Roe v Wade Overturned

You are completely leaving out the part where the government had zero to do with and zero say in the man and woman conceiving that child in the first place. The onus is on the parents to ensure that child’s fundamental needs are met. The government is saying once you’ve made that conscious decision to conceive a life, YOU have a responsibility to provide the child the basic essentials. In no way, shape or fashion is it government’s fault two people conceived a child.

Now in the case of non-consensual, criminal activity which led to a forced conception, that completely changes and there should be an exception for rape, statutory rape and incest. But beyond that, government had zero role in conceiving that child and thus zero responsibility to be the backstop for that child. What you want is a nanny state and this is the United States of America. The Constitution very clearly defines that we are not anything like a nanny state. A nanny state would inevitably begin telling people who and who cannot have a baby (ala China). I understand you may be a fan of their politics there, but this is America.

 

Since we’re talking Bible, what a stark contrast between Rachel who cried, “Give me a child or I will die!” and the woman of our time who laments the inconvenience of the presence, in her womb, of and object she’d call ‘my baby’ were it wanted.”

This is it’s silly to imagine that “when life begins” is the salient issue. Wantedness vs unwantedness is how we ascribe value to another life.

 

Honest question. When it comes to abortion why do people immediately revert to the Bible? Are other religions not relevant when it comes to abortion?

 

Lots to disagree with here, but I nonetheless acknowledge your respectful tone in this post.

 

You would think that if there were particular things that were important for people to know, it would be more obvious. But the pat response you’ll get is “ours is not to question why” and there is no way we can understand the reasons for some things. As mentioned earlier sometimes there are good reasons for God to deliberately kill babies.

 

I’d prefer the State stay completely out of the life of my daughter. You choose to get the government involved with my daughter’s healthcare and well-being, but only half-ass. You demand that the State tell my daughter she must have a baby. You advocate for the Nanny State, not the other way around. At least make the effort to stay consistent.

 

Because the Bible is true, and other religions are false.

 

That didn't answer my question. So the Bible only matters with abortion and nothing else?

 

It matters with everything.

 

I was at Good Friday service this evening when the pastor read the verse, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." I thought about a lot of things, but our conversation was fresh on my mind. I thought of you. I wanted that prayer to be effectual for you. And it occurred to me that you probably do not know the origin of the type of argument you are making:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say...?” -Genesis 3:1
​

The one from whom that argument originally comes from breathed those words with a terrible malice and with the full intention of destroying humanity. To see that ancient argument regurgitated with such zeal and certainty is a demonstration of the serpent's power and influence in the world even at this very moment. I honestly can't think of a higher ground the devil can have over a person than that. I can't think of a strategic position where he is more guaranteed victory over a soul than that.

I hope you find faith and forgiveness.

 

I’m curious. If God showed himself to you unambiguously, what would your response be? Would you bow down and worship? Would you surrender your life to him? Or like one atheist I heard just assume you were having a delusion? Would you tell him you like your life just fine and to get lost?

Not everybody wants to know God even if they know him to be true. This was described in the CS Lewis book, The Great Divorce.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by “contemporaneously documented.” The New Testament consists of 27 separate writings produced by nine different authors. The writings include four biographies by four different authors, one history of the early church, one apocalyptic writing, and the rest letters from various authors to either individuals or groups. The letters contain theological doctrine, practical advice for living, and personal encouragement, along with certain historical facts relayed by the author. Many times events in one writing are referenced by another author.

These authors were all contemporary to each other. They cannot be dismissed merely because they have a certain point of view. These are historical documents written by historical people.

I’m also not sure what you mean by “legal evidence.” Two of the four Gospels (biographies) were written by disciples, which means they were eyewitnesses to the events described. The writer of Acts was eyewitness to most of the events contained in that book, and interviewed people for the rest. Historical events described in the letters were, for the most part, witnessed by the writers of those letters.

If what you want are non-biblical references, history professor Gary Habermas has compiled references to Jesus and the early Christian church contained in the writings of non-Christians. The writer or document is shown in parentheses.

Jesus was located in Palestine (Tacitus, Lucian, Acts of Pilate).

Jesus had a brother called James (Josephus).

Jesus was known to be a wise, virtuous and ethical man (Josephus, Mara Serapion).

Jesus was reported to have performed miracles (Acts of Pilate).

Jesus made prophecies that were fulfilled (Phlegon, Josephus).

Jesus had many disciples, from both the Jews and the Gentiles (Josephus, Talmud).

At the beginning of his ministry he encountered a man called John the Baptist who baptized him (Josephus).

Jesus was worshiped as a deity (Pliny, Lucian).

Some believed he was the Messiah (Josephus) and called him “king” (Mara Serapion).

Some people saw Jesus as a philosopher with unique teachings (Lucian, Mara Serapion, Gospel of Thomas).

The Jewish leaders judged Jesus as guilty of apostasy (Talmud, Apocryphon of John), and no-one came forward to support Jesus in his trial (Talmud).

Jesus died at the hands of Pontius Pilate (Tacitus) who crucified him (Josephus, Talmud, Lucian, Gospel of Truth, Acts of Pilate).

The event occurred on Passover Eve (Talmud).

He was nailed to a cross (Phlegon, Gospel of Truth, Acts of Pilate, Tacitus).

After his death the executioners gambled over his clothing (Acts of Pilate).

There was a three-hour darkness at the moment of the crucifixion (Thallus, Phlegon), and an earthquake (Phlegon), all of which corroborates New Testament events.

Jesus’ teachings spread after his death (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny).

The Christian religion was named after Jesus (Tacitus).

Christians formed a section of society (Pliny), and exercised faith in Jesus’ teachings (Lucian).

Christians also believed in their own eternal immortality and scorned death (Lucian), and that Jesus’ death procured their salvation (Gospel of Truth).

The disciples never abandoned Jesus’ teachings even in persecution (Josephus).

Many Christians were exiled from Rome for their beliefs in him (Suetonius).

Many were also still present in Rome by the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Tacitus, Suetonius).

They were also described as law breakers for meeting in secret (Pliny, Trajan, Hadrian).

SOURCE:
The Historical Jesus - Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

 

So you agree. Gods a lazy sod

 

@docspor what is it you disliked about this question? Did you dislike me asking it? Did you dislike the thought of God making himself clear to you? Did you dislike the thought that if God did make himself clear to you, you would have to respond? Did you dislike the kind of response you would give to God?

There’s no animosity in this question. You made a comment about God being vague. I would really like to know how you would respond if God made himself clear to you.

 

it’s a lame attempt at excusing god’s lack of effort. It’s sad that you resorted to this very tired tactic.

 

I didn’t know it was some kind of tactic. I just wanted to know what your reaction would be. It’s curious that you still haven’t answered the question.

 

turns out much of that fevered book of fiction (the New Testament) was written by enslaved people because the “authors” were mostly illiterate (kind of like those Fox News personalities who are constantly hawking their books). But i digress almost certainly inserted all kinds of nonsense as an act of defiance,

How Much of the Bible Was Written by Enslaved People?

Paul’s Letter to the Romans is widely regarded as the most theologically sophisticated and influential book in the New Testament. There’s no questioning its importance, and (unlike many books of the New Testament) no scholar has ever doubted that Paul himself wrote it. Yet this last point is remarkable precisely because it is so demonstrably untrue. Paul did not writethis letter—or, at the very least, he did not write it alone. Tucked into the conclusion of the letter is a simple but striking interruption: “I, Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Rom 16:22).

 

The spaghetti Monster made himself clear to me just the other night when a bit of him slid off my plate. I didn’t give it any thought other than an “oh crap”. Cleaned the mess and moved on.

He is a benevolent god though, didn’t make me bow down or surrender and the rest of him was tasty.

 

well I believe in the existence of billions of people with nothing close to unambiguous proof. So, I would believe & reject. Heck, a real asshole is worse than a fictional one.

 

Paul dictated the letter and someone wrote it down for him. That still makes him the author.

You really want to use the daily beast for a discussion of the historicity of the New Testament?