Page 135 of 154 FirstFirst ... 3585125133134135136137145 ... LastLast
Results 1,341 to 1,350 of 1533

Thread: Christianity Today Op Ed

  1. #1341
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,143
    Amen (Given)
    8140
    Amen (Received)
    8555
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    The post I was responding to is trying to say miscarry is not a correct translation. I accept miscarry as the correct translation. Notice the fine for the miscarriage is not his life.

    And I'm not using it as a means of justifying abortion. Have you read my posts on this?
    Show me where I said you were JUSTIFYING abortion. Applying this verse to the abortion discussion is not the same as justifying abortion, Jim.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  2. #1342
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,282
    Amen (Given)
    499
    Amen (Received)
    1836
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Show me where I said you were JUSTIFYING abortion. Applying this verse to the abortion discussion is not the same as justifying abortion, Jim.
    How about lets talk about the MAIN point instead of picking fights over little ones? (I see little difference between 'justifying' and 'applying', since the majority of the objection to my posts on this are rooted in the fear that somehow what is being said undermines the traditional conservative stance on abortion).

    The MAIN point of my post was that your reply didn't grasp the fact that the post I was replying to was focussed on showing that miscarriage is not a valid translation of the verse, while BOTH quotes you used to 'contradict' my response recognized miscarriage as the meaning of that verse. You COMPLETELY missed the point of my reply, and in fact supported the point I have been making.

    The reason miscarriage is taken to task by that previous post I responded to is that for the result of a miscarriage (which means the blow killed the fetus) to be a simple fine, while the cost if the woman dies is 'a life for a life' is that the fetus prior to birth was not considered the equal of a person outside the womb. The cost wasn't a 'life for a life' because they were not equal lives.

    And this is consistent with the Jewish tradition and faith on this issue to the present day. The Jewish faith regards life as beginning when the first breath is taken, or when the baby emerges from the womb. This is why many members of the Jewish faith are pro-abortion. They don't see the fetus has having yet obtained person-hood.

    As for your comments about 'eisogesis' and the Christian debate over abortion - Poppycock! This verse speaks very clearly to the most critical element of the abortion debate - ensoulment. Abortion is a problem because a life is being taken. But the debate over ensoulment (when the fetus aquires a soul) is the key issue, and there are and have been many differing views over that, with no less that Augustine, Aquinus, Pope Innocent the III and Pope Gregory XIV taking the positions that ensoulment happens later, at quickening (when the fetus exhibits perceptible movement in the womb) and with this verse forming some part of the arguments for those position in many of those instances. Any information the Bible has to offer on how to classify the life in the womb is critical information in that debate. And indeed, that verse has been part of the abortion debate since the earliest days of the Church, and even before Christianity began among the jewish rabbi's (re Philo)
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-22-2020 at 07:20 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  3. #1343
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,282
    Amen (Given)
    499
    Amen (Received)
    1836
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    That's a blatant lie, Jim. It is the view of Josephus and the Targum.


    ETHERIDGE’S TARGUM PARAPHRASE
    “If men when striving strike a woman with child, and cause her to miscarry, but not to lose her life, the fine on account of the infant which the husband of the woman shall lay upon him, he shall pay according to the sentence of the judges. But if death befall her, then thou shalt judge the life of the killer for the life of the woman.”



    Josephus, in Antiquities 4: 278
    “He that kicks a pregnant woman, if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges for having, by the destruction of the fruit of her womb, diminished the population, and a further sum shall be presented by him to the woman’s husband. If she die by the blow, he shall also die, the law claiming sacrifice of life for life




    Again, as I have noted several times on this site, this is referring to accidental miscarriage, not intentional abortion, so using it to apply to abortion is biblical eisegesis.
    You also need to apologize for saying I lied. I didn't lie - you misunderstood the focus of the previous post, which was the concept that the fine levied referred not to a miscarriage (i.e. the death of the fetus) caused by the blow to the woman, but to a live, premature birth where the baby survives.

    Are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-22-2020 at 07:18 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  4. #1344
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,143
    Amen (Given)
    8140
    Amen (Received)
    8555
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Are you capable of dealing with the main point instead of picking fights over little ones? I see little difference between 'justifying' and 'applying', since the majority of the objection to my posts on this are rooted in the fear that somehow what is being said undermines the traditional conservative stance on abortion.

    The MAIN point of my post was that your reply didn't grasp the fact that the post I was replying to was focussed on showing that miscarriage is not a valid translation of the verse, while every single verse you quoted to 'contradict' my response recognized miscarriage as the meaning of that verse. You COMPLETELY missed the point of my reply, and in fact supported the point I have been making.
    You are correct. I did miss your point. I apologize.

    The reason miscarriage is taken to task by that previous post I responded to is that for the result of a miscarriage (which means the blow killed the fetus) to be a simple fine, while the cost if the woman dies is 'a life for a life' is that the fetus prior to birth was not considered the equal of a person outside the womb. The cost wasn't a 'life for a life' because they were not equal lives.
    If that is your summary of what you have researched, then you are in fact wrong. As you cited the Septuagint as one of the sources you researched, then you must be aware that it says:

    Source: http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/LXX_EXO_%2021_22-23.pdf


    “And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her CHILD BE NOT FULLY FORMED, he shall be forced to pay a penalty as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay what seems fitting. But if the CHILD BE FULLY FORMED, he shall give life for life.”

    © Copyright Original Source



    Additionally, from the same paper:

    Source: above


    This law was so perfectly clear that Sprinkle (1993:247) well noted: The penalty paid is assessed on the basis of the stage of the development of the dead fetus. The rationale for this view is that the later the stage of pregnancy, the more time has been lost to the woman, the greater the grief for the loss of a child, and the more difficult. This may have been the view of the LXX, which paraphrases !Asa' hy<h.yI al{w > as “imperfectly formed child” and translates ~ylliipB.i “with valuation.” Furthermore, Speiser’s view gains credibility in that penalties for miscarriage actually do vary with the age of the dead fetus in the parallel ancient Hittite Law §17, which states, “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry—if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give ten shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give five shekels of silver and pledge his state as security.”

    A fetus aborted in an accidental miscarriage which is not fully formed—nor equal to an infant born prematurely—was to be treated as property. However, if the aborted fetus was fully formed—and equal to an infant born prematurely—it was to be treated as a person. A property which is accidentally destroyed called for a fine to be paid by the destroyer. But the lex talionis became applicable when a person—including a fully developed fetus—was accidentally injured or killed. Accordingly, in Mosaic law a woman’s fertilized egg or an imperfectly formed fetus was not considered to be a vp,n, a person.20 Only a fetus that was !As.a, /!w"s.a, (ceswon/ceswan) “fully formed” was recognized as a vp,n, a person.

    © Copyright Original Source



    And this is consistent with the Jewish tradition and faith on this issue to the present day. The Jewish faith regards life as beginning when the first breath is taken, or when the baby emerges from the womb. This is why many members of the Jewish faith are pro-abortion. They don't see the fetus has having yet obtained person-hood.
    This is simply untrue. It is an interpretation of Jewish faith, but not the only one.

    https://www.chabad.org/library/artic...d-Abortion.htm

    As for you comments about 'eisogesis' and the Christian debate over abortion - Poppycock! This verse speaks very clearly to the underlying element of the why or the how of abortion.
    No it doesn't. The motive of someone intentionally performing an abortion is not the same as someone who accidentally strikes a pregnant mother.

    Abortion is a problem because a life is being taken.
    It's more than that, Jim. Someone else is TAKING that life and someone is SEEKING and CONSENTING TO that taker. Abortion is a problem because 2 other people are seeking to destroy the third.

    But the debate over ensoulment (when the fetus aquires a soul) is the key issue, and there are and have been many differing views over that, with no less that Augustine, Aquinus, Pope Innocent the III and Pope Gregory XIV taking the positions that ensoulment happens later, at quickening (when the fetus exhibits perceptible movement in the womb) and with this verse forming some part of the arguments for those position in many of those instances. Any information the Bible has to offer on how to classify the life in the womb is critical information in that debate. And indeed, that verse has been part of the abortion debate since the earliest days of the Church, and even before Christianity began among the jewish rabbi's (re Philo)
    I am aware it has been used in the abortion debate for centuries. But the justification for allowing abortion based on this similar, but ultimately not identical verse is improper in my opinion.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  5. #1345
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,143
    Amen (Given)
    8140
    Amen (Received)
    8555
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    You also need to apologize for saying I lied. I didn't lie - you misunderstood the focus of the previous post, which was the concept that the fine levied referred not to a miscarriage (i.e. the death of the fetus) caused by the blow to the woman, but to a live, premature birth where the baby survives.

    Are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?
    Yes. I am sorry for that.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  6. #1346
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    10,624
    Amen (Given)
    1547
    Amen (Received)
    3475
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    How about lets talk about the MAIN point instead of picking fights over little ones? (I see little difference between 'justifying' and 'applying', since the majority of the objection to my posts on this are rooted in the fear that somehow what is being said undermines the traditional conservative stance on abortion).

    The MAIN point of my post was that your reply didn't grasp the fact that the post I was replying to was focussed on showing that miscarriage is not a valid translation of the verse, while BOTH quotes you used to 'contradict' my response recognized miscarriage as the meaning of that verse. You COMPLETELY missed the point of my reply, and in fact supported the point I have been making.

    The reason miscarriage is taken to task by that previous post I responded to is that for the result of a miscarriage (which means the blow killed the fetus) to be a simple fine, while the cost if the woman dies is 'a life for a life' is that the fetus prior to birth was not considered the equal of a person outside the womb. The cost wasn't a 'life for a life' because they were not equal lives.

    And this is consistent with the Jewish tradition and faith on this issue to the present day. The Jewish faith regards life as beginning when the first breath is taken, or when the baby emerges from the womb. This is why many members of the Jewish faith are pro-abortion. They don't see the fetus has having yet obtained person-hood.

    As for your comments about 'eisogesis' and the Christian debate over abortion - Poppycock! This verse speaks very clearly to the most critical element of the abortion debate - ensoulment. Abortion is a problem because a life is being taken. But the debate over ensoulment (when the fetus aquires a soul) is the key issue, and there are and have been many differing views over that, with no less that Augustine, Aquinus, Pope Innocent the III and Pope Gregory XIV taking the positions that ensoulment happens later, at quickening (when the fetus exhibits perceptible movement in the womb) and with this verse forming some part of the arguments for those position in many of those instances. Any information the Bible has to offer on how to classify the life in the womb is critical information in that debate. And indeed, that verse has been part of the abortion debate since the earliest days of the Church, and even before Christianity began among the jewish rabbi's (re Philo)
    Did any of them have a sonogram where fetal movement can be observed several weeks before actually felt?
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

  7. #1347
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,282
    Amen (Given)
    499
    Amen (Received)
    1836
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Yes. I am sorry for that.
    Thanks BTC! Very much accepted.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  8. #1348
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,282
    Amen (Given)
    499
    Amen (Received)
    1836
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    Did any of them have a sonogram where fetal movement can be observed several weeks before actually felt?
    I would advocate that the application of that principle leads us directly to a symmetric definition where human life from the standpoint of secular is defined as starting and stopping with a certain minimum level of higher level brain activity. This would be uncomfortable for those that insist on conception as the only acceptable answer, but this removes the possibility of legal second and third trimester abortions for reasons other than immediate threat to the mother's life and provides a consistent, objective, and respectful position on when human life is a person with all the rights thereof, and when it is not.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  9. #1349
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,135
    Amen (Given)
    6115
    Amen (Received)
    7508
    Quote Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    Did any of them have a sonogram where fetal movement can be observed several weeks before actually felt?
    That's another big problem with attempts to dogmatically interpret scripture based on the information that would have been available to people at the time. I wonder, too, if punishing only with a fine for causing a miscarriage of an unformed child -- which is to say something that was not readily identifiabe as human -- was to allow for the possibility that the women wasn't actually pregnant, but if it was obviously a developing child then it was treated as murder.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  10. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  11. #1350
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    52,085
    Amen (Given)
    5271
    Amen (Received)
    23033
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    That's another big problem with attempts to dogmatically interpret scripture based on the information that would have been available to people at the time. I wonder, too, if punishing only with a fine for causing a miscarriage of an unformed child -- which is to say something that was not readily identifiabe as human -- was to allow for the possibility that the women wasn't actually pregnant, but if it was obviously a developing child then it was treated as murder.
    The problem I see with treating babies at different stages of development as their lives being more or less valuable, is that it could be carried on to after they are born. After all, a 5 year old is more developed than a newborn, and a 12 year old is more developed than a 5 y.o. - And then you have people with low IQ's or dementia. Are they less valuable than say, a genius? People aren't valuable because of their brain development, they are valuable because they are human beings. Or for us Christians, because they are made in the image of God and have souls.

  12. Amen RumTumTugger, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •