|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2022 15:35:14 GMT
The Roman Catholic Church didn't declare abortion murder until 1588.
Women will find this interesting.
Before 1588 abortion was allowed for male fetuses up until 40 days, while female fetuses it was allowed up until 3 months.
"The Church’s longest held belief on this matter is one of “delayed hominization,” or that a fetus could not gain a soul until it was “formed.” St. Thomas Aquinas, a major heavyweight in the Catholic Church in the 13th century, took after Aristotle and believed that being formed enough for ensoulment happened at around 40 days for males and about 80 days for females. More commonly, ensoulment was deemed to happen at the “quickening,” the moment when a pregnant woman first feels her child move, normally around 18 weeks into a pregnancy. While Catholic law frowned upon abortion, it ruled that it was only homicide if it occurred after the fetus gained a human soul."
The latter seems to move it up to four months.
Interestingly this is the argument that atheists have too. One can take the position that all abortions should be legal due to the fetus relying on the body of the mother to survive, this making the mother a slave to the fetus or one can argue for when a fetus gains a soul (sentience), which many would argue isn't until after birth takes place. Others will take the position that because they don't believe a soul exists, that self-awareness is when a human becomes valuable.
The earlies stage that can be considered sentience on any level is 4 months. Self-awareness sometime in between birth and age 1.
"Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information."
Remember that frogs and snakes are sentient. Insects are debated over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jul 6, 2022 1:43:48 GMT
Interesting. I learned this week that the Didache (a treatise written by second-generation Christians) directly opposes abortion, and this was written during the first century CE/AD:
A direct English translation (via Google) from the Greek reads as follows:
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 6, 2022 1:53:06 GMT
Interesting. I learned this week that the Didache (a treatise written by second-generation Christians) directly opposes abortion, and this was written during the first century CE/AD: A direct English translation (via Google) from the Greek reads as follows: That conflicts with the information I found. It might be Christian based, but not necessarily Catholic or rather was accepted by some Popes and not by others. It also isn't clear on what unborn children means. When does the unborn becomes a "child?" Apparently some of the Catholic Popes didn't consider the fetus a child until the soul entered the body, which was up for debate. The Didache appears to be considered not part of canon, but apocrypha, along with stuff like the Apocalypse of Peter. "Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper; for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it in the canon." www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/DidacheThis is part of the issue is that different sects disagree or change their positions across time. The Roman Catholic Church has had the same problem when it comes to the discoveries of science, especially if they conflict with Old Testament writings. Some Popes have said "eh, it doesn't matter too much."
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 6, 2022 3:28:08 GMT
|
|
Hnefahogg
Sophomore
@hnefahogg
Posts: 888
Likes: 370
|
Post by Hnefahogg on Jul 6, 2022 8:50:57 GMT
[Letter of Barnabas] The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, that is given to us to walk in this way, is the following. . . . You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor shall you destroy it after it is born [Letter of Barnabas 19 (c. A.D. 75)].
[Apocalypse of Peter] And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire that smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion [The Apocalypse of Peter 25 (c. A.D. 135)].
[Athenagoras of Athens] What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it [Plea for the Christians 35 (c. A.D. 177)].
[Tertullian of Carthage] In our case, murder being forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier mankilling; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man that is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed [Apology 9 (A.D. 197)].
Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument formed with a nicely adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, with which the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: from its infanticide function, they give it the name of embruosphaktê, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive. Such apparatus was possessed both by Hippocrates, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus, and Herophilus, that dissector of adults, and the milder Soranus himself, who all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive [Treatise on the Soul 25 (c. A.D. 210)].
Now we allow that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does [ibid., 27].
The Law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex 21:22–24] [ibid., 37].
[St. John Chrystosom] I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its job to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to w****dom, w****dom to adultery, adultery to murder, or rather to something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take away the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if it were a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing into slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she will do, heaping upon your head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the cause of it is yours [Homilies on Romans 24 (c. A.D. 391)].
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 6, 2022 14:27:31 GMT
[Letter of Barnabas] The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, that is given to us to walk in this way, is the following. . . . You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor shall you destroy it after it is born [Letter of Barnabas 19 (c. A.D. 75)]. [Apocalypse of Peter] And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire that smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion [The Apocalypse of Peter 25 (c. A.D. 135)]. [Athenagoras of Athens] What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it [Plea for the Christians 35 (c. A.D. 177)]. [Tertullian of Carthage] In our case, murder being forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier mankilling; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man that is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed [Apology 9 (A.D. 197)]. Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument formed with a nicely adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, with which the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: from its infanticide function, they give it the name of embruosphaktê, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive. Such apparatus was possessed both by Hippocrates, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus, and Herophilus, that dissector of adults, and the milder Soranus himself, who all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive [Treatise on the Soul 25 (c. A.D. 210)]. Now we allow that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does [ibid., 27]. The Law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex 21:22–24] [ibid., 37].
[St. John Chrystosom] I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its job to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to w****dom, w****dom to adultery, adultery to murder, or rather to something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take away the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if it were a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing into slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she will do, heaping upon your head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the cause of it is yours [Homilies on Romans 24 (c. A.D. 391)]. There are reasons why the Church has had conflicting views on abortion, because in one verse it says the punishment for the death of a fetus is a fine if caused accidentally, but the accidental death of the mother requires the man to be himself put to death. I will read more into it though, just for historical interest. None of that means anything if God doesn't exist btw. Not that pro-life can't be argued for, it just can't be argued for from divine authority. My personal secular stance on the issue is simple. The mother has rights, the fetus doesn't. That is my position on legality btw, not morally. In my opinion once a fetus can suffer pain (5-6 months according to most doctors) is when there is a moral issue, but it also takes into account if a fetus has any comprehension of ideas/being aware of it's own existence. Having a feeling of pain for however long the fetus would feel pain isn't enough to trump the mother's rights to abort. journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/fulltext/2006/01170/when_does_a_fetus_feel_pain_.3.aspxDr. Anand, who submitted testimony on fetal pain to the US Department of Justice in 2004 regarding the ban on partial-birth abortions, said he is not morally opposed to abortion.
“I have no opinion in that matter,” he said. “I'm not pro-life; I'm not pro-choice. I'm just a country doctor. I don't belong to any organizations that promote or block abortion.”I personally have no cards in this game as I have no desire to have children, I place birthed human's rights over everything else though. In a perfect world we could just magically remove the fetus at anytime without harming the mother and let the fetus grown to birth stage without needing the mother's womb in order to survive.
|
|
Hnefahogg
Sophomore
@hnefahogg
Posts: 888
Likes: 370
|
Post by Hnefahogg on Jul 8, 2022 8:19:36 GMT
[Letter of Barnabas] The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, that is given to us to walk in this way, is the following. . . . You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor shall you destroy it after it is born [Letter of Barnabas 19 (c. A.D. 75)]. [Apocalypse of Peter] And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire that smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion [The Apocalypse of Peter 25 (c. A.D. 135)]. [Athenagoras of Athens] What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it [Plea for the Christians 35 (c. A.D. 177)]. [Tertullian of Carthage] In our case, murder being forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier mankilling; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man that is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed [Apology 9 (A.D. 197)]. Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument formed with a nicely adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, with which the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: from its infanticide function, they give it the name of embruosphaktê, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive. Such apparatus was possessed both by Hippocrates, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus, and Herophilus, that dissector of adults, and the milder Soranus himself, who all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive [Treatise on the Soul 25 (c. A.D. 210)]. Now we allow that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does [ibid., 27]. The Law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex 21:22–24] [ibid., 37].
[St. John Chrystosom] I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its job to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to w****dom, w****dom to adultery, adultery to murder, or rather to something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take away the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if it were a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing into slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she will do, heaping upon your head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the cause of it is yours [Homilies on Romans 24 (c. A.D. 391)]. There are reasons why the Church has had conflicting views on abortion, because in one verse it says the punishment for the death of a fetus is a fine if caused accidentally, but the accidental death of the mother requires the man to be himself put to death. I will read more into it though, just for historical interest. None of that means anything if God doesn't exist btw. Not that pro-life can't be argued for, it just can't be argued for from divine authority. My personal secular stance on the issue is simple. The mother has rights, the fetus doesn't. That is my position on legality btw, not morally. In my opinion once a fetus can suffer pain (5-6 months according to most doctors) is when there is a moral issue, but it also takes into account if a fetus has any comprehension of ideas/being aware of it's own existence. Having a feeling of pain for however long the fetus would feel pain isn't enough to trump the mother's rights to abort. journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/fulltext/2006/01170/when_does_a_fetus_feel_pain_.3.aspxDr. Anand, who submitted testimony on fetal pain to the US Department of Justice in 2004 regarding the ban on partial-birth abortions, said he is not morally opposed to abortion.
“I have no opinion in that matter,” he said. “I'm not pro-life; I'm not pro-choice. I'm just a country doctor. I don't belong to any organizations that promote or block abortion.”I personally have no cards in this game as I have no desire to have children, I place birthed human's rights over everything else though. In a perfect world we could just magically remove the fetus at anytime without harming the mother and let the fetus grown to birth stage without needing the mother's womb in order to survive. Yes, you are right that one cannot argue the issue of abortion from the Bible with someone who is an atheist, for the atheist does not believe in the Bible. That becomes what is called a circular argument. The Christian would either have to: A) argue it from science and/or jurisdiction or B) first convince the atheist that the Bible is true. Although I thought that the premise of the thread was what the Catholic Church historically believed about abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Jul 8, 2022 13:58:06 GMT
Before 1588 abortion was allowed for male fetuses up until 40 days, while female fetuses it was allowed up until 3 months. How did they know whether the fetus was male or female ?
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jul 8, 2022 16:32:44 GMT
Interesting. I learned this week that the Didache (a treatise written by second-generation Christians) directly opposes abortion, and this was written during the first century CE/AD: A direct English translation (via Google) from the Greek reads as follows: 1. Second commandment of the teaching; 2. You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit child abuse, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bewitch, you shall not drug, you shall not kill a child in corruption, you shall not be born naked, you shall not covet your neighbor's property. www.ccel.org/ccel/lake/fathers2.v.html ,been%20declared%20an%20infallible%20teaching. Just wondering, how can you avoid being born naked? Greek to English translation may have caused this inconsistency. As I have posted frequently before, translation issues, willful changes and just plain typos cast doubt on any version of anything, not just the Bible There are translations of the Quran, but most Muslims accept only the original version in its original language.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Jul 8, 2022 18:45:01 GMT
How did they know whether the fetus was male or female ? I don't know. I will need to look into that. in 1588 it just seems an impossibility ! Maybe they did that needle on a string prophesy thing that was popular at baby showers before ultra-sound came along to spoil the surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 8, 2022 18:45:39 GMT
I don't know. I will need to look into that. in 1588 it just seems an impossibility ! Maybe they did that needle on a string prophesy thing that was popular at baby showers before ultra-sound came along to spoil the surprise. They had predictions they made through horrible methods.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 8, 2022 18:58:07 GMT
www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_169-184_Fuller.pdfThere are reasons why the Church has had conflicting views on abortion, because in one verse it says the punishment for the death of a fetus is a fine if caused accidentally, but the accidental death of the mother requires the man to be himself put to death. I will read more into it though, just for historical interest. None of that means anything if God doesn't exist btw. Not that pro-life can't be argued for, it just can't be argued for from divine authority. My personal secular stance on the issue is simple. The mother has rights, the fetus doesn't. That is my position on legality btw, not morally. In my opinion once a fetus can suffer pain (5-6 months according to most doctors) is when there is a moral issue, but it also takes into account if a fetus has any comprehension of ideas/being aware of it's own existence. Having a feeling of pain for however long the fetus would feel pain isn't enough to trump the mother's rights to abort. journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/fulltext/2006/01170/when_does_a_fetus_feel_pain_.3.aspxDr. Anand, who submitted testimony on fetal pain to the US Department of Justice in 2004 regarding the ban on partial-birth abortions, said he is not morally opposed to abortion.
“I have no opinion in that matter,” he said. “I'm not pro-life; I'm not pro-choice. I'm just a country doctor. I don't belong to any organizations that promote or block abortion.”I personally have no cards in this game as I have no desire to have children, I place birthed human's rights over everything else though. In a perfect world we could just magically remove the fetus at anytime without harming the mother and let the fetus grown to birth stage without needing the mother's womb in order to survive. Yes, you are right that one cannot argue the issue of abortion from the Bible with someone who is an atheist, for the atheist does not believe in the Bible. That becomes what is called a circular argument. The Christian would either have to: A) argue it from science and/or jurisdiction or B) first convince the atheist that the Bible is true. Although I thought that the premise of the thread was what the Catholic Church historically believed about abortion. It is, the other stuff I just wanted to touch on too. I read in multiple places that The Roman Catholic Church allowed abortions during certain periods of history depending on who the Pope was at the time. The Catholic Church has also been inconsistent in many other ways as well, some more problematic than others.
|
|
Hnefahogg
Sophomore
@hnefahogg
Posts: 888
Likes: 370
|
Post by Hnefahogg on Jul 8, 2022 19:02:58 GMT
Just wondering, how can you avoid being born naked? Greek to English translation may have caused this inconsistency. As I have posted frequently before, translation issues, willful changes and just plain typos cast doubt on any version of anything, not just the Bible There are translations of the Quran, but most Muslims accept only the original version in its original language. Well, the Catholic Church tradtionally held that the Latin Vulgate was the one and only Bible.
|
|
Hnefahogg
Sophomore
@hnefahogg
Posts: 888
Likes: 370
|
Post by Hnefahogg on Jul 8, 2022 19:07:08 GMT
Yes, you are right that one cannot argue the issue of abortion from the Bible with someone who is an atheist, for the atheist does not believe in the Bible. That becomes what is called a circular argument. The Christian would either have to: A) argue it from science and/or jurisdiction or B) first convince the atheist that the Bible is true. Although I thought that the premise of the thread was what the Catholic Church historically believed about abortion.It is, the other stuff I just wanted to touch on too. I read in multiple places that The Roman Catholic Church allowed abortions during certain periods of history depending on who the Pope was at the time. The Catholic Church has also been inconsistent in many other ways as well, some more problematic than others. Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 8, 2022 19:20:28 GMT
It is, the other stuff I just wanted to touch on too. I read in multiple places that The Roman Catholic Church allowed abortions during certain periods of history depending on who the Pope was at the time. The Catholic Church has also been inconsistent in many other ways as well, some more problematic than others. Fair enough. The Mosiac laws allow slavery, so I don't know that bringing up laws from the Bible is useful to your point. Under most forms of Christianity merely disbelieving in Jesus no matter how good of a person you are is punished by eternal Hell, which atheists find evil and even many Christians have a moral problem with. The Christians who are uncomfortable with what the Bible says have to then just work around it in some way. Some will argue that it is only talking about indentured servitude, but that still would leave passages about how if the owner buys his servant a wife and the servant and his wife have a child, that when the male servants time is up he can go but the women and child still remain the property of the owner. They don't get to leave like the man does. The man is then forced to choose between his freedom and remaining with his wife and child, in which case a spike is ran through his ear as a mark representing that he is now his owner's property forever. There are plenty of atheists who wouldn't say that abortion is a moral act, just that forcing a mother to stay pregnant is the more immoral act. There are many who likely consider abortion neither moral or immoral. It depends on the specific atheist's view on life and when the life becomes valuable. Atheists are more nuanced than many Christians like to think and the same can be said about Christians as well. Many Christians in the U.S. are pro-choice and some atheists are pro-life. The pro-life atheist has a more difficult challenge, because they can't use divine command to support their view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 8, 2022 20:33:24 GMT
They had predictions they made through horrible methods. Most likely they checked the aborted fetus. These laws weren't made with any kind of fairness in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 8, 2022 20:36:12 GMT
They had predictions they made through horrible methods. Most likely they checked the aborted fetus. These laws weren't made with any kind of fairness in mind. No, I mean they had really stupid ideas like who orgasmed first. Not sure what use checking what sex the aborted fetus was when they had rules about when you could abort the fetus in the first place based on the sex of the child.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 8, 2022 20:43:37 GMT
Most likely they checked the aborted fetus. These laws weren't made with any kind of fairness in mind. No, I mean they had really stupid ideas like who orgasmed first. Not sure what use checking what sex the aborted fetus was when they had rules about when you could abort the fetus in the first place based on the sex of the child. Because they didn't live in a fair society. They lived in a world where people were stoned to death for building a fire on the Sabbath or pooping on the wrong side of town. The idea of, oops, we called it wrong, wasn't a concept they understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 8, 2022 20:46:42 GMT
No, I mean they had really stupid ideas like who orgasmed first. Not sure what use checking what sex the aborted fetus was when they had rules about when you could abort the fetus in the first place based on the sex of the child. Because they didn't live in a fair society. They lived in a world where people were stoned to death for building a fire on the Sabbath or pooping on the wrong side of town. The idea of, oops, we called it wrong, wasn't a concept they understood. Okay, now I see what you are saying. Yeah, things were far from fair back then and the U.S. right now is starting to revert backwards in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jul 8, 2022 21:11:07 GMT
Just wondering, how can you avoid being born naked? Greek to English translation may have caused this inconsistency. As I have posted frequently before, translation issues, willful changes and just plain typos cast doubt on any version of anything, not just the Bible There are translations of the Quran, but most Muslims accept only the original version in its original language. Well, the Catholic Church tradtionally held that the Latin Vulgate was the one and only Bible. I highly doubt Jesus spoke Latin. And those that wrote the books of the Bible. My guess is that it was written in Hebrew, then Greek. If Paulslaugh was here, we could know, since he did extensive study in comparative religion. The Catholic Church became 'official' about 300 years after the time of Christ, during the Council of Nicea, headed by a Roman ruler of the time. www.compellingtruth.org/Council-of-Nicea.htmlThat is when the Orthodox church broke from the Catholic church, and the Romans translated everything into Latin. www.learnreligions.com/what-language-was-the-bible-written-in-4158596Oh, and FYI: Since the Quran is written in Arabic, it follows logically that it could be written by a person familiar with Arabic. Linguists agree the language used in the Quran uses word order, sound and meaning to convey a greater message. Therefore having basic knowledge in Arabic is not enough. The author of the Quran had to have in depth expertise of the language.
|
|
