I Wish The Elephants Had Trampled...

[One Bad Pig]

Maybe Catholic tradition?

The Catholic position on abortion is based on a fairly straightforward interpretation of Scripture - which is why, when Evangelicals took a look, they agreed with it. For someone who allegedly grown up in the Catholic tradition, JimL sure doesn't seem to know much about it.

[One Bad Pig]

That you believe something doesn't make it true either.

vs.

It's not a lie if they believe it, birdbrain. Or are you perpetuating a lie when disseminating your biblical beliefs?

[JimL]

vs.

Hmmm, I see you have comprehension difficulties as well, OBP.

[JimL]

The Catholic position on abortion is based on a fairly straightforward interpretation of Scripture - which is why, when Evangelicals took a look, they agreed with it. For someone who allegedly grown up in the Catholic tradition, JimL sure doesn't seem to know much about it.

Which scripture would that be, OBP?

[One Bad Pig]

Which scripture would that be, OBP?

If you're familiar with Catholicism, you shouldn't need to ask. It's covered in the catechism.

It is also clear from, e.g., the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth that the fetus was thought of as a separate person.

[mossrose]

The Catholic position on abortion is based on a fairly straightforward interpretation of Scripture - which is why, when Evangelicals took a look, they agreed with it. For someone who allegedly grown up in the Catholic tradition, JimL sure doesn't seem to know much about it.

Of course I agree with you here.

I was just throwing their own logic at them. They like their logic when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.

[rogue06]

Abortion has never been a major issue in Judaism.

Boy that sure is a shift from your now terminally debunked hogwash: "Judaism over its 4,000 year history and many within the Christian tradition...including Evangelicalism until c. 50 years ago.." I hope you didn't strain anything from rushing the goal posts right out of the stadium, out of town and into another county. smiley goal posts.gif

The New Testament does not comment on abortion.

The New Testament does not comment on a lot of things. But it unconditionally and unambiguously clear that life does starts before birth. As Luke 1:41, 44 clearly demonstrates, a baby in the womb was considered as being alive:

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit ... For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

Mindless clumps of tissue, as your side likes to characterize an unborn baby, doesn't react in such a manner. So aborting someone considered alive is tantamount to murder -- and the New Testament definitely speaks directly to that (Matthew 5:21; 15:19; 19:8; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9; James 2:11; 1 John 3:12; Revelation 22:15...)

So Christians against abortion must consider the writings of later generations in order to find teachings from outside the bible to make an argument. While some Christians have been against abortion, many have not...including Evangelicals until relatively recently.

I showed you a steady stream of quotes dating from a century or so before Christ up through the 3rd cent. A.D. that all spoke of abortion as being murder. And the Bible itself speaks rather poorly of those who kill an unborn as we see in Exodus 21:22-25:


So if you injure (not by accident but while fighting) a pregnant woman and kill the unborn baby, your life is therefore forfeit "you shall pay life for life." Kind of hard to pay a "life or a life" if something wasn't alive, don't you agree?

[rogue06]

I find it highly amusing that you and your ilk like to pick and choose scripture when it suits you, yet you don't believe in it.

That ^^^^

[rogue06]

The Catholic position on abortion is based on a fairly straightforward interpretation of Scripture - which is why, when Evangelicals took a look, they agreed with it. For someone who allegedly grown up in the Catholic tradition, JimL sure doesn't seem to know much about it.

It is such a comical straw man misrepresentation that it really is inconceivable that it would come from someone actually raised in the tradition.

[JimL]

Which scripture would that be, OBP?

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."
And
"My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."

So, some 3,500 years after the supposed creation, god revealed his knowledge of the future, specifically his knowledge of the future of the fetus? Took him long enough! Anyway, just because god knows it will be a human being, doesn't mean that it is a human being while still a fetus, it doesn't make the fetus a human being, it makes it a possible human being, which is nothing new. God could just as well say the same about an aborted fetus, i.e. that: "I knew of the destruction of this fetus before I even formed it." The latter of which, if you actually thought about it, and if if you actually take omniscience seriously, is the only one of the two interpretations that makes any sense, because if god knows before hand who a fetus will turn out to be, then he also knows the fetuses that won't turn out to be anyone. And btw, his having knowledge about the future of his creation, would make himself the cause of that future. This, of course, is assuming that you believe all that nonsense.

And just for the record, OBP, any idea what David means by his being "wrought/shaped in the depths of the earth?" Does god have a factory down there in the depths of the earth, or what?

[JimL]

Jim there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Of course there is, the government has no church, no religion, they are separate.

The Founders merely that not want a National Church. We actually had a number of state churches, supported by tax monies. And again our very rights are grounded in a religious principle, grounded in God. Not in human institutions. That is not very secular...

Right, we don't have a National church, nor do we have state churches, because, much to your dismay, the one has nothing to do with the other. And thank the god I don't believe in for that!

[Tassman]

Boy that sure is a shift from your now terminally debunked hogwash: "Judaism over its 4,000 year history and many within the Christian tradition...including Evangelicalism until c. 50 years ago.." I hope you didn't strain anything from rushing the goal posts right out of the stadium, out of town and into another county.

The point stands. Abortion has never been a major issue in Judaism...it is totally legal in the Jewish state of Israel. Also, it was not an issue throughout most of the history of Evangelicalism.

The New Testament does not comment on a lot of things. But it unconditionally and unambiguously clear that life does starts before birth. As Luke 1:41, 44 clearly demonstrates, a baby in the womb was considered as being alive:

No fetus at any time reacts in such a manner to events occurring outside the womb. This is obviously a fictitious anecdote to make a point.

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit ... For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

Mindless clumps of tissue, as your side likes to characterize an unborn baby, doesn't react in such a manner. So aborting someone considered alive is tantamount to murder -- and the New Testament definitely speaks directly to that (Matthew 5:21; 15:19; 19:8; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9; James 2:11; 1 John 3:12; Revelation 22:15...)

I showed you a steady stream of quotes dating from a century or so before Christ up through the 3rd cent. A.D. that all spoke of abortion as being murder.

And the Bible itself speaks rather poorly of those who kill an unborn as we see in Exodus 21:22-25:

So if you injure (not by accident but while fighting) a pregnant woman and kill the unborn baby, your life is therefore forfeit "you shall pay life for life." Kind of hard to pay a "life or a life" if something wasn't alive, don't you agree?

Attempts to argue against abortion from biblical texts are misdirected. It is simply not there. So, in the absence of specific prohibitions of abortion in scripture, Christian pro-lifers like you quote equivocal passages open to several possible interpretations, just as you are doing. It is simply not convincing except to those who want to be convinced. .

[rogue06]

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."
And
"My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."

So, some 3,500 years after the supposed creation, god revealed his knowledge of the future, specifically his knowledge of the future of the fetus? Took him long enough! Anyway, just because god knows it will be a human being, doesn't mean that it is a human being while still a fetus, it doesn't make the fetus a human being, it makes it a possible human being, which is nothing new. God could just as well say the same about an aborted fetus, i.e. that: "I knew of the destruction of this fetus before I even formed it." The latter of which, if you actually thought about it, and if if you actually take omniscience seriously, is the only one of the two interpretations that makes any sense, because if god knows before hand who a fetus will turn out to be, then he also knows the fetuses that won't turn out to be anyone. And btw, his having knowledge about the future of his creation, would make himself the cause of that future. This, of course, is assuming that you believe all that nonsense.

And just for the record, OBP, any idea what David means by his being "wrought/shaped in the depths of the earth?" Does god have a factory down there in the depths of the earth, or what?

The Bible is not a science textbook being concerned with other, more important basic truths

[rogue06]

The point stands. Abortion has never been a major issue in Judaism...

Your "point" continues to change over and over throughout the thread.

00000000000000ar1aa1ax.jpg

The point is that abortion was regarded as a sin and equated with murder.

[seer]

Of course there is, the government has no church, no religion, they are separate.

Nonsense Jim, please show me where. It says congress can not establish a religion, nothing about religion influencing government. Which has been done from the time of our Founders on.

Right, we don't have a National church, nor do we have state churches, because, much to your dismay, the one has nothing to do with the other. And thank the god I don't believe in for that!

Are you dense Jim, state supported churches lasted into the 1830s, and they did not violate the Constitution. Again, how is a nation whose very rights are grounded in God secular?