Jimmie Walker and Ann Coulter!?!

OK.... a lot of people will not like my answer, but it has nothing to do with race and many a black person, would agree with me, and has. So here goes. You all know I am a Christian and I have said so from the start, I am answering this question because I was asked to be more specific. This is not meant to accuse anyone of "sinning", because sin is something we all do, and I include myself, I do believe we can confess those sins and be forgiven, and I do not think sexual sins are any worse than other sins.

Both the article above and your question can be answered in that homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin in scripture, and before anyone gets mad, so are heterosexual extramarital affairs (adultery), and premarital sex (fornication). Therefore it is still wrong according to scripture and to continue to engage in it after a legal license (marriage) is granted it is still wrong.

Do you think bigamy should be legal also? (Yes the article talks about bigamy in the Bible and it did exist but it was always considered unwise.) Premarital sex can be resolved if the couple marries, but if they do so it still does not erase the sin committed in the premarital act. That is still sin and needs to be confessed to God and forgiveness will be granted.

A legal document does not change sin into an acceptable act. You cannot make it OK, by legalizing it.

Example: It is still unwise to be drunk, it causes all kinds of relationship problems and other issues. I do not think it is OK, to be drunk just because it is legal. I still say it is unwise to do so, and the scripture says "do not be drunk with wine wherein is excess".

The reason I am adamantly opposed to abortion is because I do consider it murder, and I do consider it morally wrong, and having a "law" that says it is OK, does not make it morally so.

 

Do you know at what point in pregnancy the Jewish faith considers a fetus to have a soul?

 

No, do you?

 

Yup. You should research it some time.

 

Why? I am not Jewish, I am Christian. I take my views from Scripture. I do not need the Jewish interpretation, but if you want to tell us then do so please.

 

You don't recognize that Christianity stems from Judaism? Are you disputing the fact that the Old Testament is indeed scripture? Or did I miss where Jesus wasn't Jewish?

 

If you are seriously interested in a discussion about Judaism vs. Christianity please start a thread in the religious section and I would be more than happy to discuss it there.

I am not disputing anything here, except that I am not Jewish and I do not follow Judaism and they are not the same religion. I have nothing against the Jews.

 

I have no desire to discuss Judaism vs. Christianity with someone who doesn't recognize the fact that the fundamental basis of Christianity is indeed Judaism. So, if the Webmaster deems it necessary to split this thread and put it in the religion section, I'll let him do that. I hear he has nothing better to do tonight.

My point has little to do with the differences (and similarities) between Judaism and Christianity. In fact, my point has little to do with abortion. All I'm trying to point out here is that if you have not researched basic points of your argument and the opposite side of what you believe, then I can't take your arguments on any topic with anything but a grain of salt.

Allow me to explain.

Your position is that abortion is murder, and that your belief is based on Scripture. The reason that I asked whether or not you knew when the Jewish faith considers a fetus to have a soul is because if you are NOT aware of the Jewish side of the argument, then you can't say that you base your belief on Scripture.

For future reference (since a few posts back you said that if I knew the Jewish interpretation to share it with you, please), most Jewish denominations believe that the fetus acquires a soul at the 40th day from conception (in some Jewish denominations as late as the 80th day). Also, if you had researched this side of the argument, you would know that miscarriage of a fetus (either induced or spontaneous) is only mentioned ONCE in the Bible, and that is in Exodus (the exact chapter and verse escape my mind right now, and I don't feel like looking it up at the moment).

So, if you base your beliefs on Scripture as a Christian, then you know that some times we have to look to the Old Testament for a guide as well as the New Testament. And if there is something that is not discussed in the New Testament and we claim to base our beliefs on Scripture, then we must look to the Old Testament for guidance in those areas.

Now, when you look at the one passage in Exodus that discusses the miscarriage of a fetus, it is in reference to the pregnancy being terminated by injury. According to the passage that follows, the consequence for the crime was the same as the consequence for a property crime, NOT the same consequence for taking another's life. Hence, the original Jewish interpretation of the passage was taken to mean that ending a pregnancy was NOT murder, either induced by another person or by the mother.

When you look at the history of beliefs on abortion in Church history, you will find that it was not always the case that abortion was believed to be murder, and you might be surprised to find out that there are coalitions of Christian groups out there who do NOT believe that abortion is murder, and base their belief on Scripture (i.e., the interpretation of the passage in Exodus).

Now, my point is this. If you had fully researched this, then you would at least be aware of this side of the argument. All I'm saying is that your arguments no longer hold a great deal of weight with me now, because you've touched on an issue that I actually know about and that I know both sides of, and you've missed the other side. How you can form a well balanced opinion, and say that it is based on Scripture when you can't even recognize any knowledge about the facts stated above is beyond me. When I asked if you knew when the Jewish faith considers a fetus to have a soul, (had you fully researched this) your answer should have been "Yes, and I know from what part of the Bible the Jewish belief stems from, and here is why I don't agree with it."

Now I'm going to go back to fucking my boyfriend whose baby I aborted, and think about the married man I'm screwing on the side. Thanks for playing.

 

"Talk to me after you get some black dick, K?"

nice sig

lol

 

First of all, I do not believe that the fundamental basis of Christianity is Judaism. That is a completely different religion, and is based on old testament law, and a lot more, the Jewish religion rejected Christ, and is not a model for me in any way. There are a lot of things that were taught as part of the law because of the "hardness of man's heart".

Yes, we can look at the Old Testament for guidance, and we must interpret it based on New Testament guidelines. There are many references in the Old Testament that show that God knew us even before he formed us in the womb. The Psalms are full of such references. The 40th day and the 80th day that you refer too are not in scripture, and have nothing to do with Christianity.

So you see there is not even a Jewish view point as you claim!

I do not need to research all sides of an argument to state my opinion, I need only to know why I believe what I believe and know how to articulate that. If you believe differently then say so, tell me your side of the argument for discussion sake and I will take it into consideration keeping my beliefs in mind. You have not convinced me of anything here, least of all the "need" to "research" other religions.

As to your argument that Exodus. You are wrong, so much for your pride in research. Maybe you should have looked up chapter and verse, I am very familiar with this passage.

This is the same penalty as if a person murdered someone.

 

It's not my research, dearie, and it's not my argument about Exodus. That's why you should look it up. I'm just saying it's one side of the story. I never once gave you my opinion, just what the other side of your argument says. You shouldn't get so defensive, just because there are a grip of people out there (SHOCK! Even some Christians!) whose opinions are different than yours.

Uh, okay. I'll be sure to add that as a footnote in my next grad school term paper.

 

The "serious injury" is in reference to the woman, not the fetus. Use a different translation than the NIV, and it says "further" serious injury.

But, you were a Pastor's wife for what, 20 years? You should know everything and the rest of us know nothing, no matter how educated we are or how well we know Hebrew.

 

Again you are simply wrong.

Here is another version:

In the old Hebrew:

it says:
yeled- meaning, child or newborn (above see fruit depart)
yatsa- meaning- begotten or born (above see fruit depart)
acown- meaning hurt, or mischief

Even if you research it in the Hebrew, you find that it is referring to a child being born alive prematurely and the reference to mischief is not indicative of the mother only as you state.

So this scripture is saying in my modern English, is that if a person attacks a pregnant woman and she has the child prematurely but they are both OK, (no harm) then the attacker is imposed a fine, but if there is a worse result (that could mean anything from an unhealthy premature infant, to the death of either mother or infant) then the punishment should fit the crime and therefore mentions:

As to the rest of your comments, do what you like in college, it's your paper! I did not take your arguments personal, and I should hope you don't take mine that way, if you think I don't know what I'm talking about ignore me, if you have a valid view point I will read it, and respond, BASED on MY belief system which I BELIEVE in and there for by definition I am convinced is the TRUTH. Otherwise it would be only an opinion, and not a belief.

I do not need to know all counter arguments to make my case, I know my case well, and I don't know nor do I care about all the other arguments out there. I made it clear in my post where I get my viewpoint from and why I believe the way I do.

 

Yes, I take all of your comments personally.

I have nothing better to do than wait for you to respond.

Tell BJ, Misty, Jules and everyone else that's still at MWW and P.U. I said hi.

Thanks, and yatyas.

 

The Bible also says, "slaves obey your masters."

So do you believe in slavery and that blacks should have remained slaves here in the u.s.?
(Yes, its a rhetorical question. I hope so, anyway.)

 

Translation...:smt017

 

Tinkerbell, you are probably the exception to the rule.

Ask the average black person on the street and what first come to their mind when they mention the word "conservative".

 

Scriptural slavery was based on a law where a man could sell himself into slavery for a period no longer than 7 years, and he was to be treated well by his master, and set free on the 7th year. This had nothing to do with a certain race of people being thought of as less than human.

The slavery of the Jews to the Egyptians was not Gods plan and He set them free from it, He did not expect them to "obey" as you state. In fact He told them to loot their "masters" in the end.

Judaism is not Christianity, Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, that He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross and rose again on the third day. That He did all this in order to reconcile us, sinful humanity, to God.

The Jews do not believe this, so how could they be the same religion. The Jews do not study the New Testament and do not live under grace but under the law of the Old Testament and they also have many other traditions that are not even in the Old Testament.

 

I have many Black conservative friends!

There are Black conservative people in politics constantly being criticized on this forum. I know that a lot of Black people may be more liberal in their views but the Black people in California evidently voted overwhelmingly for a marriage amendment to the State Constitution, that is a conservative view point.

Here try this web site out: http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrats-own-history-with-race.html

 

where did it say they were in a relationship... maybe it was just a photo op