The Bible on abortion

[Safe-Keeper]

It is a pointless endavour anyway, as Yahweh's followers continue to demonstrate that they only follow the portions of the Bible that they find agree with their morals anyway.

There are no references to abortion in the Bible, yet many Christians oppose abortion 'because they're Christian'. These are the same people who completely ignore rules in the Bible which are very clear, such as the command to give to the poor, rest on the Sabbath, not eat shellfish, etc. These are explained away as no longer valid, intended for only a small select group of people, metaphors or hyperbole, or mistakes in translation.

 

[Kaylee]

The same place Jesus got his.

Jewish and Christian theology are different. </end stating the obvious>

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I know Radrook isn't going to see this, given his cowardly tactic of ignoring anyone who states a view contrary to his own out of fear that his stubborn fragile faith might be challenged, but this was too funny to pass up.

The main fault of this article is that it assumes that because God is authorized to decide when life should be terminated then we can also follow suite. That is like a child observing a parent making life or death decisions and wanting to do the same without having the required wisdom to do so. In short-it comes across as petulant pouting in order to misbehave.

Here, in order to justify nothing less than execution, he's arguing that humans cannot possibly understand the will and judgment of God, therefore we as humans are in no position to make value calls about his sense of justice. The first contradiction in Radrook's argument is that he's doing just that by defending God's actions as inherently just. The second contradiction is that he is the one acting childish with respect to God, in that God is like his Mommy, and everything Mommy does is so wonderful. The third contradiction is that if God's justice and human justice have no correlation, then God's justice cannot relate to us in any meaningful way, and God isn't God.

It's like saying that the USA government doesn't value human life due to its killing people during the Second World War. True, people were killed. But the generalization just doesn't fly.

Contradiction number four. The actions of the US military were ordered and carried out by humans, according to their sense of justice, and everyone knows that humans are limited and fallible. Humans are not omnipotent, we don't have perfect weapons, and we cannot prevent all unnecessary deaths from occurring. But here he's comparing human actions to God's actions, as if their respective sense of justice and ramifications of their actions are analogous. Wait, what?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I'll just have to copy it for him then, won't I?

I know Radrook isn't going to see this, given his cowardly tactic of ignoring anyone who states a view contrary to his own out of fear that his stubborn fragile faith might be challenged, but this was too funny to pass up.

Originally Posted by Radrook
The main fault of this article is that it assumes that because God is authorized to decide when life should be terminated then we can also follow suite. That is like a child observing a parent making life or death decisions and wanting to do the same without having the required wisdom to do so. In short-it comes across as petulant pouting in order to misbehave.

Here, in order to justify nothing less than execution, he's arguing that humans cannot possibly understand the will and judgment of God, therefore we as humans are in no position to make value calls about his sense of justice. The first contradiction in Radrook's argument is that he's doing just that by defending God's actions as inherently just. The second contradiction is that he is the one acting childish with respect to God, in that God is like his Mommy, and everything Mommy does is so wonderful. The third contradiction is that if God's justice and human justice have no correlation, then God's justice cannot relate to us in any meaningful way, and God isn't God.

Quote:
It's like saying that the USA government doesn't value human life due to its killing people during the Second World War. True, people were killed. But the generalization just doesn't fly.

Contradiction number four. The actions of the US military were ordered and carried out by humans, according to their sense of justice, and everyone knows that humans are limited and fallible. Humans are not omnipotent, we don't have perfect weapons, and we cannot prevent all unnecessary deaths from occurring. But here he's comparing human actions to God's actions, as if their respective sense of justice and ramifications of their actions are analogous. Wait, what?

 

[Robert Oz]

Robert Oz.

The above and all the rest of your accusations are based on your lack of knowledge in reference to the Mosaic Law requirements which shed light on the scripture you purport to understand. I suggest you google the subject and after becoming more knowlewdgeable
about its intricacies-then we might be able to have a more productive discussion based on the Mosaic Law and not YOUR version of the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, your methodology is
not skeptical enough since lack of researching and acceptances of mere opinions or arguing on hunches isn't considered skeptisism but is characteristic of those susceptible to gullibility instead.

Educate us, Radrook.

Where in the Bible (not Google, not the Watchtower, but the Bible) does it make it clear that the son is a full-blown rebel with criminal tendencies? Show us where my limited understanding of Mosaic law has missed this little nugget.

Did or didn't the Mosaic Law advise those who judged the son that stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for a rebellious child?

As pointed out by other posters, your own morals are influencing your interpretation of scripture. You, as an inherently good person (which I believe you are), know that stoning a rebellious child would be morally wrong, and so you interpret the scripture to mean executing capital punishment on a trully evil, corrupt criminal, but that is not what the Bible says.

Again, show us where the Bible says the child was a full-blown rebel with criminal tendencies.

Robert Oz.