Multiple people shot at Ft. Lauderdale airport

[Mountain Man]

On the whole, the Bible's not all that positive about fetuses and newborns less than 1 month old.

The Skeptics Annotated Bible?

Some of the most ignorant trash ever written. I suspect even you know how bad it is, but you don't care because it supports your agenda.

[Darth Executor]

I haven't seen someone drag that rotting corpse out in a while. It's like finding a rare Pepe.

[Starlight]

The Skeptics Annotated Bible?

You guys are cute when you poison the well. Would you like to have another go at wikipedia too while you're at it?

My point was the list of verses in the link, the SAB has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I guess you can't mentally cope with the fact with the fact that the bible is pretty pro-abortion.

[Starlight]

I love others. It's not the least bit incompatible with advocating for wars, torture and gun deaths.

Cool. Keep advocating those things loudly in the name of Christianity. Meanwhile me and my secular buddies will keep advocating loudly for peace, better healthcare, better education, helping the poor, safer communities, better wages for workers, human rights, protecting the environment, etc. We'll see what people think of Christianity after a few years of that. Could be a reason why adherence to Christianity has been steadily dropping across the Western world.

As far as I can tell you are near universally reviled by Christians because you are so evil even the manners obsessed doofuses here can't hide their contempt for you.

Which speaks volumes about them, doesn't it?

[Darth Executor]

Cool. Keep advocating those things loudly in the name of Christianity. Meanwhile me and my secular buddies will keep advocating loudly for peace, better healthcare, better education, helping the poor, safer communities, better wages for workers, human rights, protecting the environment, etc. We'll see what people think of Christianity after a few years of that. Could be a reason why adherence to Christianity has been steadily dropping across the Western world.

Not likely given that I run counter to the current Christian culture of complete disarmament in the face of evil. Seems to me that adherence to Christianity declines across the Western world the more Christians resemble you.

Also, it doesn't matter what you advocate for, your religion is completely dysgenic. Sooner or later you will be overrun by one brand of religious fanatic or another and all your dreams and aspirations will die with the swing of a machete.

Which speaks volumes about them, doesn't it?

It's a hint that you braying loudly about what you consider good and evil doesn't matter to anyone other than you.

[Mountain Man]

You guys are cute when you poison the well. Would you like to have another go at wikipedia too while you're at it?

My point was the list of verses in the link, the SAB has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I guess you can't mentally cope with the fact with the fact that the bible is pretty pro-abortion.

The Bible is not pro-abortion, you moron. The SAB's absurd twisting of scripture is not a valid interpretation, and I'm sure you know it.

[Starlight]

Who made that interpretation?

If I had to guess, I suspect I originally saw it in Malina. But I wouldn't put money on it, it was more than a decade ago, and I've read so many commentators. ~shrug~

[Adrift]

If I had to guess, I suspect I originally saw it in Malina. But I wouldn't put money on it, it was more than a decade ago, and I've read so many commentators. ~shrug~

Nah, I have Malina/Rohrbaugh's Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels in front of me now. You didn't get it from there. I've never heard that interpretation, and I've read a few commentaries myself. I think it's more likely you imagined it, or misinterpreted what you read. You're good at doing that.

[Terraceth]

More blood on your hands and on the hands of all of those who insist there be guns available to all.

Can you prove that the shooter would have been unable to obtain the gun if there were more strict gun control enacted, or is this just complete speculation on your part? To make this claim, you need to be able to demonstrate that the gun was purchased legally and that under whatever stricter sanctions you advocate, it would still not have been purchased legally.

Considering we don't have that much information yet about who the shooter was, let alone how he obtained the gun, this seems like total speculation on your part.

You guys are cute when you poison the well. Would you like to have another go at wikipedia too while you're at it?

My point was the list of verses in the link, the SAB has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I guess you can't mentally cope with the fact with the fact that the bible is pretty pro-abortion.

The SAB has everything to do with it because it's the one making claims based on those verses. The problem is that the claims are (much like almost everything else in the SAB) highly dubious and frequently ignore important context of the verses in question.

[Starlight]

Can you prove that the shooter would have been unable to obtain the gun if there were more strict gun control enacted, or is this just complete speculation on your part? To make this claim, you need to be able to demonstrate that the gun was purchased legally and that under whatever stricter sanctions you advocate, it would still not have been purchased legally.

Considering we don't have that much information yet about who the shooter was, let alone how he obtained the gun, this seems like total speculation on your part.

Correct. It's probabilistic guilt on the part of the pro-gun lobby. They are morally guilty for the ~20,000 preventable gun deaths that occur in the US every year. Whether they turn out to be morally guilty for this particular incident is largely beside the point, because mass shootings occur approximately once a day in the US.

The SAB has everything to do with it because it's the one making claims based on those verses.

I'm the one making the claims. I believe that the bible has many passages approving or commanding abortions, and that considered overall the bible is definitely not pro-life. I think people who are pro-life hold such beliefs in absence of any serious biblical backing whatsoever. I linked that particular webpage because I agreed with its contents.

[Adrift]

The SAB has everything to do with it because it's the one making claims based on those verses. The problem is that the claims are (much like almost everything else in the SAB) highly dubious and frequently ignore important context of the verses in question.

Oh no. Starlight assures us that before he became an atheist, he was once a great and mighty Christian apologist. Widely read on all of the greatest NT scholars, and with a comprehensive knowledge of Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, he wouldn't use The Skeptic's Annotated Bible unless it left a heavy impact on his soul.

[Starlight]

Starlight assures us that before he became an atheist, he was once a great and mighty Christian apologist. Widely read on all of the greatest NT scholars, and with a comprehensive knowledge of Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, he wouldn't use The Skeptic's Annotated Bible unless it left a heavy impact on his soul.

Not quite sure what the point of this comment is apart from you're clearly trying to be a jerk somehow, which seems to be your usual MO. I've never made much, if any, use of the SAB, nor read it in general. As I was writing my reply earlier in this thread I googled for a list of bible verses on abortion, and that one came up and after confirming it was a list of ones I wanted I linked to it. I don't know why you're all obsessed with the SAB. I suppose the thought of people getting reminded about the nasty parts of the bible scares you.

[Adrift]

Not quite sure what the point of this comment is apart from you're clearly trying to be a jerk somehow, which seems to be your usual MO. I've never made much, if any, use of the SAB, nor read it in general. As I was writing my reply earlier in this thread I googled for a list of bible verses on abortion, and that one came up and after confirming it was a list of ones I wanted I linked to it. I don't know why you're all obsessed with the SAB. I suppose the thought of people getting reminded about the nasty parts of the bible scares you.

Yes, that must be it, and not because you and The Skeptic's Annotated Bible you cited are a complete joke.

[Terraceth]

I don't know why you're all obsessed with the SAB.

Because it is filled with terrible arguments that involve ignoring context or coming up with interpretations that don't make sense. Now, you claim that this just happened to line up with your thoughts. If I see someone railing about how the KJV is the only accurate Bible translation and the rest are corruptions by Satan, those claims are dumb regardless of whether they got them from Jack Chick or somehow came up with them on their own. If your thoughts align with the SAB simply through coincidence... that just means you've got the same issues in interpretation it does.

I mean, let's just look at the first few:

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Jumping to the conclusion that is is "not considered a human life" based on this passage is mind-boggling. There's still obviously a punishment. So at best, this verse would argue that while not as serious a crime as murder of someone who is born, abortion is still a crime. Something can be "not as wrong" as regular murder and still be wrong.

However, it doesn't even argue that. This is talking about how if someone strikes a woman and this causes a miscarriage. The perpetrator was not attempting to cause the miscarriage, so they receive a more lenient punishment; it is fairly typical for an accidental killing to receive a more lenient punishment than one done on purpose. This is a case of such a thing: The accidental attack is given a much less severe punishment than the purposeful attack. If anything, this verse can be used to argue a pro-life standpoint, saying that if causing an accidental miscarriage is bad, doing so deliberately is even worse.

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

Seriously? "No value"? This is a very specific situation where value is being assigned; it doesn't mean there's no value elsewhere. The latter quote is for the purpose of a census; not counting someone young or unborn doesn't mean they're not a person.

These claims miss another important point, namely that with a substantially higher infant mortality rate than we have now, it makes sense to not do things like count someone that young for the census simply because of them having a higher than usual likelihood of dying before they reach the required age. In fact, pre-birth, I don't believe at that time they were particularly capable of knowing far ahead of time if there were twins or not, so you could count one and have more than one child. It makes sense to wait and see what actually comes out (in addition to making sure the child was healthy enough to at least make it to a month).

It's actually kind of impressive how bad these arguments are.

[Starlight]

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Jumping to the conclusion that is is "not considered a human life" based on this passage is mind-boggling. There's still obviously a punishment. So at best, this verse would argue that while not as serious a crime as murder of someone who is born, abortion is still a crime. Something can be "not as wrong" as regular murder and still be wrong.

However, it doesn't even argue that. This is talking about how if someone strikes a woman and this causes a miscarriage. The perpetrator was not attempting to cause the miscarriage, so they receive a more lenient punishment; it is fairly typical for an accidental killing to receive a more lenient punishment than one done on purpose. This is a case of such a thing: The accidental attack is given a much less severe punishment than the purposeful attack. If anything, this verse can be used to argue a pro-life standpoint, saying that if causing an accidental miscarriage is bad, doing so deliberately is even worse.

What's going on in this passage is that harm to the woman is punished "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" but destruction of the fetus is treated as property damage and the man is repaid the agreed value of his financial loss. The death of the fetus is not being treated as murder or manslaughter for legal purposes. In these law-codes murder is punished with death, and manslaughter requires offenders flee to special refuge cities that they may eventually be allowed to leave.

If your thoughts align with the SAB simply through coincidence... that just means you've got the same issues in interpretation it does.

The SAB is never allowed to be right?