|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:09 pm
of course they are. and slavery is more than ok, it's suggested. don't eat shrimp though.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:31 pm
zz1000zz As i mentioned in a previous post, Jewish tradition did not consider babies to be humans until they drew their first breath (or were halfway out of the birth canal if they came out backwards). Killing a fetus would have no bearing on this law. Please quote me your source for this! Traditionally this view has come from a false reading of Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."" The idea that some have said aoubt the Jews was that they believed that Adam did not receive his "soul" until he began to breathe. Therefore babies don't have souls until they are born and begin to breathe. The problem is that the word "Soul" as used here doesn't refer to the spiritual nature of Adam. It is used in the broader sense of "being." I simply means Adam becaome a living being. He became alive at the moment God bretthed into him. This same Hebrew expression is used of animals in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24. The Genesis 2:7 passage which isused for the basis of many pro-abortionists, does not tell us anything aboutwhen babies receive their souls. After all, babies do not come into existance in the same way Adam idd. They are certainly alive before they begin to breathe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:40 pm
zz1000zz Quote: 2) Also explain Psalm 139:13, Jeremiah 1:5 Both exlaining God being in the womb putting together the baby in the womb. Abortion kills the work that God is actively involved in. Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified [set apart] thee. God knew him before he formed him in the womb (i.e. before conception). Presumably, an omniscient God would know: when the conception would occur, that a miscarriage would not happen, the time when Jeremiah would be born, the name that the baby would be given, and the important role that Jeremiah would play as an adult. The passage does not appear to be related to the morality of abortion or whether a fetus is human person. Actually you better reread your Psalm 139:13-16 again. Reread Jeremiah 1:5. Even you KJV says, "For Thou didst form my inward part; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb." "Form" and "Weave" are action verbs, not passive verbs. That means David is saying God weaved and formed my inward parts while I was in my mother's womb. A literal translation is "For you have possessed my reins, You wove me in the womb of my mother." This means God possessed and placed, and put together the baby inside the mother's womb. God is actively putting David together. The same wording is used forJeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5, Paul in Galatians 1:15, John the Baptist in Luke 1:15, 36, 41-44, and Jesus himself in Luke 1:41-44. Also the Greek word for baby is BREPHOS. This word is used to refer to infants wheter born or unborn. This means that Jews and Christians already assumed life began before birth. He is a person before he is physically born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:51 pm
zz1000zz Quote: 3) Explain the 10 Commandments especially Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:7 about not "Murdering." As i mentioned in a previous post, Jewish tradition did not consider babies to be humans until they drew their first breath (or were halfway out of the birth canal if they came out backwards). Killing a fetus would have no bearing on this law. Quote: 4) Also explain Exodus 21:22 where it explains a punishment for injury to an unborn child who is hurt or killed because of someone's actions. Please read those. Read not just in an English version. read the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. You will get a more acurate translation. Find an interlinear Bible that shows the Hebrew and the Greek and does a literal translation of these passages. Yeah, this passage actually damns you, not me. This verse describes a situation in which a man, who is fighting another man, accidentally hits a pregnant woman, and causes a termination of her pregnancy. The following verse, 23, explains that if the woman died, the guilty man would be executed by the state. The accidental killing of a woman under these circumstances was considered a capital offense, because she was a human person. However, if the women lives the man would only have to pay a fine. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death. Game, set, match? It is a nice, Christian thing to say something damns someone! Anyways! Your explanation of Exodus 21:22-25 is flawed. You stated to me and others that the translation is "misscarriage." What you don't know is a misscarriage at the time of the KJV also meant a premature birth. That is the literal translation for verse 22. That is why there is only a fine. But if you look at verses 23-25 the word set up in Hebrew is meaning if there is death to either baby or mother, there is retribution equal to the damage. Life for life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:30 pm
jamesthelittle zz1000zz As i mentioned in a previous post, Jewish tradition did not consider babies to be humans until they drew their first breath (or were halfway out of the birth canal if they came out backwards). Killing a fetus would have no bearing on this law. Please quote me your source for this! Traditionally this view has come from a false reading of Genesis 2:7... ...? You want me to quote a source for saying something you admit? Even if the belief is wrong, it is their belief. You seem to admit that here, so i fail to see the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:37 pm
jamesthelittle It is a nice, Christian thing to say something damns someone! Anyways! Your explanation of Exodus 21:22-25 is flawed. You stated to me and others that the translation is "misscarriage." What you don't know is a misscarriage at the time of the KJV also meant a premature birth. That is the literal translation for verse 22. That is why there is only a fine. But if you look at verses 23-25 the word set up in Hebrew is meaning if there is death to either baby or mother, there is retribution equal to the damage. Life for life. First, snide sarcasm is generally considered rude. Second, saying something damns another in a discussion is not wrong. Damn is used as a condemnation, but it is only rude when used in a personal offense. One can use it to describe an outcome of events without it being in poor taste. As for the discussion at hand, again you say "the literal translation" without providing any documenation. Until you provide such, i will not continue discussions. One last note... Quote: Also the Greek word for baby is BREPHOS. This word is used to refer to infants wheter born or unborn. This means that Jews and Christians already assumed life began before birth. He is a person before he is physically born. That BREPHOS was used for both living and unborn children does not mean Jews or Christians considered them to be equal. The use of it simply shows they did not have a word for fetus. This statement of yours is a butchery of logic, and is truly disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:38 pm
zz1000zz jamesthelittle zz1000zz As i mentioned in a previous post, Jewish tradition did not consider babies to be humans until they drew their first breath (or were halfway out of the birth canal if they came out backwards). Killing a fetus would have no bearing on this law. Please quote me your source for this! Traditionally this view has come from a false reading of Genesis 2:7... ...? You want me to quote a source for saying something you admit? Even if the belief is wrong, it is their belief. You seem to admit that here, so i fail to see the issue. If it is a "false belief" then it is a lie. I want to know the source for why you think this is true, when it is FALSE, A LIE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:34 pm
zz1000zz ...? You want me to quote a source for saying something you admit? Even if the belief is wrong, it is their belief. You seem to admit that here, so i fail to see the issue. I've been following your discussion with jamesthelittle; your responses to his questions and requests for Scriptural proof for your position are becoming increasingly disturbing if you are, in fact, a Christian. You say "Even if the belief is wrong, it is their belief." That statement is not in line with a biblically based worldview. There is right and there is wrong. Scripture is clear on that fact. Your statement seems to indicate that you take a relatavistic view. If someone believes that the Bible is completely false and that God does not exist, do you think that is okay simply because it is their belief? It isn't truth! They are living with false presuppositions and acting/believing from a position of lies, not from a foundation based on a relationship with Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:46 pm
zz1000zz jamesthelittle It is a nice, Christian thing to say something damns someone! Anyways! Your explanation of Exodus 21:22-25 is flawed. You stated to me and others that the translation is "misscarriage." What you don't know is a misscarriage at the time of the KJV also meant a premature birth. That is the literal translation for verse 22. That is why there is only a fine. But if you look at verses 23-25 the word set up in Hebrew is meaning if there is death to either baby or mother, there is retribution equal to the damage. Life for life. First, snide sarcasm is generally considered rude. Second, saying something damns another in a discussion is not wrong. Damn is used as a condemnation, but it is only rude when used in a personal offense. One can use it to describe an outcome of events without it being in poor taste. As for the discussion at hand, again you say "the literal translation" without providing any documenation. Until you provide such, i will not continue discussions. One last note... Quote: Also the Greek word for baby is BREPHOS. This word is used to refer to infants wheter born or unborn. This means that Jews and Christians already assumed life began before birth. He is a person before he is physically born. That BREPHOS was used for both living and unborn children does not mean Jews or Christians considered them to be equal. The use of it simply shows they did not have a word for fetus. This statement of yours is a butchery of logic, and is truly disturbing. Check the orignal language. That is your documentation. Do you even know Hebrew? Do you know Koinei Greek? Brephos was the word for both unborn fetus and for a born infant. Yes, they were considered equals, or there would have been a different word for an unborn fetus!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:52 pm
zz1000zz -Sunset Wahine- No. A Christian knows Christ. Do you know what it means to know a person? God does tell an individual Christian what is a sin, through conviction of the Holy Spirit. ... I would rather trust a holy document then the claims of a random person who rejects said holy document as the absolute truth. With the document anyone can see the truth, whereas, with your "relationship" we can only trust *your* word. It would seem our disagreement is this. I believe Christians should rely on the Bible for all decisions regarding sin, while you believe your private communications with God are more valid. I am not sure how you could defend such a belief. I do not reject the Bible as the absolute truth because He speaks to us through His word. But once you have a relationship with someone, which is what you are as a Christian, He may speak to you in other ways. It's hard for you to get what I say because you most likely never truly knew Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:53 pm
CodeRedGirl zz1000zz ...? You want me to quote a source for saying something you admit? Even if the belief is wrong, it is their belief. You seem to admit that here, so i fail to see the issue. I've been following your discussion with jamesthelittle; your responses to his questions and requests for Scriptural proof for your position are becoming increasingly disturbing if you are, in fact, a Christian. You say "Even if the belief is wrong, it is their belief." That statement is not in line with a biblically based worldview. There is right and there is wrong. Scripture is clear on that fact. Your statement seems to indicate that you take a relatavistic view. If someone believes that the Bible is completely false and that God does not exist, do you think that is okay simply because it is their belief? It isn't truth! They are living with false presuppositions and acting/believing from a position of lies, not from a foundation based on a relationship with Christ. 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. As for: Quote: If someone believes that the Bible is completely false and that God does not exist, do you think that is okay simply because it is their belief? In a moral or religious sense, no i do not. From a political, social or legal sense, yes. I cannot justify creating laws based upon faith alone. Even if one decides homosexuality is a sin in their religion, they cannot justify forbidding it for others because of their faith. Faith should never be forced upon others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:59 pm
jamesthelittle zz1000zz jamesthelittle It is a nice, Christian thing to say something damns someone! Anyways! Your explanation of Exodus 21:22-25 is flawed. You stated to me and others that the translation is "misscarriage." What you don't know is a misscarriage at the time of the KJV also meant a premature birth. That is the literal translation for verse 22. That is why there is only a fine. But if you look at verses 23-25 the word set up in Hebrew is meaning if there is death to either baby or mother, there is retribution equal to the damage. Life for life. First, snide sarcasm is generally considered rude. Second, saying something damns another in a discussion is not wrong. Damn is used as a condemnation, but it is only rude when used in a personal offense. One can use it to describe an outcome of events without it being in poor taste. As for the discussion at hand, again you say "the literal translation" without providing any documenation. Until you provide such, i will not continue discussions. One last note... Quote: Also the Greek word for baby is BREPHOS. This word is used to refer to infants wheter born or unborn. This means that Jews and Christians already assumed life began before birth. He is a person before he is physically born. That BREPHOS was used for both living and unborn children does not mean Jews or Christians considered them to be equal. The use of it simply shows they did not have a word for fetus. This statement of yours is a butchery of logic, and is truly disturbing. Check the orignal language. That is your documentation. Do you even know Hebrew? Do you know Koinei Greek? Brephos was the word for both unborn fetus and for a born infant. Yes, they were considered equals, or there would have been a different word for an unborn fetus! Two things. First, i refuse to discuss any source that is hidden from those in conversations. The source i prefer the most is Religious Tolerance, generally considered the most fair source for religious discussion on the internet. I would gladly discuss any other source, including the original language, but i refuse to accept "[c]heck the original language" as a legitimate point. As nothing more than the equivalent of "check the Bible," that statement is absurd. Second, the Jewish community had no word for fetus, as they had no understanding of what a fetus was. In the same way they had no word for gender, as it was a concept foreign to them. This lack caused them to use words in a less than literal sense, as seen in many older languages. There is no basis for drawing a connection here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:10 pm
-Sunset Wahine- zz1000zz -Sunset Wahine- No. A Christian knows Christ. Do you know what it means to know a person? God does tell an individual Christian what is a sin, through conviction of the Holy Spirit. ... I would rather trust a holy document then the claims of a random person who rejects said holy document as the absolute truth. With the document anyone can see the truth, whereas, with your "relationship" we can only trust *your* word. It would seem our disagreement is this. I believe Christians should rely on the Bible for all decisions regarding sin, while you believe your private communications with God are more valid. I am not sure how you could defend such a belief. I do not reject the Bible as the absolute truth because He speaks to us through His word. But once you have a relationship with someone, which is what you are as a Christian, He may speak to you in other ways. It's hard for you to get what I say because you most likely never truly knew Jesus. What happens when you *know* something, and another Christian *knows* the opposite? Must we then have some contest to see who *knows* God best? Are religious beliefs so personal an individual has as much say as holy scripture? But okay, let us disregard these problems, and look at another, perhaps more important one. If God speaks to you in another way, are you his prophet? If he tells you his will, must you not be his herald? There are two possibilities. One, you truly speak for God, and we ought to accept what you say based upon only our faith in you, a mortal. Two, you do not speak for God, and are a false prophet. A heretic. The problem is this: How do we know which is true? Quote: It's hard for you to get what I say because you most likely never truly knew Jesus. Comments like this would certainly seem to imply the latter. Snidely questioning my faith in God because i trust only divine scriptures, and not mortals, does not convey a godly attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:21 pm
zz1000zz jamesthelittle zz1000zz jamesthelittle Second, the Jewish community had no word for fetus, as they had no understanding of what a fetus was. In the same way they had no word for gender, as it was a concept foreign to them. This lack caused them to use words in a less than literal sense, as seen in many older languages. There is no basis for drawing a connection here. Well, you just proved yourself completely wrong. In the Hebrew language they have masculine and feminine words. I think that in itself proves that they had a concept of gender. They weren't morons! They knew the concept of a fetus. They just considered it a baby, a human, a life. That is why there word was the same then for fetus and baby. Anyways, where ever you get your concept of Jews not knowing gender is pretty absurd. They have two names for a cow. One for the female cow(feminine). And a totally different word for the Bull (male). This is why it is important to know THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. Then you don't make silly mistakes like saying Jews had no concept of gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:27 pm
jamesthelittle][quote="zz1000zz jamesthelittle Second, the Jewish community had no word for fetus, as they had no understanding of what a fetus was. In the same way they had no word for gender, as it was a concept foreign to them. This lack caused them to use words in a less than literal sense, as seen in many older languages. There is no basis for drawing a connection here. Well, you just proved yourself completely wrong. In the Hebrew language they have masculine and feminine words. I think that in itself proves that they had a concept of gender. They weren't morons! They knew the concept of a fetus. They just considered it a baby, a human, a life. That is why there word was the same then for fetus and baby. Anyways, where ever you get your concept of Jews not knowing gender is pretty absurd. They have two names for a cow. One for the female cow(feminine). And a totally different word for the Bull (male). This is why it is important to know THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. Then you don't make silly mistakes like saying Jews had no concept of gender. Gender =/= Sex The sex of an individual is usually easy to determine. The Greeks had a word for both sexes, and it is easy to understand. However, the gender of an individual is not determined by the genetalia, or chromosomes. Gender is the mental perception of oneself. A person can be a man or a woman no matter what body that person was born with. The massive documentation on transexualism and GID makes this fairly clear. There is even data to heavily suggest brain waves can prove one's gender is independent of physical characteristics. I would offer you links to this information, but judging to your responses regarding homosexuality in another topic (where you flatly lied), it would do no good. So to conclude, let me say only two things. One, my knowledge of the original version(s) of the Bible has thus far not been shown to be any less than yours. Until it is, quit using it as an excuse. Second, I repeat. Sex =/= Gender. P.S. Responding to only part of a post tends to imply you have no response to the rest. That implies you are incapable of proving your points, which you may not want to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
