'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Nov 21 2006, 10:52 AM) [snapback]352611[/snapback]</div>

I beg to differ. Hebrew is not a dead language. Modern Hebrew is closer to biblical Hebrew than Modern English is to Shakespearean English.

I am fluent in Hebrew and I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the use of the word. At the time that the Bible was written, women were considered to be property of their husbands.

The Hebrew word בעל (Ba'al) translates as both owner and husband in ancient and modern Hebrew.

This is the text in question in both the original Hebrew and as translated into the English language by the Jewish Publication Society:

Exodus Chapter 21

Do note how in verse 22 בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה is translated as woman's husband, in verse 28 וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר (the וּ means and or but when conjoined with the word בַּעַל) is translated to owner of the ox and in verse 34 בַּעַל הַבּוֹר is translated as the owner of the pit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 22 2006, 08:46 PM) [snapback]353272[/snapback]</div>

I know, I just think that, over time, this distinction will become untenable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 22 2006, 09:07 PM) [snapback]353279[/snapback]</div>

You go guy...I know better than to speak about things I know nothing about (usually...LOL)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 22 2006, 04:07 PM) [snapback]353279[/snapback]</div>

"22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,..."

Irrespective of whether one considers this to be the word of wise men laying the law applicable to their own time, or the word of a deity, it seems the likely meaning is that the departing of the woman's "fruit" is not considered "harm." But causing "harm," which in this case can be argued to mean "harm" to the woman, then punishment reciprocal to such "harm" shall be meted out.

The important word here, at least with respect to the foetus, is "departed," but until someone tells otherwise, the most common-sense approach would be, to use the meaning we ascribe to "dearly departed," as in miscarriage, and not the meaning of "come into this world," as in born, which would be diametrically opposite.

Thus, hurting a woman in such way as to cause her "fruit" to "depart" (to miscarry) is not considered significant "harm," as long as the woman is not "harmed," but rather a more minor infraction, which can be remedied with a fine.

It seems that the wise men, or God, are pretty clear, that causing a foetus to "depart" does not constitute significant "harm," and certainly not "murder."

P.S. Perhaps the California Legislature can learn something from the OT.... Amen to that

 

It's settled then, the Bible clearly indicates that a fetus does not rise to the same level as a person. Cool.

 

I don't think it is beyond a doubt that the Bible treats the fetus as less then a person. Numerous other OT prophets and writers refer to the unborn child as more than just a bunch of cells and generally as a person that God knew.

Genesis 25:22-23 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, "Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD. The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."

Isaiah 49:1 Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.

Jeremiah 1:4-5 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."


Luke 1:15 "for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb."

Galations 1:15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased

In addition, I did find an article that discussed two possible interpretations of 21:22-23. It is rather long, so here is the Link.

Of interesting note to is that other versions of the Bible (New Living Translation, New King James Version, New American Standard Version) states if the mother gives birth prematurely.
The New International Version has both premature and miscarriage. I think it is safe to say that this passage cannot be used as the Bible supporting the idea that a unborn child is not a person, especially with the other passages that suggest the worthiness of this child.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal @ Nov 28 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]354862[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps you need to point out specifically how these Bible verses show the baby in the womb is not being treated as a person by God. Look for how many times the baby is called by first person. Count the You, He, His, me, etc.. In the other column, note how many times you find the word fetus.

You start out by saying Bible treats the fetus.. Did you see the word fetus anywhere in your biblical quotes? Nope... you see the baby inside called a baby, or a personal pronoun.

The two blobs of protoplasma jostled each other? No... it actually says BABIES... The quotes you've put support the opposite of the position I hear you stating that you think they support.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 28 2006, 11:30 AM) [snapback]354891[/snapback]</div>

Wow! And in the same verse from Isaiah, look how the Bible refers to inanimate geo objects as being able to hear: "1 2 Hear me, O coastlands...." By your logic, one should start preaching to their pet-rock.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 28 2006, 11:30 AM) [snapback]354891[/snapback]</div>

First, the literal translation refers to "children," and in fact, God refers to them as "nations" and sets them up as pre-existing antagonists: "And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people;...."

And I am not going to dwell on the anatomical accuracy of "thy bowels."

You'll find that the majority of the various apocalyptical and other sects, preceding or contemporary with the early Christians, such as the Pharisees, Essenes, Rechabites, Dosithians and so on, held similar beliefs involving pre-existence of the soul or reincarnation (as also evidenced by Jeremiah 1: 4-5.) None of the citations above really speak to abortion, but rather to such pre-existence theme.

For the record, the early Christians did have vocal abortion opponents (like all religions, Christianity understood geometric progression and encouraged procreation, which ensures rapid growth of the number of followers,) like Barnabas and St. Basil. But since St. Augustine (in the 4th century,) the Church generally accepted termination prior to "fetus animatus."

(Funnily, an 8th century English penitential (by Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury, who united the English church,) demanded 7 years to life of penance for oral sex (poor Clinton,) while abortion demanded only 4 months of penance

It was not until the numbers of church-attending believers started to decline rapidly in the 18th century, that the Church became more strict in promoting procreation. It was only in 1869 that Pope Pius IX removed the concept of "fetus animatus," prior to which abortion was not considered a sin.

Boo

 

... and back then they had no clue how human development worked- all they could do was guess.

i fail to see how any of that is relevant to today, considering that we possess knowledge that they could not have possibly imagined.

is it not failing modern society to not use this knowledge and instead refer back to texts from thousands of years ago when they knew nothing?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 28 2006, 02:02 PM) [snapback]354966[/snapback]</div>

Good question.
Would you fly in an airliner piloted by someone who learned how to fly using the bible as his only textbook?
Would you seek medication/therapy from a "physician" who used the bible as his only textbook?
Would you eat food stored and prepared by biblical instructions, or would you prefer it be free of e.coli and other pathogens not mentioned in the bible?
Would you be comfortable if the only laws ATT or Exxon had to follow were the ones in the bible, or would you prefer the more robust modern body of law and regulation that gives you the power to sue?

If, as some might argue, the bible is not appropriate to serve as a guide in all situations (say, as a textbook for learning to fly), then where do you draw the line? The bible is quite explicit in Leviticus that children should be stoned to death for the crime of talking back, while more modern texts convey the knowledge that children who talk back don't need to be killed (or even punished at all) in order to grow up into better persons. Which text should one rely on? To any honest intellect, the answer is easy.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

To fully rely on the Bible is akin to fully relying on Prius Chat for having all the answers.


Foolish, really. Said the Preacher.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 16 2006, 10:32 AM) [snapback]350249[/snapback]</div>

It is insensitive, and I wouldn't put it on a Christmas card because of that, but I guess I would agree with Daniel that its "no harm, no foul." Do you think she did it to irritate you? Or is it a closely held belief that, for her, is important, and she is simply "selfish" in that she didn't consider your values? Her intent is probably more important than the act itself.

Some people feel that expressing certain viewpoints are a type of hate speech, but I don't agree. I try not to be offensive in most discourse, but any time you express an opinion you run that risk today.

Still, there are appropriate venues to express yourself, and I don't think greeting cards are one of them, unless the topic is appropriate. Religious Christmas cards seem appropriate to me, but a religious birthday card would only be appropriate if the recipient is religious.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 28 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]355069[/snapback]</div>

Thank you Mark. You have gone to the root of the issue and stated it clearly and concisely.

I, for one, do NOT want the pilot of my airplane to rely on the Bible as his flight instruction manual; and to take your excellent analogy one step further, I do NOT want the FAA to use the Bible in the drafting of air traffic or safety rules.

Still, it is noteworthy that so many Bible "literalists" only follow the Bible when it is convenient, and intentionally misrepresent it when that is convenient.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 1 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]356277[/snapback]</div>

If you believe in the God of the bible, you're gonna be just fine if the pilot was trained only using the bible.

If you don't believe in the God of the bible and for any other reason regardless of where/how the pilot was trained and the plane goes down... hot hot hot hot....

:lol:

 

I don't get this "cute" argument that you don't want the Bible used as a textbook for flying a plane or doing surgery. WHO in their right mind claims that. The Bible is a textbook for LIFE, living, relationships, politics, social stuff.

Render unto God that which is God's, render under Ceasar that which is Ceasars. (Separate the spiritual from the flesh)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 1 2006, 06:40 PM) [snapback]356523[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps not your church, Karl, but many fundamentalist churches insist the bible is the ONLY written guide necessary, that not only are any other books on any topic unnecessary, but that it would be sinful to even read any other book but the bible. Of course no rational mind would consider it anything but absurd to try to use the bible as a flight manual, even such a church - but then no one in such a church would ever learn to fly.

So, what's the loss, you might ask. Plenty!! Without being able to learn to fly you've cut yourself off from one possible means of making a living, cut yourself off from one of the most (for many) spiritual experiences it's possible to attain without resort to drugs, cut yourself off from being able to make powerful contributions to your fellow man by flying volunteer relief and mercy flights - and flying is just one tiny fraction of the infinite realm of modern human experience you'd be cutting yourself away from if your sole textbook was a collection of disjoint stories written two thousand years ago.

But where a flight manual is obviously not something anyone would turn to the bible for, my larger point shows up in my fourth example, and in your assertion below:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 1 2006, 06:40 PM) [snapback]356523[/snapback]</div>

First, I defy you to be able to insist that Leviticus should be adopted as a guide of ANY kind without sounding like a sadistic lunatic, and much the same can be said for most of the old testament books and many of the new testament ones.

Second, even with respect to the parts of the bible that really do reflect our moral zeitgeist, in ALL matters of LIFE, living, relationships, politics, social stuff, I would still regard it high folly to confine oneself, again, only to what we had learned two thousand years ago. I personally would be extremely uncomfortable if our legal system were limited to King James - uncomfortable - hell, I'd be terrified.

I reiterate the point: WHERE do you "draw the line?" In what specific realms of human experience and intercourse do you say "the bible is it, and only it" and where do you widen your sources of information to sources outside the bible?

If a church said "the bible's got some good stuff in it, add it to your library, but don't stop enlarging your library" it would be a church that, in regard to expanding human knowledge, would be talking sense. Perhaps some churches DO say that. But I doubt very much that any fundamentalist church would endorse such a position.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 1 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]356523[/snapback]</div>

Alrighty. Then you should give all of yourself to God. Nothing less will do.


Get back to me when that happens, okay?

Christ looked at Paul. "Paul, what's up with you? Always worried. Why? If you trust in me, all your worries will be gone. Don't you trust in me?"

Paul said, "Of course I do. But what if I am wrong, what if I slip up? Then what?"

Christ shook His head. And then said, "See? That is why you are all stressed out; no faith in yourself, much less me. And you see me! Blessed be those who have faith in me, who won't see me. For they get it. "


For too many 'Christians' they don't get it. When one should be worried about nothing, they are worried about stuff they can't change.

I'm dying of cancer, and you know what? That's okay. I can't change it, so why worry? At least I can enjoy the rest of my life here. And if that turns out to be a long time, super. Think about all that time with no worries! No time wasted on weather someone believes in Christ , like I do, or not. Life is too short as it is; enjoy your time here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Dec 2 2006, 01:23 AM) [snapback]356607[/snapback]</div>

TJ, I didn't know this. I am very sorry. I wish you the best of luck and I hope you are able to lick it and go on to a long, happy, and productive life. We need more people like you in the public discourse.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Dec 2 2006, 01:23 AM) [snapback]356607[/snapback]</div>

TJ you have a real gift of communication. Best of luck to you! I hope you stick around for a very long time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 2 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]356650[/snapback]</div>

Thanks. You know, it's been over a year, and here I am still. And to think I never smoked...but my mother. She smoked like a chimney. Makes one wonder about second hand smoke.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 2 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]356679[/snapback]</div>

Thanks. I hope I stick around, as long as it's not in pain. If I am going to die, which we all do, at least I want it to be with little pain.

 

i am very sorry to hear this, TJ! i wish the best for you. i really appreciate the message you send through your posts.