Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by windword
In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
So is this up for interpretation. Actually, it doesn't mean biological life at all. Elihu is talking about a fulfilled life here, that he is "full of
life with the Lord".
What has this verse in Job got to do with anything that I discussed in this thread? You're responding to my post questioning the interpretation of
the verse, used by another poster to claim that God sees the unborn as people, here in Exodus:
22 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.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Context is king. And the author of the article has done what morons continue to do as a matter of course: use the words of the Bible to fit
their agenda without even considering the context of the words that were written.
Numbers 5 describes "the Lord" ordering an abortion. Many argue that this is a misinterpretation. It's clearly stated in verse 22, "May this water
that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."
Interestingly, this is part of a passage that doesn't have anything at all to do with a pregnant woman. Yet again, the author has tried to make
a Bible passage prove his point for him. Only two translations that I could find (I stopped looking after going through 15 of them) mention
miscarriage. However, most use the word "thigh", while others say what it really means: that the woman will forever miscarry because she will become
Did the author of the article, and the OP of this thread, forget that there are people like me to bring the light of truth to their lies? That there's
a thing called "the internet", where people can find out information for themselves?
I have no idea what the author of the article in the OP thought about people like you.
I skimmed the OP's article, and only just now noticed the author's reference to Numbers 5, in the footnotes. If you would like to take this
discussion any further, regarding the "context" of this scripture, please feel free to do so in my thread on the subject, that I assume you are
ranting about. www.abovetopsecret.com...
. Because this thread is about Christian viewpoints on abortion, and that
thread is about a Hebrew law/ritual that suppressed women. It's off topic in this thread.
As other Christians have pointed out, the Old Testament is useless in the analyses of Christian dogma on the subject of abortion. While I disagree
that Christianity, as it is today, can be separated from the Old Testament, because Christians keep citing it to back up their dogma, I do believe
that early Christian origins claimed a different god than the wrathful, murderous god of the OT.
Actually, at the risk of going off topic, the purpose of my thread on Numbers 5, is to show that what the Hebrews did in the name of their God is not
in line with what the Christian God teaches.
You decry the religious for disregarding science in matters of abortion and evolution, then you decry them for using religion in matters of abortion
and evolution. It's clear that your only agenda is to decry the religious. Your clear agenda is get all up in their business about stuff that you
don't like. Yet when they do the same, you get all butt-hurt.
I have reread all my posts in this thread, and I can't figure out what the heck you're talking about. Please show me where I have brought up abortion
and evolution, and "gotten all up in anyone's business about stuff I don't like.'
Don't just accuse me of made up stuff that resides in your head and project all kinds of righteous indignation in my direction without specifics that
I can address, please.
I am not "Pro-abortion," I'm "pro choice". That covers a lot of ground, including modern contraception and the morning after pill. I am for better
education, easy access to contraception, and until we have a better model, medical procedures for terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
I have no desire to get political and start petitions and overturn laws. I am for keeping the law regarding woman's reproductive rights and privacy,
Roe v Wade, in tact. I will continue speak my mind on my objections to the religious right forcing their brand of religious dogma through
legislation, on people who don't agree with it.
edit on 12-11-2012 by windword because: grammar