In fact, the Bible does not actually say what you claim it says.
Exodus 21:22-25 If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
It doesn't say you pay a fine if you only kill a child. It says you pay a fine for the premature birth - if any lasting harm follows the premature birth, then you answer accordingly, life for life, eye for eye, etc.
:shrug: in fact it does.
The proper translation of the Hebrew text is not "so that she gives birth prematurely"; It's "so that she gives birth prematurely or miscarries"
Christians in name only. If you don't adhere to scripture, you're a fake.The Bible wasn't meant to be redefined or rewritten...only reread.
That is incorrect. There is a word explicitly for miscarry in the Hebrew (shachol) that is found nowhere in this section. Another word which might have demonstrated your point, but does not due to its' lack is the word for stillborn (instead of a living) child, which is nephel. To add the verbiage "or miscarries" is an eisegetical attempt to input a term that the author had access to, but clearly did not intend to use.
Lots of intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent scripture there.
Not according to the bible...As I said there are many passages speaking against homosexuality as "immoral, depraved, and an abomination".... You may not like it, but it's there.
And I will wonder if the "separation of church and state" crowd will be offended that Christian churches are meddling in public policy issues. Many churches support SSM and have for some time yet the only complaining about religious meddling in public policy comes from progressives against only those churches opposed to SSM.
If a particular religion supports freedom of the individual than it is fine.
If a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedoms of the individual based upon its own doctrine, then that is wrong.
This is true....
But it is also true that there are a long list of other passages supporting other ideas that we find deplorable in modern society as well. You want to own the idea that Homosexuality is immoral depraved and an abomination, you can own the bible passages that are deplorable in other areas as well.
The one who sticks to what the Bible actually says?
Just a guess.
Thou shall not kill has traditionally meant murder as there are plenty of passages supporting killing in self defense. What Im talking about is if a group of self proclaimed Christians went out and murdered people in cold blood specifically because they claimed no where in the Bible is murdering/killing condemned. Would your opinion be that they are still Christians who just have a different view of the Bible?
If a particular religion support the freedom of the individual to steal and murder, a la ISIS, it is fine. And if a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedom of thief and murder based upon it's own doctrine, it is wrong.
If a particular religion support the freedom of the individual to destroy the environment it is fine. And if a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedom to destroy the environment based upon it's own doctrine, it is wrong.
Well, I have many times on these boards said over, and over that I don't have a problem with Homosexuals, so you can stop trying that very dishonest path of calling me homophobic....Second, you must understand that the OT, is separated from the NT, in that the OT while for our learning, is NOT what is literally doctrinal law of the Church, post the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins..We now are in the era of the NT which calls for 2 commandments. 1. Love thy God, and 2. Love thy neighbor....So, your snarky attempt to do little more than call me a name fails miserably.
Murder is based on laws. So then if there are no laws against killing someone, then you aren't breaking that Commandment.
So your think that if there is no law against something then it is not a sin in the Bible?
No, that is not it at all. Contrary to what many seem to think, there are costs involved in the government issued special benefits given to marriage. The 2013 Supreme Court case on DOMA was largely based on the idea that there is a benefit in estate planning for married couples, and a corresponding costs to all of us who pay taxes at some point to cover government spending. No man is an island.I didn't realize I was going to have to give a civics lesson today.
Anyone's freedom ends at the point that it causes harm to another. Therefore, those are not "Freedoms".
I guess I will have to go back to writing a god damned novel of "Disclaimers" on all posts in order for people to stop being so god damned nit picky and pathetic.
No, that is not it at all. Contrary to what many seem to think, there are costs involved in the government issued special benefits given to marriage. The 2013 Supreme Court case on DOMA was largely based on the idea that there is a benefit in estate planning for married couples, and a corresponding costs to all of us who pay taxes at some point to cover government spending. No man is an island.
One can not simultaneously argue that marriage laws affect only the people getting married AND demand the government benefits that cost money.
Perhaps if you started out with a more tolerant, less self righteous, condescending attitude you might have considered that.
Easier to list the ones that support SSM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bless..._to_same-sex_union_and.2For_same-sex_marriage
The Episcopalian Church also supports abortion rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion#The_Episcopal_Church
See a pattern here?
Despite some beliefs, it is not required for a person to follow the Bible or believe it is the absolute truth or even inspired by God to be a Christian. All that is required is to follow the teachings of Christ.
Not what I said. I was saying that "thou shalt not kill/murder" can be interpreted many different ways since it is so broad and does not give us any indication of where the lines are drawn. Murder is relative to each society. Even within societies, people cannot agree on what should or should not be murder. Killing is even more broad, since the vast majority of people might have an issue with killing people for certain reasons, they almost all make exceptions for things like self defense. And very few people use that Commandment as justification for being a vegetarian, or for being against killing animals, either big or very small. So then that brings us back to it being a Commandment against murder. However, there are huge differences in what is or isn't murder, killing that is against the law, between societies, even within some societies. Castle doctrines are used to justify what would be seen as murder in other places. (Just to preempt, I'm not commenting on my feelings on Castle doctrines, only using them as an example of our inconsistencies in murder laws.)
Which would mean they have to follow the bible. Oh and before anyone says it, Jesus said all of Gods laws still apply, so Christians can not get out of following the old testament.
Yeah, seems there is plenty of room for interpretation and practice within the many Christian sects.
No, it doesn't mean that. They don't have to believe that the Bible is the end all, be all of who Jesus was, what his teachings were about. They don't even have to believe it accurately describes his teachings. They just have to believe in following Jesus's teachings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?