/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>856449

You’re using Deuteronomy out of context. We no longer follow that because of the new covenant that Jesus brought with Him during His time on Earth. Also regarding the third image, killing in self defense =\= killing a defenseless fetus

>>856453

Nothing about the old laws on ethics was done away with in the New Covenant. Just laws that separated Jews and Gentiles. That's the New Covenant, where Jesus made one people out of many. Ritual laws, dietary, laws, etc.. are what are done away with, because they separate. Laws against murder, stealing, lust, are still in full effect.

'“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." - Matthew 5:17

And by fulfill, he means "complete". The law was not a prophecy, as something to be fulfilled in that sense. He meant to complete them in elucidating more about them. Which is why Jesus then proceeds to expound on the Law and gives the full meaning in this Sermon on the Mount. He starts off many of his sayings with "You have heard it was said….. but I TELL YOU."

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." - Matthew 5:21-22

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:27

>>856453

>You’re using Deuteronomy out of context.

Its 100% in context.

If you disagree quote in full the text and show it.

You can not do this since before this is a different law and after this is another different law the NIV even gives separation and tells you that it ends there.

Out of context is not a magical word you can say to make your self contradictions go away.

>We no longer follow that because of the new covenan

All debunked in the OP pictures.

Then show me where Jesus says not to abort. Show it and don't quote out of context crap.

Anti-abortion is something your pastors made up a long time ago.

>>856449

Anti Abortion is the most evil and wrong thing on all levels. All people are called to be chaste, as the first pic is a classic example of people not taking responsibility for their actions. See Humanae Vitae

It is wrong to kill in the heat of anger, but not to kill in justifiable self-defense. I have the Tradition of the Catholic Church to back me up beside the bible, child. XD

It used to be, that children were seen as a blessing with the marital act. But now…they are seen as a burden. It is disgusting and there is no redeeming it. CLOSE YOUR FREEAKING LEGS PEOPLE.

>>856454

>laws against lust

lol ?

>>856459

> Its 100% in context.

It’s not. Those verses refer to a stubborn son who refuses to listen and acts up. A fetus cannot disobey their parents, so the comparison there does not work.

> You can not do this since before this is a different law and after this is another different law the NIV even gives separation and tells you that it ends there.

I’m sorry, but what are you referring to by saying “different law” (do you mean the new covenant?) and “NIV even gives separation and tells you that it ends there”? Could you rephrase this?

> All debunked in the OP pictures.

None of the pictures even mentioned a covenant, or at least none of them addressed any argument relating to new vs old covenants

> Then show me where Jesus says not to abort.

It is true that Christ never said “Thou shalt not abort” or “Thou shalt never terminate a pregnancy.” You know what He also never said? He never said “Thou shalt not put a snake in your roommate’s shoe at 4 am” because that’s common sense. Just because He didn’t say something doesn’t mean that it’s permissible or that it’s justifiable. He has given the order to kill in the past, but that was always against specific people or groups, and not random fetuses because the parents were irresponsible

>>856477

>He has given the order to kill

lol wut?

We ARE talking about the 'all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.' guy, right? The guy who had just to say the word and angels would destroy his enemies, and yet he literally never did that.

>>856461

> I have the Tradition of the Catholic Church

Ah yes the never ending nonsense of the catholic cult. They change their dogma every 100 years and then tell lies and pretend like it was always like this.

What do you think of Vatican II ?

>Why will the clergy tell lies if the truth will make their organization look bad ?

Yea this is you.

Also:

>The RCC never changed its mind because the RCC says so.

You are quite ridiculous.

>>856462

>CLOSE YOUR FREEAKING LEGS PEOPLE.

Serious question why ?

This is you:

>STOP WEARING RED HATS !

Serious question why ?

Because your cult that controls you says so?

Because your clergy that controls says so?

Because the clergy that controls you was saying this for a long time?

Do you even have a argument?

Daily reminder that the catholic cult persecuted Galileo and now in the 1990s admitted finally that they where wrong.

>>856477

>A fetus cannot disobey their parents, so the comparison there does not work.

Then show me where Jesus says not to abort.

>It is true that Christ never said “Thou shalt not abort” or “Thou shalt never terminate a pregnancy.”

Then you literally have nothing and admit it the bible does not support your position.

>Those verses refer to a stubborn son who refuses to listen and acts up.

OK however how can we use the law about killing our children if we don't like them to extrapolate what the position of god/the bible is on abortion ?

>Your kids disobey you -> you don't like this -> You kill them

to

>You are pregnant -> you don't like this -> You kill the fetuses like you kill a child you don't like

The only way to argue against this is to say that parents love and can not get enough of their children disobeying them and god is forcing them to kill the disobedient children despite how excited parents are for their children to disobey them.

>“Thou shalt not put a snake in your roommate’s shoe at 4 am”

He actually did talk about this (Matthew 7:10) however lets pretend like you made a valid counter example and not demonstrated how totally ignorant you are of what Jesus and the bible say.

>because that’s common sense.

Actually its not. Its literally a nonsense phrase you use after its demonstrated that the bible says nothing about abortion and says you can kill your own children if you don't like them.

You have nothing and other people will say that its stupid to not let the mother have a abortion. After all you are supposed to help others, and you are not helping this mother who wants a abortion.

Like in Matthew 7:9

>Or who is there among you, who, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?

BONUS BONUS BONUS

>Could you rephrase this?

OK however since you already agreed that the bible says nothing about abortion it will be only a exercise in triviality.

So let me walk you over this:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21&version=NIV

>15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

LAW #1

>18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

LAW #2 (This is the one in question)

>22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

LAW 3 !

And Deuteronomy 21 ends. There literally can not be more context for me to take that law out since this is how texts work.

>>856480

>God on killing

He has literally ordered the genocide of other peoples in the Old Testament

>>856482

Before getting into this, allow me to make something clear: yes, it is true that God and the Bible do not explicitly condemn abortion (not miscarriage, but I’ll get to that). Does that mean that it’s okay? Not necessarily. As you said earlier we can (in my case slightly) extrapolate the position of God on abortion.

> The only way to argue against this is to say that parents love and can not get enough of their children disobeying them…

That is not the only way to argue against that. God is very specific in the Old Testament, often wanting things done in a certain way for certain sins. For example, for certain sins He may want blood sprinkled on an alter in a certain way, and for other sins he may not want blood at all. Thus, extrapolation (especially in the Old Testament) is a slippery slope that is full of assumptions. Assume something wrong, and you sin. Take the following verse into account:

>Exodus 21:22: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” (KJV)

This verse seems to suggest that God cares about fetuses considerably. He outright has severe punishments for the brawler involved. So it is a bit of a stretch to assume that God is okay with abortion, especially in the Old Testament, when He does not explicitly condone it. Now to a certain extent my argument is an extrapolation, but I play it on the safe side; God has punished for miscarriage, so it would not be out of the question for Him to punish for abortion. Although abortion is not explicitly condemned in the Bible, it nonetheless is dangerous to assume that it is okay.

> After all you are supposed to help others, and you are not helping this mother who wants a abortion.

Matthew 7:9 does not literally mean give anyone anything that they want, especially an abortion, which is a controversial position in Christianity to say the least.

>roommate snake shoe example

I’ll admit that it was poorly worded on my end to use the word “snake”. I was going to use crocodile, but alas.

> Its literally a nonsense phrase you use after its demonstrated that the bible says nothing about abortion and says you can kill your own children if you don't like them.

Yes, the Bible says nothing explicitly on abortion, but it is still an awful idea to go through with because nothing in the Bible says that it’s a good idea. God is specific in what He determines is okay and what it not. If you’re not sure something is a sin or not, should you really go through with it?

A new point I ought to bring up is that God wants a relationship with everyone on Earth; that’s one of the biggest reasons for our time on Earth. So ending someone’s relationship with God before they can fully formulate their thoughts on and about Him seems a bit of a bad idea.

>>856480

>>They changed their doctrine every hundred years

You clearly do not understand Church history or what the Catholic Church dogmas are. Such as the dogma of the humanity of Christ, the man God. THAT has not changed. Keep larping as if you understood what you were talking about

>>856483

This is a surprisingly good conversation.

>I’ll admit that it was poorly worded on my end to use the word “snake”. I was going to use crocodile, but alas.

Dude no problem I did say

<however lets pretend like you made a valid counter example

So lets not obsess over this detail.

>Before getting into this, allow me to make something clear: yes, it is true that God and the Bible do not explicitly condemn abortion

Yes we can agree on this one.

While you present your case eloquently you are self contradictory.

<Its bad to extrapolate.

<here let me extrapolate and say abortion is bad.

Either extrapolation is allowed or its not.

And now a important story for you.

4chan is full of schizos, people started simply labeling the schizos as schizo.

Over time the real schizos picked up this word and started to spam "schizo" like an insult at others.

Why is this important?

The same is true in Christianity Christians are rightfully accused of taking things out of context and then start to spam the word "out of context" at everyone. "out of context" Is not a magic word to say if you don't like when someone uses the bible to prove something your fan fiction/fanon religion(you can not understand this point) does not like.

>Exodus 21:22

This is out of context, for real out of context.

Why is this out of context?

Because you only quoted one verse form a longer paragraph this law extends from Exodus 21:22-25 (I have even seen christian literally trim verses themselves so they are not even quoting the full verse).

No only this the NIV also indicates this by placing these verses together in a paragraph.

So lets read :

Exodus 21:22-25

>22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

NIV

>22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

>23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

>24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

>25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

KJV

What you have brought in is a law requiring multiple levels of interpretation. What does it even say in context? Can you imagine that? Can anyone imagine that?

WTF is the meaning of

> But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life

or

>And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

No seriously WTF is this talking about? The miscarriage already happened here.

You brought in a difficult to interpret biblical law.

So I turn to scholars who say (and I see their point) that the law is to be interpreted like this.

If you accidentally hit a pregnant woman so she miscarries then you are to pay monetary compensations. If however because you do harm to the woman then you are to be punished hence the

> then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

1/2

>>856502

>>856483

2/2

So the bible implies here (if we try to interpret this very complicated and confusing law) that the life of a mother is far more worth then the life of a fetus since if you accidental do harm to a mother the punishment is far more harsh then killing a fetus.

Like explained this is a totally different situation to getting a abortion here the miscarriage is forced on the mother and not on the demand of the mother.

I also like to note this:

>wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

>tooth for tooth,

This is a real LOL WUT moment since it indicates that making a woman miscarry a fetus is far less bad then hitting a woman in the face. Or what is it even saying here.

I don't see how anyone can in context interpret this law to say that fetuses are more important then mothers.

Either way its a deeply confusing law that needs interpretation to even understand what it is even saying and even then its not clear.

>This verse seems to suggest that God cares about fetuses considerably

No.

>He outright has severe punishments

Is it?

Harm to the mother = you die.

kill the fetus = pay some money.

Is this "severe punishments"?

Also this is quite comical today

God:

>Let me write about miscarriages in my book of laws

>Let me not write about abortion

>assume that God is okay with abortion, especially in the Old Testament, when He does not explicitly condone it

LOL. Did you know? (correct me I can be wrong on this in some corners of the OT) the OT is written as negative laws not positive laws or a mixture of positive and negative laws(think in terms of positive and negative pressures or positive and negative space).

This means all (or 99%) of the laws are written like this:

>you can not eat food if you have socks of opposing colors on you, it is an abomination !

And not like this:

>You can eat food with a hat on.

Negative laws work like this if something is not forbidden then its allowed. So can you find me anything in the bible that even indicates that you can eat food with a hat on?

<See I'm right about the go thinking that eating food with a hat on you is a sin.

This >>856483 post sounds more convincing than >>856502 and>>856503 also OP sounds kind of badfaith.