Capital punishment, slavery, abortion - What says Scripture?

New Member Joined: Feb 09, 2006 Posts: 4

As a new kid on the block, I'm not sure what rights I have to butt in like this, but jimmo's post caught my. In reading jimmo's original posts, it seems to me that both you an vinDSL were the ones that were simply not listening to what he had to say. It seems that as soon as he started making some really valid points with valid Scripture to support his position your decide to stop him from expressing his opionion. I don't see his post as flame bait at all and I think you are completely wrong about interpreting it as such. It was pretty obvious through the discussion that you were constantly misinterpreting what he said.

Considering how often popes get involved in the capital punishment issue and that John Paul II even forgave the the man who tried to murder him, I think jimmo has a very valid point. Although I think jaded was right in calling jimmo's comment "abrassive" (I think I'll use that term myself for a couple of people), I think it was unfair of you to let others insult him and say he does not "deserve" your time, and then cut him off. That's completely unfair and you both owe him an apology. Jimmo should probably also apologize too for the "un-Christian" remark, but think it was unfair of your to say he does not deserve your time. To me, the really abbrasive people were you and vinDSL.

Not to be too "abbrasive", I think it is even more unfair after he made a donation (assuming the name in the "Donate o Meter" is the same as his name in the forums) and the fact you say "intense discussions, just respect the persons", but you and vinDSL were very disrespectful to jimmo. Seems to me its kinda like "Thanks for your money. Now shut up!"

Theme Guru Joined: Nov 01, 2003 Posts: 1006

oo good grief..you people need to get a grip already. QUIT posting this stuff all over the board. Bang Head

In my opinion, almost all of what you posted, opinion related, was VERY out of line. Implying that Raven would take somoenes money and then tell them to get lost??? Maybe you should find a new board if you do not like the people on this one Razz

I would like to add that I am personally offended by your comments about Gaylen and this site. I personally would never offer help to you or jimmo due to that. Smile

Quote:

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:51 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a new kid on the block, I'm not sure what rights I have to butt in like this, but jimmo's post caught my. In reading jimmo's original posts, it seems to me that both you an vinDSL were the ones that were simply not listening to what he had to say. It seems that as soon as he started making some really valid points with valid Scripture to support his position your decide to stop him from expressing his opionion. I don't see his post as flame bait at all and I think you are completely wrong about interpreting it as such. It was pretty obvious through the discussion that you were constantly misinterpreting what he said.

Considering how often popes get involved in the capital punishment issue and that John Paul II even forgave the the man who tried to murder him, I think jimmo has a very valid point. Although I think jaded was right in calling jimmo's comment "abrassive" (I think I'll use that term myself for a couple of people), I think it was unfair of you to let others insult him and say he does not "deserve" your time, and then cut him off. That's completely unfair and you both owe him an apology. Jimmo should probably also apologize too for the "un-Christian" remark, but think it was unfair of your to say he does not deserve your time. To me, the really abbrasive people were you and vinDSL.

Not to be too "abbrasive", I think it is even more unfair after he made a donation (assuming the name in the "Donate o Meter" is the same as his name in the forums) and the fact you say "intense discussions, just respect the persons", but you and vinDSL were very disrespectful to jimmo. Seems to me its kinda like "Thanks for your money. Now shut up!"

I added the quote just in case something should change in your original message. Stranger things have happened.

Sells PC To Pay For Divorce Joined: Posts: 5661

Yeah agree....raven should use the ban function more often...

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

It's the useless debate that doesn't deserve my time, not him per se. The pope means nothing to me. He is but a man who has been elevated to a position that is not Scriptural. Regardless, whether he or the rest of the world leaders forgive, it is not their place as this is not their country nor their laws. As I said, God ordained human government and we are to be governed by it and are to be under and obey their law. If the law calls for death for certain crimes against humanity, then if you violate those laws, you have your reward.

As to Jimmo or anyone else that donates to this site. You do that of your own volition. I sincerely appreciate all donations. I also give an immense amount of my time to try to help all those who come here. If I were to be influenced to allow what I believe is abuse of the forums based on a donation, then I would be a hypocrite and a respecter of persons. That's not how I work. I will be glad to return the donation if that is what Jimmo wants.

My intention is to not offend nor disrespect anyone. But, when someone comes on as Jimmo has done and others present very reasonable responses, for him or anyone else to misstate the facts, take Scripture out of context, etc., and after having been called down for that continues to do so, there is no point in continuing the debate. It is a waste of my time and everyone else's.

His "valid" points with "valid" scripture (your words) are made invalid because he does not compare scripture with scripture nor does he interpret it within the time and context of the scripture. You must do a proper exegesis of scripture when interpreting it. Here are some excellent references.

Definition of Exegesis wrote:

http://www.creationists.org/exegesis.html"

Here's a description of what exegesis is from pages 21-22 of Roy B. Zuck's book titled Basic Bible Interpretation.

"The exegetical process takes place in the workshop, the warehouse. It is a process in private, a perspiring task in which the Bible student examines the backgrounds, meanings, and forms of words; studies the structure and parts of sentences; seeks to ascertain the original textual reading (textual criticism) etc. ... In the privacy of his study, the exegete seeks to comprehend the exact meaning of the Bible passing being studied."

Exegesis is the process of approaching Bible interpretation with a humble spirit, and an open mind. In order to gain a true understanding of God's Word, one must be willing to allow God's Word to speak for itself, and be willing to abandon cherished beliefs if they are in conflict with God's Word.

Exegesis is not merely an intellectual exercise we do all alone. God tells us that in order to properly understand His Word, we need the help of a) the Holy Spirit and b) others who have strong theological training. We are also cautioned to be careful about who we allow to influence us.

On needing the counsel of others:

Where no counsel [is], the people fall but in the multitude of counselors [there is] safety.
Proverbs 11:14

On being careful about who you allow to teach you:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Timothy 42-4

It is vital that we approach Bible interpretation with humility. Much of God's truth and wisdom are in sharp contrast with today's political correctness and tolerance movements. When practicing true exegesis, be prepared to be viewed as foolish by an ignorant world that has placed its confidence in fallible human knowledge instead of the infallible knowledge of our all-knowing God and Creator.

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
1 Corinthians 318-21

Some standard accepted rules for interpreting Scripture:

Fundamental Rules for Interpreting Scripture wrote:

http://www.capitalmemorial.org/fundrule.htm

1. Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.

2. Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.

3. When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning. Pay special attention to the verbs as they deal with actions.

4. Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application. This is called bridge-building and is important in giving Bible studies.

5. Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.

6. The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfillment. Both complement each other.

7. For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text.

The Eight Rules of Bible Interpretation/Ron Rhodes and Richard Anthony wrote:

http://ecclesia.org/truth/8-rules.html

The scripture is God's Word. But some of the interpretations derived from it are not. There are many cults and Christian groups that claim their interpretations are correct. Too often, however, the interpretations not only differ dramatically but are clearly contradictory. This does not mean that the Bible is a confusing document. Rather, the problem lies in those who interpret and the methods they use.

Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting God's word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and make 100% interpretive accuracy impossible. This does not mean that accurate understanding of God's Word is impossible. But it does mean that we need to approach His word with care, humility, and reason. Additionally, we need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God's Word. After all, the Bible is inspired by God and is addressed to His people. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what God's word means and how to apply it.

2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Many skeptics have complained that the Bible can't tell us anything of any real value because everyone interprets it differently. The reason why there are so many different interpretations is because people don't follow any sensible method. This naturally leads to inaccurate, inconsistent, illogical and naive interpretations. With so many different interpretations available, how is anyone supposed to know which is the correct one? This article will address this question.

Improper methodology in interpreting Scripture is nothing new, even in the first century. 2 Peter 3:16 tells us that mishandling the Word of God can be very dangerous. Indeed, mishandling the Word of God is a path to destruction. Contrary to the practices of some false teachers in Corinth, the apostle Paul assured his readers that he faithfully handled the Word of God (2 Corinthians 4:2). Paul admonished young Timothy to follow his example (2 Timothy 2:15).

Since the Bible teaches that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), how can the many disagreements today between Christians and the proliferation of the cults be explained since all, or nearly all, claim to use the Bible as the basis of their doctrines? Nearly all false doctrines taught today by Christians and cultists alike can be traced to the distortion of the meaning of Biblical words. These eight rules are prayerfully offered in the hope that they may help many come to the truth of what God says in His Word.

Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning). One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. "Meaning" is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers. Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text). Only by objective methodology can we bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the biblical writers. Indeed, our method of interpreting Scripture is valid or invalid to the extent that it really unfolds the meaning a statement had for the author and the first hearers or readers.

When two interpretations are claimed for a passage, the one most in agreement with all the facts of the case should be adopted. To lessen the errors that come in our interpretations, we need to look at some basic biblical interpretive methods. I offer the following principles as guidelines for examining a passage.

1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures daily to determine if what Paul taught them was true. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type." One can also look at the "archaic" definitions in oneï¿½s dictionary to get the KJV Bible meaning of words.

2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.

3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.

Seeking the biblical author's intended meaning necessitates interpreting Bible verses in context. Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture. No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting. The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.

In interpreting Scripture, there is both an immediate context and a broader context. The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses. The broader context is the whole of Scripture. The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.

We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point. Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole. The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture.

4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation.

Historical considerations are especially important in properly interpreting the Word of God. The Christian faith is based on historical fact. Indeed, Christianity rests on the foundation of the historical Jesus whose earthly life represents God's full and objective self-communication to humankind (John 1:1 Cool

. Jesus was seen and heard by human beings as God's ultimate revelation (1 John 1:1-3). This is why He could claim "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John 14:7).

History, in two ways, plays a very large part in Bible interpretation, yet many today seem to forget it. First of all, to truly understand the Bible, you must have at least some familiarity with the Jewish language, beliefs, and practices at the time of the biblical writing. Otherwise many terms, phrases, and sayings in the Scriptures will make little to no sense to us today. Even for most of the New Testament writings, we must know and understand what was happening in the first century when they were written. What problems faced the Apostles in their time to make them say some of the things they did? The Bible, in most cases, gives us only a limited amount of insight and background into the surrounding problems at the time. When Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians, for instance, the Corinthian people to whom it was addressed knew the surrounding problems of the time, as well as the customs, laws, and practices of that era. Thus, Paul may not have dwelled on, or even mentioned them in his letters. This would leave us twentieth-century readers puzzled and guessing if we just read the letter at face value, as many attempt to do. To understand the Corinthian Epistle, we must "become," as it were, a first century Corinthian. We must understand their practices, their terminology, the social issues of the time, etc. We must also look to the original Bible text languages of the time (Greek and Hebrew) as they were understood, meant and intended at the time, to those being addressed. We cannot take our modern language understanding and try to force first-century Greek into it.

So! How does a man have the time or know how to study all of this history, language, etc. in order to properly interpret the Scriptures? It would take many hours a day, and much learning to do, wouldn't it? True, and that is why God has called and set aside certain men to the ministry of leading His flock into truth. Elders are called to spend their time in much prayer and studying to accomplish this deed, and then bring the fruit of their labor to their flock (1 Tim.3:2,6; 5:17).

5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis.

6) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33.

7) The rule of GENRE JUDGMENT: A "literal" approach to Scripture recognizes that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which has certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly.

The Old testament: The first 5 books of the Bible are called the Pentateuch, which is Hebrew for the number 5 (Genesis - Deuteronomy). The next 5 books are historical books (Joshua - 2 Samuel). The next 12 books are poetic (1 Kings - Solomon). The next 5 books are major prophets (Isaiah - Daniel). The next 12 books are minor prophets (Hosea - Malachi).

The New Testament: The first 4 books are the gospels (Matthew - John). The next one is Historic (Acts). The next 14 books are the epistles (Romans - Hebrews), which are letters addressing specific problems. The next 7 books are general epistles (James - Jude). And the last book is prophetic (Revelation).

Obviously, an incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting Scripture. A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or prophesy (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative. The wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text. In this way, he can accurately determine what the biblical author was intending to communicate to the reader.

Now, even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas. Where they use a literal means to express their ideas, the Bible expositor must employ a corresponding means to explain these ideas - namely, a literal approach. A literal method of interpreting Scripture gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage - whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. Without such a method, communication between God and man is impossible.

Cool

The rule of dependence upon the HOLY SPIRIT: Scripture tells us that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15, 1 Corinthians 2:9-11). It is the Holy Spirit's work to throw light upon the Word of God so that the believer can assent to the meaning intended and act on it. The Holy Spirit, as the "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13), guides us so that "we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Corinthians 2:12). This is quite logical: full comprehension of the Word of God is impossible without prayerful dependence on the Spirit of God, for He who inspired the Word (2 Peter 1:21) is also its supreme interpreter.

Illumination is necessary because man's mind has been darkened through sin (Rom.1:21), preventing him from properly understanding God's Word. Human beings cannot understand God's Word apart from God's divine power (Eph.4:1 Cool

. This aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry operates within the sphere of man's rational capacity, which God Himself gave man (Gen.2-3). Illumination comes to the 'minds' of God's people - not to some nonrational faculty like our 'emotions' or our 'feelings'.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit in interpretation does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic. Since the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). He does not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth. In other words, "the Holy Spirit doesn't guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency."

It must also be kept in mind that the function of the Holy Spirit is not to communicate to the minds of people any doctrine or meaning of Scripture that is not contained already in Scripture itself. The Holy Spirit makes men "wise up to what is written, not beyond it." Indeed, "the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture."

The Example of Jesus Christ

Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34, Mark 10:6), Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27), Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and the account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).

Jesus affirmed the Bible's divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43), its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-1 Cool

, its infallibility (John 10:35), its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10), its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37), its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25). Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34).

Is the Bible Alone Sufficient?

That the average man can understand Scripture without having to rely upon a church for the "authoritative teaching", is evident in the fact that Jesus taught openly and with clarity, and expected His followers to each understand His meaning. According to Jesus, those who heard Him would be able to clearly enunciate what He had openly communicated (John 18:20-21). There were no confusing or obscure meanings in His words that required an "authoritative interpretation" by a church.

2 Timothy 3:15 points to the complete sufficiency of Scripture in the life of a believer, and indicates that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to provide the necessary wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ. The Scriptures alone are the source of spiritual knowledge. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that all Scripture is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

This verse does not say that Scripture as seen through the lens of a Church is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof," and so forth. Itï¿½s Scripture that does these things, and the reason Scripture can do these things is that all Scripture is inspired by God (v. 16).

Scripture alone makes a man complete, capable, and proficient. Scripture furnishes all that one must know to be saved and to grow in grace. Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken. A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).

Correctly Handling the Word of Truth

Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.

A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth wrote:

http://www.christianbaptistliving.com/interpreting-scripture.html

Interpreting scripture doesn't have to be hard. If you are a real believer then you have God's Holy Spirit living inside you to teach you and to guide you, but be careful...
Google

Web www.ChristianBaptistLiving.com

...there are also evil, demonic spirits that would love to feed you subtle lies in place of the truth in order to lead you and others astray.

Here are sixteen rules to help you "rightly divide the Word of Truth"...

1. Before you begin reading your Bible, pray that the Holy Spirit would teach you.This is imperative, no Holy Spirit, no understanding.

2. Recognize what the Bible is. It is the written record of God revealing Himself in history. It teaches us who He is, what He is like, who we are, what we are like and what He expects of us. It is written by God Himself through man. It is inerrant, infallible and perfect.

3. Recognize you bring presuppositions to the table. It is unlikely you are going to lose your pre-understandings, just recognize you have them and resist the desire to impose them on Scripture. (Pre-suppositions include: democracy, feminism, individualism, tolerance, entitlement, ethnicity, gender, economic status, education.)

4. Identify what type of genre (literature) you are reading: Historical Narrative (historical events from Godï¿½s perspective), Poetry and Songs (expressions of emotion to God), Legal Writings (teach Godï¿½s high moral standard and His view of justice, principles for government, safety, health and society), Wisdom Sayings(Godï¿½s view of wisdom, not manï¿½s), Prophecy (Godï¿½s message to a particular group or all humanity), Teachings of Jesus (truth from Jesus concerning the nature and character of God, heaven, what God expects of us and how Jesus fulfills OT prophecies), Parables (stories with a punch lineï¿½please note, there is only ONE major message per parable and parables are not perfect analogies for other doctrinal issues), Letters (written with a clear purpose to a well defined audience, intended to teach, rebuke, correct, praise or encourage), Apocalyptic( future end-times, Revelation and parts of Ezekiel and Daniel).

5. Understand Historical Context. When, why and to whom was this book written.Keep in mind the middle-eastern context and do not make 20th century assumptions.

6. Understand Literary Context. What verse comes before, after? What is the immediate context? What is the book about? What event led up to this passage?

7. It is all literal. There are no allegories. Jesus quoted Scripture as if it was historical and factual, not allegoricalï¿½so should we.

8. Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Compare your interpretations with other clear teaching. God does not contradict Himself.

9. Grammar, Words and Syntax. Use Bible dictionaries and commentaries to help you understand the meanings of words, sentence structure, verb tenses and syntax( how the sentence is constructed). Now don't you wish you had paid attention in grammar class?

10. Interpret unclear verses in light of clear verses.

11. Literal interpretation directs symbolism, parables and poetry. Do not create doctrine from symbolic or parabolic passages that contradict clear teachings. Yes, we can learn theology from these types of passages, but not if they are not supported by other clear verses.

12. Understand ï¿½progressive revelation.ï¿½ Godï¿½s message has been revealed in stages.Remember that many messages were given to a certain people at a certain time for a certain reason. Be careful to not respond to the wrong message. For instance,God told David to go slay a neighboring country. We would not take that verse and attack Canada. As a GENERAL rule, there are some general truths expressed in the OT, but if doctrinal teachings are not re-iterated in the NT, be careful not toformulate theology based on an OT writing.

13. Meanings. We should understand a word by the way it is used in a sentence, a sentence by the way it is used in a paragraph, a paragraph by the way it is used Tina chapter, a chapter by the way it is used in a book. Hold on, thereï¿½s more.Understand a book by comparing it with the same author, books by comparing them with other books in the same Testament, and a Testament with the otherTestament. That is how you interpret Scripture with Scripture.

14. Authorï¿½s intent. What is the authorï¿½s meaning? Do not read into it but read out of it. Don't ask, ï¿½What does this verse say to me?ï¿½. Instead ask, ï¿½What does this verse say and how does it APPLY to me?ï¿½

15. Distinguish cultural customs from trans-cultural principles. A. Is the teaching culture bound (eating meat offered to idols) or of a permanent nature? B. Is there a trans-cultural principle easily observed? (Greet with a kiss vs. handshake) C. Is the custom reported or taught in Scripture (parents arranging marriages).

16. Treat the Gospels as a bridge between the Testaments. Some practices and teachings are transitional.

* These 16 rules for interpreting scripture were used by permission from www.ttwministries.com.

*You can also read another solidly Biblical perspective on how to approach reading scripture and interpreting scripture at this site built by a Christian friend in the Biblical city of Thessalonica.

These principles go back as far as when the original texts were written and first started being interpreted by Theologians. There has to be a baseline, constant standard for comparing scripture with scripture. Otherwise it will always be twisted and perverted to man's own use.

registered · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:39 pm

galat514 wrote:

In reading jimmo's original posts, it seems to me that both you an vinDSL were the ones that were simply not listening to what he had to say... I think it was unfair of you to let others insult him and say he does not "deserve" your time, and then cut him off... To me, the really abbrasive people were you and vinDSL... you and vinDSL were very disrespectful to jimmo.

I read everything jimmo had to say. And, I've heard it all before. It's what I call 'Love Theology' -- cutting n' pasting from the Bible, anything that has to do with love and forgiveness, and ignoring the rest...

The topic was 'pulling the switch', and whether or not Jesus would do it. Jesus was not a prophet with *new* insights for living -- He was God in the flesh -- the same God that gave us the 'Ten Commandments', and who said:

Quote:

Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Gen 9:6)

Jesus invented the 'death penalty', and He approves of it today. To argue that He would NOT 'pull the switch' is silly!

In effect, jimmo is claiming to be nicer than God, and saying we should listen to him instead of the Bible -- and that's what offends me!

I cannot speak for Raven, but I think he simply had enough of this pacifist malarkey and locked the thread because it was going nowhere -- not out of spite... Wink

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:58 pm

VinDSL wrote:

I cannot speak for Raven, but I think he simply had enough of this pacifist malarkey and locked the thread because it was going nowhere -- not out of spite... Wink

Yes, it was going nowhere and I could see that Jimmo would not ever reach an "agree to disagree" point. There was no spite, at all.

Worker Joined: Dec 08, 2005 Posts: 107

jaded, hitwalker hang on a second guys!!! Raven, closed the thread. I complained. He said no more threads and I complied. It *is* his site, I respect that, but I still found it unfair.

Perhaps my sarcasm (i.e. abrassive comment) hit a nerve with some people, but I was not the one who said that Raven was just taking my money and not letting me express my opinion. If simply saying I though it was unfair is enough for you to announce to the world, you are not going to help me ever, that is your choice. But do it because of something **I** did and not because of something someone else did.

VinDSL, you might be correct, in part, with your comment about 'Love Theology' in that I emphasize the love and forgiveness, but it is not my intent to "ignore the rest", despite appearance in the original thread. I will make a serious effort in the future not to come across like that. However, your comment about "pacifist malarkey" is way off. My comments were directed only to capital punishment. I served 8 1/2 as a US Army interrogator. I volunteered in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis (remember that?). I continued to serve through all of President Reagan's two terms. The majority of my time was spent in liaison offices within 10 KM of the Czech and East German borders. We were so close to the border that in case of attack, our duty was to spend the time destroying the classified material as we probably would not have time to evacuate. In other words, it was assumed from the start we would be taken prisoner. Some of the unclassified details can be found Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!.

I am not a pacifist. In fact, I am quite capable of killing. I just don't believe in captial punishment.

Most importantly, Raven, I never said I want my donation back. Quite the contrary. The donation is for the great work on RavenNuke not for providing this one forum. I would be dishonest to myself if I were to even think about asking for it back simply because we have a difference of opinion on another, unrelated topic. Your efforts have saved me countless hours of work on my own and you deserve to be rewarded.

It is regrettable that you perceive me as someone who 'would not ever reach an "agree to disagree" point'. I won't argue your rationale in coming to that conclusion. However, I feel it is unwarranted as my intention was not "flame bait", but an "intense discussions". I would welcome the for an "intense discussion" on why you feel my comments were taken out of context, assuming, of course, I have not completely screwed things up.

Best Regards,

jimmo

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:48 pm

I never accused YOU of saying you wanted your donation back. I was replying to galat14 as I have/had no way of knowing if that was you, your wife, your son, etc. These kinds of things happen all the time on boards. That's why I carefully worded my response. You also are magnifying my statement on "agree to disagree". I have not judged you as that kind of a person. That statement refers strictly to that thread and that thread only.

I have no problem with you holding a position contrary to mine, seriously. But, I do have a problem with anyone that misuses Scripture, whether intentionally or not intentionally. In your case I really believe that it is not intentional. That's why I was trying to get you to see that you are interpreting single line statements out of their original context. Those links I posted above should help anyone who seriously wants to discern what the Bible really has to say. It's not about a denomination or a religion. It's about the tools to equip one to properly and accurately interpret Scripture in light of Scripture.

I will also add that I felt, right from your first reply, that you were primed and on the defensive. Just read your replies. You expound on everything and categorize me into groups who are wrong. Well, guess what? That put me on the defensive (just as wrong, I'll admit).

I think one of the other things that messed this up right from the beginning is that if you wanted to have an intense discussion on Capital Punishment, then you should have either left it out of the Religion forum or prefaced it in another manner. No man can know the mind of God, says Isaiah, and that is true. I think to pose the question and ask others to respond as to why and why not they believe as they do would have evoked an entirely different response. Even asking if Jesus would pull the switch is perfectly ok, but just listen to what and why others believe as they do and not point-counterpoint every reply.

Whew! I, for one, am most worn out with this? How about you? Can we put it to rest, for now, at least in the vein that it has gone and possible approach it another time in another venue? I ask you to forgive me for any misjudgments that may have come across. If there are specific things that I need to apologize for, I will, because my intent is not to offend, but to defend Wink

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:48 pm

I am glad to see that even though it took 3 different posts to get there, eventually the "love" provided by Jesus himself has come through. To have open "discussions" is a great idea. To try and show where one or the other maybe stepping down the wrong path is even ok to a point, but this went very wrong, very quickly, as we "humans" do, since we are humans.... Smile

Glad to see, in the end, that cooler, calmer heads prevailed. Congratulations to all!!!

Just a question I have on the putting of people into "hell" comment instead of executing them. Does that mean it would be ok to say take all the hardline criminals, and by that I mean murderers, rapists, etc,etc. and throw them into an area and leave them to fend for themselves with out any help what so ever by outsiders? We don't supply anything to them period. Be cause, I believe, that when Jesus wipes sin away in the end, they are wiped away and not supplied with anything, since the ones that choose to do these things, did so of free will. They are sent to a place really unimaginable, because it will not have God there at all. This world may have it's bad areas, but no where is it without God right now. Hell will be. So after much ranting on, back to my original question, would it be ok to put all the hard core criminals in one area and let them to their own pain and suffering. I believe there was a movie similiar to this called "Escape from New York" Provide absolutely nothing to them what so ever. I, for one, think that there is a time and place for executions, and that yes, Jesus who will ride in on a horse and armed as a "WARRIOR" will also do one day, because others hearts will be so harden that they curse God himself, which will cause this to happen. Just put out for some hopefully civil discussions. This is in no way meant to rehash the problems in the other posts. Just interested in some others thoughts on this.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:00 am

I have frequently thought of the "Escape From New York" idea. Personally, I feel that if you read the entire Bibles with all of the context you will find that love and forgiveness not only appear far more often than that whacking their heads off.

I don't want to say that we should coddle criminals. They deserve to be punished accordingly to the laws of whatever country they are in (as VinDSL pointed out). However, there are countries where the law allows a man to abuse his wife, the Sharia laws in some countries, and so forth, which we in the US would consider not old archaic, but outright wrong. In the US less than 60 years ago, you could discriminate on the bases of color. Also, 160 years ago in the US, there was slavery, something which was recognized, controlled, and regulated by various passages in the bible. Does that make it right?

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:58 am

Misapplication of Scripture, whether intentional or not, is unfortunate. However, we have the same thing with our man made laws. It comes down to the Spirit of the law and the Letter of the law. God said "Thou shalt not kill" and yet He gives explicit instruction for when killing is not only allowed but demanded. There are goals that He has set to be achieved, but He also provided rules/law, if you will, for those that don't follow the clear passages/interpretations of His Word. "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is often used to justify beating your child into "submission". If that was the only passage in Scripture which spoke to how to discipline a child, then you would be very confused as to how to interpret it. In my mind and anyone who has an ounce of brain, it still wouldn't justify beating, but that's just an editorial comment. Comparing ALL the passages on child rearing and family relations will reveal that the passage is refrring to instruction that there must be "hard" love when disciplining a child. In most cases, comparing Scripture with Scripture, a basic rule for Homiletics, and always interpreting Scripture in the light of its context and Biblical setting, the true meaning is clear. In the passages that seem isolated or contradictory, you must look at them in the Spirit of the rest of the small glimpse into the mind and heart of God that He has revealed. The New testament does not contradict the Old Testament. Jesus is very clear about that. But by His atoning work on the Cross, He has brought in a New Covenant, ie, fulfilled the Law. Sometimes a rose is just a rose Smile

As to trying to directly answer your question "Does that make it right?", we have to look, as stated above, at the context. Slavery, in the Old Testament, was a direct punishment to the Nation of Israel for their disobedience to God's instructions. That was the context. Nowhere does God command or even imply that slavery is meant for anyone else. So for anyone to try to use the Bible to justify slavery is misinterpretation of Scripture, when compared in the light of the context and the rest of Scripture.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:29 am

Just so we are clear, in which context are you taking Ephesians 6? Or 1 Timothy 6:1:
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.

Leviticus 25:44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Seems pretty clear to me that God is talking **to** the Israelites not about them. It also seems pretty clear to me that God is defining the rules by which the Israelites are allow to buy slaves. Reading the whole chapter, I am having an extremely hard time seeing anything other than God saying slavery OK. Why else would he provide guidelines?

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:19 am

You are correct - I apologize. However, God was still dealing with His chosen people, Israel, and not the population in general (OT). In the NT, God was not recommending slavery. He was addressing Christians as how to respond IF they were slaves. Taken in the context of other Scripture, it's a continuing theme of being obedient to those in authority over you. It's admonition to Christians to have a good testimony. In addition, He was addressing it because it was the "Law of the Land", in those days. He never mandates it nor condones it, in the NT, but tells those who may be in slavery to others how to handle it. It's an obedience issue.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:52 am

Hey, no apologies necessary. Your comment about "Law of the Land", "being obedient to those in authority over you" is a key aspect for me. It's is very common throughout the Bible that we are subject to the laws of the country we are in, and if that country has slavery, the death penalty, subjugation of women, we are obligated to follow the laws. However, I don't believe that God ever condoned it, per se, but it was simply part of the culture at the time. Much the same as the food/health laws you mentioned in another thread. I personally feel that they are not part of *Gods* law, and thus no longer applicable in the 21st century.

I think that civilization has grown to the point where capital punishment is no longer necessary. Although there many crimes where I think that the perpetrator deserves it if anyone does. I would probably want to pull the switch myself if it were one of my kids that was abused and then murdered. However, from a biblical standpoint I don't see anything other support for it than "Law of the Land". If you look at western countries with the death penalty versus murder rate, the murder rate is actually higher in countries with the death penalty. Also if you look at the state of Texas wanted to convict Andrea Yates of capital murder, you really have to consider the state officials are as crazy as she is.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:12 am

This is very good, and I don't want to sidetrack the open conversation in any way. Yes there is more love than whacking their heads off, but the whacking part is still there. There are opinions on both sides that are very good, and is one of those issues that everyone can have an opinion and be right.... Smile

After some forethought on this I had this thought brought to me.....Yes there have been executions and yes they continue to go on. Whether you agree with them or not. Just to put it into perspective at least from my view, we kill more babies in one day then executions in a year. Maybe we are focusing on the wrong area?

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:52 am

In regards to the babies are you referring to abortion, war, poverty, disease or all of the above?

Personally, I would prefer a society in which teenage girls do not need to get an abortion. When you consider the crime rate by children of unwed, teenage mothers one might be tempted to see an actual social benefit of abortion. I personally don't think that abortion should be legal as a means of contraception. However, I must question a society that forces a thirteen-year-old to re-live the horrors of rape or sexual assault by her father not only for the nine months of her pregnancy, but every day for many years to come.

I find it somewhat ironic that in countries like the US where the rich are so adamantly against abortion, they are not willing to support the social structures that eliminate the desire or even need for an abortion.

I cannot imagine life without my two sons and a very dear friend of mine had a child out of wedlock, and the world would be a less happy place without her daughter. Still, I will continue to question a society that forces certain morality without doing anything to help people to make the choice fitting of that morality.

On the other hand, one might be tempted to say that unborn children are free of sin. I cannot believe in a god (intentionally lowercase) that would send them to Hell. So if life does, in fact, begin at conception, the souls of aborted fetuses must go to Heaven.

Worker Joined: May 07, 2005 Posts: 129

Can't we all just love one another and agree that we all have differences of opinion. Lets face it that's all it is, is a difference of OPINION.

RavensScripts

Personally I would be completely lost without Raven's site and help from Hitwalker worship

Love Ya Guys!

Ging...

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:18 pm

I was talking about the 1000's of abortions performed per day. 99% of the abortions performed are for reasons to make life easier for the individual, not the baby. Yes it would be terrible I agree to put a 13 year old thru something like that, but too many times this reason is pushed for rights of abortions. There could be reasons to allow it to happen I think, but what percentage of abortions do you think are performed for this reason? There is millions of dollars spent trying to educate and help teenagers make the right decisions, to say we don't is not correct. I find it very sad that we continue to murder innocent children every day behind the pretense of a very small percentage of incests and rapes that fall in this category. I have heard the other main arguement also that this would force women to go to the back alley docs to have them performed. Then that puts the fault on the mother and not society itself, because we don't condone it. It would be illegal. Yes I am not stupid, I know some would continue to happen, but at least we wouldn't be standing there opening the door welcoming them into the clinic to murder the child they carry. Our tax dollars wouldn't be going to the organizations that help perform these ungodly acts, and to the doctors who don't have a problem killing these children. People everyday are calling for the removal of troops from the mideast because our sons and daughters are being killed in war, but at the same time, have no problem taking their own wife or daughter into the clinic to kill the unborn child. To me, the loss of life in war is unfortunate, and regretful, but does serve a purpose. The slaughter of an innocent unborn child, what purpose does that serve? To lower crime rates as you suggest? That seems to be a conflict of your original statement, of why we shouldn't have corporal punishment on criminals, or is it wrong to execute murderers and the like, but ok to execute innocent unborn children to keep the crime rate down? I can't believe you would even compare the State officials of Texas to Andrea Yates. She was found guilty by her peers and the State of Texas is the one to carry out the judgement on her. She was judge and jury over the punishment of those children she murdered. How can you even think to compare the two as the same. Sometimes I think you just are looking for an arguement, not intense conversations.

Is it easier to kill a thing you call "fetuses" over calling them children, or human beings which they are from the day of conception?

pdoobepd: I don't in any way want this to be misconstrued that I don't like Jimmo or anyone else. You are right, we all have opinions and this is mine.... Smile

I am in no way angry at Jimmo for what he says, he is entitled to his misguided opinion as I am..... Smile

I hope one day that the love of Christ (purposely capitalized) changes the world and its ways. I know there will be a day that this does happen, and when it does, then we will know for sure what is correct, because we will be shown by God himself. (purposely capitalized)

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:28 pm

Um... Let me clairify...I was not stating my opinion on the matter above...I was only saying we all have our own opinions and slamming one person or another for their beliefs is "WRONG"

This is the main reason I refrain from stating my opinions on such matters in public...

I was merely stating that we all have a right to our own opinions and Declairing someone is "right or wrong" for their Opinion on a topic...is best left alone or not commented on AT ALL.

Peace

Ging...

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:26 pm

Jimmo is raising some very valid questions and appears to be honestly seeking a Scriptural basis for his conclusions, which I gratefully respect. It is not easy to put all the Scriptures in complete harmony and I certainly don't claim to have achieved this and I don't know of any mortal who has. Isaiah rightfully stated that it is impossible to know the mind of God. He has given us but a glimpse of His being and will. He expects us to take what little He has given us and to Rightly divide The Word of Truth. We can only do that by comparing all Scripture that pertains to a given situation/subject/issue and seeing what is clear and what is not. When there is not a direct clear-cut instruction, then we look for Scriptural references, precedence, parables, similar situations, etc. The one thing that must always be foundational though, is that we must not solely base our opinions on feelings or a preconceived notion of who God is or what He must be like. The only things we know about God is what He has revealed to us through men who were moved by The Holy Spirit to write for us. Yes, men translated the original languages and there have been translation errors. But, praise God that sound, fundamental, godly men over all these years have continued to search out and compare the oldest known manuscripts and have compared copies with copies and have detailed word studies to put together the best translations we can have. There are many bad translations out there that do a terrible disservice to mankind. Am I a KJV only fundamentalist? Do I believe it to be inerrant? No on both points, although I am a Fundamentalist and I believe that the original Scriptures as first recorded are inerrant. However, I believe the KJV is an excellent translation and the men who translated it did so with every intention of accuracy. There are other good translations but most modern translations are bunk. They try to modernize a non-changing God and try to make man look good in his own eyes. In my own studies over many years, I have not found one single "contradiction" in the Bible that was not explainable. When I don't understand an isolated passage of Scripture, then I don't understand it. It does not invalidate the rest of what is plain and clear. I take it to mean just another example of where God asks me to trust Him through Faith.

The issue of capital punishment, abortion, slavery, etc., are moral issues, for sure. So, when I examine these in light of Scripture, I try to gather up all the passages that pertain to a given subject. I then read the passages to see if they are all in harmony or if there "seems" to be a disconnect. I then study the "disconnects" in depth through the collective writings of historians to try to understand what was going on at the time. I will use a lexicon, Bible dictionary, Josephus, Wuest Word Studies, whatever valuable and trusted resources at my disposal to see what men much more learned than I have studied and have to say on the matter. The final decision is still mine, but I can't just trust me if I only use the single translation that I can't reconcile. If I do, then I make a god in my image.

I believe that capital punishment is Scripturally based because just as He said "Though shalt not kill", He also said "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.". Then there is much more that substantiates the taking of a life as a reward for disobedience.

Slavery, I believe as I have already stated, was a custom of the day, and God looked upon it as an opportunity to give instruction in both Testaments as to how to handle it. I believe because of that, He leaves it up to the Nations to allow or not allow it. Personally, I abhor it and am glad that our Nation did away with it.

Abortion is out and out murder and I truly believe that the abortion doctors will suffer a much greater degree of punishment in Hell for all the murders of the innocent and unborn. I will also add that if they truly accept Christ as their Savior before they die, they will not be cast into Hell, but just as I was saved through Christ's atoning work on the cross, so will they, and we will see each other in Heaven.

Ging, in a fair discussion group, things often times get passionate. I believe we should be passionate in our beliefs. I also believe that the passion must be based on facts. Some facts will draw us to the same conclusions, some will not. In matters of Scripture, that is referred to as "conviction". But, God cannot and will not convict you one way and me another. If we cannot agree on a Biblical interpretation of Scripture and if it is not a clear picture of God's will based on all the things mentioned above, then I say we agree to disagree. I would not refrain from stating opinions just because someone may not agree with me.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:44 pm

Here Here Raven...Most of what you said I do agree with LOL (Uhoh my Opinion Slipped)

Don't get me wrong I don't avoid giving my opinion because someone may not agree with me, I am just a firm believer in "To Thyne Own Self Be True" I don't agree with people judging others for thier opinions so that is why I try to refrain from it LOL

What is True for one person may not be true for another. That is why God gave us Free Will, at least it is in my opinion...LOL

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:46 pm

pdoobepd, you are right. It is a difference of opinion. However, my respect for Raven and the others has not diminished because of the difference. I find discussions of this type very useful.

FireATST, I am completely against abortion to "make life easier for the individual." I think that kind of thing is completely irresponsible for both the person and the law makers.

With powerful conservative lobbies successfully campaigning to prohibit sex education in schools (locally and at the federal level), I would be interested in where you get the numbers. Just how much is being spent and where?

I personally find it insensitive to say "the pretense of a very small percentage of incests and rapes". (emphasis mine) It is a fact that it happens. My hope is that you are using that word incorrectly and are not assuming that these young girls are making it up.

Although I have read the number being at less that one percent, I am curious how you would explain the fact to **your** daughter that she has to carry the child of a rape to term. Since the chances of her being able to successfully put the child up for adoption is extremely low since the paternity of the child is uncertain, she would more than likely have to care for the child until it is at least 18. You are okay with this? You are willing to put your daughter through this? I am asking just to be sure.

Yes, I find it ironic, even sad, that the people who talk about the evils of killing in war are the first ones to support abortion rights, but I find it equally sad that the same people who oppose all forms of abortion are the same ones who are willing to sacrafice other people's children for the benefit of their own stock portfolio. If I remember correctly, there is only one member of congress who has a child in the military and he or she certainly is not in Iraq. (Before your respond to this part, please tell us all which branch of the military you served in and for how long. See my post above.)

"I'll kill anyone who does not believe in the sanctity of life" is is pretty lame attitude, regardless of whether your are liberal or conservative.

The point of using Andrea Yates was to demonstrate the lack of compassion and even common sense on the part of the State of Texas (or maybe just Harris County). Any sane person would consider what Andrea Yates did as an act of an insane person. Hearing voices telling you to drown your kids is not something sane people do. Thus, she is insane. To think otherwise is insane. It is not an act of justice to execute an insane person. I feel pity for her and feel nothing is gained by executing her other than some people's bloodlust. Also, when you look at the assembly-line way the death penalty is handed out in Harris County and the evidence that they have forced people to provide testimony just to get a conviction regardless of the person's innocence, you cannot help but see they are not truly interested in justice. Ask yourself how many wrongly executed people is too many. If you say 1 is too many, then we need to abolish the death penalty or at the very least change it dramatically, such as using the conditions applied under Rabbinical law.

But, I digress...

Let us return to the Bible. If killing an innocence person, which allowed by the state during a war or as a punishment, is permissible when considered within the context of "law of the land" or "being obedient to those in authority over you", why doesn't it apply to abortion? I am not saying it is okay. However, you seem to be as contradictory as the liberal "Pro-Choicers". Maybe I am misreading your point.

One of the biggest problems in either of these "state sanctioned killing" issues is that neither side is willing to consider their position is anything other than 100% right. If you insist that abortion is wrong in every case, then I am tempted to say you are insensitive and lacking compassion. In 2004, there were over 1.2 million abortions in the US. If only 1% were due to rape or incest, we are talking about 12,000 women who have to suffer.

Let's also consider that 1.2 million is about about 0.8% of the women assuming (incorrectly) 1:1 men:women and a US population of 290 million. In Germany in 2004, there were 126,000 abortions with a population of 80 million, that works out to 0.3%, or less than half. Abortions are legal throughout Germany and even paid for by the woman's medical insurance in many cases. You have to get approval to have an abortion and it is not something that is done lightly. Consider also the fact that essentially every single child in Germany has medical insurance and less than half of the children in the US are covered. I personally think people's energies should be directed somewhere other than an absolute prohibition of abortion.

Just out of curiosity, how much money did you contribute or help collect for non-religious, charitable causes last year? How much time did you put into those causes? I phrased it like that because I don't want to count your church tithe as so much goes to administrative costs and not to people who really need it. Actually, I am not really interested in the answer. Rather I would like you to think about where you put your energy. We all have limited amounts. Although I think abortion as contraception is wrong, it probably won't change much no matter how much time I devote to it. Plus, the benefits are purely a matter of interpretation. On the other hand, the efforts I do put into other areas in which I am involved have direct benefits to other people. So, I can truthfully say that I am more than just a lot of words. If you are really serious about reducing the number of abortions, how about volunteering at a woman's shelter or becoming a big brother/big sister? Helping people at that level is very rewarding, plus you get to see the benefits directly.

I am curious as to your repeated use of "purposely capitalized". When referring to Christ one typically uses capital letters as it a proper noun. Also when referring to God (as in Allah or Jehovah), one is referring to the one true God, so it is traditional, if not orthographically correct, to capitalize it. When one talks about a god in a general sense and not the God, it is orthographically proper to use lower case. Since we were talking about God, my reference to the fact I was using lower case was to emphasize the use in a general sense and not the God.

PS. Raven, can you change the subject of this thread? It bothers me.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:04 pm

Quote:

The final decision is still mine, but I can't just trust me if I only use the single translation that I can't reconcile. If I do, then I make a god in my image.

To me that is one of the central motivations behind all of my arguments. If we take just the issue of slavery and look at some translations, they use the word servant, maid or some other "harmless" term. I speak neither Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, so I cannot read the texts in the original. However, in cases like these I use many tools (some of which were recently provided by Raven, thank you!).

However, even if I were able to read the texts in the original language, there would always be issues of interpretation. If there were not, then there would be just a single Christian church and not hundreds. I firmly believe that God is not going to send us to hell because we misinterpreted a few things. As Raven said, "It does not invalidate the rest of what is plain and clear."

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:09 pm

Jimmo wrote:

PS. Raven, can you change the subject of this thread? It bothers me.

Gladly!

And to everyone else, this next comment is MY personal comment and I have not discussed this with Jimmo, but I really do believe it. This does not mean I am taking anyone's side Wink

Jimmo is playing devil's advocate on some of these issues/responses to provoke (intentionally) not only a hopefully rational discussion but to cause one to be introspective and to determine if they know why they believe what they believe. In other cases he is seeking resolution to some outstanding questions that he has. It took me a while to see where he was coming from, in that other original post, but this is all good discussion material and merits responsible, articulate, supportive, and courteous responses, from everyone who participates. Even try assuming a "debating" position, meaning, you might present your "arguments" as if speaking before a group of people as to "Why I believe (or don't believe) that .... is Scriptural". I'm not saying to not directly respond. I'm just trying to keep the discussion on track without getting personal with comments, if you find your passion getting out of hand Smile

.

And, for the record, I will pretty much bow out of this one as I have said al that I think I can say on this and have made my position clear as to why I believe what I believe. I will continue to monitor it though. Happy discussion!

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:29 pm

pdoobepd wrote:

That is why God gave us Free Will, at least it is in my opinion...LOL

Don't even get me started on "Free" will. Thanks to Eve exercising her "Free" will, everybody got tossed out of the garden! killing me