Recently, I was in a debate with a Christian, and the topic of abortion came up, as it sometimes does. I asked him why he held his pro-life belief. His answer was that God was pro-life and abhors the practice of abortion.
Not wanting to take his word for it, I did some research and came to the conclusion that God is probably not pro-life.
I realize I could take the easy road and cite all sorts of passages that demonstrate the Christian God is not pro-life by pointing to many Old Testament passages where he happily brings about the death of people including unborn children.
But I know where the discussion will go if I take that route. It will divulge into a New-Testament-supersedes-the-Old-Testament conversation, which is a cop-out of an answer. Or some Christians will argue I do not understand the context or my interpretation is wrong.
However, I don’t like Biblical arguments because many people assume at the outset that God is pro-life and cite passages that help their cause while minimizing ones that harm it.
I could take a more direct route and prove God is not pro-life by the very fact that God instituted physical and spiritual death. It’s kind of hard to consider yourself pro-life when you made death a possibility for your creation. The problem with this argument is that it’s too short to fill an entire opinion column.
Instead, I would rather take a different angle on the whole question. The argument only requires establishing two facts.
First, I must discuss miscarriage rates. Miscarriages are commonly defined as spontaneous abortions that occur before the twentieth week of pregnancy. According to some studies, about 10 to 25 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.
The second important fact is God’s responsibility for some people’s deaths. I usually hear from Christians that when people die it is because it was God’s plan. You here things from Christians when people die such as “God has another purpose for him,” or “it was God’s will.” So it is obvious from the mouths of Christians that God is responsible in some way for the deaths of people.
Now we reach a major conundrum for the thesis that God is pro-life. How can somebody that is responsible for the nearly one-fourth of naturally occurring abortions be considered pro-life?
I thought being pro-life was an absolutist stance against abortion. Clearly God didn’t get the memo. He has as part of his plan the death of one-fourth of all conceived individuals before they take their first breath (and these rates are actually higher for non-industrialized nations).
Perhaps the even more twisted part of the story is human-caused abortions. In the United States, induced abortion rates have hovered around 20 percent of all pregnancies for the last couple of years.
Ironically, in a given year, God is responsible for more abortions than Americans are. Yet I don’t hear the Christian pro-lifers denouncing their own God for his apparent lack of a pro-life agenda.
If you compare the miscarriage rates, it would seem the most prudent and logical way to save more lives would be to pray to or ask God to cut back next year on spontaneous abortions.
The nice thing about this argument is that it doesn’t rely on the supposed words of God, but instead his actions.
Many people believe actions speak louder than words, and I am one of them. If God is to be considered pro-life, he cannot pay lip service to the term by aborting one-fourth of all conceived individuals.
So if God is not pro-life, the reason why some Christians are pro-life falls apart.
I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that abortion is right or wrong but instead challenging the reasoning or justification some Christians give for their position.
I think there are better arguments for the pro-life position. God’s opinion on the issue just happens to be a terrible argument. Christians, or anyone else for that matter, would be better served if they dropped the God is pro-life argument and argued on more substantive grounds such as one of human rights.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
mfhayes 2 years, 8 months ago
The Bible is dumb.
So is this article.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 7 months ago
@dio
"Thank you, only someone insane would ever write that."
Thank you for your concern. However, that's not an argument, it is an ad hom dismissal.
You again go into straw men.
1) I have read the Bible, I read the Bible, I am familiar with it. I understand hermeneutics, and I can walk through a text. You simply provide texts without context, ignoring genre and distinctions between description and prescription.
2) I don't just dismiss things from being commendable or say "you don't have to follow it." However, I do recognize that biblical narratives tell the stories of sinful men and that even the main character within a story (even one praised) can be found doing sinful things that are not to be emulated. I would like it if you one day actually point to an imperative, or at least even attempt to argue that a verse you have cited is or contains one.
3) My God cannot do wrong! How many times must I repeat this before you stop accusing me of saying this?! You have not made any clear ethical argument, nor have you even attempted to provide an ethical framework for your objections despite my asking for one. The righteousness in question in the quotation is God's judgment! Ps. 58 is an imprecatory psalm, where God is the one dealing out the judgement... Can you not distinguish between the intentions and actions of God and the intentions and actions of men? Can you not understand it when God says that vengeance is his?
4) Again, you haven't proven anything - you simply make statements ipse dixit. For those of you keeping track, 'ipse dixit' is latin, despite what dio continually says, I know more latin than 'ad hominem' (or "ad hominen" as dio put it).
dio, why don't you:
philfs89 2 years, 8 months ago
We will never know what God's opinion is on anything until, and if, the day comes when we reach His kingdom.
Although i must admit, i like the whole fate argument.
kyle 2 years, 8 months ago
yawn.
dio 2 years, 8 months ago
@Rhology
"He can take life at any time, be it adult or really young, and it is 100% justified"
You should be put in a mental institution. Now I know we have a psycho on campus.
About comments left by BrianCBiggs:
You should probably look the other comments left by BrianCBiggs on many opinion columns. This person is absolutely irrational when it comes to his religion. That his arguments make no sense or that they are downright evil do not matter in the end, he will protect appalling behaviors described in the bible just for the sake of it.
Let us quote the bible back at him:
"Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." -- Hosea 9:16
"Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." -- Genesis 38:24
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." -- Leviticus 26:29
"He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death" -- Leviticus 24:16
"He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." -- Exodus 21:17
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death" -- Leviticus 20:13
"He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." -- Exodus 22:20
"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces." -- Malachi 2:3
"Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. " -- Leviticus 21:17-23
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." -- Colossians 3:18
"I will punish (...) all such as are clothed with strange apparel." -- Zephaniah 1:8
"And yet indeed, she [Sarah] is my [Abraham's] sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." -- Genesis 20:12
"... Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. (...) So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father." -- Genesis 19:31-36
leimapapa 2 years, 8 months ago
Your reasoning in this article is completely unsound if not outright stupid. I agree that using a "because God says so" approach on issues is just plain lazy, but your explanations in backing it up reveal your personal hangups in addition to defying conventional rules of logic. Your lack of mastery of the English language causes you to misunderstand the terms in question, and your misunderstanding of the Christian God causes you to equate him with the humans who worship him.
You are basically saying that death is the same as murder by blaming (who you understand to be) God for "inventing" death. This is a sad way to look at life my friend. Not to mention that it is a logical absurdity for countless reasons, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't care. I don't fault you for not caring though, because I understand that having an informed opinion requires making the effort to become informed. And who has time for that, right?
Nevertheless, your article was entertaining and held my attention longer than most opinion articles do. 'A' for lack of effort.
cassitoney 2 years, 8 months ago
First of all, I realize this is an opinion article. I just wanted to point something out to you. The Bible makes clear that upon creation there was no death or disease. He gave man free will to decide whether to love God or not. Because of this free will, the first people chose to sin against God. God warned them that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil would lead to death, but they ate from it anyway. It took all of that to say, man welcomed sin and death into the world, not God. Did God create sin? No. Evilness is the absence of God as cold is the absence of heat. When Adam and Eve rejected God, they welcomed evil into the world. Your logic has a "begging the question" fallacy. Is God responsible for miscarriages? You cannot support such a claim with two common, cliché quotes from confused and mourning people. God knows what tragic things will happen, but that doesn't mean he causes them. If a man stepped in front of speeding car and died, was that really God's doing? I could throw out some verses, but I suppose you wouldn't care. It's just something to think about.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 8 months ago
A. By this logic, God must be fine with murder, rape, etc. He clearly is not, it is condemned.
B. God's purposes for evil in this world are good and work out for ultimate good (see Gen 50:20, Rom 8:28-29). The best example of this is at the cross, where God brought about the greatest evil to accomplish the greatest good. Also, God's intentions and purposes are distinct from ours.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 8 months ago
Even if one was to base a pro-life argument on "human rights", the question remains as to when one becomes a human (and hence gains rights!).
I don't think you understand the biblical case against abortion. I will give you a slim example of it.
A. Murder is wrong. Killing for convenience is murder. (Ex 20; Matt 5:21; Jas 2:11)
B. One must be a human in order to sin. Granted, angels sin also - but as I am not arguing against the mass murder of angels, suffice it to say that sin is an attribute of a human.
C. David admits that he has sinned from conception. (Ps 51:5)
D. If man sins from conception, then he is a human from conception and can be murdered from conception.
E. Since you seem to like the old testament, I can provide an example of abortion being wrong can be found in mosaic law. Ex 21:22-25 discusses a scenario in which two men are fighting and they hit a pregnant woman, causing her to give premature birth. If the child and woman are unharmed, there is no fine. if, on the other hand, the child dies, it is murder ("life for life").
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 8 months ago
A. By taking the "they have their passages, I have mine" approach, you demonstrate that you don't believe that the Bible is coherent and that it takes irreconcilably contrary positions within itself.
B. Or, you think that the Bible provides a unified system of thought, but cannot be interpreted or understood as such.
C. You deny the sufficiency of Scripture to answer ethical questions such as this: You deny that the Bible is insufficient to act as a rule of faith and practice. (see 2 Tim 3:16-17)
D. Of course, your low view of scripture is confirmed by your calling it the "supposed words of God."
E. If you don't think the Bible is authoritative, why waste most of the column dancing around it? Why not simply say that it isn't God's Word or that it is only "supposedly" God's Word. You could have done that in one sentence, then outlined what you think are the appropriate grounds for discussion of this subject.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 8 months ago
A. Christians are not in the old covenant, but the new (see Hebrews). I am not trying to make this a trite cop-out. The old covenant points to the new covenant and contains types and shadows of what would come. In the new covenant, some laws of the old covenant have been abrogated, others reaffirmed. I am not a member of ancient Israel, yet this does not render the OT irrelevant. Though practices have changed with the death and resurrection of Christ and the establishment of a new covenant, there is very much still a continuity between the old and new testaments.
B. This relationship does not have very many implications on your argument, as your primary mistake in this area seems to be a lack of distinction between Creator and creature.
C. Atheists: My main point here is that I think he is oversimplifying... on something that is irrelevant to his argument, no less. Asking me why I eat bacon is a tired, well-discussed subject.
Katja 2 years, 8 months ago
There are no gods. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better.
Sartia 2 years, 8 months ago
If a soul needs to get here, it will find a womb to come through. In the meantime, women have a right to control their own bodies.
Copernicus 2 years, 8 months ago
What's your purpose for this article?
Giving 'evidence' to people of a religion prove that a their beliefs, or any ideals in them, are wrong is pointless. You can try and prove to a Christian, Muslim, or Jew (or anybody) that their god is dead, but that's not going to get them to change their mind.
A person's personal religion is defined by their own particular beliefs. Why does it matter to you what their own beliefs are, and why do you seem to try and change it. I'm not a Muslim, but I don't denounce Islam, and i'm certainly not going to go and yell at them for believing in it, or passively write an opinion article proving that what they believe is wrong.
Evangelism, on both sides, is pointless, protesters holding signs saying that "marines go to hell" and shouting at the dead man's family obviously don't care in trying to convert them, so what are they trying to prove, then?
I think that you wrote this article precisely for the purpose of inciting arguments amongst people. Or maybe your ego is so high that you think that the majority of people actually give a damn. Any Christian who reads this isn't going to think, "huh, this dude's right because he can show how many abortions happen by nature, or God (which isn't even an abortion by definition...) without any cause by humans."
You even stated, "... I don't like biblical arguments," Is that not what you started?
I, certainly, could have gone without reading this. And that has nothing to do with my religion (or any variance of such).
dio 2 years, 8 months ago
@BrianCBiggs
By the way, you again confirmed what I wrote at the very bottom of a column that was buried sometimes ago. For those who missed it, here is what a christian radical would typically answer to verses above:
"That is not true, there is no such thing in the bible": Do not waste your time quoting their own book in their own language back, they do not read the verses or they refuse to interpret them the exact way they are formulated. They will always end up with an explanation that has absolutely nothing to do with the original verse.
"It is a narration, you do not have to follow it": This one only works if the quote is not a direct order of their god. Do not try to point the fact that the quote is actually a directive/instruction/permission/precept, this will not compute with them.
"My god can do wrong but I am not allowed to follow/question it": Do not try to show that it generates a monumental problem of ethics, they will just spin their thoughts before: a) contradicting themselves, or b) choose the side of evil. As Brian said: "The righteous man takes delight in God's righteousness and justice." The righteousness in question actually concerns mass murders that literally involves people taking blood baths.
"What you say proves nothing": once again, it is completely useless to thoroughly brake down your explanation in a mathematical fashion for them, or give a wealth of references. A Pavlov christian does not think, it prays. Finally, avoid to point out that their imaginary friend and its preposterous orders is a childish delusion, they will quote you back the few Latin words they ever learned: "ad hominen".
leimapapa 2 years, 8 months ago
@dio
Hooray for verses out of context! Three cheers for lazy arguing! Hurrah!
I'd be worried that we have an unpleasant, judgmental troll on campus, but I don't travel under bridges much. Keep doing what you're doing. Keep getting angry and irrational so you can keep calling other people angry and irrational. It's hilariously fun to read you big silly goose. Cheers.
dio 2 years, 8 months ago
@BrianCBiggs
"God has the right to take life as he pleases." "We should obey; none of us have; we deserve God's wrath." "God allowed incest for a time. It was even necessary."
Thank you, only someone insane would ever write that. Question: How would you qualify someone with an imaginary friend who totally agrees with murders/incest/etc committed in its name? A dangerous schizophrenic by any chance?
@leimapapa
Glad to help. You should read the context then. References where given for a reason.
Rhology 2 years, 8 months ago
The main problem with this reasoning is that it conflates God with man. Sounds familiar, really.
God is not a human. He is the Creator and has the right to take life, just as He gave it. Indeed, He takes all life. Doesn't everything die? Of course, and it's all His "fault".
He can take life at any time, be it adult or really young, and it is 100% justified, especially human life since all are sinners. The question is: What actions is man justified in undertaking? Murder of human life is not among them. Abortion is therefore unjustifiable. It's an easy argument to deal with; I don't know why anyone would call it sthg the pro-life mvmt "refuses" to deal with. Let me suggest Randy Alcorn's book on pro-life answers. It's the best I've ever seen.
kidwang 2 years, 8 months ago
Mr. Carter has yet again written a great article. I am speechless and can not wait for his next article.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 8 months ago
A. God is the creator and sustainer of the world and the grounding of all being. There is nothing outside of him; nothing he relies on or is subject to. (Acts 17:22-29; Ps. 115:3)
B. If reality is founded upon God, yet ethics is entirely separated from him then you have separated ethics from reality. Since God is personality and reality exists because of God's existence, reality is ultimately personal - but you have rejected that as a basis for ethics...
C. Are not "human rights" derived from God? If they are, then why propose that against the idea of God? If not, and they are instead some construction of culture or society then why ask Christians to use a system of ethics so contrary to the Christian view of reality and traditional Christian views of ethics?
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 8 months ago
This column is riddled with misconceptions, bad hermeneutics, and bad reasoning.
A. God is the giver and sustainer of life. It is within his right to give and take away life as he wills. In the Old Testament (as well as the New) he judges persons, peoples, and nations. He has taken the life of many people (including unborn children).
B. We are NOT given the right to takes lives as we choose. Man is the creature, not the creator. God is allowed to take lives, we are not allowed to do this as we will (see the sixth commandment: Ex. 20).
C. You cannot take a description of God judging a person or a group of people and extrapolate an imperative for us to likewise harm or murder them. Neither can you extrapolate a tolerance for such action. (Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30)
Lansdallius 2 years, 8 months ago
I'm beginning to think that Daily opinion pieces are little more than glorified trolling. :P
oustudent2013 2 years, 7 months ago
He's right, arguing the pro-life stance based on religion is stupid. You can't make something illegal just because its against your religion. You have to present better reasoning than that because the whole world doesn't necessarily agree with your religion. And if they did, then you would have to make EVERYTHING illegal that's against you're religion. Idols, women not submitting to men, premarital sex, using God's name in vain, etc. I'm pro-life because I believe in human rights and personal responsibility, and I don't believe that we should add the "choice" of killing another human to someone's list of options to cover up a bad "choice" that they made. So please, to give the rest of us pro-lifers some legitimacy, drop the religion when it comes to politics.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 8 months ago
dio,
I'm glad to see that you are still straying from the topic, reasserting issues I have already addressed, ignoring whether a passage is descriptive or prescriptive, and (like Mr. Carter) ignoring the Creator/creature distinction.
Nonetheless, I will answer you:
-Hoesa - God has the right to take life as he pleases. -Genesis 38 - this descriptive rather prescriptive; Judah admits he is guilty and does not burn her (see verse 26).
-All of these are penalties for breaking God's commands. God has the right to take life and he likewise has the right to institute capital punishment.
-Leviticus 26 describes God punishing his people for breaking his commands. God, starting in verse 25 is saying that he will bring the sword (other nations' armies) against them and that they will hide in their cities and begin to starve. Then they will start to become cannibalistic... however, God will punish them further if they do this.
-God's love does not mean he will not punish sin. -God does not love everyone in the same way. -Read Hosea (in it's entirety. Also, keep in mind Rom 5:8).
-We should obey; none of us have; we deserve God's wrath. -Col 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them." (see also, Eph 5:25)
-We have been over this; God allowed incest for a time. It was even necessary. -Lot's daughter's were in the wrong; incest with parents/children has never been approved of in the Bible. Nowhere are the actions of Lot's daughters approved of. Again, this is descriptive, not prescriptive. -Lev 18 is clearly prescriptive.
OUguy 2 years, 8 months ago
oooh, a great idea for a column mr tarrant. that is if you wanted to shake up the religious readers of the daily, get them all stirred up and compete with your other columnists for comments!
fortunately, i am not religious. i just saw the number of comments and thought about trollin'. btw, why is your pic up there twice? your hair is crazy bro.
b00mer 2 years, 8 months ago
This article struck me as uninformed and callous. I would encourage Mr. Carter to actually interview some Christians and look in the Bible himself before making so many assumptions. I was very offended by many of the points he makes here.
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@leimapapa
"I may or may not have been taking biblical studies courses (...) before transferring to OU. Or not."
That is awesome and I am very happy for you. But that is still not good enough since you do not speak ancient Greek fluently. Sorry pal.
"You certainly shouldn't be obligated to care."
I do, plus Google also gives the context... in many languages.
"Stick to calling people schizophrenic and crazy. (...)"
It is fun indeed!
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@BrianCBiggs
"I'm sorry you think I'm insane. Thank you also for repeating yourself so many times (...)"
You are welcome. Let me know if you need me to remind you that you are insane from time to time.
Points:
1) Which bible and what languages? Does that include a Latin one?
2) Context is perfectly clear.
3) Yes it can.
4) The case has been made.
5) Did you, now?
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@BrianCBiggs
I have made several replies to your post for the last three days. The OU staff did not let a single one pass. Actually I noticed that 75% of every comments I made on other columns after our debate never got through OU Daily's censorship.
Looks like the censor person dislikes me. Fine, I am giving up with this trashy student newspaper, even if I pay for it in my tuition.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 7 months ago
oustudent2013,
you have thrown out God and theology as grounding for ethics; but what do you have left? "Human rights" and "personal responsibility"? How do you determine what those are? What is the basis of human rights? You have thrown out an ethical system and replaced it with ambiguous words; then you argue that those ambiguous words are somehow superior to, or more legitimate than a christian system of ethics. Furthermore, calling religious ethics stupid isn't an argument.
We know what you disagree with but not why; and we know what you will call what you propose in its place, but not what ethical system you actually promote. You have to present better reasoning than that.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 7 months ago
@dio
1) I have read the New American Standard and English Standard Version. As to Latin: what does it matter if I have read the Vulgate? I intend to learn Greek and Hebrew, and Latin would be nice to learn, but it isn't my priority as the Bible was not written in Latin.
2) I agree that the context is clear; my issue is with you ignoring it.
3) You have yet only stated that God can do evil or has done evil. You have yet to prove or demonstrate it.
4) What case? The verses you listed under inappropriate headings, without mention or discussion of context? I hope that wasn't your 'case'.
Look, if you want to convince me (or anyone else) of something, I suggest giving the verse, giving the context of the verse, and showing how the the verse, in its context, supports what you say. So far, you have simply listed verses with accusations and directed me to a website that does the same (though in greater volume).
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@BrianCBiggs
You should definitely study ethics before asking such dumb questions and pretending that your religion implies morality.
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@BrianCBiggs
1) We will talk about it when you will be able to speak Koine Greek, Old Hebrew and Classical Latin (the KJV is derived from a Latin translation by the way...).
2) Do I, now?
3) Proves were given. I am not responsible for you ignoring them.
"Look, if you want to convince me (...)"
Look, I have done it, references are there for everyone to check. As astonishing as it looks, you just keep on arguing that I did not despite the posts above. I am not arguing to convince you, I am just showing everyone how ridiculous your claims are.
leimapapa 2 years, 7 months ago
@dio again..
Why do I have to read within the context? You clearly didn't. Double standard perhaps? Methinks yes.
I may or may not have been taking biblical studies courses from the original Greek and Hebrew translations for the past two years at a private Christian university before transferring to OU. Or not.
You certainly shouldn't be obligated to care. In fact, I wouldn't expect someone who simply does a Google search of "evil Bible verses" to be inclined to care about sound debating. And don't bother refuting that assumption. It's already been decided that that's what you did. Sorry, I don't make the rules...
Stick to calling people schizophrenic and crazy. Regardless of being unsound debating and halfway mean, it's more fun to read in an opinion article forum... silly goose. And again, cheers.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 7 months ago
@dio
I'm sorry you think I'm insane. Thank you also for repeating yourself so many times; I wouldn't want to accidentally skip reading one of your misrepresentations.
1) I have read the Bible, I read the Bible, and I am familiar with the Bible. Also, I know how to interpret the Bible. I can walk through the text. All you seem to do is quote verses, then make disconnected assertions and allegations.
2) I realize that a narration in the Bible will sometimes contain the sinful actions of men - even lauded men. I understand what a precept is and that theology can be gleaned from narratives - I certainly believe this. However, I also know that it should not be done in the haphazard manner you have presented, ignoring the contexts, ignoring when actions are decried as evil a few verses later...
3) My God cannot do wrong! I do not know how many times I have corrected you on this! As to Ps. 58, it is an imprecatory Psalm... you accuse me of ignoring the text, yet you don't even follow who is acting within a passage! God is the one dealing out judgment; NOT man. Do you not understand that God has said that vengeance is his?
4) You should make your case, rather than continuing to post the same answered objections over and over, and claiming things ipse dixit. Yes, that is latin; as it turns out, you are wrong about how much latin I know.
5) I have studied ethics. It is not dumb to ask what someone means when they use the term "human rights." Also, are you seriously going to suggest that Christianity provides no system(s) of ethics? Do you think it is legitimate to use undefined terms to dismiss any number of theistic ethical theories? I think that it is probably you who should go study ethics; human rights is not an unambiguous, settled issue and is typically part of a larger system of ethics.
Soli Deo Gloria
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 7 months ago
@ dio
Actually, the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus, of the first edition was compiled by Erasmus. The TR is greek, not latin. I think I have read that the vulgate did influence certain aspects of the TR; nonetheless, the KJV was not translated from or by any means directly derived from latin (with an exception for a chapter in Rev., I believe). Anyway, since I don't often use the KJV, it isn't a big issue.
I wonder, do you know Koine or ancient Hebrew?
Continually responding with merely "Do I, now?" seems far more like condescension than argumentation.
I would also like everyone else to check your references. When you given a heading such as ">> On Murder:", then list verses it is fine... However, I then challenged your use of them and argued that you were ripping them from the context. I also provided references, along with quick explanations of the meaning and/or context of them. Your reply? It can be summed up as: "No, YOU don't understand the context!" I trust people reading this will notice this, and I once again ask for you to make your argument while giving the context of the proof texts you cite.
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@BrianCBiggs
True, PARTS of the KJV are from the Latin Vulgate. Anyway I am saying that because the new testament manuscripts are written in Greek (5,800 complete texts or fragments), Latin (10,000), and Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian (9,300). With over 400,000 variations among these manuscripts from the 2nd century CE onwards, I think you need to perfect your language skills if you want to read the "original texts" and put them in the "right context" (and not your 21st century American Midwest context).
On top of that, none are canon. So what you call "bible" today is merely a collection of cherry picked, revised and re-interpreted texts from multiple contradicting sources in various languages. Hence my original question: which bible and what languages? Since we have been discussing about the flaws of the KJV so far, then I let you imagine how this debate will look like if we extend criticisms to all the christian texts...
"Continually responding with merely "Do I, now?" seems far more like condescension than argumentation."
I do agree with you. Nevertheless it is nice to see that you have kept replying on this thread for the past two weeks.