot answer many things – and any Christian could say that ‘all truth is found in Him.’ What truth are you proscribing my friend? ‘MY truth’ is all I hear from you. And as a Christian, I allow you your space for discernment and growth, but cannot allow you to present your truth as Truth. God is the source of all truth, which is why truth does not and cannot contradict itself. The only contradiction comes from our own misunderstanding(s) and our sin.
Sorry for the length of this post! I appreciate you time and attention.
May the Lord be with you!
Jason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5914
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | However, by allowing Scripture as an authoritative source (in any regard) – you are ALSO implicitly acknowledging the authority of the Church that closed the cannon on Scripture. (Because the Bible, with all the books included the New Testament as we know it today, did not fall from the sky. ) |
Not at all.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | I humbly ask you to please allow me to at least present the view of the Catholic Church on abortion! |
Every sect of Christianity has had its way with the Bible. The Catholics have had the most time to do so, of the currently active sects. Just because they've taken it upon themselves to change how a passage is interpreted does not mean they have the authority to.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | “You shall not kill.” |
It's "do not murder," not "do not kill." There's an important distinction.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | In any case – what you asked for proved (by your own choice of words) that what you were really looking for was an authoritative Christian pronouncement that abortion is immoral. |
Incorrect. I asked for proof from the Word of God, not the words of men.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | Your mistake was that you assumed that the Bible is the complete and sole source of truth for all Christians. |
I'm going to point out that that's a mistake on the part of Christians.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | No doubt you may argue that you do not accept the authority of the Church – to that I answer, “Your free will is a gift, whose Giver you do not acknowledge only because He has allowed you to." |
Which is a non-answer.
You're only able to contemplate this god of yours because my magical spoon is letting you.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | But your own intelligence, wisdom, and personal reasoning cannot answer many things |
Try me.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | God is the source of all truth, which is why truth does not and cannot contradict itself. |
Do you even realize why this is circular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | **cough** strawman **cough** |
Oh come now; are you denying that the authors weren't just the tiniest bit sexist by our modern civilized standards? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JasonB82ABN wrote: |
But, consider this – Christianity is not a “religion of the book” as Judaism or Islam might be thought of – but a religion of the Word. And the same authoritative Church that closed the cannon of Scripture in the 4th century HAS explicitly condemned abortion – without exception! And not just recently… the Church has ALWAYS taught that abortion is gravely immoral and ALWAYS will. |
I don't know why you would think that the church (or any church, rather) has any sort of authority over Christianity. The church was behind all sorts of horrible moral atrocities. To name a few: the crusades, the inquisition, witch hunts / trials / burnings, and the way they treated Galileo. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and nor does the argument that 'all of those things happened a long time ago' fly; just look at the pedophile catholic priests and the way that was all covered up.
My point is that the church is an incredibly immoral entity with an extremely bad track record. Who the heck are they to tell us what is right and wrong? With their moral compass, if they say that abortion is wrong, that's probably a good argument that it's sinful NOT to get them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JasonB82ABN wrote: |
[b]“You shall not kill.”
'Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.'
|
Where in the Bible does it say that a zygote is a human being?
At what point does it stop being 'just a bunch of cells', and start being a human being? When I bite the inside of my cheek, I'm also killing a bunch of cells; how does the Bible distinguish this from abortion, which is also the killing of a bunch of cells?
If you could give me a chapter and verse, that would be helpful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jmj
Greetings folks! I’m going to take a quick stab at offering a reply here.
Thank you for your points FFT – and I do appreciate your humor. Even though the subject (abortion) is one very close to my heart and it pains me somewhat when people treat it with little care – I can’t reasonably expect anyone else to when they don’t share His convictions. In any case…
| Quote: | Not at all.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you. |
Implying what here?
| Quote: | | Every sect of Christianity has had its way with the Bible. The Catholics have had the most time to do so, of the currently active sects. Just because they've taken it upon themselves to change how a passage is interpreted does not mean they have the authority to. |
Okay, I think I see your point here. If what you’re saying is true – that the Church took “it upon ‘themselves’” and changed the interpretation of this “passage” - then I challenge you to prove it! I provided evidence that the Church has EXPLICITLY condemned abortion since the first century, which is when the Church was established. The general consensus amongst secular and religious scholars agrees with the 1st century date of authorship for the Didache – some as early as 50 AD… though some do offer a date as late as the 2nd century. But, in an attempt to be fair, I challenge you to prove that the Church taught otherwise anytime before 200 AD. Fair enough?
| Quote: | | It's "do not murder," not "do not kill." There's an important distinction. |
Yes, there is an important distinction – but you offered a misquote. Exodus 20:13 says: “You shall not kill” rather plainly my friend.
| Quote: | | Incorrect. I asked for proof from the Word of God, not the words of men. |
I’ll give you that - you are correct! Because what I SHOULD have said is that you were acknowledging the Bible’s authority (even now, by using the words “Word of God” you are) and therefore you are implicitly acknowledging the authority of the Church. Since you separated my sentences (the second clarified the first) you have every right to object to this – because you are offering objections line by line in this particular case. But, I do suggest that you were avoiding the context.
| Quote: | | I'm going to point out that that's a mistake on the part of Christians. |
Maybe, but if it is... it is one that can easily be corrected!
| Quote: | Which is a non-answer.
You're only able to contemplate this god of yours because my magical spoon is letting you. |
I wasn’t answering anything in particular, just offering a truth – and the reason why you can’t see it! There are an awful lot of things that are difficult to see without the eyes of faith.
You do have a good sense of humor FFT! Any chance you are/were a math major? I could use some help on my Calculus 3 homework!
| Quote: | | Do you even realize why this is circular? |
I understand why YOU might think it is circular! If you don’t acknowledge the existence of your parents… then someone telling you that "You are a child of your parents because your parents conceived you" probably would seem like circular reasoning! But, it wouldn’t make it incorrect just because you don’t agree or see it that way.
P1234567890, I also thank you for your reply!
Second post first.
| Quote: | Where in the Bible does it say that a zygote is a human being?
At what point does it stop being 'just a bunch of cells', and start being a human being? When I bite the inside of my cheek, I'm also killing a bunch of cells; how does the Bible distinguish this from abortion, which is also the killing of a bunch of cells?
If you could give me a chapter and verse, that would be helpful. |
You didn’t really read my post did you!? That’s okay. Let me enlighten you about a few things. Catholics have always believed (for almost 2,000 years now) that “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.” “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.”
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are closely bound together and “communicate one with the other.” Consider my example: the cannon of Scripture itself is an example of Sacred Tradition – as the table of contents in any bible is absolutely not “inspired writing" per se - it is a product of Sacred Tradition.
In any case, since you responded to me, you should be aware that you are dealing with a Catholic Christian – a member of the Church that “does not derive her certainty about all the revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” “Equal sentiments” my friend – they never contradict, they always work hand in hand and “communicate one another” or serve to build each other up and offer more enlightenment. But, for a Catholic, the teachings of the apostles that were not committed to Sacred Scripture, but are alive in the Church and attested to by the many writings of the Church fathers – although not inspired… they ARE authoritative. So, you won’t get too far with a Catholic by saying things like “give me a chapter and verse” - like you just did my friend. Like I said earlier, you may not acknowledge the Church's authority - but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any and that you should!
| Quote: | | The church was behind all sorts of horrible moral atrocities. To name a few: the crusades, the inquisition, witch hunts / trials / burnings, and the way they treated Galileo. |
Quite an indictment isn’t it!? However, using a blanket statement like that does very little to the authority of the Church, – which has always acknowledged that she is made up of sinners. Also, each of those examples of “horrible moral atrocities” reflects your lack of understanding about each one of them.
Consider your first example: the “crusades.” So certain clergy in the Church asked Christians in the West (who had the capacity) to go protect their Christian brothers and sisters in the East who were being slaughtered by non-Christian invaders. And some of those who answered this righteous call were reckless and committed sin along the way to and during their fight. So therefore… according to you… the Church is at fault because some officials within the Church sought to protect their own faithful in distant lands? This is your opinion and you're welcome to it, but I disagree. Though I fully acknowledge that murder is a gravely immoral act - and that any sin (including murder of course) that took place during the Crusades that was not an act of defense and done in order to protect life was just that – sin. But, whay you're implying is wrong - because the Church never gave anybody a green light to sin my friend.
You make it seem like the motivation of the officials within the Church was sinful – and it was not. However, another point you clearly do not understand is that NONE of your examples reflect the authoritative teaching of the Church. None falls within the domain of doctrine, dogma, or any type of official Church teaching – which is the domain of truth within the Church. If the Pope told you what lottery numbers to pick, I’d definitely tell you to save your money! That’s not what his job is about, and he is in no way an infallible actor in that regard. And most of the sinfulness associated with your examples were the actions of SECULAR authorities. Again... not that members of the Church are immune to sin.
As a Christian, I greatly respect people who devote their lives to serving Christ and His Church – this choice makes them a greater target for the deceiver. Which I think is part of the reason you seem to hold holy "creatures" and humble servants of God in such low regard – somebody WANTS you to!
But, you are correct in some points – that the sins of prominent Church members certainly do scandalize her, but they do not nullify her teachings or make them untrue. If your neighbor (Mr. Smith) told you
“To stab your neighbor to death with a Kabar for keeping your lawn mower too long is morally wrong!”
And you responded with, “Oh yeah, but what about the time you were drinking too much at the block party and beat up Mr. Johnson for overcooking the hot-dogs? – Who are YOU to say that stabbing someone to death is wrong!?”
What could Mr. Smith say? He might very well be embarrassed about his earlier behavior – but he is still right about stabbing someone. And you may be right about what HE did being wrong, but that doesn’t make what he SAYS wrong now does it?
“An incredibly immoral entity with an extremely bad track record”? This accusation cannot justifiably be leveled at the Church, but only at people within her. The only justiciable reason is if you are either ignorant of the Church's domain of authority, or if you don't care to represent the truth in your statements. Either way, you are ignoring the claims of the Church about her role. And people within the Church have historically done much more good than evil – you carelessly write off the testimonies of the saints. I recommend you READ about the lives of the Saints and then see how quickly you try to paint the Church in an “extremely bad” light.
In any case… as I hinted at before… I’ve got some Calculus homework to do! So, I’m going to get back to it. FFT and P1234567890 – you are both in my prayers. Thank you for your time.
May the Lord be with you!
Jason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5914
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | FFT wrote: | Not at all.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you. |
Implying what here? |
That presuming the Church has the authority to add meaning is against the Word of of their god.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | Okay, I think I see your point here. If what you’re saying is true – that the Church took “it upon ‘themselves’” and changed the interpretation of this “passage” - then I challenge you to prove it! I provided evidence that the Church has EXPLICITLY condemned abortion since the first century, which is when the Church was established. The general consensus amongst secular and religious scholars agrees with the 1st century date of authorship for the Didache – some as early as 50 AD… though some do offer a date as late as the 2nd century. But, in an attempt to be fair, I challenge you to prove that the Church taught otherwise anytime before 200 AD. Fair enough? |
What the first Christian church taught is irrelevant. The only scripture you've mentioned is from the Torah.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | Yes, there is an important distinction – but you offered a misquote. Exodus 20:13 says: “You shall not kill” rather plainly my friend. |
This is nothing more than a mistranslation from the original Hebrew.
These are the translations which use the word "kill."
KJV, 21st Century KJV, ASV, Darby Translation, New Life Version
These are the translations which use the word "murder."
NIV, NASB, "The Message" (?), Amplified, NLT, ESV, CEV, NKJV, Young's Literal Translation, HCSB, NIRV, NIV-UK
The equivalent of "kill" in Hebrew is "harag." However, they used "ratsah," which refers to criminal acts of killing — murder.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | I’ll give you that - you are correct! Because what I SHOULD have said is that you were acknowledging the Bible’s authority (even now, by using the words “Word of God” you are) and therefore you are implicitly acknowledging the authority of the Church. |
Incorrect. I reject that the church you are referring to was an authority on the Old Testament. I can go further with this, if you like.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | I wasn’t answering anything in particular, just offering a truth – and the reason why you can’t see it! There are an awful lot of things that are difficult to see without the eyes of faith. |
You poor, misguided soul. Your eyes will never truly be open until you worship my magical spoon.
I can do this all day, I think.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | You do have a good sense of humor FFT! Any chance you are/were a math major? I could use some help on my Calculus 3 homework! |
I was more going for an in-context statement.
| JasonB82ABN wrote: | | If you don’t acknowledge the existence of your parents… then someone telling you that "You are a child of your parents because your parents conceived you" probably would seem like circular reasoning! But, it wouldn’t make it incorrect just because you don’t agree or see it that way. |
That's not circular reasoning, it's a tautology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
