Johns Hopkins: No evidence people are born gay or transgender

[Medic007]

Yes, which resulted in an abortifacient if the woman was pregnant and could even lead to a uterine prolapse.



The other passages were cited to give a background to the basis for how Sotah could be seen as justifiable within the Old Testament worldview.

They were also cited to reference a well-known theological position within both the Jewish and Christian traditions. A position that has been downplayed (or outright ignored) by conservative Christians since 1973.

Ok. I don't think Numbers 5 is actually as you describe, but I'm not an expert on anything biblical. It seems that passage is addressing the consequences of adultry, not how to perform abortions.

Are you familiar with Didache? How about Saint Augustine? Tertullian? Scribonius Largus? Hippocrates? I'm not sure that conservative Christians base everything on bible as a literal application. The understanding of when life begins has changed a bunch since biblical times. With no understanding of fetal development, many people in biblical times and before were unable to answer that question like we can today.

 

[my_2cents]

No, I don't consort with myopic fools.

Spoken just like a good 'ole Pharisee.

 

[22LR]

Spoken just like a good 'ole Pharisee.

Spoken like someone who will be screaming for mercy at The Great White Throne judgement. Good luck.

 

[AC_Exotic]

Ah, Numbers 5. A man who truly knows his Bible!

The ordeal of the bitter water.

Numbers 5 says nothing about abortion. It does talk about marital infidelity, which is a sin.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Ok. I don't think Numbers 5 is actually as you describe, but I'm not an expert on anything biblical. It seems that passage is addressing the consequences of adultry, not how to perform abortions.

Are you familiar with Didache? How about Saint Augustine? Tertullian? Scribonius Largus? Hippocrates? I'm not sure that conservative Christians base everything on bible as a literal application. The understanding of when life begins has changed a bunch since biblical times. With no understanding of fetal development, many people in biblical times and before were unable to answer that question like we can today.

He's an idiot that cajoled some smart people to interact with him.
Something that rarely happens in his real life.
Such as that is.

 

[my_2cents]

don't think Numbers 5 is actually as you describe, but I'm not an expert on anything biblical.

Research it Medic. Read Jewish sources on the passage. Read commentaries on the passage. Also, study it within the context of the larger Old Testament message as it relates to when life begins and the legal status of the fetus in comparison to a woman or man.

I'm not making up stuff here. All of this is well-known. It just isn't taught in conservative American or conservative American religious circles.

Are you familiar with Didache? How about Saint Augustine? Tertullian? Scribonius Largus? Hippocrates?

Yes.

Just like I am familiar with Philo, Aristotle, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Thomas Aquinas, Louis Berkhof, etc.Problem is, their interpretation isn't the only interpretation.

 

[CBradSmith]

Putting this here and setting my way out.

 

[my_2cents]

Putting this here and setting my way out.

View embedded media

And what protects us from having Sharia imposed on us is also what protects us from having doctrines of a particular Christian sect imposed on us.

Separation of church and state.

 

[AC_Exotic]

And what protects us from having Sharia imposed on us is also what protects us from having doctrines of a particular Christian sect imposed on us.

Separation of church and state.

Remind me again, where is that found in the Constitution?

 

[Ostatedchi]

I just snorted gin and tonic out my nose.

 

[my_2cents]

Remind me again, where is that found in the Constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - First Amendment, US Constitution

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." - Artlcie Six, US Constitution

 

[Medic007]

Research it Medic. Read Jewish sources on the passage. Read commentaries on the passage. Also, study it within the context of the larger Old Testament message as it relates to when life begins and the legal status of the fetus in comparison to a woman or man.

I'm not making up stuff here. All of this is well-known. It just isn't taught in conservative American or conservative American religious circles.



Yes.

Just like I am familiar with Philo, Aristotle, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Thomas Aquinas, Louis Berkhof, etc.Problem is, their interpretation isn't the only interpretation.

Yeah, so outside of pro-choice narratives, nobody mistakes Numbers 5 as an instruction manual or approval of abortion unless you are using the bible to establish when life begins. I hope that isn't the case.

 

[my_2cents]

Yeah, so outside of pro-choice narratives, nobody mistakes Numbers 5 as an instruction manual or approval of abortion unless you are using the bible to establish when life begins.

No, outside the pro-life religious community, Numbers 5 and what it prescibes has always been known. It was practiced and later commented on for centuries, long before abortion became a political rallying cry for religious conservatives in America.

It doesn't fit the message of pro-life conservative Christians, that is for sure. Hence why they don't talk about it, ignore it, or attempt to deny what it says. Along with other passages in the Bible that don't support their political position on abortion.

 

[Medic007]

No, outside the pro-life religious community, Numbers 5 and what it prescibes has always been known. It was practiced and later commented on for centuries, long before abortion became a political rallying cry for religious conservatives in America.

It doesn't fit the message of pro-life conservative Christians, that is for sure. Hence why they don't talk about it, ignore it, or attempt to deny what it says. Along with other passages in the Bible that don't support their political position on abortion.

That viewpoint is directly out of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Congrats on the parroting and continuing to make the rest of us pro-choice people look like idiots.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments for abortion rights. Trying to use the bible as a basis of argument for abortion is probably the dumbest argument out there.

 

[my_2cents]

That viewpoint is directly out of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I have nothing to do with the Freedom From Religious Foundation. If they have discussed this topic that is probably because, once again, it is common knowledge outside of conservative religious circles.

 

[07pilt]

In defense of the bible, they didn't have ultrasound when the bible was written. It's easy to understand why people in that era didn't understand fetal development very well.

Yeah but God, the author of the Bible, had a pretty good understanding.

 

[07pilt]

For 2000 years Christians believe that it's more than a letter.

considerably less than 2000 years.

 

[AC_Exotic]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - First Amendment, US Constitution

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." - Artlcie Six, US Constitution

Says nothing about separation of church and state.

 

[AC_Exotic]

considerably less than 2000 years.

Wrong.

 

[07pilt]

I just snorted gin and tonic out my nose.

ouch

 

[AC_Exotic]

Yeah but God, the author of the Bible, had a pretty good understanding.

Again, the passage in question says nothing about abortion.

 

[07pilt]

That viewpoint is directly out of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Congrats on the parroting and continuing to make the rest of us pro-choice people look like idiots.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments for abortion rights. Trying to use the bible as a basis of argument for abortion is probably the dumbest argument out there.

I think his point is that the Bible is poor support for a pro-life stance.

 

[07pilt]

Wrong.

no.

 

[AC_Exotic]

I think his point is that the Bible is poor support for a pro-life stance.

There's plenty of support.

 

[AC_Exotic]

no.

Yes.

 

[Syskatine]

Numbers chapter 5.

Doesn't seem like abortion to me, but who knows

Again, the passage in question says nothing about abortion.

Well, I've united cats and dogs.

Why doesnt making a fornicating woman induce a miscarriage constitute abortion?

 

[Medic007]

I think his point is that the Bible is poor support for a pro-life stance.

And it's even worse support for a pro-choice stance, but he's trying to use it as such.

"The bible is wrong except when we agree with it."

 

[07pilt]

Yes.

Even if it was considered scripture as soon as the ink dried, you are looking at 1960 years. And who knows if the passage you cite is even from the original letter. Furthermore, that passage in context is about homosexual desire as a punishment for idolatry and it is certainly not a blanket prohibition on homosexuality like in Leviticus.

 

[Medic007]

I have nothing to do with the Freedom From Religious Foundation. If they have discussed this topic that is probably because, once again, it is common knowledge outside of conservative religious circles.

It's a narrative. If you really think using the bible to support a pro-choice view is smart, you're much dumber than I gave you credit for.

 

[07pilt]

And it's even worse support for a pro-choice stance, but he's trying to use it as such.

"The bible is wrong except when we agree with it."

Should you use the Bible in a discussion about abortion in civil society, no. Should you use the Bible to discuss the morality of abortion with Christians, yes.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

And it's even worse support for a pro-choice stance, but he's trying to use it as such.

"The bible is wrong except when we agree with it."

Exactly.
The ten commandments are antiquated rules that aren't relevant in modern society, but we'll spin some vague passage to promote murdering viable babies.
OK.

 

[07pilt]

Says nothing about separation of church and state.

Wow imagine if you interpreted the Bible like this.

 

[Medic007]

Should you use the Bible in a discussion about abortion in civil society, no. Should you use the Bible to discuss the morality of abortion with Christians, yes.

I expect nothing more from a guy that works in manufacturing.

"Let's discuss the morality of abortion based on a 2,000 year old book of fables."

 

[07pilt]

I expect nothing more from a guy that works in manufacturing.

"Let's discuss the morality of abortion based on a 2,000 year old book of fables."

...With people who believe that book is the universal and eternal authority on morality. You gotta know your audience.

 

[07pilt]

I expect nothing more from a guy that works in manufacturing.

"Let's discuss the morality of abortion based on a 2,000 year old book of fables."

Having a bad day?

 

[22LR]

I expect nothing more from a guy that works in manufacturing.

You mean, the people who actually work hard, and produce the nation's wealth? Those people?

 

[OUSOONER67]

I just snorted gin and tonic out my nose.

Grown ups call it snot bubbles when the lil kiddies cry.

 

[AC_Exotic]

Even if it was considered scripture as soon as the ink dried, you are looking at 1960 years. And who knows if the passage you cite is even from the original letter. Furthermore, that passage in context is about homosexual desire as a punishment for idolatry and it is certainly not a blanket prohibition on homosexuality like in Leviticus.

The science of biblical criticism tells us it is original.

The passage clearly portrays homosexuality as sin.

 

[Medic007]

...With people who believe that book is the universal and eternal authority on morality. You gotta know your audience.

All of the pro-life Christians I know understood that the knowledge of when life begins is much clearer today than it was in biblical times. The term "pro-life" is pretty obvious.

 

[Medic007]

You mean, the people who actually work hard, and produce the nation's wealth? Those people?

I meant to put "works in manufacturing" in quotes. It's an inside insult to pilt.