Christians

From my reading, the Bible is more clear in stating that you should murder your wife if she isn't a virgin, than it is about anything having to do with abortion.

Perhaps the OP should quote the scriptures that specifically reference Planned Parenthood. I read somewhere that traditionally in Jewish practice, fetuses don't have a soul until they've actually been born.

 

Its bad enough when Christians believe they are experts on the bible, but it gets old when atheists read a handful of scriptures and then claim to be authoritarians on the subject. Gathering from your response, about the only thing you know about the Bible is how to spell it and its a proper name.

 

I guarantee you I've read it cover to cover more times than you.

Again, if it is so clear, you should be able to tell me the verses that specifically reference abortion.

The only thing more annoying than atheists reading a handful of verses from the Bible and claiming to be authorities (perhaps you should look up authoritarian in a dictionary?) is Christians not reading it and claiming to be authorities.

 

Perhaps you should have studied it a bit more instead of reading it like a story book. Im not Jewish. According to the books of the OT, many inhumane things were done by Jews, and according to the author of the books, many were sanctioned by God and many were not. The Jews lived by the Levitical law.
As a Christian, i do not live by those laws. Never once has Christ suggested to kill a woman because she wasn't a virgin. Its quite the opposite. Coming in here and suggesting Christians should believe in killing a woman who isn't a virgin is ignorant. Christ was not a politician nor did he ever advocate his followers to become one, thus making this whole topic redundant. I keep my faith and my politics separate.

 

Jesus never remotely said anything about abortion, either. That was the point, which apparently is difficult for you to grasp.

 

so god's condemnation of abortion, in your view, is the commandment "thou shalt not kill." cut and dry, simple. i know many christians who are pro-life and espouse nonviolence, and i find that to be completely awesome. many times their compassion is extended to all humans and animals alike.

but if you try to align your views with the republican party and therefore believe in war, the death penalty, etc. and justify it with the bible, then i'm sorry, you're kidding yourself.

if the bible says to not kill, there should be NO killing, correct? or did i miss the asterisk in the ten commandments?

 

I asked you a question about which commandments Christ though were most important. You've ignored my question.

 

Only 1 man who has done such a feat but thankfully {edit} for our sake {/edit} He was crucified.

 

Jesus didn't say anything about a lot of specific things. Naturally, you ignore the whole abortion debate to try and prove you point. If someone believes a life is created at conception, then yes, Jesus did speak against abortion. If you believe that a woman has a right to define when her "clump of cells" in her body is a baby, then no, Jesus did not speak about abortion. No need to take a simple topic and make it complex. Come to think of it, since Jesus never defined when life actually takes place, then one never truly commits murder. Pretty dumb logic, eh?

 

CML, do you think the gov't should help the elderly eg. medicare?

 

Well yes, but that's sort of a trademark with you.

 

Sure, play the progressive-Christian I love Jesus card and separate yourself from the craziness of the Old Testament, but then run right back to Leviticus to point to God's hatred of homosexuality.


Oh the hypocrisy.

 

what are the odds that the OP addresses this post at all?

 

I'm not scared: you're mixing topics. Your thinking was exposed as hypocritical and you couldn't defend your definition of "social justice" in the Glenn Beck thread, so you tried to derail it with a discussion of abortion. When we wouldn't let you derail the thread, you jumped ship.

Now you start a new thread, but it's still not about abortion. It's about your twisted definition of "social justice" and trying to delegitimize it by putting it up against hot-button topics.

And stop with this "brotherly love" nonsense. You insulted plenty of people in that thread, including calling me names. Just because you add a "God bless you" at the end of your post doesn't mean it was a loving post.

Bunk. If this isn't about painting Democrats in a negative light, why did you directly reference Democrats (while carefully omitting Republicans) in your OP:

By the way, social justice is NOT a "liberal idea" in any way, shape or form. It has nothing to do with liberal/conservative. "Social justice" has a long history that predates our current political ideologies. It exists both within and without the Christian church, and is currently central to the theology of many, many denominations of the Christian faith, including (just to name a few) the Catholic, Lutheran, and Morman faiths, and to faiths outside the scope of Christianity, such as Judaism. People pointed this out to you in the previous thread, you were unable to refute this, using your anecdotal experience with going to services at other churches, so now you start a new thread painting your lie as a "fact"? And you question why people aren't more "nice" to you?

God bless you.

 

I think that goes to Otto's earlier point that since Jesus was a Jew that his understanding of when life began was likely based on that point of view.

Again though I think the context of what was going on at the time would determine what Jesus' apriori view of what was considered life. Given the historical context it seems to me that a good argument could be made based on what Jews thought of it at the time even though there is no specific Biblical comment.

 

I'm not a Christian so I'm not in a position to question how genuine someone is a Christian but I am intellectually curious about how do Christians determine which parts of the New Testament overrule which parts of the Old Testament.

For example is there a part of the New Testament that says that dietary restrictions in the Old Testament don't have to be followed?

 

I seriously doubt anyone knows how to apply any sort of rules.


It is all so arbitrary, you can probably come up with about 5 scriptures in the Bible condoning/condemning just about anything.

Most people refer to this as a sermon.

 

Yes, there is a passage about a vision where God says 'Do not call unclean what I have made clean,' which is interpreted to mean many (non-contradictory) things: that the law is 'fulfilled', that food (and the world) is made clean and is safe to be partaken of (food, fabrics, the uncircumcized, and son on), among other things.

More generally, I wouldn't say there is any overruling going on. If you can understand the scripture as a whole body, you read certain passages as more detail and more complexity to other passages. If you care to make the book make sense, your mind will find a way to thread the needle and resolve all the textual conflicts that critics think cannot be resolved in an intellectually honest way.

 

actually this point goes beyond simply dietary rules, but...

This is part of Romans 14.

I guess it doesn't state exactly which old testament dietary laws are to be followed and which isn't, but it actually takes the view that people should keep whatever their dietary laws are with God in mind, and basically do what they believe is right, and others shouldn't judge them for it.