Capital punishment, slavery, abortion - What says Scripture?

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

jimmo wrote:

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."

In addition to Josephus, I would also recommend:

Wuest Word Studies, all 4 volumes
Unger's Bible Dictionary
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
Strong's Concordance - with Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek Dictionaries
Matthew Henry's 6 volume set of "A Commentary on the Whole Bible"
The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah by Edersheim

I would also recommend 2 Bibles for study and accuracy. I use the KJV - Scofield edition for everyday reading and study. When I want to study a more in depth passage, I first look to the New American Standard Bibile (NASB) for it's literal accuracy. See the following links for more information.

Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:20 pm

I do not lightly take the position of people in the military as you pompous comment made it sound. My father, myself, my oldest brother and now my son who is going in shortly, all have been in the military so don't try and look down your nose at me. I truly know what sacrifices that are made by people in the military, and I truly take offense to your statement. Is that how you try and push your point is by taking cheap shots at others. HOW SAD!!!

As far as my stance on abortion, if you would really read the post made before responding you would have seen that I said I believe that there may be instances where it was needed, such as incest or rapes, but that it was a SMALL percentage of the cases. I did not make light of the tragedy that these woman and kids go through.

As far as my contributions to non-religious groups that you so arrogantly stated, is considerable. Have you ever heard of MDA. Jerry's kids. Every year I spend hours helping to collect monies, to organize benefits to help gather funds for them. I have spent countless hours with Associated Charities in my city as well. I currently hold office of President of the Local Union I belong to whose International body raises MILLIONS for MDA. What do you do sir besides belittle people who are trying to help others.

I also attend Summer camps for these kids in neighboring cities. They get to go once a year to a week long camp. Have you ever been to one sir? They could use your help if you could spare the time.

I spend once a week dedicating my time to children in the area THRU my Church. Of course you probably won't want to count that since you want to eliminate listing anything that has anything to do with a church.

I monthly provide finacially support several organizations that benefit battered women and children, and single parent families, such as the Joyce Meyer Ministries, Charles Stanley Ministries, and Life International which deal with overseas children, but they also have religious ties so I am sure you won't want to count them either.

I haven't done my taxes yet for this year, but last year my donations were 11% of my earnings. It was just over $4600.00 Not bad for an annual salary of $42,000 for a family of three. So when I can't give of my time, I give as I am led to give by my Lord.

Oh, did I mention I also give of my time to the Red Cross here locally?

Geez Jimmo.....anything else you would like to slam me on?

Sorry Raven, I tried not to take offense to his obvious digs at me, but I just couldn't let it go without a point being made. I don't attack others on purpose, but I will defend myself against others slams.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:26 pm

Sorry, just should have walked away an let the comments of one roll off. My apolgies to all.

Worker Joined: Dec 08, 2005 Posts: 107

Quote:

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

I wouldn't necessarily call it "devil's advocate" even without the references to the devil. That expression implies that I am taking a position contrary to what I believe.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:47 am

FireATST wrote:

I do not lightly take the position of people in the military as you pompous comment made it sound.

Which comment? I simply asked you to tell us what military service you had and suggested that before you respond you check my previous post. The internet is littered with people who talk about sending our friends and family to die but have never even cosidered the thought about serving themselves. The question what simply to put any answer in the proper perspective. It is regretable that you interpreted it incorrectly.

How was it "pompous"? Checking m-w.com, pompous is defined as "having or exhibiting self-importance". Which of us went on and on and about the things they did and the status and titles and money they make and contribute? Which of us make comments about himself that were "exhibiting self-importance"? While I understand your emotional reaction (based on an obviously false interpretation) and your comments were intended to defend yourself (which I can accepted), it is important to be clear here about which of us and the extent to which they publicized their contributions and status.

Quote:

Is that how you try and push your point is by taking cheap shots at others. HOW SAD!!!

Cheap shots? Excused me, to which comment are you referring. Since it was simply a request for information and you were unable to hear any particular tone in my voice, I cannot see how you were able to interpret that as a cheap shot. It is completely beyond me that anyone could see that as a cheap shot! Again, it is regretable that you interpreted it incorrectly.

Quote:

As far as my stance on abortion, if you would really read the post made before responding you would have seen that I said I believe that there may be instances where it was needed, such as incest or rapes, but that it was a SMALL percentage of the cases. I did not make light of the tragedy that these woman and kids go through.

My apologies. My reaction was based on your obviously incorrect usage of the word "pretense". By saying "the pretense of a very small percentage of incests and rapes", you are implying that someone is making something up (i.e. "professed rather than real intention or purpose"). I personally would find it sad if someone where to say these women and girls made up the stories of rape.

Quote:

As far as my contributions to non-religious groups that you so arrogantly stated, is considerable.

Excuse me, but I not state anything in regard to the amount you contribute. I simply asked a question, the answer to which I didn't really want an answer (which was something I did state). What was "arrogant" about that? I did suggest that "If you are really serious about reducing the number of abortions", there are a number of things you can do. Since the issue you started was abortion (with the comment "we kill more babies in one day") it was that issue which I was addressing. Helping kids with muscular dystrophy is an honorable and praise worthy endeavor.

Quote:

What do you do sir besides belittle people who are trying to help others.

How?!? By providing suggestions how you could personally address the very issues you bring up? How is that belittling anyone?

In 2004, there were 1.2 million abortions in the US. To be safe with the numbers, let's assume, that only 10% of the US population is against abortion. That is 29 million people. If only half of them (14.5 million) spent time providing these women with the support needed so the would not feel they have to get an abortion, you still have a ratio of 10:1. Keep in mind that assumes only 10% of the population is against abortion. Since it is likely to be higher the ratio of supporters will be higher. Why is it belittling anyone to suggest one invests the time to fight for the causes they are most vocal about?

Quote:

Of course you probably won't want to count that since you want to eliminate listing anything that has anything to do with a church.

Where did you get that from???? "Of course"?? Based on what??? Is your web browser broken and you are reading posts from different threads? I clearly stated why I did not want to count the tithe. I explicitely said what I did not count and why. What did I say to lead you to believe I wanted to "eliminate listing anything that has anything to do with a church"?

Quote:

they also have religious ties so I am sure you won't want to count them either.

Again, based on what?

Quote:

Geez Jimmo.....anything else you would like to slam me on?

How can posing questions be considered slamming anyone? It was obviously an attempt on my part to gather information about your behavior in relation to the issues you brought up.

It seems to me you have some issues (either personally or specifically with me) that caused you to interpret my position as an attack. Again, it is regretable that you interpreted it incorrectly.

Judge me for what I do or say and not because of someones incorrect interpretation.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:54 am

Thanks for those tips. I have been using Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! a lot in the last couple of days. It provides a quick way of comparing texts from different versions. I am not a big fan of reading large texts online, but this is a good place to make quick comparisons. I can also look at the German version and compare the words their to various English text.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:34 am

FireATST wrote:

Sorry, just should have walked away an let the comments of one roll off. My apolgies to all.

Personally, I don't think that an apology is necessary. Although your interpretation of my comments/questions was incorrect, I think your reaction was completely justified based on your interpretation. I honestly cannot figure out how you interpreted certain comments in the way you did, but in retrospect your reaction to some of my comments is not entirely unexpected. So, even though your interpretation did not reflect my true intention, your reaction was understandable, so I don't feel apology is necessary. Still, I will try to pose questions and make comments that are not so emotionally charged.

There might have been some anger in your motivation, but the arguments you used in defending yourself were factual and you never lowered yourself to name calling (although terms like "pompous" and "arrogant" could be construed as insults, I take them in the context of the overall interpretation of my comments, so I am not going to hold them against you).

Regards and God Bless,

jimmo

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:34 am

Lol.....Jimmo, I will sleep better tonight knowing that you won't hold it against me..... killing me

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:12 am

jimmo wrote:

Quote:

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

I wouldn't necessarily call it "devil's advocate" even without the references to the devil. That expression implies that I am taking a position contrary to what I believe.

Maybe a poor choice of words. That's not what I meant to convey. I was just trying to emphasize that you were posing questions to provoke think through discussion and that you already had your answers. No offense intended.

Theme Guru Joined: Nov 01, 2003 Posts: 1006

Quote:

When you consider the crime rate by children of unwed, teenage mothers one might be tempted to see an actual social benefit of abortion.

the social benefit, well I find that idea insulting to anyone who is or has been a teenage mother. I guess having my son 19 yrs ago when i was 15 would place him in that "socially beneficial abortion" concept. I take offense to the very idea. Confused

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:34 pm

Raven wrote:

Maybe a poor choice of words. That's not what I meant to convey. I was just trying to emphasize that you were posing questions to provoke think through discussion and that you already had your answers. No offense intended.

No offense taken at all! I just wanted to be clear I that I wasn't taking an opposing side just for the sake of argument. However, you are quite astute in your statement that my comments are an attempt to get people to become more introspective. I find all too often people simply spout off something that another person has told them (politician, teacher, clergy) and pretend it is there own personal beliefs without truly understanding what it really means. It is refreshing to find examples to the contrary.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:47 pm

jaded wrote:

Quote:

When you consider the crime rate by children of unwed, teenage mothers one might be tempted to see an actual social benefit of abortion.

the social benefit, well I find that idea insulting to anyone who is or has been a teenage mother. I guess having my son 19 yrs ago when i was 15 would place him in that "socially beneficial abortion" concept. I take offense to the very idea. Confused

I apologize if you feel personally insulted by the comments. However, please keep two words in mind: "might" and "tempted". Also, you are obviously twisting around what I said and I don't think it is fair. The mere fact that you felt able to carry him to term and care for him demonstrates he does not fall into that category, so you are comparing oranges and fish.

Further, I never said that it should be required or I think is is necessary. However, if you consider that a fatherless child is 20 times(!!!) more likely to end up in prison, hopefully you will begin to accept the fact that there is a problem there. Are you saying that a 15 year old girl in Harlem, who is tossed out of the house simply because she pregnant and is not even sure who the father is is going to be able to provide the necessary support for the child? Again, I am not saying abortion should be used as a contraceptive, but I am realistic enough to consider the consequences of not providing her with at least some form of help.

Also, this idea is not new. In a study put out by professors at Stanford and the University of Chicago several years ago, they demonstated a direct relationship between the legalization of abortion in different areas of the US and the drop in crime at exactly the point where children who would have more likely been involved in crimes would have "come of age". Although the study did not endorse abortion (nor do I, per se), and we all know statistics are not proof, it does make me want to bring up those two words again "might" and "tempted".

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I will address the issue in a different way. If cutting down crime is socially beneficially and legalized abortions cut down crime, what do you see is as a logical conclusion?

While I truly believe your choice is praiseworthy, not every girl has the support system you apparently had. The support system simply does not exstist in the US as it does in other western countries. The US has the highest crime rate of any western country, the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and the highest abortion rate (not to mention substance abuse). The teenage pregnany rate is five times that of Germany and the teenage abortion rate is eight times. However, in Germany, an abortion would be paid for by the girls medical insurance.

Also, let's not forget that at 15 (for example), she is still considered a child and thus has free medical care. Her child also has free medical care when he or she is born. As an American, I don't want to make it look like I am bashing the US, but considering how rich the US and the fact that more than twice the money is spent on medical care, it is sad that more than half of the children in the US do not have medical care and the support system does not exist in the US at same scale as in Germany or other European countries.

Personally, I would prefer a society where woman and young girls do not need to have an abortion, or do not feel like they need to have an abortion. However, I am not so naive as to think that simply making abortion illegal will solve all of society's trouble (not that this is what you are saying).

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:51 am

I'd like to return to something Raven said way back when:

Raven wrote:

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 don't want to debate or even discuss the sinfulness of murder, but rather the scriptural basis for stating life begins at conception.

There are repeated references in Scripture where it talks about knowing someone still in the womb, such as Jeremiah 1:5:

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

So, God knowing someone in the womb could be interpreted as considering that life begins at conception. To me these are still issues of interpretation. Looking it at another way, God being omniscient knows not only who will be born tomorrow, but also who will be conceived tomorrow. So in the sense interrupting the life in the womb is preventing a life, isn't preventing a life by contraception or "spilling your seed" the same thing?

I have yet to find a Scripture that specially discusses conception because (in my opinion) the knowledge of what conception really is was something the writers of the Bible did not know about. That is why they kept on referring to it with terms like "planting one's seed." We know today that there is a definite difference between human conception and planting a seed. This is also the reason the Bible does not talk about fetuses, but instead baby, child, infant, and so forth. The concept did not exist at the time, regardless of the timelessness of scripture.

Thus, I cannot simply accept the fact that by using the term "baby" or "child", the Bible is defining it as a fully formed human being. There are a number of "scientific inaccuracies" in the Bible, simply because the writers did not have the understanding that we have thousands of years later. As discussed in other threads, such "inaccuracies" do not invalid the Bible. On the other hand, that they are stated in the Bible does not make them "fact".

I found several references that refer to breath and life:

Job 33:4
The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Ezekial 37:5-6
Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live.

or perhaps the most signification of all

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

It was not until God breathed into Adam that he became alive. After only three months, for example, the is no breath and biologicall there can be none. So one could be tempted to interpret that as saying life does not start until the baby can breath on its own.

I have found a number of "pro-choice" sites that (they claim) were proving scriptural evidence that abortion is not murder, but were obviously taking things out of context. I have also a number of anti-abortion sites that unfortunately often use circular logic, as well as simply postulating things and using them as "proof" for their arguments. Although replete with scriptural references, it was difficult to really reach a conclusion.

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:13 am

You force me back into the discussion. Please give me your Scriptural basis that life does not begin at conception. You are using but a few (very few) of all the references concerning the subject). Here again, you have to get into word studies to know that there are many more passages concerning the matter. So, rather then me telling you the passages, I would challenge you to study it from a Hebrew/Greek word study, using the tools I mentioned earlier and the Internet Smile

, to give me your Scriptural basis that life does not begin at conception. I am not saying that you believe this, but am answering your challenge with a popular and legitimate for of proving something - using the antithesis argument, if you will.

Proverbs 19:27 - Therefore cease to listen to the words of men that cause thee to err from the words of knowledge and to turn aside the revelations that I have brought forth

One other thing to consider. A popular argument of those who believe that a fetus cannot be alive because it cannot survive on it's own, what if you were injured in an accident and had to live on a respirator the rest of your life. You cannot exist on your own. So, are you not yet stiil a 'life'? Should that justify killing you out of conveniece because someone does not want the "burden/responsibility" of taking care of you? Just something to think about.

Both medical and science admit that an embyo is life - there is a plethora of information and proof of this, even on the Internet, with just a cursory study. The Bible, with a proper study, will also bear this out. So, the question is not when does life begin. The question is when is the taking of a life considered murder.

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:57 am

Raven wrote:

You force me back into the discussion. Please give me your Scriptural basis that life does not begin at conception. You are using but a few (very few) of all the references concerning the subject). Here again, you have to get into word studies to know that there are many more passages concerning the matter.

I wouldn't want to say that I was "forcing" you back. I would prefer to same I tempted you back. Despite my somewhat aggressive and perhaps "abrasive" debating style, I don't want to force anyone into a discussion. (Jaded - Thanks for that word, I think it is fairly fitting of me sometimes)

I think that a person who is conscious, but on a respirator (for example, Christopher Reeve) isn't really a direct comparison. However, someone in a coma on a respirator is closer. Even so, it is definitely one argument that I failed to find on any of the anti-abortion sites I found. Obviously it is one argument that is not likely to be addressed on pro-choice sites.

What I found in the last few days did not do much to clarify things. The Hebrew words used in the old testament to describe a child in his mother's womb are frequently the terms only to describe *human* offspring. The frequency in which terms were used that only mean human offspring is pretty convincing that an unborn child is to be considered human. Killing a human that manner is thus murder.

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:44 am

You are being to much of a literalist Smile

. The word "force" was just a colloquialism meant to express ... oh never mind.

In my opinion, you pick and choose what and when to apply your reasoning, in essence, fulfilling the Scripture that "Every man's way is right in his own eyes" (emphasis mine). What I mean, in this case, is that your statement "I think that a person who is conscious, but on a respirator (for example, Christopher Reeve) isn't really a direct comparison" implies that you're basing your "discussion" on consciousness or the apparent lack thereof. We do not know what level of consciousness a person in a coma has. And as far as Scriptural references go and medical proof, a child in the womb is very much conscious and viable. So I must still insist that the burden of proof is left to you. You have not given me any real proof that life does not begin at conception. Here again, I am not saying that you believe otherwise - I'm just saying that for the purpose(s) of the "discussion" the onus is still on you, or the role you are playing.

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:11 am

Raven wrote:

In my opinion, you pick and choose what and when to apply your reasoning, in essence, fulfilling the Scripture that "Every man's way is right in his own eyes" (emphasis mine).

Sorry, if I am coming across like that. That is not my intention. It is only natural for one to believe that his or her interpretation of scripture is correct. In that were not the case, we would not have so many different Christian denominations. I like to carry on conversations like this because I am questioning my own beliefs and interpretations to make sure that I believe the right things.

Raven wrote:

What I mean, in this case, is that your statement "I think that a person who is conscious, but on a respirator (for example, Christopher Reeve) isn't really a direct comparison" implies that you're basing your "discussion" on consciousness or the apparent lack thereof. We do not know what level of consciousness a person in a coma has. And as far as Scriptural references go and medical proof, a child in the womb is very much conscious and viable. So I must still insist that the burden of proof is left to you. You have not given me any real proof that life does not begin at conception. Here again, I am not saying that you believe otherwise - I'm just saying that for the purpose(s) of the "discussion" the onus is still on you, or the role you are playing.

Granted that in this discussion the burden on proof lies with me. However, I am not trying to prove it that an unborn child is not conscious. The only thing I might debate is the level of consciousness consider that the EEG doesn't coalesce into "waves" until about week 26 . If you consider 99% of abortions are performed within the first 20 weeks, at the very least the level of "consciousness" is debateable. Perhaps it might have been a better example to talk about/compare a person whose brainwave activity has stopped.

None the less, I still think it is almost a matter of faith in terms of where we place the start of human life. Personally, I see the safest place to put it at conception. Still, the laws in the US and other countries make different albeit arbitrary decisions about where to draw the line.

registered · Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:26 am

I am personally not going the debate this issue as, in my opinion, it is a highly charged one and very personal. The person who believes there is life in the womb may believe others who do not believe this to be condoning murder. I am just not up to the challenge of debating this issue as I do not have all the scriptures at hand to properly do so.

However, one of the greatest Bible scholars and teachers, in my opinion since Paul, who has studied and taught all his life (since getting out of seminary) from the original languages of scripture, has an excellent discussion of the "Origin of Human Life".

I believe that you can still get it from here: http://rbthieme.org/the8.htm At least it will cause you to think very carefully about the relevant scriptures and give you a very clear argument based on isogogical, categorical and exegetical method of analyzing these scriptures. ALL publications and other materials can be had free of charge, but you may have to order them.

Regards,
montego

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:54 pm

jimmo wrote:

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.

amen, it all lies in faith.

oh..and I want to know WHY, in the first place, should someone's LIFE be dabated, contemeplated or even discussed. Life is precious, isn't it?

Where and when life begins? Is that the debate?

Any person who has to debate this topic is almost lost.

I know we all, from time to time, get "sucked" into' the socialogical debates of it all, but it is not necessary.

Truth is clear to the believer.

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:28 pm

myrtletrees wrote:

Truth is clear to the believer.

I have a problem with that statement because "truth" and "believer" are both subject to interpretation.

Let's take Pat Robertson as prime an example. Despite the fact, I do no support a great deal of what he says, I believe he is is Christian. However, is has supports murder as a political tool. Murder is a sin. Thus, he supports sin.

Hmmmmm. Seems like a contradiction. I would love to hear from someone who says that killing someone simply because he opposes your country's leader is supported by the Bible. That would mean it is OK to kill more than half the population of the US along with probably 80% of the rest of the world.

While I have great respect for Raven, VinDSL and others both technical and as Christians, I do not always agree with them in *interpreting* what the Bible says. I won't be able to stand before God and say "Yeah, but this other guy told me it was that way, so you have to let me in." That is what free will is all about. Further, I do not believe that if I were to support abortion, that would *not* exclude me from getting into heaven.

For me the biggest "problem" is that we are all humans and it is impossible for us to fully undersand the mind of God. (Assuming he has a "mind" in the same way we humans do. I believe God's consciousness or "mind" is so much more that we cannot yet conceive of what it is.) Thus, a lot of what we "believe" is still a matter of our own personal interpretation.

Fortunately, I think the key issues in the Bible are "clear to the believer."

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:38 pm

The only sin that excludes one from Heaven is the sin of not trusting in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and accepting Him as your Savior.

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:25 am

jimmo wrote:

myrtletrees wrote:

Truth is clear to the believer.

I have a problem with that statement because "truth" and "believer" are both subject to interpretation.

maybe I should have worded it as eloquently as you??

jimmo wrote:

Fortunately, I think the key issues in the Bible are "clear to the believer."