Religious views on abortion

[Kenny]

Yes, fine, but does that mean that abortion is justified in that case?

Ciao

- viole

My wife and I would hold to that it is not.

 

[thomas t]

What, exactly, do you think "thigh to fall" means?
What is the current medical name for that "condition"?

As for your personal opinions of what god would or would not condone...
It is as worthless as you claim my opinion and the opinion of Adam Clarke are, right?

So pease give a straight forward answer to me straight forward questions:

What, exactly, do you think "thigh to fall" means?
What is the current medical name for that "condition"?​

fallen thigh means that they hang down. As opposed to sexy thighs that are curvy and well shaped.
It's not an illness, so I'd say there is no medical name for it.

Yeah you have your opinion, I have mine.
However, condoning abortion is a reproach as I see it.

So the onus is on the ones who claim so.

That's my take on the matter.

 

[McBell]

fallen thigh means that they hang down. As opposed to sexy thighs that are curvy and well shaped.
It's not an illness, so I'd say there is no medical name for it.

Yeah you have your opinion, I have mine.
However, condoning abortion is a reproach as I see it.

So the onus is on the ones who claim so.

That's my take on the matter.

So basically you are saying that if a women cheats on her husband back then that "fallen thighs" and "swollen belly" is the punishment from god?

Wow.
Just...
wow

Ok then.

I will stick with my opinion.
I find yours to be severely lacking.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What, exactly, do you think "thigh to fall" means?
What is the current medical name for that "condition"?
As for your personal opinions of what god would or would not condone...
It is as worthless as you claim my opinion and the opinion of Adam Clarke are, right?
So pease give a straight forward answer to me straight forward questions:

What, exactly, do you think "thigh to fall" means?
What is the current medical name for that "condition"?​

In Scripture the thigh being located in the general area of the body dealing with reproductive organs.
Note: Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5; Judges 8:30
So, the word 'thigh' could very well be a substitution referring to sexual organs.
So, ' fall or fall away ' we would now say ' waste away ' (shrivel away).
Remember adultery was a capital offence carrying the death penalty.
But we are speaking about a situation that required two or more witnesses - Numbers 35:40; Deuteronomy 19:15 - so in this case there were No witnesses; No one was identified or revealed.
If the woman was guilty, and since there were No witnesses, she experienced the loss of her sex organs.
Meaning she would No longer be able to conceive ever again.

​

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So basically you are saying that if a women cheats on her husband back then that "fallen thighs" and "swollen belly" is the punishment from god?................

If you mean by 'cheats' meaning 'adultery' then you are right.
Under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law for ancient Israel the punishment for adultery was: death.
In this case there were No eye witnesses, No person named or identified.
So, in this case if the wife was really guilty her reproductive organs would cease.

 

[74x12]

Exodus 21:22-23 carried with it the death penalty so yes it does fit a pro-life agenda -> Psalms 139:13-16
The difference is the intent for the abortion. It is a HIGH crime in God's eyes for 'selfish' reasons.

Methinks you should re-examine that verse because to me the "mischief" that might follow is the possible death of the woman. That's why "life for life". The man was only required to pay a fine(whatever the father asked) for killing the unborn child by accident.

 

[thomas t]

So basically you are saying that if a women cheats on her husband back then that "fallen thighs" and "swollen belly" is the punishment from god?

Wow.
Just...
wow

Ok then.

I will stick with my opinion.
I find yours to be severely lacking.

I'd rather see it as a preemptive measure.
If she cheated once, a swollen belly takes the sexy curves away and she won't cheat twice after the potion...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, then your 8 weeks stuff is totally moot, right?

Ciao

- viole

It shouldn't be to you. Have you Google'd when a fetus feels the pain of abortion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. I was thinking only the christian's god (per scripture) would make decisions of life and death of a person. We keep society running by enacting punishment for lawbreakers but when you side with the law by assuming every person who does only X crime and not that doesn't deserve to live, I feel there's a problem. The value of life in and of itself shouldn't be determined by another human. If we really appreciate life and living and present moment and all of that, we would at least see people as good by default not plagued by inherited sin.

People receive consequences for their actions.... I just don't feel putting someone to death not morally and I would hope one day not legally justified.

I appreciate your strong opinions. Many people have strong opinions. You cannot go wrong pursuing or attempting to purse the Bible's opinions, particularly if you've trusted Jesus for salvation (born again).

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well:

John.8
[1] but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
[2] Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.
[3] The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst
[4] they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
[5] Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?"
[6] This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
[7] And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

Under Jewish Law, they had the full right to stone her, but did Jesus tell them to just go ahead and do as such? Plus you avoided my other questions about whether you think that adulterers and those women who have an abortion should be stoned today?

No, what you rather clearly have more bought into with this is secular politics, thus not what's actually found in the Gospel.

BTW, there's many other pro-life issues as well that you seem to ignore based on my observations of seeing many other posts of yours over time.

Yes, righteous judges in the gospels, NT and OT were not always to proscribe the Law without finding the mitigating circumstances, for example, here, how did the Pharisees catch her in adultery? It was a setup.

Thank you for not judging me.

 

[viole]

It shouldn't be to you. Have you Google'd when a fetus feels the pain of abortion.

We all agree that after 1 hour from conception, it will not.
So, would you be fine with that?

If you say that abortion is wrong at any time after conception, what are the reasons? For sure feeling pain cannot be one of them, since a few human cells do not feel pain when terminated. So, those reasons must be something else.

So, what is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

This is what Adam Clarke has to say. He says "probably understood " in this sense.
I don't agree.
It means thigh to fall.
In my opinion this means simply losing her sexy figure.
a fallen hip and a swallen belly - this is not sexy.

Even if it means "probably" according to him, God NEVER condones abortion, as I see it, let's be pragmatic here. Being fat and a fallen hip cannot look sexy, at least it does not to me.
sexy is curvy, in a good sense, I think.

Suggestion to the Almighty. While you seem to punish cheating women by disabling their sex appeal, what about punishing mass murderers by disabling their murderous capacities, whatever they are? I am not aware of any of the sort being applied by You to them.

Unless, of course, You Almighty think that cheating on a husband is soooo much worse than performing mass murders. Since You seem to have a much higher indulgence for the latter and not for the former, I cannot exclude that You will not follow my advice.

Anyway, just my humble suggestion to our Morality Giver.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

to religious people only (which doesn't mean you have to believe in god)

Eh...? I’m very confused now.
But also quite curious! What do you mean...? By “god” in that sentence; are you referring to a specific definition of God or to just any sort of god(s)?

Perhaps this is a very naive question - if so, please forgive me - but, are there godless religions too?

My world seems very small at times...


Humbly
Hermit

 

[thomas t]

Suggestion to the Almighty. While you seem to punish cheating women by disabling their sex appeal, what about punishing mass murderers by disabling their murderous capacities, whatever they are? I am not aware of any of the sort being applied by You to them.

Unless, of course, You Almighty think that cheating on a husband is soooo much worse than performing mass murders. Since You seem to have a much higher indulgence for the latter and not for the former, I cannot exclude that You will not follow my advice.

Anyway, just my humble suggestion to our Morality Giver.

Ciao

- viole

Thank you Viole for your valid prayer to Yahweh (I suppose it's him you talked to...).
It's a good prayer.
Thank you for publishing it in a response to me.

Murder is certainly horrible,
there is one difference that I see: the wife promised to stay with her husband in ancient Israel.

 

[viole]

Thank you Viole for your valid prayer to Yahweh (I suppose it's him you talked to...).
It's a good prayer.
Thank you for publishing it in a response to me.

Murder is certainly horrible,
there is one difference that I see: the wife promised to stay with her husband in ancient Israel.

So, if I do not promise to not kill anyone, and I do kill someone, I am more excusable?

Simple explanation: all those things do not have anything to do with God, since that God was just made up by that ancient paternalistic society, more terrified by their women cheating on them than by performing genocide. Don't you see how obvious that is?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Eh...? I’m very confused now.
But also quite curious! What do you mean...? By “god” in that sentence; are you referring to a specific definition of God or to just any sort of god(s)?

Perhaps this is a very naive question - if so, please forgive me - but, are there godless religions too?

My world seems very small at times...


Humbly
Hermit

Yes. There are godless religions. I can't name them all, but Buddhism is one of them. If you mean the christian god (a creator), there are thousands without that definition of god. I think saying all religions have god (my thought, not yours) is generalizing the whole set of religions I wouldn't know about. So, I guess I give the benefit of the doubt that even though a majority of people believe in some form of god(s), there are religions who don't hold such beliefs. I don't know if they are on this board-or at least they are associating the word god with the christian god which isn't always the case.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Yes. There are godless religions. I can't name them all, but Buddhism is one of them. If you mean the christian god (a creator), there are thousands without that definition of god. I think saying all religions have god (my thought, not yours) is generalizing the whole set of religions I wouldn't know about. So, I guess I give the benefit of the doubt that even though a majority of people believe in some form of god(s), there are religions who don't hold such beliefs. I don't know if they are on this board-or at least they are associating the word god with the christian god which isn't always the case.

Thank you Unveiled Artist,
I understand what was meant better now.

I suppose one’s interpretation of the sentence, depends on how broad one’s definition of the term “god” is.

I see ideas of godliness in all human notions of the Divine and therefore - possibly quite wrongly - think of a Buddhists “god” in form of a universal consciousness, understanding and wisdom - a collective Godhead, if you will.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[metis]

Yes, righteous judges in the gospels, NT and OT were not always to proscribe the Law without finding the mitigating circumstances, for example, here, how did the Pharisees catch her in adultery? It was a setup.

And that becomes the point whereas capital punishment in today's societies is pro-death, not pro-life. Plus it stands to common sense, namely that people tend to change one way or the other as their life goes on, thus we've seen myriads of people over the years who changed their life for the better.

I can relate to that because, when I was in my 20's, I was an agnostic hunting for a sense of direction. It was then that I ran across a women also in her 20's that would end up changing my life forever even though we didn't end up together.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see ideas of godliness in all human notions of the Divine and therefore - possibly quite wrongly - think of a Buddhists “god” in form of a universal consciousness, understanding and wisdom - a collective Godhead, if you will.

From what I gather, the Buddha denied deities (of Hinduism) in relation to enlightenment. I'm not sure how he viewed consciousness, but I do know that even though he may have believed in (the Hindu) god, it wasn't part of his Dharma. He rejected it, actually.

 

[metis]

The Buddha did not deny deities but taught that any thought of a creator-god was irrelevant.