Death Certificates on Abortions Proposed

[Oh Hamburgers!]

The problem Forrest is having, as well as other "liberal Christians," is that in order to justify their liberal politcal leanings, they must discredit portions of scripture. Their anti-war, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion positions are not found in the Bible, so they are forced to discredit the parts that contradict them. There is this effort going on to try to make being liberal or conservative equally ok for a Christian, and none of the liberal arguments work against someone who fully trusts in the innerency of scripture.

I would be very careful about combining politics and religion; one who votes liberal doesn't have to agree with every facet of the liberal party, same with a conservative party. Similarly, it is very dangerous in my opinion to associate a specific political party with the "will of God".

God isn't a democrat, or a republican.

[Guest LadyC]

no, God isn't democrat or republican. but the democratic party, by and large, aligns itself on the opposite end of the spectrum from God's Holy Word. individual candidates may differ, but collectively, anti-Christian values are what liberals stand for.

it's always important to vote on the issues, for an individual candidate, rather than on the name of the party backing them.

but it's not dangerous from the Christian perspective to recognize anti-godly values and point them out. it IS, however, very dangerous for any given person to SEPARATE their faith from their politics.

so save you're warnings.

[apothanein kerdos]

oh, it's nice to have a subject on which AK and i can agree. that's so very uncommon.

but, AK, i have to correct you.... i assumed he had used the message bible for his scriptural context. he informed me he'd used the NAB, which is the current favorite of the catholic church.

however, you're still correct that it is a paraphrase, similar to the message. it is not a word for word translation and doesn't appear to even make the claim that it is.

of course, i addressed that in my post to forrest.... but i don't recall him ever redressing it.

Ah, no difference in the two really, as you pointed out.

QUOTE(apothanein kerdos @ Feb 19 2007, 05:06 PM) *

It should be understood that I am not saying you have to be an expert on an issue to post on it, or that you can't use Google for clarification. Instead, I'm saying that there are people who have no justification for their claims because they have failed to study - thus, they do a five minute search on Google, find a site that proves their point, and pull information from it without understanding the depth of the controversy they are presenting. That is a "Google Intellect."

Well this was evident earlier when he posted that ungodly link to a site that said something like "Why abortion is Christian". When someone informed him that it was disgusting, he came back with "you're right, it was". This clearly shows that he didn't even take the time to research the site he was advocating as a "source". He merely googled it and posted it.

Keen observation

[apothanein kerdos]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_...Ryafhso3ZOs0NUE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070216/hl_af...lpGYp0FMKrrSLYF

So much for "viable" eh?

[Zceiv]

If these death certificates can prevent just one abortion, then I feel it is fully worth it.

The problem is it would be a violation of thousands of women's rights to privacy. It would be a sacrifice of our freedoms in exchange for a little bit of security, and not that much security to be fair. At what point do we draw the line?

I'm all for avoiding abortions, but there has to be a better way than this bill is proposing.

Im sorry but I dont care about these " thousands of women's.' privacy. One human life is more important than peoples privacy

[forrestkc]

Look, I've come to the conclusion (especially after Forrest's last post to me...which I haven't responded to because it's so absurd that I literally get too frustrated before I just start wondering how anyone with an inkling of cognitive thought could say such trite) that Forrest is, what I call, a "Google Intellect."

What this means is he, like many other people on message boards, will walk into an issue with a presupposition, and any argument thrust upon him is immediately searched via Wikipedia, Google, or some other informational type search engine and all arguments are then shifted to his presupposition.

Case in point:

I gave him a passage in Exodus, with what the Hebrew word actually means. He then comes back with the same passage from The Message, which is a paraphrase and the original language was not consulted, to prove that Exodus is devaluing a child's life.

I am not going to respond to most of your post as it is more or less a personal attack. However, I never quote "The Message". I own two Bibles, a New American Bible, which is the official Catholic Bible in America, and a King James Version. The quote from scripture I gave was out of the New American Bible, and of course, we know what the Catholic Position is on this issue.

He then proceeds to tell me the definition for the Hebrew word, which, no doubt he looked up online without putting any study into the issue. Never mind that I could bring up five well respected commentaries to refute his point, he wouldn't listen. Why? Because...with Forrest, Christian theology is dictated by the majority.

This is the second sign of a Google Intellect. They see big names supporting ideas and assume that the majority of theologians must support this interpretation, and that majority = correct. He, of course, could not begin to tell us how German Rationalism, the Kierkegaardian response, and Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy have all skewed modern theology (unless, of course, he looked it up). He also can't validate his claim of a majority of theologians...the fact that most theologians that are teaching what he is supporting would likewise deny the following:

The Trinity

The incarnation

The resurrection

The miracles of Jesus

The miracles in the Old Testament

Much of Paul's teachings (if not all)

The absolute morality presented in the Bible

A theistic world view

We even see this from Forrest himself when he says that the ancient Hebrews devalued life via their actions. He ignores that:

1) They did all of this as a command of God

2) They obviously had a conflict with their morals because more than once they refused to kill everyone in the villages

3) God commanded these killings as part of His judgment on these nations

4) The concept of societal judgment

Instead, he removes God from the equation and assumes that the entire Old Testament was actually written allegorically and where the Hebrews invoke God as their justification for killing, they are doing this to save face for their genocidal acts. Never mind the fact he has no idea where this type of theology originated from, he's simply going to support it without studying it any further than Wikipedia will allow him to.

So beware the Google Intellects, they will post a lot of hog wash, but it's all a paper tiger.

Actually, I get most of it out of the theological footnotes of the Catholic Bible I have. To be honest with you, other than reading C.S. Lewis, I don

[Guest LadyC]

you're missing the point about the NAB forrest. it's not any better than the message. they are BOTH paraphrases, not word-for-word translations. if you'd bothered reading the passage in the KJV, you'd have found that it was referring to premature birth.

and the KJV IS a word-for-word translation, much more accurate than your NAB.

[forrestkc]

you're missing the point about the NAB forrest. it's not any better than the message. they are BOTH paraphrases, not word-for-word translations. if you'd bothered reading the passage in the KJV, you'd have found that it was referring to premature birth.

and the KJV IS a word-for-word translation, much more accurate than your NAB.

Have you ever even picked up an NAB? It is not a paraphrased Bible, it is almost word for word the NRSV with Apocrypha.

[nebula]

I brought it up because some on here were using Old Testament arguments on the sanctity of life. The ancient Hebrews saw nothing at all immoral about slaughtering women and children in war, yet one should believe that they had a better sense of morality toward the sanctity of life than we do?

This literalist argument that you guys present on the Pentateuch is a minority view in Christianity, and Judaism for that matter.

As I have stated several times on here, I think that abortion is wrong in many cases. For example, I certainly don

[forrestkc]

I brought it up because some on here were using Old Testament arguments on the sanctity of life. The ancient Hebrews saw nothing at all immoral about slaughtering women and children in war, yet one should believe that they had a better sense of morality toward the sanctity of life than we do?

This literalist argument that you guys present on the Pentateuch is a minority view in Christianity, and Judaism for that matter.

As I have stated several times on here, I think that abortion is wrong in many cases. For example, I certainly don