Roe is dead

[Mr. Deez]

I was surprised to learn on Twitter that many atheists support abortion bans.

I've noticed as well. Honestly, atheists should be more pro-life because of their view on the consequences of dying. To an atheist, dying is truly the end of the line and a person's existence. To a Christian, it's a relatively minor step into eternity.

 

[OUBubba]

Stealing land and twisting it to a positive celebrating the forward thinking, go-getter criminals is a religion in Oklahoma, too.

That makes me smile. Good to see you.

 

[OUBubba]

Wow... every time I think to myself, "maybe I misjudged this guy. Maybe he'll surprise you with a thoughtful response that tells you he's really speaking from conscience here and not just spouting stuff because he likes to stir things up," you say something like this that shows everyone on this board EXACTLY who you are and what you know about things you claim to understand.

I'll take every bit the same amount of context in each example, thank you. And so will you, which is none. You don't care what the Bible says about anything - you just want to find a talking point that you can throw out to the rubes who don't know any better so that it sounds like you're speaking from some sort of understanding, and so that you can justify yourself because "Hey, someone else has as limited an understanding of the Bible as I do, and people in the media listen to HIM - so this MUST be a good argument even if I don't actually understand it myself."

The ironic thing here is that you tried to act like you know something about what the Bible says about abortion, and when called on it, you switch to ANOTHER topic where you ALSO clearly don't know what the Bible teaches, and you somehow think that's a winning argument, and that it made you sound like you just channeled Aristotle. (I'm sorry, I forgot... that's like Will Rogers but less funny and more words.)

It would be much more honest if you would just say "I don't care what the Bible says, I think abortion should be legal." I at least could respect that position, even though I find it heartbreaking.

I did Disciple I and II. I've dabbled in the OT. I say dabbled because, to my understanding, it was replaced by the NT and we should separate the two of them. I've read the new one about 5 times, not including the two classes. I'm by no means an expert. I taught some mouthy 6-7 graders Sunday School for a few years and did the IT part and was Treasurer for my church for about 5 years. I honestly have no clue what the Bible says about abortion and I'm not going to do more than "google it". Please educate me.

It is interesting that the punishment for murder is different than the punishment for causing a woman to lose her pregnancy. What's up with that?

What does the Bible teach about laying with another man exactly? Please elaborate.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I did Disciple I and II. I've dabbled in the OT. I say dabbled because, to my understanding, it was replaced by the NT and we should separate the two of them. I've read the new one about 5 times, not including the two classes. I'm by no means an expert. I taught some mouthy 6-7 graders Sunday School for a few years and did the IT part and was Treasurer for my church for about 5 years. I honestly have no clue what the Bible says about abortion and I'm not going to do more than "google it".

See there? That's an honest statement, and much more clearly represents you than "I represent the Biblical view more than you do." Had you started with that, I'd probably be more inclined to think you actually want to understand it better.

If you HONESTLY want an answer, and your attitude is "If the Bible actually teaches this, then I'll follow what God's word says," then I will be thrilled to show you what I believe it teaches. But if this is just you wanting me to jump through hoops that you don't care enough to go through yourself, or if this is you hoping for a "gotcha" moment because you've got all your Talking Points Memo arguments lined up and ready, then I'm not going to waste either of our time on this.

What does the Bible teach about laying with another man exactly? Please elaborate.

See above.

It is interesting that the punishment for murder is different than the punishment for causing a woman to lose her pregnancy. What's up with that?

I'm gonna answer this because someone on this thread might see this and think you're on to something.

Hmm... Let's see:
Ex 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Interesting - that's the same phrase used to describe punishment in basically any criminal proceeding according to Deut. 19:21. Kinda sounds like they're using the same standard in both instances - since the death penalty wasn't levied for non-fatal violence against adults, either. What do you think?

And no, "come out" does not imply a miscarriage. It simply means the kids came out. That's the literal translation of the phrase. Even the NIV translates the phrase "she gives birth prematurely" although it throws in the footnote to please the progressives saying "or she has a miscarriage." There's nothing in that phrase that necessitates that translation from what I can see or have read.

Here's another issue: the passage implies that the harm to the infant would be incidental, unintentional. And it's still "life for life."

(I'll save you the trouble of referring to your notes: some scholars argue that the "harm" refers to only the mother, but the consensus of Jewish teaching has been that it refers to both the woman and the children.)

 

[guy4321]

Per Genesis (and a few other places) life begins at the first breath. I would infer that to mean that life would begin at the stage of a pregnancy where a baby could survive a first breath. I've had a 29 week premie and a 27 week premie. The 29 weeker wouldn't have survived without modern medicine. Maybe horn6 can question my truthfulness here as well.

Glad your kids made it. Modern medicine has done some great work! Do you think in 30 years, 50 years, 100 years that 10 week premies then 5 weeks premies will be able to survive? Heck maybe entire pregnancies can occur outside the womb!

Yes, but even googling it or giving someone gas money to travel to receive an abortion in some states will end up with prosecution.

All these major companies announcing that employees can get reimbursed for travel and medical expenses to another state for medical services seem to have figured out how to avoid that.

 

[OUBubba]

See there? That's an honest statement, and much more clearly represents you than "I represent the Biblical view more than you do." Had you started with that, I'd probably be more inclined to think you actually want to understand it better.

If you HONESTLY want an answer, and your attitude is "If the Bible actually teaches this, then I'll follow what God's word says," then I will be thrilled to show you what I believe it teaches. But if this is just you wanting me to jump through hoops that you don't care enough to go through yourself, or if this is you hoping for a "gotcha" moment because you've got all your Talking Points Memo arguments lined up and ready, then I'm not going to waste either of our time on this.



See above.



I'm gonna answer this because someone on this thread might see this and think you're on to something.

Hmm... Let's see:
Ex 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Interesting - that's the same phrase used to describe punishment in basically any criminal proceeding according to Deut. 19:21. Kinda sounds like they're using the same standard in both instances - since the death penalty wasn't levied for non-fatal violence against adults, either. What do you think?

And no, "come out" does not imply a miscarriage. It simply means the kids came out. That's the literal translation of the phrase. Even the NIV translates the phrase "she gives birth prematurely" although it throws in the footnote to please the progressives saying "or she has a miscarriage." There's nothing in that phrase that necessitates that translation from what I can see or have read.

Here's another issue: the passage implies that the harm to the infant would be incidental, unintentional. And it's still "life for life."

(I'll save you the trouble of referring to your notes: some scholars argue that the "harm" refers to only the mother, but the consensus of Jewish teaching has been that it refers to both the woman and the children.)

Well done. I will read more on it but you have properly educated me.

I think abortion was not something in the lexicon in that day and age. Imagine how much fighting went on to require that Moses address the issue.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I want to add something: let's assume Bubba has a point. Let's assume that the person who wrote the blog that he ripped his information off of is correct, and that Exodus 21 does in fact show that there is no punishment to the man who inadvertently caused a woman to miscarry. What does that have to do with the abortion argument? (Sorry Bubba - I should be nicer now since you fessed up. I'll stop, but I'm leaving this one in because I just thought it was funny...)

The answer is nothing. Because now we're talking about an accident, the unintended consequences of an action that he is already being tried for. The passage says nothing about the penalty for deliberately harming the unborn child.

Does God put a different punishment on accidentally killing an unborn child than he does on accidentally killing a mother? Or deliberately killing another person? This passage doesn't clearly teach that, but if it's true, I'd say that points more to the wisdom of that law than it does to a rubber stamp on abortion.

First: Intent matters. The law is pretty clear that accidental homicide is not to be punished the same as murder.

Second: Would it be that shocking if God put priority on the life of the mother over the life of the unborn? Don't we always go along with that? I don't know anyone who would argue that if it comes down to the mother or the unborn child, we should let the mother die to save the unborn. No one but strawman builders ever make that argument. So would it be surprising if God did NOT demand the death penalty for an abortion? Not particularly, and that's why I know very few pro-life Christians who believe a woman who has an abortion should be put to death.

We get that it's not the same thing. That doesn't make it OK.

 

[OUBubba]

Glad your kids made it. Modern medicine has done some great work! Do you think in 30 years, 50 years, 100 years that 10 week premies then 5 weeks premies will be able to survive? Heck maybe entire pregnancies can occur outside the womb!



All these major companies announcing that employees can get reimbursed for travel and medical expenses to another state for medical services seem to have figured out how to avoid that.

First, thanks. The first one had a brain bleed but turned out fine. It was touch and go for a week or so as far as getting out of their healthy goes. She was 29 weeks. The second one was 27 weeks but they were able to get 2 weeks of steroids in the wife to develop the lungs so she just had to incubate. She actually weighed more than the 29 weeker. I'd hate to guess what science was capable of.

Second, I think the Texas law would hold them accountable. We will see.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I think abortion was not something in the lexicon in that day and age.

It would not have been - mainly because of how the Hebrews looked at children as blessings from God and how they had been called to be fruitful and fill the earth. I just don't buy that abortion was a big problem to address in their culture. Now... in the surrounding nations? Yeah, it probably was.

 

[mchammer]

Evil people:

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Second: Would it be that shocking if God put priority on the life of the mother over the life of the unborn? Don't we always go along with that? I don't know anyone who would argue that if it comes down to the mother or the unborn child, we should let the mother die to save the unborn.

Here is the Catholic teaching on ectopic pregnancy, and includes the Catholic perspective on the life of the mother vs that of the child.
_____________________________
Moral actions that produce two effects need to be evaluated under the Catholic understanding of the principle of double effect:

1. The action must be either morally good or neutral.
2. The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
3. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect; the bad effect can in no way be intended and must be avoided if possible.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in proportion to the bad effect.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized ovum implants in the fallopian tube or in some other location. A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube, and thus, there exists a danger to the lives of both the mother and the child.

Removing the fallopian tube is considered in accordance with the principle of double effect:

1. Removing a part of the body that is about to rupture and cause the death of the individual is a morally good action.
2. The death of the child is not the direct intention of the procedure. It is the removal of the fallopian tube that saves the life of the mother, not causes the death of the child.
3. The death of the child is not willed and would be avoided if at all possible—if, for example, re-implantation in the womb were reasonably possible.
4. The life of the mother is, of course, equal to the life of the child.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I've dabbled in the OT. I say dabbled because, to my understanding, it was replaced by the NT

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think the OT was replaced and that (for example) the Ten Commandments no longer apply?

What does the Bible teach about laying with another man exactly? Please elaborate.

Which time? Obviously, the OT covers it, but the Apostle Paul refers to it in the NT as well. He's not cool with homosexuality. You can not like that and substitute your own morality for God's, but he's quite clear on the matter in both the OT and the NT.

I Corinthians 6:9-11

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

 

[horninchicago]

I Corinthians 6:9-11

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

Pretty much covers Bubba and the rest of Horn Fans right there.

 

[theiioftx]

Can someone define drunkard? Asking for a friend.

 

[OUBubba]

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think the OT was replaced and that (for example) the Ten Commandments no longer apply?



Which time? Obviously, the OT covers it, but the Apostle Paul refers to it in the NT as well. He's not cool with homosexuality. You can not like that and substitute your own morality for God's, but he's quite clear on the matter in both the OT and the NT.

I Corinthians 6:9-11

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

It's one thing to use the Top Ten as a moral guide, or to benefit from the wisdom of Proverbs or the relative poetry of Psalms. It's another thing to cling to the minutia of Leviticus. I think labeling sexual preference that has been around for centuries as damning is akin to damning someone for eating the wrong thing.

You'll appreciate this, I'm sure. I consider Paul to be "extra". He always struck me as that friend of yours who was raised not in a church and then he comes to the Gospel HARD. I find nothing in red letters addressing the issue. That's my point.

 

[guy4321]

Common misconception that NT replaced the OT. Rather, Jesus fulfilled the OT as documented in Matthew 5:17. In the old days, one showed (s)he was a part of God's people by not eating pork (as an example). Today, one shows (s)he is a part of God's people by saying "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my savior."

Also, saying Paul is wrong in the Bible means anything else in the Bible can be wrong. It's either all correct or doesn't matter. If I was picking a part that makes no sense, how about the great flood. Really a male and female of every animal went on a boat and didn't die or kill some of each other? Plus they just showed up willfully?

 

[OUBubba]

Common misconception that NT replaced the OT. Rather, Jesus fulfilled the OT as documented in Matthew 5:17. In the old days, one showed (s)he was a part of God's people by not eating pork (as an example). Today, one shows (s)he is a part of God's people by saying "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my savior."

Also, saying Paul is wrong in the Bible means anything else in the Bible can be wrong. It's either all correct or doesn't matter. If I was picking a part that make no sense, how about the great flood. Really a male and female of every animal went on a boat and didn't die or kill some of each other? Plus they just showed up willfully?

To say that Paul's letters to various churches are doctrine is loose with the definition of doctrine. Red letters, yo! I figure the philosophy put forth by the Carpenter is more sound and it is more like a guide for living. Love your neighbor, love the Lord, do good stuff, yada...

Or the two stories of the great flood in Genesis. I always got mad reading Job. Then a pastor described it to me as an allegory and it removed my anger.

 

[guy4321]

The red letters are more than a guide to living. They are how to have eternal life once the living is over.

2 Timothy 3:16 is what we have to wonder if the entire Bible is true:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

The rest is faith. It's going to be very hard to prove (impossible, really) with science or archaeology each and every story in the Bible.

I've never thought or heard of Job as an allegory. It's a tough story. I read an article just now on how that thought came to be. I'd still vote Job as real as a quote from God in Ezekiel mentions three righteous men - Noah, Daniel, and Job. How odd to list two real guys and one fictional. Later the book of James references Job too. With lots of real guys, no need for James to pick a fictional Job. Also, the Bible seems pretty good at labeling parables. The article went on, but no need for me to summarize it entirely.

 

[Monahorns]

You'll appreciate this, I'm sure. I consider Paul to be "extra". He always struck me as that friend of yours who was raised not in a church and then he comes to the Gospel HARD. I find nothing in red letters addressing the issue. That's my point.

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

 

[Monahorns]

Allegory is what someone calls a Bible passage when they don't want to believe what it says. Allegory means you can make it mean anything you want to. Job isn't an allegory, meaning it isn't identified as such by the author. Parables and allegories are described as such in the passage.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's one thing to use the Top Ten as a moral guide,

Is the failure to follow them sinful?

I think labeling sexual preference that has been around for centuries as damning is akin to damning someone for eating the wrong thing

You take a pretty shallow view of sexuality. In your book, it's not a sacred act. It seems not much different from taking a dump, well, or eating.

You'll appreciate this, I'm sure. I consider Paul to be "extra". He always struck me as that friend of yours who was raised not in a church and then he comes to the Gospel HARD. I find nothing in red letters addressing the issue. That's my point.

LOL. So Paul was just an overzealous, new Christian. That whole road to Damascus experience didn't give him any special insight that you could enlighten you in 21st century Mobilhoma. Not to get into this issue again, but do you see why some might question your Christianity? And not with contempt but with genuine wonder. Rather than submitting to the Bible as God's word, you seem to rely on it when it agrees with you and set it aside or diminish its importance when it doesn't. You seem to put weight on the "red letters," but if you don't accept the Bible as divinely inspired, then how can you know that the red letters aren't misquotes?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Rather than submitting to the Bible as God's word, you seem to rely on it when it agrees with you and set it aside or diminish its importance when it doesn't. You seem to put weight on the "red letters," but if you don't accept the Bible as divinely inspired, then how can you know that the red letters aren't misquotes?

It's a form of pride. And pride is dangerous to one and all of us.

 

[LonghornCatholic]

 

[OUBubba]

Is the failure to follow them sinful?



You take a pretty shallow view of sexuality. In your book, it's not a sacred act. It seems not much different from taking a dump, well, or eating.



LOL. So Paul was just an overzealous, new Christian. That whole road to Damascus experience didn't give him any special insight that you could enlighten you in 21st century Mobilhoma. Not to get into this issue again, but do you see why some might question your Christianity? And not with contempt but with genuine wonder. Rather than submitting to the Bible as God's word, you seem to rely on it when it agrees with you and set it aside or diminish its importance when it doesn't. You seem to put weight on the "red letters," but if you don't accept the Bible as divinely inspired, then how can you know that the red letters aren't misquotes?

Failure to follow those rules is sinful. Murder, theft, honoring parents, adultery, the Sabbath, no other God's, graven images, etc. We all sin each and every day. I think I commit sin when I'm an ******* in this forum. I commit said sin too often according to @Dionysus.

I guess I live in a world where I've seen people from pre-pubescent times display what was going to be their sexuality without knowing they were doing it. And, to ascribe that as a sin is wrong in the Tao of Bubba. Sexual relations between two consenting adults that have passed to the point of monogomy is special and non-sinful to me. I have always been pro gay marriage. I simply think if those who are against homosexuals marrying want it to be so sacred we need to work on getting that divorce rate moving down from 50%. The Bible was cobbled together by men and then voted on. Things were excluded for any number of reasons - some valid, some not. If I can now eat pork, shave, etc. I'm not sure how that's different than being attracted to a man and forming a loving partnership.

 

[UTChE96]

So now Biden favors eliminating the filibuster for only passing abortion rights. These guys never learn from their mistakes.

 

[Monahorns]

The Bible was cobbled together by men and then voted on. Things were excluded for any number of reasons - some valid, some not.

You need to study canonicity I see. It isn't a straight forward process, but your description doesn't follow history. It follows Dan Brown.

 

[guy4321]

So now Biden favors eliminating the filibuster for only passing abortion rights. These guys never learn from their mistakes.

I'm honestly surprised four days ago that he didn't flip on packing the court.

 

[UTChE96]

The court packing idea may be the dumbest one yet. Do they really think that the Republicans will not retaliate in kind? The SCOTUS will be just keep growing every time we have one party control.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The court packing idea may be the dumbest one yet. Do they really think that the Republicans will not retaliate in kind? The SCOTUS will be just keep growing every time we have one party control.

Well, it truly would delegitimize the Court. There'd basically be no point in having a Supreme Court.

 

[OUBubba]

Well, it truly would delegitimize the Court. There'd basically be no point in having a Supreme Court.

I'm not pro court packing. But, it was 9 based on there being 9 federal districts. Now there are twelve. I wouldn't do it because Mitch McConnell would figure out a way to add three 28 year old jurists from a QAnon registry.