Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[YoursTrue]

Kudos to you for being able to understand the statement you responded to. I have no idea what was trying to be communicated.

No, he did not understand it.

 

[John53]

Abortions are generally carried out by medically qualified people. Except in places where they are banned by religious fanatics where they are generally carried out by untrained criminals.

 

[Polymath257]

Abortions are generally performed by those trained in science.

No, they are performed by people informed by science so that they know how to do things that others are willing to pay them to do.

Science doesn’t say anything about morality. It does allow us to know the consequences of our actions and how to do what we want to do. We still have to figure out our values and morals ourselves.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think you have much choice in the matter. Guns kill. They were invented by scientists. I'm thinking of the American Revolution where they just didn't want taxation imposed from England. So they killed whoever was in their way. Either side.

No, guns were invented by people who wanted to kill others. They go back to before there was modern science.

Engineering and medicine are not science. They are informed by science, but rarely do the practitioners do real science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abortions are generally performed by those trained in science.

So what? You do not seem to understand that your Bible is not anti-abortion. It does not treat fetuses as human beings.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they are performed by people informed by science so that they know how to do things that others are willing to pay them to do.

Science doesn’t say anything about morality. It does allow us to know the consequences of our actions and how to do what we want to do. We still have to figure out our values and morals ourselves.

So then scientific experiments by humans is possibly devoid of conscience in those humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? You do not seem to understand that your Bible is not anti-abortion. It does not treat fetuses as human beings.

You're wrong. But that doesn't matter. Because science is a tool used by men; sometimes good, sometimes not-so-good for its purposes.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, guns were invented by people who wanted to kill others. They go back to before there was modern science.

Engineering and medicine are not science. They are informed by science, but rarely do the practitioners do real science.

So you're saying guns do not have a scientific origin. Oh, wait, you said "modern science." I'm not sure what you consider "real science." But anyway, so goes it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're wrong. But that doesn't matter. Because science is a tool used by men; sometimes good, sometimes not-so-good for its purposes.

No, I am not. I can show you how the killing of a fetus is just punished by a fine. I can show you how abortions were done in the temple. They were wrong, not because they were abortions, but because they were forced on the wife, presumably against her will.

You at best can take some vague verses that apply to extraordinary people and not to the average Hebrew.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I am not. I can show you how the killing of a fetus is just punished by a fine. I can show you how abortions were done in the temple. They were wrong, not because they were abortions, but because they were forced on the wife, presumably against her will.

You at best can take some vague verses that apply to extraordinary people and not to the average Hebrew.

Go ahead. Any worse than today, by the way? But do show your stuff.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I am not. I can show you how the killing of a fetus is just punished by a fine. I can show you how abortions were done in the temple. They were wrong, not because they were abortions, but because they were forced on the wife, presumably against her will.

You at best can take some vague verses that apply to extraordinary people and not to the average Hebrew.

average Hebrew? What does that mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

average Hebrew? What does that mean?

For a male probably about 5'2".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go ahead. Any worse than today, by the way? But do show your stuff.

You mean to tell me that you have never even studied the Bible properly to know this? My favorite verse is one where the evidence that it gives is so strong against your position that many Bible changed their interpretation of it after Roe v Wade:

Exodus 21:22 NIV: "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

biblehub.com

NASB 1995
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

NASB 1977
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

I have some older Bibles in my house. My housemate collects them. The Catholics are very anti-abortion and her 1960's Catholic Bible uses the term "miscarriage". Meaning that the pregnancy came to an unwanted end. So did the Bible that i grew up with. I do not know the date, but it would probably have been the 1960's or earlier. I gave you an example of one Bible that changed their definition, but that seriously makes no sense if you read it fully and think about it. There was no valid excuse to change the interpretation of the Bible. It was a miscarriage. The "baby" was dead and it was only to be a fine.

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean to tell me that you have never even studied the Bible properly to know this? My favorite verse is one where the evidence that it gives is so strong against your position that many Bible changed their interpretation of it after Roe v Wade:

Exodus 21:22 NIV: "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

biblehub.com

NASB 1995
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

NASB 1977
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

I have some older Bibles in my house. My housemate collects them. The Catholics are very anti-abortion and her 1960's Catholic Bible uses the term "miscarriage". Meaning that the pregnancy came to an unwanted end. So did the Bible that i grew up with. I do not know the date, but it would probably have been the 1960's or earlier. I gave you an example of one Bible that changed their definition, but that seriously makes no sense if you read it fully and think about it. There was no valid excuse to change the interpretation of the Bible. It was a miscarriage. The "baby" was dead and it was only to be a fine.

Well, for one thing, there was a penalty.
New International Version
Exodus 21:22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows."
That was not an imposed sterilization either, or a desired or undesired abortion by medical authorities.

 

[YoursTrue]

For a male probably about 5'2".

Oh, you mean the height of what you say is an "average Hebrew."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, for one thing, there was a penalty.
New International Version
Exodus 21:22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows."
That was not an imposed sterilization either, or a desired or undesired abortion by medical authorities.

Did you not read my post? Once again, find an older translation. The NIV is after Roe v. Wade. That one was not changed because they already had the bogus anti-abortion retranslation. If you find older ones they will either use the euphemism of the KJV or be honest and call it a miscarriage.

This is what I grew up with. It was pre Roe v Wade:

Exodus 21:22​

22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Also if you go to the Hebrew and reason through the work it clearly describes what happens if there is a miscarriage. It was why that verse was not changed by some until after 1978.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you not read my post? Once again, find an older translation. The NIV is after Roe v. Wade. That one was not changed because they already had the bogus anti-abortion retranslation. If you find older ones they will either use the euphemism of the KJV or be honest and call it a miscarriage.

From what I see, the Hebrew is translated as no "harm," not miscarriage which by definition is not the same. Besides, what difference does that make to you, or do you think scientific opinions as to what's best for a woman has the right to impose decisions as to what should be done by scientific consideration according to the best possible outcome for the child and the mother? The Bible does not state that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you not read my post? Once again, find an older translation. The NIV is after Roe v. Wade. That one was not changed because they already had the bogus anti-abortion retranslation. If you find older ones they will either use the euphemism of the KJV or be honest and call it a miscarriage.

This is what I grew up with. It was pre Roe v Wade:

Exodus 21:22​

22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.W

Also if you go to the Hebrew and reason through the work it clearly describes what happens if there is a miscarriage. It was why that verse was not changed by some until after 1978.

Where are you getting your Hebrew definitions from? The same as the average Hebrew?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, you mean the height of what you say is an "average Hebrew."

Not taller or shorter, but average...you say is 5'2"
@Subduction Zone

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I see. You're a pragmatic libertarian...I can only guess what that means...

It means that liberals & conservatives
shouldn't presume some doctrinaire
extremist.