• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't exactly know what you mean about a different set. We use the commandments found in Exodus 20. I grant you there can be slightly differing interpretations from translation to translation. Some say not to kill, some say not to murder. The Pew Bible in our church is the New International Version(NIV), the 1984 version of that translation. They keep updating it. Sometimes we read out of other translations. When I was child our church used the King James Version(KJV). While I am not KJV onlyist(one who believes that only the KJV is the true word of God), I do like the KJV. Some passages will only ever sound right to me out of the KJV. Psalm 23 comes to mind.

I meant as I said, the RCC and the EO churches have a different set of ten commandments. Let me provide you with a reference from the protestant perspective:

http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/web/articleid/64839/columnid/5444/default.asp

......Many Bible-believing Christians don't realize that the Roman Catholic church's version of the Ten Commandments is different from the Biblical version used by Protestants. The difference reveals the essentially idolatrous nature of Roman Catholicism.....

The RCC has a bible which has an additional 7 books than the one you have:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/h...protestant-and-catholic-bibles-different.html

...snip...

The Protestant Bible, of which the NIV is one version, is seven books shorter than the Bible used by Roman Catholics.

...snip...

I am astonished you didn't know this.
 
Last edited:
The situation of rape is very difficult one. I admit I do not have a good answer. Kill a life developing into a human being or force a rape woman to carry a baby to term. I don't like either. So in that case I just not sure what should be done. Until I am, I will go will letting the victim of the rape decide what will happen.

But when you do that, you completely obviate your own anti-choice argument, that a fetus has a right to life that may supersede the mother's right to choose. Like it or not, your "right to life" argument is an absolute that doesn't allow of that sort of expedient adjustment without becoming the same point that the pro-choice people use- you've just admitted that choice is ok, but shifted the ground for it to what doesn't make you squeamish about denying it. Why do you think you have a right to decide for the woman in any other situation when you've abandoned the position that, to you, makes it inadmissible in all cases?
 
If it is desired to keep religion out of this thread, perhaps religion should not be attacked in this thread(unless perhaps someone brings up religion to justify their stance(s) on abortion.

It is very relevant when discussing people's claimed motivations to be against any abortion based on a religious view of the sanctity of life.
 
Well, Warbler, you said that you're not sure what should be done in a case of rape pregnancy.

A sound thinker (dunno his name), once observed that people could lead happier and less troubled lives if they

just

wouldn't

SHOULD

all over themselves.
 
I don't exactly know what you mean about a different set. We use the commandments found in Exodus 20. I grant you there can be slightly differing interpretations from translation to translation. Some say not to kill, some say not to murder. The Pew Bible in our church is the New International Version(NIV), the 1984 version of that translation. They keep updating it. Sometimes we read out of other translations. When I was child our church used the King James Version(KJV). While I am not KJV onlyist(one who believes that only the KJV is the true word of God), I do like the KJV. Some passages will only ever sound right to me out of the KJV. Psalm 23 comes to mind.

The whole thing is meant as a covenant: you guys do these things for me & I will do these other things for you. The place where the Bible actually mentions the 10 Commandments seems to be Exodus 34

34 The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain.”

4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the Lord had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. 9 “Lord,” he said, “if I have found favor in your eyes, then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.”

10 Then the Lord said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the Lord, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.[a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 “Do not make any idols.

18 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

“No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

21 “Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

22 “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the Lord your God.

25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.


However, Exodus 34 gives the impression of being a retelling of the same event as what is told in Exodus 20. As such, I can see how it could seem reasonable to suppose that what is being told in Exodus 20 is also "The 10 Commandments" but it still begs the question of why Exodus 34 makes the point of saying that it is a passage about "The Ten Commandments" and Exodus 20 does not make the same point.

It also begs the question of why, despite some overlap (keep the Sabbath, jealous God...), they are clearly different.

I can see why Exodus 20 might be preferable as it is a more clearly delineated list whereas with Exodus 34 you might ask yourself, more than once, "is that one commandment or several?" or "isn't that part of a previous one?" or "are these festival ones all one commandment or should they be counted as separate?" (and, of course, you have to make it all add up to 10). On the other hand, 34 is the passage that makes the point of being the 10 Commandments and Exodus 20 is not.

It's things like that that make me extremely skeptical of various claims about how, aside from its often claimed value as being the "inspired word of God", the Bible can also be appreciated as great literature. Some of it is of very little relevance outside its context of an oral tradition from goat herders (ie. Song of Songs). Some of it is OK reads (Gospels) & some of it is kind of fun (The Revelation of St. John the Divine). But some of it will make your eyes glaze over as well and is virtually unreadable.

If this is the "word of God", God is not very clear and God can be kind of a boring read.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing better than arguing against someone not only whose entire argument is pointing at the book that mentions unicorns 9 times, but having to over and over explain to them that they even got their own argument wrong.
 
You believe that faith is more than just faith based on what,... faith?
you are deliberately misstating what I said.

Sorry.

Here's what you wrote:
I think faith is more than just sticking a flag in the ground and declaring I believe this. But I agree it does mean believing even if contradicted by the preponderance of the evidence.
You believe that faith is more than just faith based on what?

Is that better?
 
No. The argument was always religious and the dishonest side spent the first half of it trying to pretend it wasn't, like always.

(And yes I know I won't get an answer and why if anyone is currious)

Just because this has been annoying me - the argument is not always religious. Further, repeatedly claiming that it is just hurts the position of those who claim it and erodes the perceived legitimacy of the "side" that the person is on, given human bias.

It's certainly true that public opinion and the most politically vocal anti-abortionists has been notably affected by the more recent politically motivated push to use fake religious condemnation of abortion to affect politics, but the arguments and motivations are frequently not fundamentally religious. That doesn't mean that they're actually good arguments - ingrained misogyny, emotional appeals to biologically based instincts to protect and control the behavior of the young (especially paternal feelings towards daughters), social conformity, cynical power plays, and the like generally have a veneer of legitimacy added (sometimes even a religious veneer) to make them sound more appealing, but that doesn't change that they are terrible arguments at their core.
 
Last edited:
If there's been a valid secular argument for abortion in the last *checks notes* ever I must have missed it.

The "potential human" argument IS religious.
 
If there's been a valid secular argument for abortion in the last *checks notes* ever I must have missed it.

Anti-abortion positions, you mean? Either way, I didn't even try to claim that the arguments were "valid" and pointed out that they tend to be pretty terrible at their core. The kind of terrible that anti-abortionists tend to be unwilling to actually face and accept about their reasoning.

The "potential human" argument IS religious.

Not really, though "religious" forces have made some of the popular arguments along that line and pushed focus towards it. At base, that seems to be little more than a play on evolution-based instincts for the species to survive and multiply into perpetuity.
 
Last edited:
I meant as I said, the RCC and the EO churches have a different set of ten commandments. Let me provide you with a reference from the protestant perspective:

http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/web/articleid/64839/columnid/5444/default.asp

The Protestant Commandments listed in the link do match Exodus 20 with the Catholic version coming close. I don't really wish to get into a Catholic vs Protestant debate here. Some extreme Protestants do not like the Catholic Church and some even hate it. That is not me. While I am not will not be a Catholic, I do respect the Catholic Church just like I respect all those whom believe differently than me. I believe Catholics and Protestants have more in common than different.

The RCC has a bible which has an additional 7 books than the one you have:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/h...protestant-and-catholic-bibles-different.html

I am astonished you didn't know this.

I did know the protestant Bible and the catholic Bible differ with some books found in the Catholic Bible not in the Protestant Bible. Sometimes those books are in a separate section in between the old and new testaments in the Protestant Bibles. They known in protestant bibles as the apocryphal books. There not considered to be inspired, by Protestants. The original printing of the KJV contained these books(in between the old and new testaments).
 
Can you say plainly but precisely what you do mean? What distinction are you trying to make between believing with your heart, as faith, versus believing with anything else, as not-faith?

I meant believing with your heart instead of your head. Faith isn't about adding together all the facts and evidence and science and believing the most probable. It means sometimes believing despite it not being probably.

The best way I can come up with to describe it is a part of scripture out of the Gospel of John:

Chapter 20:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


You don't have to agree me, I don't ask you to. I don't ask anyone to make and rules or regulations based on my faith. Others of my faith may do that, I do not.
 
But when you do that, you completely obviate your own anti-choice argument, that a fetus has a right to life that may supersede the mother's right to choose?

I didn't say the fetus' right to life always supersedes the mother's right to choose.


I am not okay with killing a fetus/zygote/embryo that is developing into a human being, but I am also not okay with forcing a raped woman carrying the baby term.
 
He's asking a question and the question seems to follow from what you said. Why not answer it? What is the "more" and how do you know that whatever "more" you referred to is real?

He asked the question in what I found to be a disrespectful way, due to that, I decided it wasn't worth answering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom