|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:01 pm
zz1000zz Scripture does not clearly state a fetus has a soul, or that it is the same as a baby. That said, Jewish tradition dating back to the time of the Bible did not consider a baby to have a soul until it drew its first breath (or was halfway out of the mother, if it was backwards). The lack of scriptural support for aborted babies having souls makes it impossible for me to assume they have souls, and the Jewish tradition makes me assume they did not. I do admit this basis is rather weak, but it *is* the strongest base that exists. I've read through this thread, and time and time again, you have stated that unless the Bible specifically mentions God prohibiting something, or calling it a sin, we can not extrapolate that it is. However, you are quite content to use only Jewish tradition to back up your argument, while those opposing you can not use tradition for theirs. A trifle un-balanced perhaps? Also, it's dangerous to make an argument from the absence of something. Scripture does not clearly state that a fetus has a soul, but that could be because the society of the time believed either way, and it was so commonly held that it was one of those things that did not need to be said. That aside, Jewish tradition 2000+ years ago was not entirely on par with the knowledge that modern science has given us. Now, we know that an unborn baby's heart beats at around 4 weeks (I saw my daughter's heart beating 5 weeks after conception). We know independent brain activity starts soon after. The baby is a completely different entity, sharing only nutrients, not even the same blood supply. In short, an entirely separate being from conception, merely occupying what is sometimes an inconvenient space. We know they respond to stimuli, and we know that in later pregnancy they respond to light and sound, they have regular sleep/wake patterns, can distinguish their parents voices from other sounds. All this long before that traditional first breath, although I'm sure that your traditional 2000+ year old mother-to-be knew about the sleep/wake patterns too! All this is to say: We don't know if this knowledge would have changed the minds of traditional Hebrews in biblical times, but it should inform ours. Our faith can not remain in a 2000 year old vaccum, nor was it intended to. We have a living God. We take what we know of His intent and design, as others have already quoted, and we work it out. This means that sometimes we can not point to a specific chapter and verse that says "This is a sin", but through study we can become certain. I am sure you know that you will not get one specific verse that can prove you wrong, but from your tone, and your arguments to date, I would like to ask you... are you actually open to the possibility that you are?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:34 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:44 am
Catira Norr zz1000zz Scripture does not clearly state a fetus has a soul, or that it is the same as a baby. That said, Jewish tradition dating back to the time of the Bible did not consider a baby to have a soul until it drew its first breath (or was halfway out of the mother, if it was backwards). The lack of scriptural support for aborted babies having souls makes it impossible for me to assume they have souls, and the Jewish tradition makes me assume they did not. I do admit this basis is rather weak, but it *is* the strongest base that exists. I've read through this thread, and time and time again, you have stated that unless the Bible specifically mentions God prohibiting something, or calling it a sin, we can not extrapolate that it is. However, you are quite content to use only Jewish tradition to back up your argument, while those opposing you can not use tradition for theirs. A trifle un-balanced perhaps? I do believe only God has the right (ability) to declare something a sin, and i do believe he does so only through the Bible. I do not accept "personal messages" as a legitimate basis for determining right and wrong save on a personal level. In addition, i did not offer Jewish tradition as a reason to not condemn abortion. My reason to not condemn abortion (or at least not call it a sin), is there is nothing in the Bible which clearly condemns it. The Jewish tradition is relevant only so far as it implies abortion would not have been condemned universally in those times. Quote: Also, it's dangerous to make an argument from the absence of something. Scripture does not clearly state that a fetus has a soul, but that could be because the society of the time believed either way, and it was so commonly held that it was one of those things that did not need to be said. This is why i mentioned the Jewish tradition. The Jewish tradition held a fetus did not have a soul, so it obviously was not a universally accepted belief. This means it would have to be stated in the Bible for it to be accepted as fact. Quote: I am sure you know that you will not get one specific verse that can prove you wrong, but from your tone, and your arguments to date, I would like to ask you... are you actually open to the possibility that you are? If my tone seems to imply a certain close-mindedness, i do apologize. It is not that i refuse to accept the possibility i could be proven wrong, it is simply that i have to deal with close-minded jerks quite often when discussing this topic. I try not to let it affect me, but it has caused me to be more terse, and quite possibly more rude. I would ask the same question of those who disagree with me. I get the impression no matter what i may say, or what logic i could use, most people will never accept their position on this topic is wrong. Not because they are right, or because they can disprove my points, but simply because they refuse to acknowledge anything which disagrees with them. For example: Posts such as this and many others make me doubt those who disagree with me. If anyone can ever show me wrong on any issue, i will gladly admit to it. That i have been forced to do so as often as i have is what makes me confident in my beliefs. If i believe something incorrectly, i trust people will be able to show me. I will never say abortion is a good thing, nor that people should be homosexual. However, until somebody shows otherwise, i refuse to say these things are sins. In addition, i refuse to sit idly by as people incorrectly proclaim they are sins. For if i am correct, then doing so is an act of heresy.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:48 am
Thanks for clearing your position up for me. You are right, the conversation does seem to have become a little "heated" at times. I've had my fair share of run-ins with close-mindedness, so I can understand. I do have one question though: zz1000zz I do believe only God has the right (ability) to declare something a sin, and i do believe he does so only through the Bible. I do not accept "personal messages" as a legitimate basis for determining right and wrong save on a personal level. Can you tell me why you believe God only declares sin through the Bible? I agree that other types of revelation are dangerous, they can be mis-used, and defining something as a sin when it is not clearly in the Bible is fraught with controversy. However, there are parts of modern life that never came up when the Bible was being written, such as cloning, stem cell research, biological warfare, nuclear issues and abortion on demand to the degree that it is prevalent today. Are we then to say that it is not possible for anything we devise with our modern minds and technology to be a sin? Do we lack any ability to reason that, from what we know of the nature of God, something can be so contrary to it that it is indeed a sin? I agree that without irrefutable evidence in the Bible, there is an element of subjectivity, and this is a minefield that must be trod warily, but are we stuck with a 2000+ year old definition of sin in a modern world? zz1000zz I will never say abortion is a good thing, nor that people should be homosexual. However, until somebody shows otherwise, i refuse to say these things are sins. In addition, i refuse to sit idly by as people incorrectly proclaim they are sins. For if i am correct, then doing so is an act of heresy. Actually, we may not be far apart here. Labelling something a sin is not nearly as productive in having people think about how we live our lives as some may think it is. It's judgemental and adversarial and leads to many people putting up defenses against what they think we are going to be like as Christians. Personally, I am highly unlikely to tell people that anything is a sin - but I will offer to go through the Bible with them and help them to decide if they believe their behaviour is acceptable to God.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:57 am
Catira Norr Thanks for clearing your position up for me. You are right, the conversation does seem to have become a little "heated" at times. I've had my fair share of run-ins with close-mindedness, so I can understand. I do have one question though: zz1000zz I do believe only God has the right (ability) to declare something a sin, and i do believe he does so only through the Bible. I do not accept "personal messages" as a legitimate basis for determining right and wrong save on a personal level. Can you tell me why you believe God only declares sin through the Bible? I agree that other types of revelation are dangerous, they can be mis-used, and defining something as a sin when it is not clearly in the Bible is fraught with controversy. However, there are parts of modern life that never came up when the Bible was being written, such as cloning, stem cell research, biological warfare, nuclear issues and abortion on demand to the degree that it is prevalent today. Are we then to say that it is not possible for anything we devise with our modern minds and technology to be a sin? Do we lack any ability to reason that, from what we know of the nature of God, something can be so contrary to it that it is indeed a sin? I agree that without irrefutable evidence in the Bible, there is an element of subjectivity, and this is a minefield that must be trod warily, but are we stuck with a 2000+ year old definition of sin in a modern world? Most things done with modern technology are covered by the Bible. Killing a person with a gun is no different than killing them with a stone for determining sin. Stealing copyright protected data over the internet is still stealing. Beyond that, what more do we need? Sure, knowing God's view on cloning could be nice. No, we do not need it. Would cloning offend God? Perhaps, but we have no way of knowing if it would. If God truly wanted us to know it was a sin, he would tell us in a clear manner, not through regular individuals. (Two things. First, "individual messages" are acceptable for determining personal paths. While i generally avoid them as they are untrustworthy, i will not completely reject them. Second, messages from individuals do become divine if the individuals are prophets of God. I would gladly accept the word of God's prophet as law, but first i would have to be convinced of the prophet's divinity. I suppose the simple way of looking at it is to say i only trust divine sources, and i have no reason to believe individuals are such.) Quote: zz1000zz I will never say abortion is a good thing, nor that people should be homosexual. However, until somebody shows otherwise, i refuse to say these things are sins. In addition, i refuse to sit idly by as people incorrectly proclaim they are sins. For if i am correct, then doing so is an act of heresy. Actually, we may not be far apart here. Labelling something a sin is not nearly as productive in having people think about how we live our lives as some may think it is. It's judgemental and adversarial and leads to many people putting up defenses against what they think we are going to be like as Christians. Personally, I am highly unlikely to tell people that anything is a sin - but I will offer to go through the Bible with them and help them to decide if they believe their behaviour is acceptable to God. Incidentally, i am radically different. If i believe a person is sinning, i would gladly tell them such (and explain what makes it a sin). At the same time, if the person asked me not to discuss that subject, i probably would leave it be. I find it odd that the two biggest problems i see in people seem to be that they are not willing to stand up for their beliefs, and that they are not willing to listen to what contradicts their beliefs.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:31 am
zz1000zz Most things done with modern technology are covered by the Bible. Killing a person with a gun is no different than killing them with a stone for determining sin. Stealing copyright protected data over the internet is still stealing. Agreed zzz1000zz If God truly wanted us to know it was a sin, he would tell us in a clear manner, not through regular individuals. What would you consider to be a clear manner? zzz1000zzz I would gladly accept the word of God's prophet as law, but first i would have to be convinced of the prophet's divinity. I don't think any of the prophets ever claimed to be divine. They have all been regular people, used by God. To look for any regular person to be divine is, in my opinion, heretical. Further, of the few prophets I know, I think all of them would shudder at the thought of the words they have been given by God becoming law. That does not seem to be the way that God is using prophets and prophesy in this day and time. zzz1000zzz Incidentally, i am radically different. If i believe a person is sinning, i would gladly tell them such (and explain what makes it a sin). At the same time, if the person asked me not to discuss that subject, i probably would leave it be. I find it odd that the two biggest problems i see in people seem to be that they are not willing to stand up for their beliefs, and that they are not willing to listen to what contradicts their beliefs. I used to be like that when I first became a Christian. Whether it was my approach, or the crowd that I hang with, it certainly did not work for me. I hope it does for you, God uses us each differently. I have had much more success leading gently, than hammering the word "sin" over anyone's forehead. However, please don't misread me, I am more than happy to stand up for my beliefs.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:28 pm
Catira Norr zzz1000zz If God truly wanted us to know it was a sin, he would tell us in a clear manner, not through regular individuals. What would you consider to be a clear manner? Any manner in which the divinity of the message could not be doubted. As nothing of the sort has happened in the modern age, i cannot give a specific example. Quote: I don't think any of the prophets ever claimed to be divine. They have all been regular people, used by God. To look for any regular person to be divine is, in my opinion, heretical. Further, of the few prophets I know, I think all of them would shudder at the thought of the words they have been given by God becoming law. That does not seem to be the way that God is using prophets and prophesy in this day and time. The prophets of the Bible did claim to be divine spokesmen of God. They also performed miracles in his name, showing he blessed them. I have had no reason to believe any "prophets" exist in the modern world, so the views of any you may have met would probably mean little to me. I have never been given a reason to believe God directly interacts with the world anymore, nor do i expect to be given one.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:53 pm
and i'm telling you, who cares if it is a sin or not? how about the insane notion that there is no God? does the notion of sin matter to an atheist? will this notion take any legal stand to stopping abortion?
i don't care what it is classified as, it is an abomination to mankind as a whole, Godly or Godless.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:07 am
divineseraph and i'm telling you, who cares if it is a sin or not? how about the insane notion that there is no God? does the notion of sin matter to an atheist? will this notion take any legal stand to stopping abortion? i don't care what it is classified as, it is an abomination to mankind as a whole, Godly or Godless. Would you please stop posting here? I already said this topic is only to discuss whether or not these things are sins. If you want to rant about them being wrong, but not a sin, go somewhere else. Otherwise you are just trolling.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:08 pm
zzz1000zz If God truly wanted us to know it was a sin, he would tell us in a clear manner, not through regular individuals. It seems, that you have contradicted yourself. Here you say that if God wanted it to be a sin, it would be told to us in a clear manner. Here however, you state that something is sin, though i'm sure the bible never mentions downloading music as a sin. zzz1000zz Most things done with modern technology are covered by the Bible. Killing a person with a gun is no different than killing them with a stone for determining sin. Stealing copyright protected data over the internet is still stealing. So, if you're one of those "regular individuals," what gave you the right to make downloading music a sin? Clearly, you extrapolated information from the bible that mentions stealing as a sin, and blanketed it to apply to EVERY kind of stealing. As such, we can say that abortion is a sin, because it is killing. Since killing is the intentional ending of a human's life, and a fetus is of human origin and as such must be human, I can say that since abortion kills a fetus, or baby, which is of human and must be human, that it's a mortal sin against the commandments. Consequently, I can also turn it around and say that abortion kills a human( a fetus, or baby, which is of human and must be human ) and as such, is a mortal sin. As such, I can redo that process with many other examples. For instance, I can say that since Lying is a sin because it's against truth and the human being's dignity, gossip is a sin since it's against the human being's dignity who's being gossiped about.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:23 pm
divineseraph does the notion of sin matter to an atheist? Sin being something that goes against the will of God, no it doesn't matter to us. I feel obligated to point out that we are concerned about right and wrong action, but that our understanding of the subject doesn't factor in any sort of divine law. CCubed As such, we can say that abortion is a sin, because it is killing. An argument that relies on a poor translation of the fifth commandment, seeing as it actually states that murder is a sin. After all, the ceremonial laws have many crimes that are punishable by death. If it really were a sin to simply kill, then one would be sinning by carrying out the proper sentence for, say, murder (which, by the way, is death). Just pointing that out.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:07 pm
Tangled Up In Blue divineseraph does the notion of sin matter to an atheist? Sin being something that goes against the will of God, no it doesn't matter to us. I feel obligated to point out that we are concerned about right and wrong action, but that our understanding of the subject doesn't factor in any sort of divine law. CCubed As such, we can say that abortion is a sin, because it is killing. An argument that relies on a poor translation of the fifth commandment, seeing as it actually states that murder is a sin. After all, the ceremonial laws have many crimes that are punishable by death. If it really were a sin to simply kill, then one would be sinning by carrying out the proper sentence for, say, murder (which, by the way, is death). Just pointing that out. Just so you know, Murder and the word killing are synonymous. Look: Murder: mur·der mur·der [múrdər] n (plural mur·ders) law crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law v (past mur·dered, past participle mur·dered, present participle mur·der·ing, 3rd person present singular mur·ders) 1. vti law kill somebody illegally: to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law 2. vt kill somebody brutally: to kill somebody with great violence and brutality 3. vt destroy: to put an end to or destroy something (slang) The fire murdered their chances of selling the house. 4. vt spoil: to spoil something such as a song or a piece of writing by performing it badly or changing it (slang) 5. vt sports defeat completely: to defeat a person or team completely, especially in a sporting contest (slang) [Old English morþor . Ultimately from an Indo-European word that is also the ancestor of English mortal, moribund, and ambrosia. Later reinforced by Old French murdre , from prehistoric Germanic.] -mur·der·er, n -mur·der·ess, n get away with murder to escape punishment for or detection of wrongdoing be murder to be very difficult or unpleasant and involve great effort or hardship (slang) Driving in this morning was murder. Word Key: Synonyms See Synonyms at kill Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Kill: kill1 kill [kil] v (past killed, past participle killed, present participle kill·ing, 3rd person present singular kills) 1. vti cause somebody to die: to cause the death of a person or an animal They were killed in a car accident. 2. vt ruin something: to cause something to end or be ruined The remark killed the conversation. 3. vt hurt part of somebody’s body: to cause severe physical pain or discomfort to somebody (informal) My feet are killing me! 4. vt overpower something subtle or less strong: to destroy or severely damage an essential, often delicate quality in something by superimposing something stronger Her perfume killed the scent of the roses. 5. vt tire somebody out: to exhaust somebody completely (informal) These stairs kill me every time. 6. vr overexert yourself: to push yourself too hard (informal) (often used ironically) She was killing herself to get the job done on time. 7. vt turn something off: to disconnect the power to something electrical or mechanical so that it stops working (informal) Kill the engine. 8. vt make time pass: to use up spare time in some activity (informal) We had a couple of hours to kill before going to the airport. 9. vt publishing cut text: to delete a piece of text from a publication or remove a particular amount from a text (slang) We had to kill half a column to make space for the ad. 10. vt block a plan: to prevent a proposal from going through, for example, the passing of a congressional bill The bill was killed in the Appropriations Committee. 11. vti bowl somebody over: to have an overpowering effect on somebody, for example, causing extreme admiration, helpless laughter, or utter amazement (informal) dressed to kill 12. vt drink all of something: to finish off a bottle of something, usually an alcoholic beverage (slang) 13. vt U.K. soccer control the ball: to bring a fast-moving ball under instant control 14. vt football make a ball dead: in football, to stop the ball so that it is no longer in play (informal) 15. vt sports hit a ball hard: to hit a ball very hard 16. vt racket games make a ball unreturnable: in racket games, to hit the ball so hard, with such skill, or in such a direction that your opponent has no chance of returning it n 1. killing: the moment or an act of killing something, especially prey or game, or the bull at the end of a bullfight 2. hunting prey: the prey killed by an animal or human being 3. military destruction of enemy vehicle: the destroying of an enemy vehicle such as a plane, ship, or tank (slang) [13th century. From assumed Old English cyllan , from a prehistoric Germanic word that is also the ancestor of English quell.] kill yourself (laughing) to laugh extremely heartily (informal) Word Key: Synonyms kill, murder, assassinate, execute, put to death, slaughter, slay, put to sleep, CORE MEANING: to deprive of life kill a general word used to talk about causing the death of a person or animal; murder to take the life of another person in an intentional and often premeditated way that constitutes a serious criminal act; assassinate to murder a public figure by means of a sudden surprise attack, often for political or religious reasons; execute to take somebody’s life in accordance with a legal death sentence. It is also used to refer to the instant or summary killing of an enemy, often for political or military reasons; put to death to deliberately take somebody’s life, especially in accordance with a legal death sentence; slaughter to kill animals for food, especially animals that have been bred on a farm. It can also be used to refer to brutal and violent killing, usually on a large scale; slay a formal or literary word used to refer to killing a person or animal in an intentional and violent way; put to sleep a euphemism used to talk about the humane killing of sick or injured animals, especially when done by a vet Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Do believe I see them listed as synonyms for each other. However, just to be sure, here's the thesaurus listings: Murder: murder (n) homicide, manslaughter, assassination, killing, slaying, unlawful death, contract killing, slaughter, massacre, wasting murder (v) kill, slay (formal or literary), assassinate, execute, put to death, slaughter, massacre, bump off (slang), waste (slang), snuff (informal), do (slang) Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Kill:kill (v) slay (formal or literary), murder, slaughter, execute, destroy, exterminate, eradicate, put down, put to sleep, assassinate, massacre, dispatch, bump off (slang) antonym: revive Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Believe I still see them both in there for each other. And about the ceremonial killings, and the sentence for murder. The sentence for murder in the courts is death or a life sentence, but that doesn't make it right for us to give the death sentence at all. For you to say that Death is the proper sentence, well, you would have to prove why it's the only proper sentence, or even why it's a proper sentence at all. Of course, my simple reply would be, even though he choose to kill/murder someone, what gives us, or you, or the courts, the right to decide he should die, and even though you're not saying explicitly, that he doesn't deserve life? As for the ceremonial killings, you would have to tell me exactly which ones, but I assume you refer to the part in the bible about Moses ordering all the sinners killed, but if you look closer, God never told him to do that. Moses made a decision, and you also should remember that Moses never saw the promised land either. I should probaly reference this verse, since it's integral to the subject: John 8:3-11 - The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again." And it still applies today, you want to put someone to death, let the first among us without sin pull the switch. Source: Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:04 am
No, 'murder' and 'kill' are not synonyms—at least not in any meaningful sense—and if you'd actually bothered to read the definitions that you so helpfully provided, you'd know that. To kill is, generally speaking, to deprive someone or something of life; to murder is to take someone's life illegally. For example, to kill someone during a war is not murder. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.
Numbers 35:16. Trust me when I say that the ancient Israelites were not averse to capital punishment. And as to John 8:3-11, it's widely agreed that that story was not in the original version of the gospel but is in fact a later interpolation.
Now, you can argue that Christ's sacrifice negated the ceremonial laws of the OT—and therefore the prescribed punishments for the crimes described therein—but other than that, you don't have much to go on here.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:05 pm
Tangled Up In Blue No, 'murder' and 'kill' are not synonyms—at least not in any meaningful sense—and if you'd actually bothered to read the definitions that you so helpfully provided, you'd know that. To kill is, generally speaking, to deprive someone or something of life; to murder is to take someone's life illegally. For example, to kill someone during a war is not murder. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you. Numbers 35:16. Trust me when I say that the ancient Israelites were not averse to capital punishment. And as to John 8:3-11, it's widely agreed that that story was not in the original version of the gospel but is in fact a later interpolation. Now, you can argue that Christ's sacrifice negated the ceremonial laws of the OT—and therefore the prescribed punishments for the crimes described therein—but other than that, you don't have much to go on here. Look, All murder is killing. And as such, since abortion is the murdering of a human( don't even bring in illegal, it's illegal to murder and last time i checked, murder of a human is illegal. how is it a human? As i stated, it is of human origin, so it must be human ) in fetus form, it's still human even though it's at a different stage of development then us, then i can use kill, since all murder is killing. However, I do agree that not all killing is murder. In the bible, the commandments use murder as a representative term for killing. All killing is wrong, not just murder. And as for your comment about John 8:3 - 11, i have no reason to say you are lying, however when you say something is widely agreed there should many sources for such a statement, of which I have searched and found none from reliable sources. I ask now that, since this is common knowledge, direct me to a link that proves your point, or a book reference. Numbers on the other hand, did you know it's a consensus of the Israelites? And it doesn't help your points at all. So, below is numbers 35:1-25: Numbers 35:1 - 25 [1] The LORD said to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, [2] "Command the people of Israel, that they give to the Levites, from the inheritance of their possession, cities to dwell in; and you shall give to the Levites pasture lands round about the cities. [3] The cities shall be theirs to dwell in, and their pasture lands shall be for their cattle and for their livestock and for all their beasts. [4] The pasture lands of the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all round. [5] And you shall measure, outside the city, for the east side two thousand cubits, and for the south side two thousand cubits, and for the west side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in the middle; this shall belong to them as pasture land for their cities. [6] The cities which you give to the Levites shall be the six cities of refuge, where you shall permit the manslayer to flee, and in addition to them you shall give forty-two cities. [7] All the cities which you give to the Levites shall be forty-eight, with their pasture lands. [8] And as for the cities which you shall give from the possession of the people of Israel, from the larger tribes you shall take many, and from the smaller tribes you shall take few; each, in proportion to the inheritance which it inherits, shall give of its cities to the Levites." [9] And the LORD said to Moses, [10] "Say to the people of Israel, When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, [11] then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person without intent may flee there. [12] The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment. [13] And the cities which you give shall be your six cities of refuge. [14] You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan, and three cities in the land of Canaan, to be cities of refuge. [15] These six cities shall be for refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that any one who kills any person without intent may flee there. [16] "But if he struck him down with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. [17] And if he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. [18] Or if he struck him down with a weapon of wood in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. [19] The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. [20] And if he stabbed him from hatred, or hurled at him, lying in wait, so that he died, [21] or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death; he is a murderer; the avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death, when he meets him. [22] "But if he stabbed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait, [23] or used a stone, by which a man may die, and without seeing him cast it upon him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy, and did not seek his harm; [24] then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these ordinances; [25] and the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, to which he had fled, and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. I'll explain it now. The first few sentences are the tail-end of the designs for cities, talking about how to proportion the grazing land, and how many people from each tribe should come. Then we start into the constitution of the Israelites, their system of law. So, I quote the aforementioned verse again, it says they asked Jesus if they should kill the woman to test him. Let me ask you something, if she was supposed to be put to death by the old laws, why would they need to test him? Wouldn't he know that the old laws say to put to death an adulterer and the man she slept with? They test him because they know that your not supposed to. You have to realize that the New Testament and Old Testament in no way contradict themselves, and that they were also written at two very different times in history, and as such, they thought that certain things were okay back then.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:12 am
CCubed how is it a human? As i stated, it is of human origin, so it must be human I hate having to point out the obvious, but this is completely absurd. Hair is of human origin, as is a corpse. Neither is a "human." What determines humanity is the existence of a soul, not some physical trait.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|