Three D wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:31 AM:Regarding the letter from Howard Killion: Behold the desperation of the scriptural literalists! Those who are desperae to try to explain why the Bible doesn't really mean what it so very clearly says become very creative when adding their own interpretations to verses to insert meanings not found in the original text. Killion tries to explain how a passage from Isaiah 53 that describes someone who lived a long life and had extensive offspring could actually be referring to Jesus, who reportedly died young and childless. How does he do this? He simply invents new elements that are not at all indicated in the passage. The offspring? His "spiritual" children, although the passage says nothing of the kind. Living a long life? Oh, somewhere along the way there is a death and resurrection, even though this is not in the text.

And of course the early followers of the renegade "apostle" Paul, such as Peter the gullible fisherman and Luke (who wrote the passage in Acts he cites), tried to make the connection to Isaiah, being just as desperate as Killion to twist the original text into something more to their liking.

It is so refreshing to know we have wonderful, imaginative writers like Killion who can step up to the plate and "improve" the Bible when it falls short. He definitely score points for creativity.

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:27 AM:Regarding today's Letters of King, Courtemanche, and Ellis: Can't you just feel God's love radiating from them? Courtemanche's pronouncement that: "These ladies claim to "feel the same love that heterosexuals have," but, of course, this cannot be biologically true." is truly telling. It is the self-assured statement of a person who has absolutely no empathy at all. That lack of empathy is characteristic of Fundamentalists' views as opposed to their more liberal brethren.
Regards

Its amazing wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:33 AM:How everything Three D writes about scripture is "the truth" and is believed by so many. But if someone else writes about scripture and gives an interpritation of it, it is classified as "desperation" or "false". Talk about twisiting scripture, Three D takes alot of scripture out of context, to belittle the apostle Paul and say he was trying to lead everyone astray, when in fact he was backing everything Christ said, when Jesus spoke that "nothing is good except that which comes from God" and Paul addressed works in our own "selfish, goodness" and pointed out that first we must accept Christ, be made right with God and then our works are meaningful. But of course that is wrong also, how dare I say that we must accept Christ as our savior, when our own works are good enough. How small minded of me to think that we need to be held accountable to something other than ourselves.

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:46 AM:to Steven Groth: I really appreciate you presenting a personal account. I don't believe that the anti-gay letter writers here have ever really been acquainted with any homosexuals--if they had, they'd read their Bibles with more understanding, especially regarding the clear injunctions about judging others.
Regards

Where is my post wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:12 AM:NCT that I posted this morning in response to Three D post

Zeus wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:52 PM:These letters have consistantly displayed extreme ignorance, but the letter by James Dokos takes first place as far as I'm concerned. James
clearly shows we haven't evolved that far from our invertebrate ancestors.
Steven Groth - I'm sorry you have to put up with this ignorance and
intolerance as you try to live your life
like the rest of us. Hopefully Mr. Groth's letter (and the others) will remind you how hollow and mindless these critics are. I pray the rapture comes and takes them all away (if only this fairy tale of all their fairy tales was true).

to Its amazing wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:26 PM:I have little stake in any of these debates. I'm agnostic and the only thing about religion that matters to me are whether it's used to do unconstitutional things. Oh, and also help people be compassionate towards all humanity, if it helps them do this. I am consistently impressed with Three D for the simple reason that he backs up whatever he claims with chapter and verse. When people argue with him, at least in many topics, they just don't have the facts on their side, from what I can gather. When he says that the Bible nowhere bans abortion, and when he further argues that since the Bible obviously has no difficulty being explicit about banning things it disapproves of, it would have clearly banned abortion if it felt that way...well, that's a pretty compelling argument, isn't it? All an opponent would have to do to "beat" this argument is quote a Biblical passage that bans abortion, but no one ever does. So I tend to believe ThreeD. There are many issues where it's far less clear, and I am not very interested in the Paul versus Jesus issue. But as far as abortion and one man-one woman being biblical marriage, I just haven't seen any evidence provided from the Bible. One person felt that abortion is covered by Thou Shalt Not Kill and had the integrity to also be anti-war and anti-death penalty. I am mulling this over. Most people who claim to be Christian and anti-abortion, however, seem to have no qualms about war or execution, so they still have not come up with an answer to ThreeD on abortion. I must assume it's because they got nothin'.

JOSHUA wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:40 PM:To to Its amazing. I got into the tail end of last weeks discussion on abortion but will give you some web sites that explain why I and many other Christians believe that abortion is wrong. The Assembly of God's official site lists its postion on both abortion and marriage with some scripture references. The Christian Research Institute web site also outlines a Biblical View of Abortion and an article on Exodus and Abortion referring to Exodus 21:22-25. Not everyone agrees with these positions, but perhaps you can understand why we believe abortion is wrong.

Well this seems pretty clear wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:42 PM:From the sermon on the mount, QUOTE "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." ENDQUOTE I don't know about Paul, but this certainly seems to tell people to obey and teach the commandments if they want to earn heaven. Gosh, most people who claim to be Christians sure don't follow these guidelines. Uh oh.

Three D wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:31 PM:To It's amazing at 9:33 a.m.
If what I write is "believed by so many" it certainly is not just because I say so.
It is because I provide the evidence which they can check out for themselves, and it makes sense.
I have cited extensive examples to support the very specific ways in which Paul explicitly contradicts and undermines the core teachings of Jesus, later defended by his brother James after his death.
All you can do is say, "It ain't so" but you can't show where I'm wrong.
If one person backs up everything they say with specific sources available for anyone to see for themselves, and the other one just says, "I disagree" but gives no basis for their position, who do you think will be more credible.
If I am wrong, show me where.
You say that I "take a lot of scripture out of context" but do not cite one single example, so how credible is that?
Again, if I have taken something out of context, show me where and fill in the contextual information you think is missing.

Three D wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:05 PM:To Joshua at 2:40 p.m.
The scripture you refer to Exodus 21:22-25 has NOTHING to do with a woman's voluntary, intentional choice (or her husband, in the days before women had many rights) to abort a pregnancy.
It is about two men struggling together who ACCIDENTALLY cause her to have a miscarriage, and the resulting penalties. The point is that it is about 3rd-party causation rather than 1st person voluntary choice.
Without trying to equate human tissue with property, it is more analogous to someone voluntarily disposing of unwanted property (no problem) as opposed to a 3rd party taking it contrary to the owner's intent (theft). Even so, notice that the value here is on the WOMAN, not the fetus. The penalties vary, depending on whether or not there is "harm." Harm to whom? The fetus? There was a MISCARRIAGE! By definition the fetus is already DEAD. The variability of "harm" obviously means injury to the woman. But even if there is no harm (injury) they must still have a penalty because, like modern fundamentalists wish to do, they deprived her (or her husband) of CHOICE (in this case, to complete a pregnancy). This example of a third-party violent attack (or carelessness) has no relevance whatsoever to the situation in which a woman makes a VOLUNTARY choice to abort the contents of her OWN BODY under MEDICALLY-SUPERVISED conditions. The fact that this is raised regarding something it has no relation to shows the abject desperation of those who want to find something, anything, in the Bible, but cannot find anything that actually says what they want it to about a voluntary choice of a person to abort HER OWN pregnancy. Why can't they just accept the Bible as it is instead of trying to change it?

P.S. to Armand Archambeault - you quote Jesus as having said, "Ye Gods." Can you please provide chapter and verse where he is reported to have said this? I cannot find this anywhere in the New Testament, much less the words of Jesus.

Still waiting wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:26 PM:I checked out the verses of Exodus that was recommended. I see only a condemnation for assault on a pregnant woman who is another's wife. I see too that the penalty for such is worse if the child is lost. Is this because a wrong has been done to the fetus or to the father of the fetus? In context, I'd have to lean to the latter. One of 3D's best arguments about this is the lack of straightforward condemnation of abortion. As I said before, the Bible has no hesitation when it comes to condemning specific (VERY specific) human behaviors. I don't see why it would be necessary to run all over the Books looking for something that can be taken to mean abortion. I'm not persuaded.

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:35 PM:to JOSHUA, re post of 6/27, 2:40 PM: i can't speak for "to Its amazing", but I know why you think abortion is wrong. I have no problem with your religious belief. I do have one really serious problem with the anti-choice contingent that is hell-bent on getting that belief enacted into law. There is no biblical or scientific basis for your belief.

That said, I believe it is unfortunate indeed when the choice for abortion has to be made. The really sad aspect of the effort to make abortion illegal is that's all it would do--make it illegal. It won't stop abortions. However, the abortion rate could be substantially reduced by tackling its root cause -- intended pregnancy.

Improved sex education and wider availability of effective contraception would go a long way in this effort. And wouldn't you know it, the anti-choice group also wants to ban contraception as well! Somehow I get the impression that they believe the proper punishment for an unintended pregnancy is an unwanted child.
Regards

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:52 PM:My bad. In my previous post, 2nd paragraph, I meant to say unintended pregnancy
Regards

Three D wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:49 PM:I need to correct my "P.S. to Armand Archambeault" in my 5:05 p.m.
While seeking the phrase he attributed to Jesus, I made a typing error in my digital Bible search.
While it is true that I was unable to find the passage (due to my typo), the conclusion that it is not there was an error on my part.
In John 10:34 Jesus does refer to a quote from the Old Testament (the Law), and in fact there are two references to this statement from the Old Testament, in Psalm 82:6 and Isaiah 41:23.
So I would like to correct my error and apologize.
(Well, may it is not accurate to say I would "like" to admit I'm wrong, but I am, so it is the right thing to do.)

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:09 PM:to Three D, re "Ye are Gods". I researched a bit and found it in John 10:34 (31-36 in context). But He wasn't speaking to us--He was quoting from Psalm 82. I haven't had any luck with the other quote.
Regards

JOSHUA wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:42 PM:I once thought there was nothing wrong with abortion, after all it is not mentioned in the Bible. Then I became a Christian, started studying the Bible, and had Children. My perspective has changed. Abortion is a divisive issue but, both sides should understand each others position. I think I understand the prochoice position, I just disagree with it. ThreeD is correct, Exodus 21:22-25 does not deal with a woman's voluntary choice. I merely mentioned an article which discusses how some interpret these verses and how it relates to abortion and the belief that life is sacred to God. I also realize that some Bibles use the word miscarriage in these verses, but not all do. For example, the NIV and NKJV use "she gives birth prematurely". This is because the original text uses the word yeled combined with yasa. In the approximate 1075 uses of yasa in the Old Testament, it never refers to miscarriage. That is an important difference and I do believe if one was to read the entire article I referred to at CRI, then they would understand how it relates to the abortion issue. Finally, if someone does not believe that life begins at conception and that God recognizes you in the womb (Psalm 139: 13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 44:2 and 24) then there is very little I can say that would make you believe abortion is the taking of innocent life and against the principles in the Bible.

Theological Conundrum wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:18 AM:Let's assume two basic doctrine's to be true:

1) All humans are guilty from the beginning of life because of "original sin", and that, unless Baptized, this original sin remains and the person not partaking in the Sacrement die guilty and are not admitted to the Kingdom.

2) Life begins at conception, not at birth.

If the two are true, then abortion is hardly the murder of "innocents", and these victims, whether viable or not, will burn in hell following their unfortunate demise.

Your thoughts?

But please, before you weigh in, don't cherry pick scripture, or add your "thoughts" or theology used in this excercise, but only literal quotes of the word of God from accepted Scripture.

This excercise will once an for all decide the importance of fundamental beliefs in Holy Scripture, because scripture is either the unwaverable word of the Almighty, or open to the often manipulated interpretation of Man.

Granted, you have to be brave to honestly enter into this discourse, without changing the precepts I haved laid out.

I anxiously await responses, if you dare!

Three D wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:13 AM:To Theological Conundrum at 7:18 a.m.
Excellent points showing the contradictory nature of the conservative religious view.

1. Obviously, I reject the doctrine of "original sin" which originated solely from the renegade "apostle" Paul and defies reason or justice to hold anyone responsible for the sins of anyone else.

2. Life does not begin at fertilization of sperm into egg. Eggs and sperms were already alive before joining, and were thus "human life," showing that human life does not equal being a human person.

3. Innocence of guilt are attributes that cannot be ascribed to beings prior to the onset of reflective sentience, which cannot possibly even commence prior to the onset of measurable EEG brain waves, which occurs in the middle of the second trimester. As our friend TFB has pointed out in the general letters page, if the cessation of EEG brain waves marks official clinical death of a peson (if if other systems have not fully shut down), the prior to the onset of those same brain waves you cannot have a legal human person. (EEG brain waves are specific waves, not to be confused with electrical cell pulses in all cells, including sperms and eggs.

Exodus - wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:46 AM:I agree that as we read it in the KJV, the pregnant woman in Exodus who is assaulted by someone other than her husband and who miscarries is inapplicable to abortion. But Exodus 21:22-25 tells us so much more than this. It is all about a man trying to beat another man's wife and/or trying to kill another man's future offspring. The offense is to the father of the fetus, pure and simple. If the woman is not injured, the assaulter has to pay a fine. If the woman IS injured, retribution in kind is doled out. There is not a whit in this section of concern about the fetus. It is not grieved, worried about, called "innocent", or anything else. The crime is against the father/husband. That's Biblical sociobiology and has nothing to do with abortion. And this is rather obvious. The argument that still persuades me the most that the Bible has no interest in objecting to abortion is still the simplest: the Bible is jam-packed with "thou shalt nots", "abominations", and a whole K-mart full of clearly spelled out prohibitions, and no where among them is abortion. That's game, set, and match to me. I now firmly and completely believe that anytime a "Christian" opposes abortion, it's for reasons that are other than religious, or at least other than anything Judeo-Christian. If I were brought GOOD evidence to the contrary, I would have not a problem in the world changing my mind about this. My beliefs about abortion have nothing to do with any religious or faux-religious doctrine. This is about my belief in people who say they're "Christian", not abortion.

Superstitions Go Away wrote on Jun 28, 2008 4:05 PM:Arguing over the meaning of biblical verses is like arguing over the meaning of The Night Before Christmas. Do we really need fairy tales to solve our social and ethical problems?

Three D wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:22 PM:To Superstitions at 4:05 p.m.
Your comment is correct as far as it goes.
But it does not go far enough.
If there were large numbers of people claiming that "The Night Before Xmas" is literally factual, would it not be appropriate to cite passages from the poem that help illustrate that it is merely a children's fantasy?

Superstitions Go Away wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:31 AM:To 3D. Your point is well taken. I respect what you have done in these letters. My comment was directed at those using the bible to determine what is and isn't the right thing to do. For some reason they believe that ancient sheep herders (writing about all sorts of Gods) have more insight into the problems of the 21st century than they are capable of if they actually elected to use their own brains.

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:38 AM:to Just Wandering: I apologize for the delay in responding to your other questions. You asked: "Also can you suggest any reading material I might find helpful in my journey?" I think a look at our country's religious (and not so religious) roots would be educational and an opportunity to exercise critical thinking. The question: What part, if any, did our Founding Fathers intend for religion to play in Federal government? I'd suggest starting with Google search topics to include "Founding Fathers" "Original Intent", Early American Religion (and Denominations and Churches). These may lead you to recommended reference books and yet other topics. You can check your local library and Amazon for those books,
I'll still have to get back to you on my pro0life rationale,
Regards

Just wandering wrote on Jun 29, 2008 3:57 PM:To John the Baptist.
I understand it is the weekend. Get back to me when you can
Thank you

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:06 PM:to Just wandering: Here are some elements of my position on abortion: First, I believe a fetus becomes a human being when it can survive outside the womb. Before that time, it is only a potential human being. It is part of the woman’s body and as such it’s her choice as to what to do about it. Anti-choicers want to end all abortion, so they believe abortion should be made illegal. But that won't stop abortions -- it’ll only make them illegal.
I’d like to see the abortion rate substantially reduced, and it can be, by tackling its root cause -- unintended pregnancy. Better sex education and better and more available contraception would go a long way toward that goal.
Anti-choicers talk about “the sanctity of life” and their concern for the unborn. Those are admirable concerns, except when they are considered to the exclusion of all else. Apparently, after a child is born, it is of no further interest to the anti-choicers –- their work is done. If they really cared about the sanctity of life, they’d be doing something about our country’s abysmal infant mortality rate -– of the top industrialized nations in the world, there are 25 countries with lower rates than ours! And they’d be doing something about the many children without heath coverage. These children and the women with unintended pregnancies are real, live people. They are the ones I’m pro-life for.
Regards

to John the Baptist wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:18 AM:Thanks very much for your succinct summary of your opinions about abortion. I must say that I agree with you on all counts. In particular, I think it crucial that people understand that those of us who are pro-choice are NOT pro-abortion. We do not WANT there to be abortions and if we had our way, every pregnancy would result in a wanted, loved child. So we try to study ways to help bring this about. Preaching abstinence only has been shown to be a rather dismal approach to this goal. I believe it's a program designed more for the preachers, so that they can feel good about their own morality, than for the kids who hear them.

John the Baptist wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:57 PM:to "to JTB", re post of 7/1, 10:18 AM: Thanks for your input. I was expecting (and still expect) a fair amount of negative input, so I was pleasantly surprised. I'm a pragmatist-- I want the best overall solution. Abortion is an emotion-laden issue, and well it should be, but making it a strict either/or issue is counter-productive. I'm hoping we can get a constructive dialog going.
Again, thanks for responding.

CAVEL wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:13 PM:I agree with much the post by JTB of 6-30-08, 8:06 PM, except that his suggestions to reduce abortions are rather hackneyed and ineffective. "Sex education and contraceptives" have been touted for years. JTB's pro-choice stance is not very original either. Lacking in the discussion is a consideration of the multifaceted nature of the problem. It isn't just a case of the stereotypical girl who doesn't want to carry her pregnancy to term. There is also the area of aborting a fetus caused by rape or incest or cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. Or where amniocentesis reveals that the unborn is abonormal. Reality is that at our present stage of technology, this problem will continue until the understanding of genetics, the human genome, and the mechanisms of biochemistry are understood sufficiently to provide more effective tools. Until then, the rest is just the usual preaching and recitations of what is already known. Instant solutions are NOT in the offing. Human behavior is far too complex to be merely reduced to a few simple panaceas and nostrums.

John the Baptist wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:37 AM:to Just wandering: I hope you got my drift that I was presenting only some elements of my position on abortion. It's a complex issue and we can discuss it further as you like.
Regards