November 11, 20223 yr 36 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Read it again. Your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follows That's the context of the first paragraph. The "fruit depart from her" IS the death of the child. but the punishment is determined by the husband and the judge. The second paragraph mentions the mischief, which is punishable by death. That can't be the death of the child, since the punishment for the death of the child was already laid out in the first paragraph, without the mischief. Clearly the death of the mother is the mischief. Dude, babies are born prematurely all the time. That doesn’t mean they die. Mischief is the death. So if the baby is born prematurely but does not die, you pay a fine. If the baby is born prematurely and dies, so do you. Thats literally what is being said, and was literally the law back then. Your attempts to purposely misinterpret this are up there with people saying Islam is the religion of peace when Mohammad is on record babbling on about killing and enslaving everyone who does not submit to him.
November 11, 20223 yr 18 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Unless they're a slave or non-virgin woman who "rebelled against God".. Right. The Abrahamic religions have problems. But let’s not pretend black is white when it suits our political purpose.
November 11, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, TEW said: Right. The Abrahamic religions have problems. But let’s not pretend black is white when it suits our political purpose. Uh huh. So... The "word of God" has flaws. Or at least revisions, I guess. Yeah, ok.
November 11, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Uh huh. So... The "word of God" has flaws. Or at least revisions, I guess. Yeah, ok. I’m not a Christian or religious, but I give a good faith Ed reading of all religious texts. The Abrahamic religions have serious flaws, but it is what it is. Killing in the biblical sense is in essence unjustified murder… but blasphemy is a justified killing. I don’t agree with it, but that’s what it says. Just like I don’t agree with the Talmud saying the Jews are entitled to Goyim slaves or the Bible allowing for slavery as a social position not to be concerned with because everyone gets salvation or the Koran allowing to enslave and kill people who won’t convert. It’s horrific, but that’s what’s written.
November 11, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, TEW said: Dude, babies are born prematurely all the time. That doesn’t mean they die. Mischief is the death. So if the baby is born prematurely but does not die, you pay a fine. If the baby is born prematurely and dies, so do you. Thats literally what is being said, and was literally the law back then. Your attempts to purposely misinterpret this are up there with people saying Islam is the religion of peace when Mohammad is on record babbling on about killing and enslaving everyone who does not submit to him. No, that's not literally what's being said at all. First of all, babies aren't "born premature" during the majority of a pregnancy. If they're born in the first few months of a pregnancy, they're not premature, they're just dead. And in Biblical times? Give me a break. Most mother/children didn't even survive being born at the proper time, much less being born premature. Writing biblical law around something as rare as a baby born at 6 months and still living in a time before NICUs/modern medicine is asinine. ...that her fruit depart from her is obviously referencing the child dying, not being born premature and living. And the fact that Rabbinical Law allows for abortion in the case there is a danger to the mother backs up my point as well, since we're strictly going off OT, since Jesus said sheet all about abortion.
November 11, 20223 yr Just now, TEW said: I’m not a Christian or religious, but I give a good faith Ed reading of all religious texts. The Abrahamic religions have serious flaws, but it is what it is. Killing in the biblical sense is in essence unjustified murder… but blasphemy is a justified killing. I don’t agree with it, but that’s what it says. Just like I don’t agree with the Talmud saying the Jews are entitled to Goyim slaves or the Bible allowing for slavery as a social position not to be concerned with because everyone gets salvation or the Koran allowing to enslave and kill people who won’t convert. It’s horrific, but that’s what’s written. That's a great foundation for the argument that handwringing over abortion in the modern age is mast-urba-tory nonsense. I can't believe that word is filtered.
November 11, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: No, that's not literally what's being said at all. First of all, babies aren't "born premature" during the majority of a pregnancy. If they're born in the first few months of a pregnancy, they're not premature, they're just dead. And in Biblical times? Give me a break. Most mother/children didn't even survive being born at the proper time, much less being born premature. Writing biblical law around something as rare as a baby born at 6 months and still living in a time before NICUs/modern medicine is asinine. ...that her fruit depart from her is obviously referencing the child dying, not being born premature and living. And the fact that Rabbinical Law allows for abortion in the case there is a danger to the mother backs up my point as well, since we're strictly going off OT, since Jesus said sheet all about abortion. I never said "a majority.” I said all the time. That was especially true 2000+ years ago. "Their fruit departing” is literally the act of birth. The mischief is the death of the child, which is why it specifies the mother is hurt and not killed. Sorry, you’re just wrong.
November 11, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, TEW said: I never said "a majority.” I said all the time. That was especially true 2000+ years ago. "Their fruit departing” is literally the act of birth. The mischief is the death of the child, which is why it specifies the mother is hurt and not killed. Sorry, you’re just wrong. No, it wasn't true that a baby born in the first 7 months of a pregnancy 2000 years ago was "born premature". They died. Because it was 2000 years ago. Infant mortality rate was sky high even at 9 months. It makes no sense to write Biblical rules for something that almost never happened. "Their fruit departing" is the death of the child. The "hurt" is that act of the man hurting the woman, which may or may not end in her death. If it does, he's put to death. If it only ends in the death of the fetus, then the punishment is at the husbands discretion. You can keep spinning but you're just wrong. And all of this is kind of proving my point anyway. We're splitting hairs over a single passage in the bible that you think makes your case against abortion in a biblical sense (even thought it doesn't). Meanwhile, greed/usury is mentioned over and over again in absolutely no uncertain terms. And yet not only do Evangelicals ignore that when making their political decisions, the majority Evangelicals embrace the Prosperity Gospel, which is 100% heresy. It's because the Evangelical Church is a political organization, not a religious one.
Create an account or sign in to comment