Me and my Orthodox friend were having a discussion a few days ago (although our beliefs somewhat differ we get along well) His main point was that Atheists are crazy because they have no moral capacity and he backed up his statement with all the crimes and bad shit that's occuring in America, so I told him that Christians are no different because they'll go to extremes to propogate their beliefs as well and I backed this up with some of them bombing Abortion clinics. He told me none of that stuff happens where he lives and that Abortion has ALWAYS been legal on demand there (Macedonia, Europe.) So I asked how come: both of you read the same Bible. And he replied "Yes, but we actually READ the Bible, unlike them Americans." And he went further on saying that the Bible does not forbid Abortions, on the contrary it approves of it:

005:011 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

005:012 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any
man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,

005:013 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes
of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and
there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the
manner;

005:014 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of
his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy
come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not
defiled:

005:015 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he
shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah
of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put
frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an
offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

005:016 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the
LORD:

005:017 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and
of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest
shall take, and put it into the water:

005:018 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and
uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in
her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest
shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the
curse:

005:019 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the
woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not
gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband,
be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

005:020 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband,
and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee
beside thine husband:

005:021 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of
cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD
make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD
doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;

005:022 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy
bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And
the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

005:023 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he
shall blot them out with the bitter water:

005:024 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that
causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall
enter into her, and become bitter.

005:025 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the
woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and
offer it upon the altar:

005:026 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the
memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward
shall cause the woman to drink the water.

005:027 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall
come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass
against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse
shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall
swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse
among her people.

005:028 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall
be free, and shall conceive seed.

What it basically says here is that the woman should be FORCED to abort the fetus if she was fucked by anyone but her lawful husband. Being pro-choice, I don't really agree with this, because it should be entirely up to the woman but this is a nice step up to all the moronic Christians who misinterpreted their own Holy Book.

Furthermore, my friend said "Thou shalt not murder" doesn't apply to the unborn. So basically it's not about Christianity itself but the literacy of those who follow it, but most of those who follow it ARE morons, so there ya go...

What it basically says here is that the woman should be FORCED to abort the fetus if she was fucked by anyone but her lawful husband.

Ya think?

Off the top of my head the thigh rotting bit sounds more like a STD. If I remember rightly (and that is an 'if' cos its been a long time since I did this) then 'thigh' was the nice way of saying 'vagina'. Maybe one fo the hebrew scholars here can confirm that.

The whole point of this passage is the that there was a 'trial'. Unlike most cultures of that time the husband had no right to kill his wife on simple suspicion of infidelity.

Even if you could show me evidence that really showed this passage related to an abortion (and it might do)
don't forget we're talking about a deity that has no problems with dashing out babies brains and the slaughter of innocents.

What it basically says here is that the woman should be FORCED to abort the fetus if she was fucked by anyone but her lawful husband. Being pro-choice, I don't really agree with this, because it should be entirely up to the woman but this is a nice step up to all the moronic Christians who misinterpreted their own Holy Book.

Furthermore, my friend said "Thou shalt not murder" doesn't apply to the unborn. So basically it's not about Christianity itself but the literacy of those who follow it, but most of those who follow it ARE morons, so there ya go...

1.No, that isnt what it is saying.

2.Who gives you the authority to say what commandment dosnt apply where.

3.The abortion issue isnt about religion its about where the life of a baby begins some believe later some believe sooner but religion has nothing to do with it they just bring it up sometimes because they dont know what they are talking about, sorda like you.

The temperature in Hell must be dropping like a stone when I find myself sympathetic towards the views of one of our more ignorant idiotic wanna be trolls.

Worrying that.

I'll know when i've been on totse too long when I start agreeing with Mastertwat.

At which point i shall no choice but voluntary committal.

1.No, that isnt what it is saying.

I read it and I am sort of agreeing with the OP and Jack. It seems that the wife is put on trial. If she shows signs of infidelity, then she loses the fetus (?? it doesn't say at what stage this trial actually occurs or I missed it) to appease her husband's jealousy. I just read it literally, however. If you read it differently I would like to see what you took from it.

1.No, that isnt what it is saying.

2.Who gives you the authority to say what commandment dosnt apply where.

Same goes to you, bud. What gives YOU the authority to say what commandment does apply where? Besides, I didn't say that, my friend did and he is an active reader of the Bible.

3.The abortion issue isnt about religion its about where the life of a baby begins some believe later some believe sooner but religion has nothing to do with it they just bring it up sometimes because they dont know what they are talking about, sorda like you.

Unfortunetaly, at the time the Bible was written I doubt there were any scientific studies about the fetal stages and thus it doesn't say exactly at which trimester the fetus should be aborted, but I assume first or second cuz there was no safe way to abort the fetus at the third trimester back in the middle ages - it would most likely cause the death of the mother.

EDIT: Actually, back in those times the safest method dealing with any stage would cause sickness and uteral diseases n shit.

His main point was that Atheists are crazy because they have no moral capacity and he backed up his statement with all the crimes and bad shit that's occuring in America

That's really cute. Now kill him and burn him. Try not to inhale the smoke or you might catch the stupid

That's really cute. Now kill him and burn him. Try not to inhale the smoke or you might catch the stupid

Nah, he's not stupid, he's actually one of the most balanced people I know.

"If she shows signs of infidelity, then she loses the fetus"

I dont think it ever says she loses the unborn child it only really states "her thigh will rot" (possibly STD) "stomch will swell" (open for interpratation abortion not being one of them) however it does state that if she did not commit adultry she would be pregnant. In any case it never states that the priest or any person for that matter will kill the unborn child.

"What gives YOU the authority to say what commandment does apply where?"

Nothing the Bible tells me what commandments apply to where because it says that if a man caused a woman to lose her baby then he would be killed.

In medical teminology, a miscarriage is a "spontaneous abortion."

Since spontaneous abortions out-number induced abortions by a large measure, than Mother Nature--God if you will--is the numero uno abortionist on the planet.

3.The abortion issue isnt about religion its about where the life of a baby begins some believe later some believe sooner but religion has nothing to do with it they just bring it up sometimes because they dont know what they are talking about, sorda like you.

It's about when the embryo and/or fetus gains personhood. Or in religious terms, when the embryo gets a soul. That's probably what you meant though, you just didn't have the knowledge to express it.

It's about when the embryo and/or fetus gains personhood. Or in religious terms, when the embryo gets a soul. That's probably what you meant though, you just didn't have the knowledge to express it.

No, thats not what i was trying to say now stop being an ass.

No, thats not what i was trying to say now stop being an ass.

He should stop being an ass??

Thats a bit rich coming from one of our more pathetic trolls and wasters of bandwidth.

Isn't there a passage that says something along the lines of striking a woman and killing her is murder, but only killing her unborn child is merely assault? I remember reading it somewhere and thinking that it kinda took the wind out of the pro lifer's sails.

He should stop being an ass??

Thats a bit rich coming from one of our more pathetic trolls and wasters of bandwidth.

lol, harsh :D

Isn't there a passage that says something along the lines of striking a woman and killing her is murder, but only killing her unborn child is merely assault? I remember reading it somewhere and thinking that it kinda took the wind out of the pro lifer's sails.

22 "If men who are fighting 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. EXodus 21

?..there's probably something more about it in Lev, just don't have time to check right now.

It would make sense that that passage really does support abortion, under those particular circumstances. Back then, your birthright was a very important aspect of life. It would be really bad to have a bastard child, and it would be of great shame to the mother and her husband. You wouldn't want a child who is not yours to inherit your stuff would you?

It's quite possible that the priest of the temples knew of a substance to mix with water, that would cause a miscarriage. I think the last line confirms that that passage really does talk about aborting the child:
And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall
be free, and shall conceive seed.
And if she be defiled, shall it be otherwise?

EXodus 21

?..there's probably something more about it in Lev, just don't have time to check right now.

I don't THINK that's the passage... When I finish this damn essay I'll have a look myself.

EDIT: what do you know, it is... Strange, I remember it being more specific.

SECOND EDIT: Now I see why, I read the King James version... I don't know how accurate a translation it is but I enjoy its language more than the modern ones.

No, thats not what i was trying to say now stop being an ass.

If that is the case, then you are just completely wrong.

It's quite possible that the priest of the temples knew of a substance to mix with water, that would cause a miscarriage. I think the last line confirms that that passage really does talk about aborting the child:

And if she be defiled, shall it be otherwise?

The 'bitter water' I think talks about a fruitless ritual and not an actual operation. There was silphium and various herbs back then that would induce a miscarriage but also likely to cause organ failures n shit.

If that is the case, then you are just completely wrong.

No, Im not I have never heard someone bring up this "soul" argument into a real debate, maybe because its not a real argument.

BTW Thanks for finding that verse for me Jack.

No, Im not I have never heard someone bring up this "soul" argument into a real debate, maybe because its not a real argument.

BTW Thanks for finding that verse for me Jack.

You still haven't answered my questions from the other day Sammy. You know...

"A bus full of small children falls off of a cliff into icy water where the majority of the children experience a painful death by drowning. This action can either be indended or unintended by god. If it is unintended, god is not all-powerful. If it is intended, god is not all loving. Let's assume that none of the kids personally angered god to invoke its destruction, and lets also assume that satan wasn't involved (if he was, then god is not all powerful or is using the deaths of the children as a lesson (divine plan). Divine plan: Lets assume that one child lived. Did he alone deserve to? Lets also assume the same child went on to be a drug addict and eventually committed suicide (I am assuming quite a lot, but it is my sceanario and god should have no problem, right?). If his survival justified? was it unintentional or intentional?"

Your answer to this was "The question is irrelevant because either you believe magic happened that cause nothing turning into something or energy being around forever or you believe an allpowerful God has always been there the most logical choice is a god which is why i find atheism completely outrageous for claiming they are soooo logical and yet believing in magic."


"I have a question. How was god himself created? I asked a preacher when I was younger once and he simply said he was always there or the bible just says that or something.
I don't understand how one thing can just be there or has always been there.
How can god himself create but something else not create him?
I have always wondered this and i thought I'd ask someone who believes in the god himself."

and your answer to this was "You can make anything sound horrible when you add ignorance, not knowing what your talking about, and a little pompousness, sadly it can also convince people who are the same way."

followed by "The question is unfair and was pompous and it deserved the same kind of answer. The fact is i dont have to answer the question and i wont until you have done what i have asked of you but you will not bring yourselves to read the Bible so i will not bring myself to answer the question.
"
Will you answer them now, or just ignore them as usual? You know I'm going to follow you around until can answer them......

You still haven't answered my questions from the other day Sammy. You know...

"A bus full of small children falls off of a cliff into icy water where the majority of the children experience a painful death by drowning. This action can either be indended or unintended by god. If it is unintended, god is not all-powerful. If it is intended, god is not all loving. Let's assume that none of the kids personally angered god to invoke its destruction, and lets also assume that satan wasn't involved (if he was, then god is not all powerful or is using the deaths of the children as a lesson (divine plan). Divine plan: Lets assume that one child lived. Did he alone deserve to? Lets also assume the same child went on to be a drug addict and eventually committed suicide (I am assuming quite a lot, but it is my sceanario and god should have no problem, right?). If his survival justified? was it unintentional or intentional?"

Your answer to this was "The question is irrelevant because either you believe magic happened that cause nothing turning into something or energy being around forever or you believe an allpowerful God has always been there the most logical choice is a god which is why i find atheism completely outrageous for claiming they are soooo logical and yet believing in magic."


"I have a question. How was god himself created? I asked a preacher when I was younger once and he simply said he was always there or the bible just says that or something.
I don't understand how one thing can just be there or has always been there.
How can god himself create but something else not create him?
I have always wondered this and i thought I'd ask someone who believes in the god himself."

and your answer to this was "You can make anything sound horrible when you add ignorance, not knowing what your talking about, and a little pompousness, sadly it can also convince people who are the same way."

followed by "The question is unfair and was pompous and it deserved the same kind of answer. The fact is i dont have to answer the question and i wont until you have done what i have asked of you but you will not bring yourselves to read the Bible so i will not bring myself to answer the question.
"
Will you answer them now, or just ignore them as usual? You know I'm going to follow you around until can answer them......

Reasons I wont answer.
1.This is something from another thread.
2.You arent posting my answers in the proper order.
3.Your a troll knowingly (I hope) missleading the people here.

He's not a troll, you are. He's asking good questions that you are unable and unwilling to answer, because you're a religious douchefuck that doesn't know how to use his brain for anything other than prayer to a fictional construct.

He's not a troll, you are. He's asking good questions that you are unable and unwilling to answer, because you're a religious douchefuck that doesn't know how to use his brain for anything other than prayer to a fictional construct.

If you dont accept my reasons thats your problem not mine.

Your "reasons" are bullshit, and yes it is your problem since you're a lying little cunt. You think you have all the answers to the universe, and you can't even acknowledge one man's questions.

Your "reasons" are bullshit, and yes it is your problem since you're a lying little cunt. You think you have all the answers to the universe, and you can't even acknowledge one man's questions.

1.I dont know how you pick up im lying.
2.I have never claimed i have all the answers.
3.There are three questions and if im not mistaken only two are truly his and one of them is "will you answer me" which i answered saying no then gave reasons for doing so.

Reasons I wont answer.
1.This is something from another thread.
2.You arent posting my answers in the proper order.
3.Your a troll knowingly (I hope) missleading the people here.

Yes, this is from another thread because you refused to answer them over there! And the answers are in the proper order - even if they weren't, you still refuse to answer the questions.

Lol - just answer the questions without insulting me, or anyone else in the forum. Do you think you can?

No, Im not I have never heard someone bring up this "soul" argument into a real debate, maybe because its not a real argument.

BTW Thanks for finding that verse for me Jack.

Have you ever heard anyone argue in a real debate that an embryo isn't alive? No. An embryo is alive, obviously, thus whether or not it is alive is irrelevant, what matter is if it is a person.

The soul argument is an undertone to the logic behind why a cluster of cells (an embryo) is equivalent to a born baby--this cluster of cells is a person. There may be other arguments for why an embryo is a person, but they certainly aren't as common.

Reasons I wont answer.
1.This is something from another thread.
2.You arent posting my answers in the proper order.
3.Your a troll knowingly (I hope) missleading the people here.

You are the troll you bloated cunt (I tend to not believe shit till I see it for myself) You willingfully ignored his points whenever it would make you feel insecure about your beliefs, plus all your insightful posts are about as deep as a far-out bumfuck. Your best argument against MY post was "No that is not what the Bible says," which lacks backup followed by "the real question is when the fetus gains personhood" which is irrelevant.

If you dont accept my reasons thats your problem not mine.

You know, I've heard a schizphrenic woman say exactly that, once. Does your real name start with a Y by any chance?

Have you ever heard anyone argue in a real debate that an embryo isn't alive? No. An embryo is alive, obviously, thus whether or not it is alive is irrelevant, what matter is if it is a person.

The soul argument is an undertone to the logic behind why a cluster of cells (an embryo) is equivalent to a born baby--this cluster of cells is a person. There may be other arguments for why an embryo is a person, but they certainly aren't as common.

Thanks for clearing your point up for me without acting like an ass unlike those other 2 people who dont even know what they are talking about.

Sammy,

Does your last name begin with O by any chance? And are you from Bradford?