[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

They are also Muslim sins. Do you therefore support imposing Muslim morality, or would you like to make murder legal to avoid it?

My point is merely that there are many things that are Christian sins which we already have laws against. Therefore the distinction "Christian sins" is unhelpful, and if we got rid of laws prohibiting things the Bible prohibits we would lose those laws.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Your argument is, bluntly, silly. The complaint has never been outlawing things which also happen to be moral sins... the complint has been outlawing things simply because they are moral sins.

What is your complaint with that?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You, everytime you argue that all Christian law and every Christian moral should be mandated by force of law.

Not true. Biblical law would not necessitate the elimination of non-Christians merely because they are non-Christians. There is no such civil law in Scripture.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Prostitution is not illegal nation-wide, conversely my grass being too long is illegal in my community. That siad: both were considered to be detrimental to socieity (back to promoting the general welfare).

Whether something is detrimental to society is (A) extremely vague and open to wide and conflicting interpretations based upon one’s world-view, and (B) impossible to know for certain beforehand in many cases. For example, I would argue that allowing blasphemy and sorcery is detrimental to society, based on what I believe as a Christian—you would not think so.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I disagree with that interpretation of Psalm 2

Then refute it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

(B) "God commands you obey his commands" is pretty redundant.

I suppose it is. It should go without saying that we are obligated to obey. I was reiterating the fact that even governments are commanded to obey.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Exodus says nothing of the kind. It says that hitting a pregnant woman and killing her fetus requires that he pay whatever the husband demands and the law allows.

No it doesn’t.

Exodus 21:22-23 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,

The verse is clear in a good translation—if there is no harm to the unborn child, the man will be forced to pay whatever the husband says. If there is harm to that child—if the child dies—the man who struck the woman will be executed. Feel free to check the Hebrew if you disagree with the ESV.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Since both your premises are incorrect, so is your conclusion.

I’ll overlook the fact that it’s possible to have a correct conclusion based on false premises and merely reassert that my premises is correct.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I disagree with the first statement, as presented.

It’s true, though. Since Christianity requires governments to serve Christ (Psalm 2), if we have a government trying to serve all gods equally they will actually be against Christ. Furthermore, Christ makes it clear that whoever is not with Him is against Him (Matthew 12:30); neutrality is impossible.

[JerryLove]

My point is merely that there are many things that are Christian sins which we already have laws against. Therefore the distinction "Christian sins" is unhelpful, and if we got rid of laws prohibiting things the Bible prohibits we would lose those laws.

I don't believe anyone has advocated removing laws just because they are in the Bible. The secular position is "ignore that the Bible even exists and make laws to accomplish the goals of the governement".

What is your complaint with that?

My complaint is that I don't care to se the law to enforce morality... only to protect the populus, promote the general welfare, provide for the common defence, and ensure domestic tranquility.

Not true. Biblical law would not necessitate the elimination of non-Christians merely because they are non-Christians. There is no such civil law in Scripture.

Well, they can't speak of another God... that would be blasphemy; as would saying that Christianity was wrong. So they can't be any non-Christian. They won't be able to worship their gods (idolotry), or practice their beliefs (spiritulism) because those are mandated for death in the Bible.

Sounds like you are forcing Christianity to me. I suppose they don't need to actually "accept Jesus"... but that's about the limit of the freedom under BIblical law.

Whether something is detrimental to society is (A) extremely vague and open to wide and conflicting interpretations based upon one’s world-view, and (B) impossible to know for certain beforehand in many cases.

Hence thousands of law-makers, thousands of members of the judiciary, and an adversarial system of trial by peers.

Then refute it.

"It doesn't say that".

I suppose it is. It should go without saying that we are obligated to obey. I was reiterating the fact that even governments are commanded to obey.

Not really, they are not... at least not under the NT. In the OT, God set up a government *for the Jews*; but that's not relevent post Jesus.

Exodus 21:22-23 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,

The verse is clear in a good translation—if there is no harm to the unborn child, the man will be forced to pay whatever the husband says. If there is harm to that child—if the child dies—the man who struck the woman will be executed. Feel free to check the Hebrew if you disagree with the ESV.

I've looked at the Hebrew. "her children come out" referres as easily to a mis-carriage as to a birth. In the context of the passage, "miscarriage" is the one that makes sense in the reading.

Hitting a pregnant woman carries no penalty at all in and of itself.
Hitting a pregnant woman so that she miscarries carreis a fine.
Hitting a pregnant woman so that the woman is injured or killed carries "eye for eye, tooth for tooth".

How would you like to punish someone that hit a pregnant woman "tooth for tooth" for damage to an infant that will be born toothless... that's just silly. You are reading what you want to read, not what it actually says.

Firther., the passage says nothing at all about killing your own fetus. It's illegal to kill someone else's Ox without their consent, but not your own. So even though killing another woman's unborn "fruit" (the actual word used in the Bible) does carry a monetary penalty, it would be a mistake to assume this must infer a penalty for her killing her own.

It’s true, though. Since Christianity requires governments to serve Christ (Psalm 2), if we have a government trying to serve all gods equally they will actually be against Christ. Furthermore, Christ makes it clear that whoever is not with Him is against Him (Matthew 12:30); neutrality is impossible.

Matthew is about persons,not governments. So taxi-cabs that don't promote Christianity are anti-Christian? Come on? Psalms is already being talked about earlier in the post.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I don't believe anyone has advocated removing laws just because they are in the Bible. The secular position is "ignore that the Bible even exists and make laws to accomplish the goals of the governement".

Which is prohibited by Psalm 2.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

My complaint is that I don't care to se the law to enforce morality... only to protect the populus, promote the general welfare, provide for the common defence, and ensure domestic tranquility.

Why? For amoral reasons? If so, what would those be?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Well, they can't speak of another God... that would be blasphemy; as would saying that Christianity was wrong. So they can't be any non-Christian. They won't be able to worship their gods (idolotry), or practice their beliefs (spiritulism) because those are mandated for death in the Bible.

Merely speaking of another god wouldn’t be; trying to convert someone to another religion would be. Idolatry actually isn’t prohibited by biblical civil law; subversion to idolatry is. As long as it was always private and concealed—done within the home—and as long as they never tried to convert anyone else to that system of thought, they would be permitted to do it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Sounds like you are forcing Christianity to me. I suppose they don't need to actually "accept Jesus"... but that's about the limit of the freedom under BIblical law.

No it’s not. Many sins are not crimes according to the Mosaic Law.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

"It doesn't say that".

Yes it does.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Not really, they are not... at least not under the NT. In the OT, God set up a government *for the Jews*; but that's not relevent post Jesus.

Matthew 5:17-19 states otherwise, as does Romans 13:1-4 and Psalm 2, which disproves your statement that the government was only for Jews. God demands justice in the civil sphere, and since His law is perfect (Hebrews 2), it is the only way to have justice.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I've looked at the Hebrew. "her children come out" referres as easily to a mis-carriage as to a birth.

No it does not. There is a Hebrew word for miscarriage—it is not used. There is a Hebrew word for the product of a miscarriage—it is not used. “The fruit comes out” is what it literally says, and it is a term commonly denoting a birth in Ancient Hebrew.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Hitting a pregnant woman carries no penalty at all in and of itself.

Yes it does. A fine to be imposed by the husband.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Hitting a pregnant woman so that she miscarries carreis a fine.

No it does not; it carries death.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Hitting a pregnant woman so that the woman is injured or killed carries "eye for eye, tooth for tooth".

The verse says nothing about what is to be done about harm to the woman.
How would you like to punish someone that hit a pregnant woman "tooth for tooth" for damage to an infant that will be born toothless... that's just silly. You are reading what you want to read, not what it actually says. [/QUOTE] “Eye for an eye” is not a literal statement of what should be done. It is a way of saying “the punishment should fit the crime.” Many times we see this said in Scripture, followed by case laws that don’t actually require physical one-to-one correlations of punishments according to crimes.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Firther., the passage says nothing at all about killing your own fetus.

It is sufficient to notify us that the unborn child is protected by law. It makes no difference who does the killing.
To Christians: by this logic it wouldn’t be permissible to say that murder is wrong at all for females, since the Hebrew often uses only male examples. Nor would it be permissible to say that women who accidentally kill someone are not liable for capital punishment, since the case law that differentiates between accidental killing and murder uses male examples. Jerry doesn’t care, however, since he foolishly denies the Scriptures’ validity.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Matthew is about persons,not governments.

Governments are made up of people. Every individual within the government is obligated to uphold God’s law—if all do that, it is obvious what the result would be.

[blackoyster]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You mean like Christians wanting to inflict Jewesh law into American law? Or like Americans wanting to inflict our values on Iraqis?

If those values include civil liberties, yes. Are you suggesting that jerks like Saddam and his thankfully-now-dead sons ought to have the right to torture and kill like they are apt to do, just because they aren't Americans. Some rights transcend religious beliefs. You've made that argument yourself in this thread.

The nice thing about a democratic republic is that, in the end, it's not one group is doing so; rather laws are enacted by representatives of the people as a whole.

No arugment here. I'm Libertarian, remember?

If unlce sam can imprison you for taking stuff that doesn't belong to you, how can you consider yourself free? Are you really arguing that a freedom must be absolute?

Not at all, because that would be interfering with the other guy's right to private property ownership.

I disagree. It would have been very simple for the declaration to say "to facilitate trade"... but it says "to promote the general welfare". Do you have anything other than your assertion to support your claim that it means something other than exactly what it says?

Do you have any credible sources to back up the contention that the phrase was attempting to promote a socialist state, run by the goverment? That's what welfare, by it's current definition, is, socialism.

Are you propping up a straw man and claiming that I'm claiming that "promote the general welfare" directly means "provide unemployment"? I think doing so is intended to accomplish that goal, but the phrase in the Decleration of Independance is specifically vague. Much has been added since inceptoin to promote that goal, from anti-monopoly laws to copyright laws, to disallowing taxation on the internet.

You think, but do you have quotes from reputable Constitutional scholars to give weight?

I've not made that argument. The second ammendment is outdated, though I support maintaining a right to carry firearms under entirely different auspices.

Cool. I myself have a consealed carry permit. It's called the Constitution.

[JerryLove]

Which is prohibited by Psalm 2.
[...]
Yes it does.
[...]
Matthew 5:17-19 states otherwise, as does Romans 13:1-4 and Psalm 2, which disproves your statement that the government was only for Jews. God demands justice in the civil sphere, and since His law is perfect (Hebrews 2), it is the only way to have justice.

No.

Why? For amoral reasons? If so, what would those be?

Why do I not care to see the law enforce morality? Because it's not the job I envision for the law. (I'm also aware of a good deal of practical problems).

Merely speaking of another god wouldn’t be; trying to convert someone to another religion would be. Idolatry actually isn’t prohibited by biblical civil law; subversion to idolatry is. As long as it was always private and concealed—done within the home—and as long as they never tried to convert anyone else to that system of thought, they would be permitted to do it.

It's prohibited in the first 5 commandments.

No it’s not. Many sins are not crimes according to the Mosaic Law.

Such as?

No it does not. There is a Hebrew word for miscarriage—it is not used. There is a Hebrew word for the product of a miscarriage—it is not used. “The fruit comes out” is what it literally says, and it is a term commonly denoting a birth in Ancient Hebrew.

Hrm... you or Strongs Hebrew concordance... whom shall I believe?

03206 // dly // yeled // yeh'-led //
> child, son, boy, offspring, youth

03318 // auy // yatsa' // yaw-tsaw' //
1) to go out, come out, exit, go forth

Maybe the NIV agrees with you? It has a foot-note on the passage:
> 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

Let's look at the more literal translation:
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

Hrm. So you are saying that if a woman gets hurt but there is no injury and nothing happens (how was she hurt again?) then there is punishment. How do you hit someone "so that they have a baby normally"? It doesn't pass even casual examination... nor does it address abortion, only assault.

"Eye for an eye” is not a literal statement of what should be done. It is a way of saying “the punishment should fit the crime.”

So it's not literal, and we know that because a literal reading would make impossable your preconception as to what it means.

It is sufficient to notify us that the unborn child is protected by law. It makes no difference who does the killing.

That's absurd. Firstly, we find passsages that protect your oxen from being killed by others, but not by you. It's OK for a husband to have sex with his wife, but not other people. Again, the law does not say what you are, you are simply assuming it even though there are many other examples that are not in-line with your conclusion.

To Christians: by this logic it wouldn’t be permissible to say that murder is wrong at all for females, since the Hebrew often uses only male examples. Nor would it be permissible to say that women who accidentally kill someone are not liable for capital punishment, since the case law that differentiates between accidental killing and murder uses male examples.

You mean the Bible might treat different people differntly? On what grounds do you claim it does not?

Injure another free-man, pay money:

"And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed."

Injure your own servent, nothing:

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Virgins are different than wives are different than widows. Freemen are different than slaves, and yes, women are different then men.

By the logic *you* offer "if a man lies with a man" would also prohibit a man from lying with a woman as you find the terms Biblically interchangeable.

Governments are made up of people. Every individual within the government is obligated to uphold God’s law—if all do that, it is obvious what the result would be.

So taxi-cabs that don't promote Christianity are anti-Christian?

[JerryLove]

blackoyster, you are responding to responses to Travis. As such, most don't really apply to you. I'm not saying "get out of the argument" or anything, simply that most of the individual points you responded to are simply non-applicable as they were said about Travis or his position.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Why do I not care to see the law enforce morality?

No. My question was, what is your amoral reason for wanting to stop others from being harmed?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's prohibited in the first 5 commandments.

What's "it's"? And how is this relevant? We're talking about what was condemned by civil law, and whether it would be illegal according to biblical civil law to do something. You're just getting sloppy in your replies.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Such as?

Coveting, for starters.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Hrm... you or Strongs Hebrew concordance... whom shall I believe?

03206 // dly // yeled // yeh'-led //
> child, son, boy, offspring, youth

03318 // auy // yatsa' // yaw-tsaw' //
1) to go out, come out, exit, go forth

That’s exactly what I was saying. Let’s look at the latter of those two words.

The word yatsa typically refers to the going out of something living, often a child.

Yatsa is used in all of these verses:

Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

Genesis 8:17
Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—that they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth."

Genesis 15:4
And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: "This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir." [literally, the son that comes (yatsa) from you]

Genesis 25:25-26
The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.

1 Kings 8:19
Nevertheless, you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you shall build the house for my name.'

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

2 Kings 20:18
And some of your own sons, who shall be born to you, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."


This proves that your interpretation of this passage is eisegesis. The real, definitive proof that you are actually wrong and that it is talking about a live birth is also found in the fact that:

(A) There is a Hebrew word for a miscarriage—shakal (Exodus 23:26). It is not used in this passage.

(B) There is also a Hebrew word for the product of a miscarriage—for the child that dies in the miscarriage—and that is nephel (Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Is. 33:3). It is not used in this passage.

So what we have here is this:

1. The Hebrew words for miscarriage and the product of miscarriages are not used.

2. The words used commonly denote live children and live births.

The conclusion is obvious—this verse is first talking about a live birth caused by a woman being struck. It tells us that a fine should be imposed according to the husband’s liking (due to the danger posed to the child). Then it tells us what is to happen if there is harm to the child—eye for an eye. If the child is killed, the one responsible should be executed.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Let's look at the more literal translation:
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

Hrm. So you are saying that if a woman gets hurt but there is no injury and nothing happens (how was she hurt again?) then there is punishment. How do you hit someone "so that they have a baby normally"?

It’s talking about a premature birth being caused.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So it's not literal, and we know that because a literal reading would make impossable your preconception as to what it means.

It’s not literal because in other passages it is made obvious that it is not literal, as I previously explained.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's absurd. Firstly, we find passsages that protect your oxen from being killed by others, but not by you. It's OK for a husband to have sex with his wife, but not other people.

But this is not the case with violations of the second commandment. The oxen’s death falls under the commandment against theft, the sex falls under the commandment for adultery. This is not the case with the sixth commandment.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You mean the Bible might treat different people differntly? On what grounds do you claim it does not?

It does on some issues. Not on the issue of murder.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So taxi-cabs that don't promote Christianity are anti-Christian?

A taxi-cab is not a human being and is therefore not able to promote Christianity. Are we talking about cab drivers? In that case, the answer would be yes—a cab driver is either Christian or anti-Christian. Governments are made up of people and therefore can promote Christianity, so they would not be in the same category as an inanimate object like a vehicle.

[JerryLove]

No. My question was, what is your amoral reason for wanting to stop others from being harmed?

A sense of self-preservation (and more than a slight amount of empathy).

What's "it's"? And how is this relevant? We're talking about what was condemned by civil law, and whether it would be illegal according to biblical civil law to do something. You're just getting sloppy in your replies.

Worshipping false Gods is prohibited by the ten commandments. Many failures of worship of Jehovia (such as failing to keep the sabbath holy) are also prohibited. Spiritulism is specifically condemed and talking with the dead is a capital offence (both parts of some other religions).

BTW, do the Christian laws like "must wear a hair overing in church" apply to all churces in your Christian state? Or on;y Christian churches? Or are all other churches destroied as idolotry, blasphemy, and for their ability to entice people to a false reltigion?

Coveting, for starters.

I'm guessing it simply failed the "three-witness" problem that most all thought crimes have. Hard to outlaw something you cannot test for.

The word yatsa typically refers to the going out of something living, often a child.

Sorry, I don't see a "still living" caviat. Some versoins of the Bible actually translate it as "miscarry".

(A) There is a Hebrew word for a miscarriage—shakal (Exodus 23:26). It is not used in this passage

So if I say "if a man hits a woman and her child is stillborn" and then later say "none of you will miscarry" then they cannot be synonymous?

OK, stillborn doesn't have a double meaning.
A: can't find her son.
B: son is dead.
C: lost her son.

Is the son of C alive or dead?

A:forgot where her son was, he is lost.
C: Son was in a car wreck and she lost him.

Do you now know what happend to C? But it sounds just like a different word.

Most literally, the passage says "causes her baby to come out". You assert that it *definately* means "come out alive"; but there's no reason to interprete that. I don't think it passes a reading of the passage.

1. The Hebrew words for miscarriage and the product of miscarriages are not used.

No, the hebrew description for the product of reproduction leaving the body is. You are reaching.

There's also a hebrew word for "nothing happens"...but that's not used either. How can you possably argue with a straigt face what a word means by what words it is not?

The conclusion is obvious—this verse is first talking about a live birth caused by a woman being struck. It tells us that a fine should be imposed according to the husband’s liking (due to the danger posed to the child). Then it tells us what is to happen if there is harm to the child—eye for an eye. If the child is killed, the one responsible should be executed.

And what damage could possibly occur to a fetus that would be physically aparent but non-terminal from a woman getting struck? Have you ever heard of a blow taking out a fetus's eye? Or tooth? Or finger? or anything.

It just doesn't happen. There is no way that (even if not literally these parts) "eye for eye" makes any sense at all. Conversely, "miscarry" fits the syntax and makes sense in the sentance. Proof that it refers to the baby coming out dead and then talks about injury to the mother (lest you think that only the fine is to be levied).

It’s talking about a premature birth being caused.

What is "premature" under this context? There's already heavy variance, they likely did not know conception dates, and the ability of a premie to survive if not "imminant" in that technology is nill. It does't pass the base "make sense" test.

But this is not the case with violations of the second commandment. The oxen’s death falls under the commandment against theft, the sex falls under the commandment for adultery. This is not the case with the sixth commandment.

Conversely, it's only theft when it's other people's tihngs.. it's only adultry when it's other people's wives, and it's only assault if its other people's baby... Many states carry the law *the exact same way*.

It does on some issues. Not on the issue of murder.

Really? Does it positively assert this? Or are you just not aware of a counter example? I can offer some, but you will just undefine them as murder.

A taxi-cab is not a human being and is therefore not able to promote Christianity.

A taxi0cab company is staffed by human beings... much like the government. Is a taxi-comany not engaged in the active promotion of Christianity an anti-Christian cab company?

[blackoyster]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

blackoyster, you are responding to responses to Travis. As such, most don't really apply to you. I'm not saying "get out of the argument" or anything, simply that most of the individual points you responded to are simply non-applicable as they were said about Travis or his position.

I was responding to your responses to what I said, Jerry. But I do enjoy the debate between you and Travis. Just a Libertarian Christian, (read Good American), throwing his two cents in.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

A sense of self-preservation (and more than a slight amount of empathy).

Can you, as a moral relativist, tell me why we should care about what happens to others?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Worshipping false Gods is prohibited by the ten commandments.

So is coveting, but it’s not illegal. Subversion to idolatry is what is illegal according to biblical law.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Many failures of worship of Jehovia (such as failing to keep the sabbath holy) are also prohibited.

That’s a law that’s open to discussion by theonomists.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Spiritulism is specifically condemed and talking with the dead is a capital offence (both parts of some other religions).

Yes it is. How does this mean that being a non-Christian per se would be illegal?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

BTW, do the Christian laws like "must wear a hair overing in church" apply to all churces in your Christian state? Or on;y Christian churches?

The general position is that those are not necessary, but that is a peripheral point that needs not be discussed here.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Or are all other churches destroied as idolotry, blasphemy, and for their ability to entice people to a false reltigion?

It is my understanding that temples of other religions would likely be illegal. Why are you dwelling on these tangential points, though? They don’t support your claim that being a non-Christian in and of itself would give one the death penalty.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm guessing it simply failed the "three-witness" problem that most all thought crimes have. Hard to outlaw something you cannot test for.

It’s not your place—or mine—to try to determine God’s motives. The point is that you asked for an example and I gave one. The reason is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Sorry, I don't see a "still living" caviat. Some versoins of the Bible actually translate it as "miscarry".

And I’ve explained why they are wrong.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK, stillborn doesn't have a double meaning.
A: can't find her son.
B: son is dead.
C: lost her son.

Is the son of C alive or dead?

A:forgot where her son was, he is lost.
C: Son was in a car wreck and she lost him.

Do you now know what happend to C? But it sounds just like a different word.

The point is that I have provided examples—many examples—of this word being used to denote a live birth, or the “going out” of the living. You cannot find one instance to my knowledge of it denoting what you say it means.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Most literally, the passage says "causes her baby to come out". You assert that it *definately* means "come out alive"; but there's no reason to interprete that. I don't think it passes a reading of the passage.

Given my numerous examples, the meanings of the words, and the lack of the specific terms for what you say it means, I think it is obvious that my interpretation is correct and yours is not.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There's also a hebrew word for "nothing happens"...but that's not used either. How can you possably argue with a straigt face what a word means by what words it is not?

I’m not aware of it ever meaning what you say it means; I have cited numerous places where it means what I say it means. I have evidence—you have none.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And what damage could possibly occur to a fetus that would be physically aparent but non-terminal from a woman getting struck? Have you ever heard of a blow taking out a fetus's eye? Or tooth? Or finger? or anything.

Not really. Relevance? I’ve already explained the “eye for eye” being a non-literal way of saying the punishment should fit the crime. You may not like that, but your likes and dislikes are not relevant.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Conversely, "miscarry" fits the syntax and makes sense in the sentance.

No more than my interpretation of a live birth, and I have the evidence to back up my claim that the words mean just that—a live birth. You have no evidence to support your claim.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

What is "premature" under this context?

It’s assumed because the verse states that the woman being struck caused it. It’s not really relevant—just think of it as a birth. The point is that I’ve supported my interpretation and you have not supported yours.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Conversely, it's only theft when it's other people's tihngs.. it's only adultry when it's other people's wives, and it's only assault if its other people's baby...

Already addressed explicitly in the previous post. This is not the case with murder. A man cannot murder a person merely because he is related to him.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Really? Does it positively assert this? Or are you just not aware of a counter example? I can offer some, but you will just undefine them as murder.

Then I guess you have no reason to do so.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

A taxi0cab company is staffed by human beings... much like the government. Is a taxi-comany not engaged in the active promotion of Christianity an anti-Christian cab company?

The job of a taxi-cab service is not to “carry out God’s wrath on evildoers.” Taxi-cab services have not been explicitly commanded to “kiss the Son” or “perish in the way.” Both admonitions apply to governments.

[JerryLove]

Can you, as a moral relativist, tell me why we should care about what happens to others?

I'm not a moral relativist... I'm a moral subjectivist. I don't offer a moral grounds for others to care about one another, that would be dictating their morals. I will enforce, if able, certain behaviors in others as part of m morals and desires.

So is coveting, but it’s not illegal. Subversion to idolatry is what is illegal according to biblical law.

So it's OK to break the commandments? The highest laws laid down by God are not illegal according to God?

So why would a Christian want to put the ten commandments in a courthouse? They are not laws.

Yes it is. How does this mean that being a non-Christian per se would be illegal?

Most non-christins practice prayer, magic, or other forms of spiritualism... and prayer to Jehovia is the onl form of spiritualism not covered as illegal.

The general position is that those are not necessary, but that is a peripheral point that needs not be discussed here.

"Geeral position"? Sounds a lot like people are deciding which laws are important enough and which are not. I thought God's law was God's law and should always be followed by all.

It is my understanding that temples of other religions would likely be illegal. Why are you dwelling on these tangential points, though?

Because it's my point. Being of a religion without the ability to express, practice, share, display, or indeed do anything but sit mime-like in belief (hope that doesn't get mistaken for meditating and called blasphemy/spiritualism) is hardly allowing another religion.

It’s not your place—or mine—to try to determine God’s motives.

Then you are a hypocrite... because you assert God's motives all the time.

And I’ve explained why they are wrong.

And I've shown that your explanations don't hold water.

The point is that I have provided examples—many examples—of this word being used to denote a live birth, or the “going out” of the living. You cannot find one instance to my knowledge of it denoting what you say it means.

Sure I can... the passage we are talking about. It really doesn't matter how often I used "lost" as "died", it can still mean "lost" when I use it another time.

Given my numerous examples, the meanings of the words, and the lack of the specific terms for what you say it means, I think it is obvious that my interpretation is correct and yours is not.

I showed how both interpretations are consistant; and how yours is non-sensical within the passage. I think it's obvious that my interpretation is correct and not yours.

I’m not aware of it ever meaning what you say it means; I have cited numerous places where it means what I say it means. I have evidence—you have none.

It's actually translated that wway in some passages, strongs supports it, it fits the literal reading, it is the only way to make sense of the literal reading, etc.

Further, as any anti-abortionist will point it, it was a child (3206) when it was in the womb. So to claim that it stopped being in a miscarriage would be to deny the word is ever used ona child post-death (which it is all the time).

And regarless, you still would only have a law governing death by assault. I assume you would not like to have the law remove the eye of surgeons who remove the eyes of their patients? Castrations for surgeons that perform vascetomies?

Not really. Relevance? I’ve already explained the “eye for eye” being a non-literal way of saying the punishment should fit the crime. You may not like that, but your likes and dislikes are not relevant.

Nor are yours... so please establish how one can tell that this is a metaphor and not literal? (without circular reasoning please)

No more than my interpretation of a live birth, and I have the evidence to back up my claim that the words mean just that—a live birth. You have no evidence to support your claim.

Sure I do, and I cited much of it, and already referred to it again in this post.

It’s assumed because the verse states that the woman being struck caused it. It’s not really relevant—just think of it as a birth. The point is that I’ve supported my interpretation and you have not supported yours.

This is part of your interpreatation and I'm asking for support. How would they determine "premature" birth knowing that we are talking about a birth where the infant survives unharmed without medical aid.

Already addressed explicitly in the previous post. This is not the case with murder. A man cannot murder a person merely because he is related to him.

Begs the question of wheather this is murder. You've got no prescedent to establish which is not circular (relying on your view of this passage to prove the prescdent which you need to prove your view of this passage).

The job of a taxi-cab service is not to “carry out God’s wrath on evildoers.” Taxi-cab services have not been explicitly commanded to “kiss the Son” or “perish in the way.” Both admonitions apply to governments.

NO changing your standards now. You said *anyone* who was not helping Jesus was against him; and established the government as a "one". A taxi-cab company is just as much a person as a government is. Now, is a taxi-cab company not engaged in teh active promotion of Christianity anti-chrsitian? Or were you full of it when you made the "not for than against" argument?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not a moral relativist... I'm a moral subjectivist. I don't offer a moral grounds for others to care about one another, that would be dictating their morals. I will enforce, if able, certain behaviors in others as part of m morals and desires.

So why can’t Christians seek to do the same?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So it's OK to break the commandments? The highest laws laid down by God are not illegal according to God?

No it is not OK to break commandments. But not all sins—not all violations of the commandments—are civil crimes.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So why would a Christian want to put the ten commandments in a courthouse? They are not laws.

Ask Judge Moore; that’s not what I’m arguing for here.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Most non-christins practice prayer, magic, or other forms of spiritualism... and prayer to Jehovia is the onl form of spiritualism not covered as illegal.

Actually, no it is not. Idolatry in and of itself is actually not illegal. Subversion to idolatry is. If you disagree, feel free to cite some case laws backing your assertion.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

"Geeral position"? Sounds a lot like people are deciding which laws are important enough and which are not.

On what basis do you presume to know their motives, or what study they have or have not done? How do you know why they believe what they believe?

I am undecided myself. I’d like to read more about it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Because it's my point. Being of a religion without the ability to express, practice, share, display, or indeed do anything but sit mime-like in belief (hope that doesn't get mistaken for meditating and called blasphemy/spiritualism) is hardly allowing another religion.

You might think that it “hardly” allows others, but the fact is that it does allow others. Moreover, even if it did not allow any of the other major what you would call “religions,” it certainly allows someone to deny God in his own heart without telling anyone. That is, it would allow someone to not be Christian, just as I said it would and you denied.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Then you are a hypocrite... because you assert God's motives all the time.

(A) Where have I asserted that I knew God’s motives?
(B) It is permissible to say we know that God’s ultimate motive is self-glorification, since Scripture tells us as much.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And I've shown that your explanations don't hold water.

No you haven’t.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Sure I can... the passage we are talking about. It really doesn't matter how often I used "lost" as "died", it can still mean "lost" when I use it another time.

It’s too bad I have the evidence for the meaning of the word and you don’t, huh?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I showed how both interpretations are consistant; and how yours is non-sensical within the passage.

No you haven’t. Both our interpretations would make sense with the syntax of the passage, but only mine makes sense in light of the word meanings.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's actually translated that wway in some passages

Cite. I’ve cited numerous examples of it meaning what I say it means. I think it is incumbent on you to do likewise if you are going to assert that it means what you think it means.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

strongs supports it

Supports my view too. Too bad the word meanings undermine yours and support mine.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

it is the only way to make sense of the literal reading, etc.

Un-backed assertion.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Further, as any anti-abortionist will point it, it was a child (3206) when it was in the womb. So to claim that it stopped being in a miscarriage would be to deny the word is ever used ona child post-death (which it is all the time).

The problem for you is that I cited numerous examples of it denoting a live birth or the going out of the living. You have no evidence for it ever being used the way you are using it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And regarless, you still would only have a law governing death by assault.

Abortion is assault on the child.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Nor are yours... so please establish how one can tell that this is a metaphor and not literal? (without circular reasoning please)

Because oftentimes Scripture says “eye for an eye” and then prescribes penalties that are not literal one-to-one correlations.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This is part of your interpreatation and I'm asking for support. How would they determine "premature" birth knowing that we are talking about a birth where the infant survives unharmed without medical aid.

Who are “they”? I could care less if the word “premature” is used or not. The point is that it is a live birth.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Begs the question of wheather this is murder.

Granted. I’ll rephrase: It is never the case elsewhere with murder, and thus to assume as much in this passage—especially when the words undermine the interpretation anyway—would be wildly irresponsible, and complete eisegesis.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

NO changing your standards now. You said *anyone* who was not helping Jesus was against him; and established the government as a "one".

No I didn’t. Allow me to explain this again:

(A) Every individual is commanded to obey God. Every individual who does not obey God is against Him.
(B) All magistrates in particular are commanded to obey God. This command is given to them to perform as part of their job.
(C) Taxi-cab drivers can be Christian or anti-Christian
(D) Taxi-cabs—inanimate objects—cannot be Christian or anti-Christian.
(E) Governments—collections of individuals—can be, as a whole, Christian or anti-Christian, depending upon the decisions they make corperately, and whether those decisions are in line with God's commands for all magistrates.

[bmcneal]

On the topic of the original question found in the first post, I would say that we have a moral obligation to take action for those issues that affect us. We have just as much of a right to push for legislation that creates a moral change as any other group. Even if we don't, everyone else will. Prayer got banned from public schools because Christians wouldn't take an active role in government, but tried to be passive.

By the way, I haven't read all posts on this topic. I am simply responding to the first post.

[spenwah]

Some guys got together once and tried to legislate Christianity. It was called the Dark Ages. It sucked.