10 year old rape victim can't get abortion in Ohio

I'm confused. Why do we assume anger is a sign of imperfect? (Or am I misunderstanding?)

 

If it's that rare, doctors/clinics that perform abortion aren't going to remain in the states where the procedure is otherwise banned. And even if a few would otherwise remain, they aren't going to risk imprisonment in the inevitable event someone comes out of the woodwork to claim the woman wasn't really raped.

That means it's effectively banned in toto, even with nominal exceptions.

 

I think you misunderstood the point of the post. It was not about God's anger per se, but about contradictions in what the Bible says about God. The examples from Jeremiah and Michah contain contradictions.

'...for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.' contrasted with
'...he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.'

 

Since you believe the Bible has contradictions do you also believe Jesus was the son of God or was his claim to be false? If he was did he sin? Just curious on your view.

 

Personally, I think Jesus was likely a paranoid schizophrenic with strong delusions of grandeur. He must have been quite the charismatic character to have gained such a cult following to advocate for him. I suppose you could say that for all cult followings throughout history, large or small.

 

Doctors that perform abortions shouldn't make a living off of JUST abortions.

If doctors move to another state just because they can get rich aborting unborn humans than thats on them. THEY are the ones neglecting patients.

 

Don't recall the exact wording, but C.S. Lewis argued something to the effect that Jesus was either the son of God, a lunatic, or a liar. I think he left out an option: that Jesus was misquoted or mis-represented - intentionally or unintentionally. Others on here know more than I do about the Bible, but my understanding is that the earliest Gospel was likely written decades after the events described.

 

Gotcha. I dont see how these verses question Gods perfection, but I now see your question.

My counter would be that the fire IN God's anger is not God's anger.

God's anger does not last forever, but perhaps the "fire" (consequence) lasts longer.

I may take away my kids phones for a week, but may only be "angry" for 5 minutes.

Thus the "fire" of my anger lasts much longer than my actual anger.

I don't see these verses as contradictory based on the word "in".

I do understand that due to who and when certain things were written in scripture that minor contradictions exist or at least seem to exist, but human perspective is often at play in those things.

 

Most of “the Bible” was compiled hundreds of years later, based on word of mouth stories and other writings written decades after Jesus’s death. Keeping in mind this was a time and place when literacy was extremely low. It’s almost comical anyone could consider it (or pretty much any part of it) as a document to be taken as literally true.

 

It is a metaphorical claim. There are a number of verses through out both testaments that refer to the descendants of Israel as God's sons. The claim that Jesus was conceived of a virgin is based on an incorrect reading and translation of Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word almah in this verse is inaccurately translated as virgin. It speaks of a young woman who has not yet given birth to a child. Four verses elsewhere in Isaiah specifically refer to virgins and the unambiguous Hebrew word for virgin -bethulah - is the word found in those verses. H1330 - bᵊṯûlâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

Did Jesus sin? I've no way of knowing that, but he was human (Son of Man) and human beings regularly 'miss the mark' (definition of sin). Hebrew Word Definition: Sin | AHRC

 

I partially concur, but would not agree that the Gospels were written 'hundreds' of years later. Decades later no doubt, and long enough for the stories to be embellished by the original writers who likely added details or misremembered others. Much like the children's game called 'Gossip' or 'Telephone.' It only takes less than a single circulation of a message whispered into an ear before the message has changed to something sometimes unrecognizable from the original.

Other circumstances may have, and in my opinion, did change the way Jesus and his message was changed after it was disseminated throughout the Roman empire. The Caesars were called called divine and worshipped. Augustus, the adopted son of Julius, referred to himself as 'the son of god.' The early followers of Jesus may have felt it necessary to challenge that claim and counter it with one of their own.

The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Religion in Ancient Rome . Augustus | PBS.

A piece of heaven

An important part of this strategy involved religion. The Emperor of Rome was already the most powerful man on earth, but this wasn’t enough. Augustus wanted a piece of heaven too: he was determined that his people would see him as their supreme spiritual leader.

Roman religion had many gods and spirits and Augustus was keen to join their number as a god himself. This was not unusual: turning political leaders into gods was an old tradition around the Mediterranean. There was also precedent in Roman history – Aeneas and Romulus, who had helped found Rome, were already worshipped as gods.

Halley’s Comet

Early in his reign, Halley’s Comet passed over Rome. Augustus claimed it was the spirit of Julius Caesar entering heaven. If Caesar was a god then, as his heir, Augustus was the son of a god and he made sure that everybody knew it.

Now regarded as part-god, Augustus encouraged stories of his frugal habits. He let people know that he lived in a modest house, slept on a low bed and, when he wasn’t fasting, ate only very plain food, like coarse bread and cheese. In a letter, he boasted to his stepson, Tiberius, of how he had not eaten all day.

Traditional values

 

Any book that begins with blaming women for everything wrong in the world is definitely the word of man.

 

exactly. It requires zero cost, plus maga can sanctimonious judge those they always disagree with. Once a baby is born into poor minority families, maga will literally let them die. (Ie end health care, stop expanded Medicaid). Abolishment of Obamacare will kill many poor.

 

But even before Eve's vignette with the serpent are the rarely acknowledged verses in Genesis 1 saying man (mankind) was made in the image of God. Then goes on to emphatically (3 times) describe that image as male and female.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

 

Abortions are specialized procedures. It takes a lot of time, money, and training to learn how to perform them safely and properly. There are also huge regulatory costs in these states to ensure compliance with all of the restrictions placed on abortion services. Maintaining a clinic in that environment, with limited business, just isn't viable. Especially with the threat of criminal prosecution looming over every procedure.

Your position is like placing a 99% tax on church collections and then deriding the clergy for neglecting their flock when they're forced to close up shop.

 

The Bible doesnt begin that way. It begins with a man blaming the woman and God blaming the MAN.

I swear some of you say stuff as if many of us havent actually read it.

 

I would say that liberal policies are much more “pro-life” for the living, and thus the unborn that aren’t aborted.

 

I can certainly see that perspective. We would have to invest in changes within the medical community.

 

You must know that many individuals and religions do not agree with that interpretation. And they're not some Biblical near-illiterate like me, but have read the same Scripture as you, and come to a completely different conclusion. This I just gleaned from a short but informative Google Bible study.

 

I do understand that, which is why I try to be more moderate and understanding than some on the pro-life side.

I was simply addressing the implication of sexism in Genesis narrative when it was actually the opposite message being told there.