Roe v Wade Overturned

Yep I left out the part of it’s the husbands decision not the woman’s. It’s absolutely despicable is what it is.

 

Intent to kill another human being is an intensely personal matter. It is no business of ours to call into question, let alone intervene.

 

“Despicable”

Gets my vote for irony of the week.

 

1. My response to this is: people go to hell because of sin. It is the guilt of sin that sends people to hell. So things like pride, stealing, lying, gossip, etc are why people go to hell. It is the sin we commit every day that results in eternal damnation. These are things we have all done. It is the removal of guilt that allows a person to go to heaven, and the gracious Judge who pardons sinners has the right to determine the parameters surrounding the pardon of a person who otherwise would be sent immediately into eternal destruction apart from the pardon of the merciful Judge. The arrogant one is not the merciful judge who is willing to pardon sinners on his terms. The arrogant are those who think they have rights to dictate to God the terms of their pardon. That is not how it works. Jesus even said the way to destruction is broad, and the way to life is narrow.

2. To this I respond: God cannot blaspheme Himself. He has spoken. We honor God rather than blaspheme Him when we take Him at His word.

3. To this I respond: If I am guilty of blasphemy and hubris for holding to the tenets of my faith, then you certainly do believe your faith is superior unless if you also admit that your tenets you assert are equally guilty of blasphemy and hubris.

4. I disagree. No need to get in the weeds of this question. It seems like a rabbit trail.

5. Yes many of things Jesus taught were beautiful, but I think you miss the most beautiful thing about Him. It is that we deserved hell, and he became cursed so that we did not have to be cursed. It is that He brought hope and salvation to men.

 

I’m just glad that you’ve retreated from condemning my children to eternal damnation, leaving the adjudication to a higher adjudicator.

 

We’re happy to refer up. We don’t make the rules.

 

We follow and are judged by the rules set by mere mortals here and during this life. The rest? Refer it up …

 

Yes ? And ?

 

It is not a retreat because the terms of pardon are no secret. They have been declared, and you and your children need to know that.

Jesus in the story of the Lazarus and the Rich Man taught exactly what I am saying. The rich man ended up in torment after the end of his life, and he asked Abraham to tell his brothers not to come to the place of torment. Abraham responded by saying his brothers have the scriptures, which are sufficient to know how to avoid going into torment upon one’s death. So Jesus taught that avoiding hell involved knowing and believing the scriptures. The rich man ended up in hell because he denied scripture and did not obey it.

But you would disagree with Jesus that one needs to know the correct interpretation of the scripture to avoid going to hell, and you would call anyone who disagrees with you arrogant and guilty of hubris.

 

Thankfully I don’t have the answer for the next chapter. You?

 

Yea, in very simple terms, I call anyone who claims to know the internal thought and decision-making of Jesus to be both hubristic and borderline blasphemous.

 

So god intentionally kills babies?

 

I did read the passage you quoted. In fact, I read more than that by reading the entire section. The problem is you didn’t start at the beginning of that passage. It is very clear that what’s being described is a test for infidelity.

If a man suspected his wife of being unfaithful but had no witnesses, he was not allowed to take matters into his own hands and mistreat her. He was required to go to the priest with her and the priest would carry out this procedure.

If the woman was guilty of adultery, the procedure would have a physical effect upon her body. If the woman had not been guilty of adultery, the procedure would have no effect on her at all.

Nowhere in that passage does it say or even imply that the woman was pregnant. It was purely a test for fidelity.

Also, please stop with this telephone game assertion that the Bible was changed over thousands of years. That is just not the case. The requirements on scribes making copies were very strict to ensure as faithful a copy as possible.

There exist thousands of biblical manuscripts, far more than any other document from antiquity. Bible textual critics, those whose profession is determining what was originally written in the Bible, agree that a good 99% of the Bible that we have today is as it was originally written. Even with the 1% still debated, the variations are minor and amount to typographical errors. None of the differences between manuscripts result in changes in theology.

 

Holy wow. You can read English and not understand what you are reading. I guess that’s why they call it blind faith.

 

So read verse 27. You don’t see how it says it will clear her womb. If not of a baby what is it going to clear. I will leave off all they mysoginy.

 

But what if Jesus told us what his thoughts are and what his decision making is based on? Wouldn't the hubristic response be to deny the truth that Jesus has proclaimed?

 

Yes. That is one of the more difficult questions people have to wrestle with in Christianity, but yes the time of death for every person is appointed by God. What God's purposes are in each of those instances is beyond our grasp, but God is responsible if a person has a miscarriage.

 

Your post speaks for itself.

So when children are raped, does God plan that too?

I don’t believe in God, but even if I did I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to think God is sitting around planning each one of our deaths. A more logical conclusion would be he set things in general in motion and perhaps knows the outcome.

 

I see where your antagonism is coming from. I went back and read what you quoted and see that it is the NIV. I was reading from the English Standard Version. The ESV is more literal and uses the more direct Hebrew translation of “her thigh shall fall away” rather than “miscarry.”

It seems that scholars for the most part are not entirely sure what that Hebrew expression means. It was not common Hebrew idiom. I would also expect if the women had been pregnant, it would’ve been mentioned earlier in the passage. It is presented as a test of fidelity, not as a way of getting rid of an unwanted child.

One thing you have to ask yourself is how could an abortion technique only work on an unfaithful woman, but would have no effect whatsoever on the faithful wife.

Even if this is the case of God aborting the child, it is not because the child is unwanted, but because the woman had been unfaithful. As the omniscient, omnipotent author of life, it is God’s prerogative to deal in matters of life and death. That does not mean that we are free to do the same in the same circumstances.

The state is allowed to exercise the death penalty on criminals, but we are not allowed to go out and exercise the death penalty just because we decide it’s warranted.

 

Well it assumes that all women are unfaithful. The Bible treats women horribly. Let me know in the future which version of the Bible you are finding the truth in. You would think an omnipotent being could find a way to have one version of the truth.