Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Pro-abortions Arguments Vs. the Facts. (Page 4)


September 3rd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
The Catholic Church doesn't have ANY original documents to back up it's teachings. None of the writings of the apostles, none of it. All it has are many, many copies, and these copies are all different from one another. The church has to guess which copies are the closest to the originals, and it isn't always the earliest copies they have.

Scribes along the way have changed these texts sometimes by accident, many times on purpose.

Look up textual criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criti cism.


This is a book about it:

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
by Bart D. Ehrman
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Sto ry-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 3rd, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Guest, would you require a woman to cover her hair while worshiping?

Would you make sure she cleanses herself for seven days after her menstrual cycle?

Would you follow the stringent cleansing policies for when you accidentally get semen on your sheets?

What about that bump with a hair in it? Will you properly report to a priest and have him look at it to make sure the hair isn't white? If it is, will you go in to seclusion for a week and then cleaning for a week to make sure it isn't leprosy?

These are all rules in the Old Testament. You should know where they're from. If Catholics do not nit-pick, then you'd best follow all of these rules.

Do you eat Pork? Or is that okay because Jesus said so? Where exactly does he say that anyway?

Moving on... I have heard time and time again that Jesus makes all of the old-testament "not count". So does it count or does it not count!? I want a straight answer on that. Do "parts" of it count? If so, which parts? Are all the rules that god gave to Moses incompatible with Jesus? If so, then why do Catholics use quotes from it to slam down homosexuality (thou shall not lay with a man as one lays with a woman)?

Does the old testament count, or not?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 3rd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Guest..
Mortals are fallible right? Perfection is only found in Divinity.. right?
So you have an institution whose rules can and do change based on mortal interpretation of divinity.. how can you possible conclude those mortals didn't make mistakes? Didn't alter ritual or dogma to suit themselves and their views?

You can't.
Even Ratzinger, the new Holy See made changes as soon as he was in office!! Thus the church is fallible and its stances do and have changed.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 3rd, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Personally, ANY change or "amendment" made that differs from the original bible was done *for sure* by a HUMAN, so its fallable.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 3rd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
Personally, ANY change or "amendment" made that differs from the original bible was done *for sure* by a HUMAN, so its fallable.


it is not fallable because whatever is written inspired through the Holy Spirit is perfectly correct.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 3rd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
nightangel73 wrote:
Eiri wrote:
Personally, ANY change or "amendment" made that differs from the original bible was done *for sure* by a HUMAN, so its fallable.


it is not fallable because whatever is written inspired through the Holy Spirit is perfectly correct.


How do you know this? And how do you account for many copies of the same text, but each text is a little different? Which was inspired and which wasn't?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 3rd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
futureshock wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
Eiri wrote:
Personally, ANY change or "amendment" made that differs from the original bible was done *for sure* by a HUMAN, so its fallable.


it is not fallable because whatever is written inspired through the Holy Spirit is perfectly correct.


How do you know this? And how do you account for many copies of the same text, but each text is a little different? Which was inspired and which wasn't?


I know this because this is how the Holy Spirit works. So the texts inspired were the ones chosen to be written in the Bible. See you have to look this way what is written in the Bible is the Word of God and God won't let false things to be written in His book. We believe God is that Almighty.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 3rd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
nightangel73 wrote:
futureshock wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
Eiri wrote:
Personally, ANY change or "amendment" made that differs from the original bible was done *for sure* by a HUMAN, so its fallable.


it is not fallable because whatever is written inspired through the Holy Spirit is perfectly correct.


How do you know this? And how do you account for many copies of the same text, but each text is a little different? Which was inspired and which wasn't?


I know this because this is how the Holy Spirit works. So the texts inspired were the ones chosen to be written in the Bible. See you have to look this way what is written in the Bible is the Word of God and God won't let false things to be written in His book. We believe God is that Almighty.


I thought it was a council of men who decided which books to include in the Bible?

"You have my sword..." "And you have my axe..." "And my bow..."
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 4th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Birch wrote:

"You have my sword..." "And you have my axe..." "And my bow..."


Laughing Laughing

Yes, perhaps what Tolkien really meant was this:

"One Book to rule them all, One Book to find them,
One Book to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

Too far? Laughing
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 4th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
nightangel73 wrote:
Eiri wrote:
Personally, ANY change or "amendment" made that differs from the original bible was done *for sure* by a HUMAN, so its fallable.


it is not fallable because whatever is written inspired through the Holy Spirit is perfectly correct.


How do you know what is inspired by any kind of a mythical holy spirit and what is grand delusion and self deception?? you have only to look to history to see that..the church condoned and actively participated in the rape, theft, torture and murder of men, women and children for hundreds if not thousands of years under the guise of rooting out heresay, blashphemers, witches or warlocks..this was done by order of people who had 'revaltions from god'.

Today we have people murdering doctors "because god told them too" and don't even get me started on pat roberston, the late jerry falwall, jim baker or Oral roberts..

Did Ratzinger have divine inspiration to change the way popes were elected? Somehow this smacks of self service not devine inspiration guided by some spirit of a sort..and how convenient the meaning of infalliblity contains

" It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions,"

Nice.. can we all declare that by our words alone our elected leaders are infallible and none may argue with it because we say so? Seems like that might have worked when all you have to overawe is a bunch of illiterate peasents but in todays world where people are taught to question and demand proof it runs into trouble.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 4th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
How do the devout know?

In the end, they don't. They go off "faith" that an ELECTED Pope, a man elected by men, not by god, will make the right decisions.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 4th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Does anyone have statistics on how many schizophrenic people claim to be Jesus Christ every year, or that God is speaking to them and telling them to do things? How do you seperate the crazies from the blessed? Neutral
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 4th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I'm not quite sure why we're arguing about this....


I'm pro choice about religion as well as abortion!! If you want to be Catholic, that's fine. I'm not going to. If you want to say you're Catholic but pro-choice, that's fine too.

There's a large rift in the Church right now between more liberal Catholics and more conservative Catholics- And there are MANY Catholics that don't like the current pope or believe he was 'chosen by god' like he was supposed to be.

And Catholic doctrine is based off of tradition (spoken) not the bible- and they aren't ashamed of it. So you can't say they are or aren't following the bible, that's a moot point.

In fact, every Christian religion prefers a different version of the bible (containing different books and everything) based off of their traditions. Your personal beliefs about the bible are fine, but realize that people have chosen what words to believe based on their personal faith.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 4th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I'm not religious. There are many things about most religions that I don't agree with and therefore don't follow.

But I think it's just as hypocrytical to push your religion on others as it is to bag on other people's religions.

Anyone can believe what they feel is right to believe. And if you want to be pro-life because of it, great. Just don't tell me I have to be the same way. And I won't tell you what you can and can't believe.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 4th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
How do the devout know?

In the end, they don't. They go off "faith" that an ELECTED Pope, a man elected by men, not by god, will make the right decisions.


On the other hand, we don't know it's not all true, either. I'd be willing to bet agnostics are closer to the truth than anyone else, though. Very Happy

Jules wrote:
Birch wrote:

"You have my sword..." "And you have my axe..." "And my bow..."


Laughing Laughing

Yes, perhaps what Tolkien really meant was this:

"One Book to rule them all, One Book to find them,
One Book to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

Too far? Laughing


My name is Birch, and I approve of this message.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 4th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
I don't know if it is widely known but Tolkein meant for his writing to relate to religion and the world.


Please disregard tha above message if you already knew that Very Happy
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 4th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I did actually ^^. It's a fun factoid and I am a Tolkien-addict. Children of Hurin is calling to me, and I've recently started practicing writing english using Tengwar.

*nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd!*

It is true that there is no way to confirm or disprove it. And I too am pro-choice about religion.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 4th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I gave up reading Fellowship when the hobbits wouldn't leave the freaking forest. They'd walk through the trees, stop to eat, walk some more, sing a song, walk some more, point off in the distance, meet a quack, eat, sing more songs, walk, get attacked by a tree, get rescued by the quack, walk some more...

UGH! I'm over the woods! Evil or Very Mad
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 4th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
AyaMiyaki wrote:
I gave up reading Fellowship when the hobbits wouldn't leave the freaking forest. They'd walk through the trees, stop to eat, walk some more, sing a song, walk some more, point off in the distance, meet a quack, eat, sing more songs, walk, get attacked by a tree, get rescued by the quack, walk some more...

UGH! I'm over the woods! Evil or Very Mad


Funny.. This sort of goes along the same lines you speak of.. the Indians want to protect the land, but here in Michigan there are casino's popping up all over for the Indians.. Don't get me wrong.. I am part Indian. I have nothing against them. But it is just a different way to look at things. Save the land unless it benefits me.. "Us" .. But that is what it seems to be with everything people, religion ect..
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 4th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
meblonde01 wrote:
AyaMiyaki wrote:
I gave up reading Fellowship when the hobbits wouldn't leave the freaking forest. They'd walk through the trees, stop to eat, walk some more, sing a song, walk some more, point off in the distance, meet a quack, eat, sing more songs, walk, get attacked by a tree, get rescued by the quack, walk some more...

UGH! I'm over the woods! Evil or Very Mad


Funny.. This sort of goes along the same lines you speak of.. the Indians want to protect the land, but here in Michigan there are casino's popping up all over for the Indians.. Don't get me wrong.. I am part Indian. I have nothing against them. But it is just a different way to look at things. Save the land unless it benefits me.. "Us" .. But that is what it seems to be with everything people, religion ect..


*blink* umm, what? Confused
|
Did you find this post helpful?