Abortion Made Simple

[zz1000zz]

Gerbil_of_the_Vashness

usuing wikipedia as a source is a joke. wiki can be altered by anyone and everyone, making it an unreliable source (my college professors will NOT accept it). not only that but to assume that they had little or no knowledge of abortion is foolish since in those days people were versed on many things other than one or two trades because travelers would share news of other cities and towns wherever they went.

Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable for what it is. One cannot take its contents on blind faith, but it is usually a simple matter to check the references for articles. In this case, the sources discussing abortion in numerous civilizations predating the Industrial Era are easy to find.

By all indications, abortions were known in most societies in some form or another. There is no doubt abortions were fairly commonly known hundreds of years before Jesus's time. The Greeks certainly knew of them by the time the New Testament was written, and it is quite likely abortions were known in the times of the Old Testament.

Abortions can be induced without any surgical procedures, and every society has had access to methods of inducing them.  

[Gerbil_of_the_Vashness]

zz1000zz

Gerbil_of_the_Vashness

usuing wikipedia as a source is a joke. wiki can be altered by anyone and everyone, making it an unreliable source (my college professors will NOT accept it). not only that but to assume that they had little or no knowledge of abortion is foolish since in those days people were versed on many things other than one or two trades because travelers would share news of other cities and towns wherever they went.

Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable for what it is. One cannot take its contents on blind faith, but it is usually a simple matter to check the references for articles. In this case, the sources discussing abortion in numerous civilizations predating the Industrial Era are easy to find.

By all indications, abortions were known in most societies in some form or another. There is no doubt abortions were fairly commonly known hundreds of years before Jesus's time. The Greeks certainly knew of them by the time the New Testament was written, and it is quite likely abortions were known in the times of the Old Testament.

Abortions can be induced without any surgical procedures, and every society has had access to methods of inducing them.

so you're basically agreeing that it was common knowledge and that the authors of the bible would know about it quite well.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Galad Damodred

Fushigi na Butterfly

zz1000zz

Galad Damodred

zz1000zz

God has provided his word so humans know his moral judgments.

The Bible did not arrive by fax from Heaven. Man made it as a record of tumultuous times.

This in no way changes anything. God is quite capable of ensuring his message got to humans. It is most rational to assume his word is accurate.

Exactly. To assume otherwise is insulting to God. confused

Oh, is it? Then let us say that I have insulted the God of the Covenant and leave it at that.

No need to get defensive. I know your views on God, as you have made them quite clear in other threads. I'm just saying, from where I stand, this is the way it is. I'm taking it as a fact that we pretty much won't agree on anything. confused

Gerbil_of_the_Vashness

the bible wass god inspired and written by the hands of men, yes, however, the bible is still the most purchased book in the world ...

Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's true or accurate.

I'm playing Devil's advocate, btw. Personally, I believe it's true. But saying that "lots of people buy it, therefore it must be God-inspired" is a bit ... faulty. There's no way to know for sure whether the entire Bible is accurate or true. However, it's best to assume it's true in its entirety, because if any part of it is false, any other part- say the parts about Jesus' sacrifice and salvation of mankind- could also be false.

As for its relevance to the abortion debate- I suppose, in the end, it comes down to common sense. What do we know of God's character from the Bible? What do we know about His feelings about pregnancy in general? Are there any other instances in the Bible where termination/abortion was looked down on by God in some way? And I don't mean in vague terms like what we find in the Psalms. Our best assumptions are going to come from those situations that most accurately mirror abortion situations today.

-gasp- Do I sense a Bible study?? xd  

[Priestley]

Gerbil_of_the_Vashness

zz1000zz

Gerbil_of_the_Vashness

usuing wikipedia as a source is a joke. wiki can be altered by anyone and everyone, making it an unreliable source (my college professors will NOT accept it). not only that but to assume that they had little or no knowledge of abortion is foolish since in those days people were versed on many things other than one or two trades because travelers would share news of other cities and towns wherever they went.

Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable for what it is. One cannot take its contents on blind faith, but it is usually a simple matter to check the references for articles. In this case, the sources discussing abortion in numerous civilizations predating the Industrial Era are easy to find.

By all indications, abortions were known in most societies in some form or another. There is no doubt abortions were fairly commonly known hundreds of years before Jesus's time. The Greeks certainly knew of them by the time the New Testament was written, and it is quite likely abortions were known in the times of the Old Testament.

Abortions can be induced without any surgical procedures, and every society has had access to methods of inducing them.

so you're basically agreeing that it was common knowledge and that the authors of the bible would know about it quite well.

Even if one knows of or is aware of something, it does not mean one knows that thing. I am convinced that not all of them knew how to perform abortions. However, I have already conceded to the possibility that there was awareness of the procedure in those times.

If you notice my other statement as to pertinence, you will see that the lack of mention of the abortion itself in the Bible indicates possibilities that: God thought it was not pertinent (thus not inspiring the writers to write it); the writers thought it was not pertinent (thus not including it in Scripture); and/or those who decided what writings were included in the Bible thought it was not pertinient (thus chose not to include writings that mentioned it).  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

There is no basis to say the Bible is flawed

Let it be noted that I disagree, but that's for another discussion.

zz1000zz

nor is there any value in doing so. One can propose it is flawed, but nothing is gained by doing so. As such, it holds no relevance for this topic.

If one simply wants to discuss the possibility of the Bible being flawed, that is fine. However, bringing it up in a topic about biblical issues implies one is applying the supposed uncertainty to those issues.

Either Galad Damodred's comment was completely off topic, or it was incorrect. I made what I believe is a reasonable assumption in interpreting it in the way that actually applies to the topic.

You were correct to do so.  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

zz1000zz

There is no basis to say the Bible is flawed

Let it be noted that I disagree, but that's for another discussion.

I should have been more precise. I accept the Bible has certain flaws, and I think it is important to consider them.

However, there is no reason to assume anything the Bible specifically attributes to God is untrue. I had relied on context to imply this, but I see it was not clear at all.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

There is no basis to say the Bible is flawed

Let it be noted that I disagree, but that's for another discussion.

I should have been more precise. I accept the Bible has certain flaws, and I think it is important to consider them.

However, there is no reason to assume anything the Bible specifically attributes to God is untrue. I had relied on context to imply this, but I see it was not clear at all.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.

There's no need to apologise for what was a misunderstanding. I am as much to blame for expanding context beyond the limits set by the topic of discussion (a bad habit of mine).  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Priestley

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

There is no basis to say the Bible is flawed

Let it be noted that I disagree, but that's for another discussion.

I should have been more precise. I accept the Bible has certain flaws, and I think it is important to consider them.

However, there is no reason to assume anything the Bible specifically attributes to God is untrue. I had relied on context to imply this, but I see it was not clear at all.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.

There's no need to apologise for what was a misunderstanding. I am as much to blame for expanding context beyond the limits set by the topic of discussion (a bad habit of mine).

Jeez, you two, get a room! xd  

[Priestley]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Priestley

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

There is no basis to say the Bible is flawed

Let it be noted that I disagree, but that's for another discussion.

I should have been more precise. I accept the Bible has certain flaws, and I think it is important to consider them.

However, there is no reason to assume anything the Bible specifically attributes to God is untrue. I had relied on context to imply this, but I see it was not clear at all.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.

There's no need to apologise for what was a misunderstanding. I am as much to blame for expanding context beyond the limits set by the topic of discussion (a bad habit of mine).

Jeez, you two, get a room! xd

Now, now, don't be jealous. xd  

[Galad Aglaron]

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

Galad Damodred

zz1000zz

Galad Damodred

We cannot expect our moral judgments to have any degree of certainty. Only God, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal and perfect can do that. We can only put forward our own limited, flawed, human perspectives.

God has provided his word so humans know his moral judgments.

The Bible did not arrive by fax from Heaven. Man made it as a record of tumultuous times.

This in no way changes anything. God is quite capable of ensuring his message got to humans. It is most rational to assume his word is accurate.

It is also rational to assume that man made mistakes writing it so that what was intended by God for man is not actually what we see.

I agree man could possibly have made mistakes in the process. However, I can find no reason to believe God would punish people for following what he has given them to the best of their abilities.

One can argue the Bible is inaccurate. However, that argument does not allow for anything new. As such, there is little value in it.

But the material that comprises Bible has been handed down from generation to generation for over four thousand years. Granted, the Jews have always excelled in preserving the purity of their written tradition, but what with all the moving around in the desert and getting carried of to Babylon and destruction of the Temple and translating to and fro by incompetent Romans and Englishmen, it's inevitable that mistakes are made in the text. God gave us free will, which apparently includes freedom to make mistakes when translating the Holy Word.  

[zz1000zz]

Galad Damodred

But the material that comprises Bible has been handed down from generation to generation for over four thousand years. Granted, the Jews have always excelled in preserving the purity of their written tradition, but what with all the moving around in the desert and getting carried of to Babylon and destruction of the Temple and translating to and fro by incompetent Romans and Englishmen, it's inevitable that mistakes are made in the text. God gave us free will, which apparently includes freedom to make mistakes when translating the Holy Word.

You say there could be errors, but why is that relevant to this topic?  

[Galad Aglaron]

zz1000zz

Galad Damodred

But the material that comprises Bible has been handed down from generation to generation for over four thousand years. Granted, the Jews have always excelled in preserving the purity of their written tradition, but what with all the moving around in the desert and getting carried of to Babylon and destruction of the Temple and translating to and fro by incompetent Romans and Englishmen, it's inevitable that mistakes are made in the text. God gave us free will, which apparently includes freedom to make mistakes when translating the Holy Word.

You say there could be errors, but why is that relevant to this topic?

The Bible, though it may be considered divinely inspired, was passed down through humans. The divine will, mistranslated and misinterpreted and misused, can mean death and misery for thousands. Think of the sack of the Holy Land. Think of the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the destruction of native cultures and religions all over the world. From America to Australia, from the Inca nation to the Maori.

God's will and moral judgments may be perfect. His human mouthpieces, however, are not.  

[Priestley]

Galad Damodred

zz1000zz

Galad Damodred

But the material that comprises Bible has been handed down from generation to generation for over four thousand years. Granted, the Jews have always excelled in preserving the purity of their written tradition, but what with all the moving around in the desert and getting carried of to Babylon and destruction of the Temple and translating to and fro by incompetent Romans and Englishmen, it's inevitable that mistakes are made in the text. God gave us free will, which apparently includes freedom to make mistakes when translating the Holy Word.

You say there could be errors, but why is that relevant to this topic?

The Bible, though it may be considered divinely inspired, was passed down through humans. The divine will, mistranslated and misinterpreted and misused, can mean death and misery for thousands. Think of the sack of the Holy Land. Think of the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the destruction of native cultures and religions all over the world. From America to Australia, from the Inca nation to the Maori.

What it has been used to do really has no bearing on its truthfulness. Even so, it is irrelevant to the thread.

Galad Damodred

God's will and moral judgments may be perfect. His human mouthpieces, however, are not.

Right, but what zz1000zz is saying is that this has nothing to do with the thread topic. Please start a new thread if you wish to debate the issue.  

[zz1000zz]

Galad Damodred

The Bible, though it may be considered divinely inspired, was passed down through humans. The divine will, mistranslated and misinterpreted and misused, can mean death and misery for thousands. Think of the sack of the Holy Land. Think of the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the destruction of native cultures and religions all over the world. From America to Australia, from the Inca nation to the Maori.

God's will and moral judgments may be perfect. His human mouthpieces, however, are not.

While this is irrelevant to this topic, and your posting it here obnoxious, I feel it is important to correct you.

The Christian religion was not responsible for much, if any of the destruction you mentioned. Christianity was a tool misused by people in power to inspire others into doing what they wanted. Blaming religion for all of these atrocities is unjustifiable.

If you want to discuss this further, make a new topic. However, if you do make such a topic, be sure to post more than petty and baseless accusations.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Now, I could be wrong, but I think the point GD is trying to make is that, if human interpretation and translation of Scripture is faulty in some areas of what God's moral standards are, what does that mean for our interpretation of God's view on abortion?

Maybe?