moral question

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

Please take your abortion discussion to another thread. This thread is about killing babies after they're been born. Thank you.

Sorry Autodidact :sorry1: I won't deny my part in that.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Please take your abortion discussion to another thread. This thread is about killing babies after they're been born. Thank you.

Oh. Why would someone do that? That is terrible. To answer the OP seriously: I think that is terrible. If they really couldn't handle the child then they should have put them up for adoption.

 

[darkendless]

If you are using the Bible to show that God commanded the killing of infants, than use the proper context which is biblical... Meaning, they would be sent directly to the Lord at death, therefore saving them from being lost in a lost culture. Also I listed other reasons.

Yes context. A diversionary tactic used by the faithful to divert criticism and distort clear words which reflect poorly upon God. Nice one.

As to the offensive comments, its only offensive if you make it so, calm down and get over it.

 

[Subby]

Yes context. A diversionary tactic used by the faithful to divert criticism and distort clear words which reflect poorly upon God. Nice one.

As to the offensive comments, its only offensive if you make it so, calm down and get over it.

Context means:
: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

You know, exegesis, not eisegesis which is reading into the text your own contemporary views.

 

[Autodidact]

So the point is, lets not use our reason to determine Gods actions were unjust. Use the text and context which clearly shows that these babies go with the Lord instead of living with Pagan cultures

It's better to kill a baby than let it grow up with a different religion?

which they would be sacrificed a lot of times,

Please cite the Biblical passages that state the babies the Israelites were commanded to kill would have been sacrificed. btw, do you see any logical problem with killing a baby to prevent it being killed? Anything jump out at you?

and not find salvation ever

Why not? What happens to dead babies in your religion? Or does it depend on what religion their parents are?[/quote], being lost forever. Also they were a dire threat to the civilization, namely Israelites, that needed to produce the Messiah to save ALL people through one man whom was the Son of God.[/quote] So if I follow you, in your religion killing babies is moral? Is that right?

 

[Autodidact]

You are wrong.

Google

I'm sorry, I didnt' see any links about Midianites or Amalekites in that search.

I'm still having some trouble grasping why we kill babies to prevent them being killed. Could you explain it to me?

What reason does the OT give for ordering these babies to be killed?

 

[darkendless]

Context means:
: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

You know, exegesis, not eisegesis which is reading into the text your own contemporary views.

The bible is written in such a way that personal bias is unavoidable. If i read the bible and then you read the bible we will have two completely different interpretations. The only reason the bible is not taken literally anymore is because as a species we have become more aware and less dependent.

Technically christians should have slaves and kill all sorts of people but its just convenient that they choose to ignore that isn't it

 

[Subby]

It's better to kill a baby than let it grow up with a different religion?

If that religion has no chance of finding the true God through the Jewish presentation to the world, then yes. Especially when it is reliant upon natioanl survival of the Jewish culture/race/ethnicity/religion so that it may produce the Messiah for salvation.

Please cite the Biblical passages that state the babies the Israelites were commanded to kill would have been sacrificed.

Just read the context of the example already provided.

So if I follow you, in your religion killing babies is moral? Is that right?

In the OT context, commanded from God, the ANE context of primitive civilization that was incredibly war like, etc, etc... yes.

 

[waitasec]

I hate to be rude, but VERY few abortions are done by anyone being raped. Maybe about 5% of them, I would guess.

not rude at all but not a well thought question either.
who said the majority of abortions are from rape...?

as i said before i would never for myself, but then again i'm not a 14 yr old that was raped by her uncle, or a poverty stricken 9 yr old, or a catholic and thought twice about having one because my husband and i are now out of work...is that better for you cupcake?


here's an interesting link...

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

 

[Subby]

The bible is written in such a way that personal bias is unavoidable. If i read the bible and then you read the bible we will have two completely different interpretations. The only reason the bible is not taken literally anymore is because as a species we have become more aware and less dependent.

Technically christians should have slaves and kill all sorts of people but its just convenient that they choose to ignore that isn't it

You have to present specific arguments with specific passages, if one has light shown on it, and you differ, that is your own problem. There is methodology that is teh most scientific to follow to deduce interpretation/exegesis, if not used, then it is wrong.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

If that religion has no chance of finding the true God through the Jewish presentation to the world, then yes. Especially when it is reliant upon natioanl survival of the Jewish culture/race/ethnicity/religion so that it may produce the Messiah for salvation.



Just read the context of the example already provided.



In the OT context, commanded from God, the ANE context of primitive civilization that was incredibly war like, etc, etc... yes.

You're sick.

 

[Subby]

You're sick.

And your sick for supporting killing babies in the womb of a still alive woman. Difference is one was founded in a just Gods will, the other in human will.

/me shrugs

 

[McBell]

And your sick for supporting killing babies in the womb of a live woman.

/me shrugs

There are never babies in the wombs of women.
There are fetuses, embryos, zygotes, but not one single baby.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

And your sick for supporting killing babies in the womb of a live woman.

/me shrugs

I don't support it, that's the thing. If people want to do it, that's their choice. But, Autodidact doesn't want a thread on abortion, so you should stop bringing it up.


I'm glad you don't rule the world, because you would have ordered millions upon millions of living infants killed. That is sick. I'm sorry I don't support mass murder of living, breathing infants.

 

[darkendless]

You have to present specific arguments with specific passages, if one has light shown on it, and you differ, that is your own problem. There is methodology that is teh most scientific to follow to deduce interpretation/exegesis, if not used, then it is wrong.

Ah yes but who are you to tell others their interpretation is wrong? After 2000 years, the change in Christianity is immense. Do you know who Luthor was? Thus true Christianity is long gone and what we are left with is what "senior" christians tell us is right. How are we to know? I'm aware of the methodical process used to get the correct interpretation but as i stated above such interpretations would lead us into slavery and other unacceptable acts of cruelty in the name of a God.

On a lighter note why wouldn't God in all his wisdom make things a bit easier for us and write down exactly what he wants? Reading the bible is like reading a coded message

 

[tumbleweed41]

.... when reading stories from 2,400+ years ago, it is important to remember that those people have little in common with society today.
This works both ways. When attempting to force outdated moral codes on modern society, and when attempting to force modern morality codes onto an ancient book of religion and fables.

It seems that there are a few in this thread who have fallen into this trap...

 

[Subby]

Ah yes but who are you to tell others their interpretation is wrong? After 2000 years, the change in Christianity is immense. Do you know who Luthor was? Thus true Christianity is long gone and what we are left with is what "senior" christians tell us is right. How are we to know? I'm aware of the methodical process used to get the correct interpretation but as i stated above such interpretations would lead us into slavery and other unacceptable acts of cruelty in the name of a God.

It leads that way, because you fail to include context of Christ and His fulfillment of the law, etc, etc, etc.

On a lighter note why wouldn't God in all his wisdom make things a bit easier for us and write down exactly what he wants? Reading the bible is like reading a coded message

Its not coded at all. What text are you having trouble with?

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

And your sick for supporting killing babies in the womb of a still alive woman. Difference is one was founded in a just Gods will, the other in human will.

/me shrugs

God is obviously not just, or moral.

 

[Autodidact]

Context means:
: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

You know, exegesis, not eisegesis which is reading into the text your own contemporary views.

O.K., let's do some exegesis. Now bear in mind that exegesis does not mean "making stuff up." Let's look at this particularly horrific passage:

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Here God specifically commands His people to kill children and babies. Why? What was going on here, according to scripture? Well, it tells us: "I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt."

That is, several hundred years ago, the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites, [Exodus 17] " The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim." And so, in the way of primitive tribal war gods, God ordered Israel to take revenge by killing them, including children and babies. Interestingly, there is no comparable claim that the Amalekites killed any Israelite babies, and the Israelites won that battle.

Nothing about human sacrifice, especially infant, nothing about saving the babies' souls, just pure revenge.

For example, Spain tried to invade England 400 years ago. So would today's English people be justified in killing Spanish babies? Is that your moral system?

 

[Subby]

I'm glad you don't rule the world, because you would have ordered millions upon millions of living infants killed. That is sick. I'm sorry I don't support mass murder of living, breathing infants.

Wrong. As I have said, this was a time of revelation from God that commanded such things due to the context of the OT. Read and you will see that these occurrences are because mankind is vastly primitive and thus needs direct leadership by God. Thus you have the NT with Christ, in which a NEW REVELATION or NEW COVENANT is established with mankind, and thus a new way of life for the new mature civilization of the greeks/romans/western civilization essentially.

This is based on a fulfilled law, and thus through Christ we lead our choices and actions.

So your conclusion is based on non Christian teachings, as usual.