Is abortion always a sin?

[Radrook]

Perhaps he's referring to Lot and his two daughters here?

Any incident recorded in the Bible = God's approval of conduct.
Lot and daughters incident was recorded.
Lot and daughter's incident =approval of conduct.

Valid but untrue untrue conclusion.

Your premise is wrong since whatever is recorded in the Bible does not mean that God approves of it. Otherwise it would mean that he approves of everything Satan does since that too is recorded.

 

[Radrook]

This is a religion and philosophy forum, and Ethics is one of the primary branches of philosophy. Your assertion is incorrect.

Do you want to discuss this from a "purely ethical viewpoint" at this time, or continue the religion angle?

If the religion discussion is to continue- as "sin" is normally defined as an offense against god- then NO, abortion is not "sinfull" at all because there is no god to offend.

What assertion is incorrect?
The one I made and I admitted was incorrect?
Or another one?

About discussion, I leave that entirely up to you.
However, you should be informed that I do not believe in interminable debates where no end is in sight. So when the discussion reaches a certain saturation point that becomes repetitive and is tantamount to wheel-spinning I will discontinue. Meaning no disrespect to the board or the other persons. But simply because I believe hat it would be time-wastage and time is both limited and finite for us mortals.

 

[Doctor X]

Otherwise it would mean that he approves of everything Satan does since that too is recorded.

Actually, perhaps he does.

Satan as a character really only appears once in Chronicles. This re-write of the Deuteronomistic History [DH--Ed.] "fixes" a problematic incident. YHWH orders David to perform a census, then punishes David for performing this census.

What?

The Chronicler has Satan do the ordering. Now, one can argue that YHWH has to know what Satan is doing--if he does not he is not much of a deity. However, YHWH clearly is limited in the DH and in other texts of the OT, so perhaps in Chronicles one should not blame YHWH.

With Job, it is the "prosecutor/adversary" who is independent but an agent of Big Daddy--he visits the other gods in the beginning and works with the permission of Big Daddy.

The serpent is not Satan--though one could argue he is a "satan"--$tn--that causes Adam and Eve to "stumble." I rather enjoy how the Gnostics--seeing how the serpent was trying to help A & E against the evil machinations of the demiurge--conclude he was Junior!

And . . . no . . . "Lucifer" is not Satan either. He is not even "a satan;" he is a bizarre translation!

In the NT, the position of Satan is different depending on the text. With the Synoptics he is at best a temptor--but does work for Big Daddy? The "fallen angels" myth is extra-biblical. However, in the wilderness there is a suggestion that Satan wants Junior to obey him--which would suggest Satan is independent of Big Daddy.

In Jn however Satan rather keeps things going--by entering Judas. This may be a complicated device to get Judas to betray Junior--how can anyone betray Junior?--however, in Jn, everything happens according to Junior's plan. He is in total control of his persecution and execution. In Jn, then, Satan works for Junior but is probably another pawn rather than direct agent.

--J.D.

 

[Radrook]

Or Cain and his sisters.

In the beginning of human history brother sister marriages were allowed because there is nothing sinful about marriage itself. It is simply the union between two people who promise to love and cherish one another. Furthermore, mate availability was limited to family since there were no other non-family humans around. Additionally, the genetic defect stigma which such marriages were to become associated with did not exist because mankind was closer to perfection. So in short:

1. Nothing sinful about marriage.
2. It was necessary due to lack of mate availability.
3. Human perfection meant no genetic problems


Marriage is simply the union of two people who promise to love one another. Furthermore, mankind was closer to perfection then as evidenced by the long life-spans that recorded. So genetic problems due to brother sister marriages would not be an issue. Even in Abraham's time this still applied.

By the time that the Law was instituted such was not the case.
Mankind had drifted much further from physical perfection and the result from such marriages was becoming more and more evident. So God made it known that it was no longer recommended.

As to father daughter mother son, that type of marriage had never been approved. First it was totally unnecessary. Second amorous interests would seriously disrupt the nuclear family dynamics in which parental authority is very important to the welfare of children.

Actually, the only reason God mentions it in Levitiucus is because the Canaanites were routinely doing this among other things such as bestiality.. So Israel needed to know that this was one of the reasons why God was against the Canaanites.

 

[Doctor X]

Oh my. . . .

1. Nothing sinful about marriage.

Okay. . . .

2. It was necessary due to lack of mate availability.

Eeeeerrrrrrrrrmmmmmm not so much evidence for that, but let us let it slide.

3. Human perfection meant no genetic problems.

SCREEEEECCCHHHHHHH!!!!! Crash! KaBoom! "Oh, the humanity!"

Er . . . um . . . no.

Actually, the only reason God mentions it in Levitiucus (sic) is because the Canaanites were routinely doing this among other things such as bestiality.. So Israel needed to know that this was one of the reasons why God was against the Canaanites.

The Israelites and Canaanites were the same, actually. It is rather an artificial division use later on to create a false opposition. This is discussed in the Smith reference above and in other references given on this and other posts.

--J.D.

 

[Radrook]

Was the infant baptisted? If no, then she will wander Limbo forever (with all the bad Jews).

Not all Christians believe in the immortality of the human soul and in limbo. Neither do true Christians hate Jews because they are Jews. Otherwise they would have to hate Jesus because Jesus was Jew. So were his Apostles which would include he whom the Catholics call the first Pope, Peter. The first Christians were all Jews.

God dealt only with Jews before turning his attention to gentiles.
He chose to inspire them in order that we might have the Bible.


Furthermore a Christian is not supposed to hate someone based merely on religion or nationality. So the people you describe as Jew haters or who call all Jews bad are not Christians at all, they only claim to be. Jesus himself described such persons in the following way:

"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.

Matthew 7:21-23

BTW
Infant baptism does not have any scriptural support.

 

[Doctor X]

He chose to inspire them in order that we might have the Bible.

Once again, no tradition of inspiration in the creation of the OT. Actually, not one in the NT. Luke certainly does not mention it when introducing his gospel or his Acts. Theopneustos only occurs in one late text.

One cannot simply throw about claims which are contradicted by the texts and history.

--J.D.

 

[Radrook]

For those of us who believe the bible is a load of bunk and not worth the pages it is written on, the concept of "sin" doesn't exist in the traditional religious sense....

Well, I suppose if one is bound to the bible for defining what is a sin or not, then your original question about abortion is unanswerable. Does the bible ever mention abortion?

Why would I give a person who considers everything the Bible says bunk and not worth the pages it was written on a biblical answer to his question? Better yet, why would such a person have the gumption of even requesting a biblical answer?

 

[Doctor X]

For the texts may contradict what one thinks or wants them to say about the matter.

Certainly it does for most of this thread.

1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

--J.D.

[Edited because random quoting of biblical texts appears the current vogue.--Ed.]

 

[triadboy]

.
The Bible goes back in recorded human history to approx 6,000 years.

I call "bullsh*t" on you!

 

[Doctor X]

I already did, Triadboy, but he seems uninterested in facts.

--J.D.

 

[KelvinG]

Why would I give a person who considers everything the Bible says bunk and not worth the pages it was written on a biblical answer to his question? Better yet, why would such a person have the gumption of even requesting a biblical answer?

OK, so don't give an answer then.
Cause you're right, if it came from the bible, I wouldn't place any merit in it. I think the book is a disgusting rag.
Cheers.

 

[Radrook]

OK, so don't give an answer then.
Cause you're right, if it came from the bible, I wouldn't place any merit in it. I think the book is a disgusting rag.
Cheers.

The Bible's opinion of you isn't complimentary either:

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

 

[KelvinG]

The Bible's opinion of you isn't complimentary either:

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

tsk, tsk, Radrook. Not very Christian of you.
Y'know, turning the other cheek and all.

 

[Doctor X]

KevinG:

Do not feel bad; he originally posted that quote, then edited it out--which prompted my quote.

Now you merit the attention.

Remember, Cthulhu will always love to have you for dinner. . . .

--J.D.

 

[KelvinG]

KevinG:

Do not feel bad; he originally posted that quote, then edited it out--which prompted my quote.

Now you merit the attention.

Remember, Cthulhu will always love to have you for dinner. . . .

--J.D.

I made a mistake of entering into a discussion with a bible fundie, which I had promised in the past I would never again do.
I shall rectify that mistake now.

 

[Tricky]

Perhaps he's referring to Lot and his two daughters here?

Actually, I was referring to this bit

Genesis 38:8
Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

There you go. Advocating murder and incest in one passage. A doubleheader, so to speak.

 

[Tricky]

Show me where the Bible advocates murder and incest.
Stoning of those condemmed under law was not murder.
I suggest you look up the definition.

And I suggest that if you believe that stoning people to death for trying to talk to spirits can in any way be justified as moral by the Bible, then I stand by my statement that the Bible is not a legitimate source for morality.

If you are arguing that morals change with time and necessity, then I would say that this 2000+ year-old text is too badly outdated to be relevant to what we call morality today.

 

[Piscivore]

What assertion is incorrect?[\quote]
This one:

But since it is a religion spirituality forum, I was forced to use the word "sin" to keep the subject within the forum parameters.

The one I made and I admitted was incorrect?

Yes, and I did not see that part. My apologies.

 

[Doctor X]

The sad part about it all is that one can have a faith despite scripture. Granted, I do not agree with it, but a person can do it.

A number of the scholars remain having a faith. Prof. Smith--I am glad I obtained his Origins of Biblical Monotheism--freely admits growing up with a religion and still having it. Yet, he has written two books demonstrating the polytheism of Israeli religions, demonstrating much of what these posters want to deny--that the Pentateuch is not history as we understand now--a record of what actually happened.

The problem is that some are afraid of their faith. They not only refuse to question, they refuse to look at the evidence.

Well, evidence does not just "go away" if you close your eyes.

One claims he will discuss anything, but will not debate his faith. Yet he presents his faith as fact. He cannot have it both ways.

Another claims he has reviewed scholarship and dismisses it as the result of bias and ignorance. Well, the scholar mentioned above admits a bias--towards his own faith. Yet he steps away from it and encourages his collegues to do the same. Nevertheless, he cannot demonstrate any familiarity with the scholarship--he does not have to "accept it," but he should, if he rejects it, be able to explain why without falling upon fallacy.

Alas.

--J.D.