Democrats freaking out about church speech

@kellyjay said
And when you use it you know how it should be used, what the proper interpretation is because ...?

C'mon KJ. You've now made half-a-dozen posts directed at either caissad4 or me with all of them sidestepping the points made in our respective posts.

Any chance that you'll actually address the points she made in her post and the points I made in mine instead of continuing to sidestep them?

@caissad4 said
Dear Bible believer,
What is the Biblical penalty for injuring a woman and causing her unborn child to die ?? I think it is in Leviticus . According to your god it is NOT murder, but according to hypocritical Christians it is. Clearly, the majority of those who claim to be Christians do not believe their own gods' words.
Whose words do you believe ?

You're actually a bit off...

The passage is in Exodus:

The Hebrew Bible makes only one reference to abortion, and this is by implication. Exodus 21:22-23 states: “And if two men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, accordingly as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, though shalt give life for life.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/abortion-bible-interpretation_b_2292111.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

And the HuffPo article goes on to distinguish between how the Jewish persons traditionally interpreted this passage where both portions of harm refer to the woman, while in the Christian tradition and in the Greek septuagint the harm refers in the secodn part actually to the child... Thus, it would read as if the chidl is not harmed, only a fine is paid; if the chld is harmed, he would be put to death.

Due note that the KJV is used here in the original HuffPo quote which makes it sound liek the fruit departeth from her means that te child dies, but the KJV also states "and no mischief follow," e.g., a circumstance where a child is born prematurely without injury.

The New International Version currently translates the passage as:

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] 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.

Your interpretation of this actually isn't that great.

Oh, sure, I see your point, and liberal Jewish scholars see your point, but there is established church traditions which account for it, and so there is not a reason to view it as so persuasive.

@suzianne said
Religion and government should not mix.

Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?

The church should have zero say in government.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Good luck with that.

Why should the First Amendment be held above all else?

Many founding fathers, like John Jay, wanted a state religion... Moreover, the interpretations of this are thoroughly broad, which is exactly why In God We Trust was minted on our money and the initial years focused on the notion of no sect being favored over another, or simply as religion not being a means of discrimination, not for a French rote style hard secularism.

If the first amendment is sacred, though, and should never be infringed at all, we should be doing a whole lot of other things differently.

But no one respects the First Amendment or the Second Amendment that much on the Left.

So why should I?

And why should this argument be relevant to non-Americans -- especially when the Constitution has resulted in so many other flawed developments..?

@philokalia said
You're actually a bit off...

The passage is in Exodus:

[quote]The Hebrew Bible makes only one reference to abortion, and this is by implication. Exodus 21:22-23 states: “And if two men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, accordingly as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, and he ...[text shortened]... ed church traditions which account for it, and so there is not a reason to view it as so persuasive.

He has ThinkofOne telling him what the scripture means, apparently ToO knows
what he is talking about when it comes to scripture. At least that is what he has been
telling me.

@philokalia said

Many founding fathers, like John Jay, wanted a state religion... Moreover, the interpretations of this are thoroughly broad, which is exactly why In God We Trust was minted on our money and the initial years focused on the notion of no sect being favored over another, or simply as religion not being a means of discrimination, not for a French rote style hard secularism.

I am a coin collector and know exactly who ordered the phrase "In God We Trust" be placed upon our coinage. It was not a Founding Father, they were all dead by that time.

@ThinkOfOne

Well let's look at the verse, shall we?

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.

So we see two men "striving", then a woman accidentally gets harmed with a subsequent miscarriage. This is not murder, this is what is known to day as involuntary manslaughter.

Moreover, now let's look at the NIV translation

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] 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.

So the verse says that the woman gives birth prematurely, and then adds, "but no one is hurt"?

It seems to me that the child lives, not dies.

I even took the liberty of looking at the Hebrew terms for miscarriage. There are two Hebrew terms for it, which are shakal and nafal, but either are used here. Instead, the term "vi yatzu yiladeha" is used. Shakal is used 4 times in the OT, in Genesis 31:38, Job 3:16, Ecclesaisties 6:3-4, and Psalms 58:9. This term means miscarriage in each case. Nafal is used 3 times in Exodus 23:26, Hosea 9:14, and Job 21:10, and it also means miscarriage in each case, or to abort. Why then does this passage give a whole other new word for "miscarriage"?

Now getting back to the verse. If the verse means miscarraiage, then it would read like this. "If there is a miscarriage and harm ensues...." it could only mean the Torah does not consider the premature death or injury of the children as "harm". but when the words are literally translated as "her children leave her" - meaning the pregnant woman's children have been expelled from the womb- the words, "If there is harm" apply to the chidren or to the mother or to both.

It therefore seems clear that what the verse is saying is that if the mother gives birth and there is no harm to either her or the child, the husband goes to court, which fines the man who induced premature birth. But if the death results from the premature birth to the woman or child, then it would be an eye for an eye.

Those of faith have a troubling question to answer. Would God have seen the abortion of any of his prophets, or Christ himself, a sin?

How then are they more important than we to whom they were sent?

For those not of faith, they have no such moral qualms. After all, atheists think that we are mere glorified animals. So what do we do to animals? That's right, we use them as beasts of burden, keep them as pets for our amusement, or kill and eat them.

@caissad4 said
I am a coin collector and know exactly who ordered the phrase "In God We Trust" be placed upon our coinage. It was not a Founding Father, they were all dead by that time.

Right!

Which makes it even more pertinent:

The interpretation of the separation of church & state in even the twentieth century was not at all like how you perceive it to be.

Similarly, throughout the 19th century and up until much fo the early 20th century, most oaths of office in most states had explicit pledges to follow God. Likewise, following Western tradition, people generally are sworn in on the Bible -- and this practice has recently been extended to the Koran. Meetings are generally opened up with prayer, etc.

The separation of church & state as much of the left advances it is ahistorical.

@philokalia said
Right!
Which makes it even more pertinent:
The interpretation of the separation of church & state in even the twentieth century was not at all like how you perceive it to be.
Similarly, throughout the 19th century and up until much fo the early 20th century, most oaths of office in most states had explicit pledges to follow God. Likewise, following Western tradition, p ...[text shortened]... with prayer, etc.
The separation of church & state as much of the left advances it is ahistorical.

A rather typical theist interpretation of American history. Of course you know that a treaty signed by several of our Founding Fathers in 1799 specifically states that America is NOT a Christian country. But that must not be relevant to the point you are trying to make.
Who exactly are you trying to convince ?

@caissad4 said
A rather typical theist interpretation of American history. Of course you know that a treaty signed by several of our Founding Fathers in 1799 specifically states that America is NOT a Christian country. But that must not be relevant to the point you are trying to make.
Who exactly are you trying to convince ?

As far as I'm concern there never has been a Christian country on the planet.
American has some Christian's in its founding and its history that is as far as it
can go.

@kellyjay said
As far as I'm concern there never has been a Christian country on the planet.
American has some Christian's in its founding and its history that is as far as it
can go.

What's your take on Romans 13 as it applies to this?

@caissad4 said
A rather typical theist interpretation of American history. Of course you know that a treaty signed by several of our Founding Fathers in 1799 specifically states that America is NOT a Christian country. But that must not be relevant to the point you are trying to make.
Who exactly are you trying to convince ?

Wait, how would that be relevant? I have never stated that the US is explicitly a Christian country. You are playign with strawmen -- and you are also conceding points through omission & moving goalposts. But I wasn't going to call you on this because I did not want to be rude or abrasive in our discussion, but I see you are heading in that direction so I might as well point these things out.

There is a separation of Church & State, but there is not an absolute and total abolition of references to God, nor is there an absolute & total abolition of religiosity within the context of politicians in state life, nor in the way that laws are based on the concepts people have of Godhead.

Many of the Founders were apparently deists, and by being deists they did believe in an absolute & objective moral truth -- you can see these dramatic lines in the opening of the Declaration of Independence.

... It is also worth noting that the US Constitution was thrown together at the last minute in Philadelphia because the previous Articles of Confederation were bunk and they were reaching a boiling point. It was an incredibly closed meeting and even the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, objected to this process and to the Constitution itself, only reluctantly signing on later....

There's a whole lot of background and stuff that is worth talking about, but no one ever does.

@kellyjay said
As far as I'm concern there never has been a Christian country on the planet.
American has some Christian's in its founding and its history that is as far as it
can go.

Christ said that his kingdom was not of this world, nor could be.

The god of this world is at the heart of the state. The death and destruction of the state is unprecedented.

@kellyjay said
As far as I'm concern there never has been a Christian country on the planet.
American has some Christian's in its founding and its history that is as far as it
can go.

It is interesting to think about this...

But there have been many, many nations where the Christian church was the state church, and Church laws or Bible based laws have existed... Not to mention places like the United States which have never been officially Christians but have always been culturally Christian -- a culture that would be advantageous to preserve.

@kellyjay said
As far as I'm concern there never has been a Christian country on the planet.
American has some Christian's in its founding and its history that is as far as it
can go.

The majority of American Christians voted for and got the Christian president they wanted in 2016.