Immanuel
I really don't want to turn this blog into a Bible study or anything, but it probably wouldn't hurt to look at a passage or two to get the lay of the land.
The writer of the Gospel of Matthew, when he tells the story of Jesus' birth, mentions Mary's virginity and says, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel -- which means "God with us.'"
Well, you ask yourself, which prophet predicted this? 'Cause that's uncanny.
It turns out Isaiah said it -- sort of -- and it wasn't a messianic prophecy.
If you look at the passage in Isaiah to which Matthew refers -- Isaiah 7:14 -- you notice a couple of things. First of all, Hebrew had a word for virgin, but that's not the word Isaiah used. He used the word "almah" a word that means "a young woman of marriageable age, irrespective of her sexual status.
Isaiah used that word because he wasn't writing about the messiah. He was warning King Ahaz not to fret about which nation to ally Israel with. A young woman shall conceive, he tells the king, and by the time that child is old enough to eat solid foods, the rulers he worries about will not be a problem. It would make no sense for Isaiah to tell Ahaz, "You wait a few hundred years, and you'll see I'm right." He was speaking about the near future in his time and circumstance. And any plain reading of the whole chapter shows that.
What Matthew did was to find in that story the truth for him -- that as God had used a son as a sign in the past, in Jesus, God uses a son as a son in a big way.
But again, it's not blindness that keeps all the Jewish people from believing that Jesus is the Messiah. They read the text in its own context. And we'd all be a lot better off if everybody did that with their own Scriptures.
The writer of the Gospel of Matthew, when he tells the story of Jesus' birth, mentions Mary's virginity and says, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel -- which means "God with us.'"
Well, you ask yourself, which prophet predicted this? 'Cause that's uncanny.
It turns out Isaiah said it -- sort of -- and it wasn't a messianic prophecy.
If you look at the passage in Isaiah to which Matthew refers -- Isaiah 7:14 -- you notice a couple of things. First of all, Hebrew had a word for virgin, but that's not the word Isaiah used. He used the word "almah" a word that means "a young woman of marriageable age, irrespective of her sexual status.
Isaiah used that word because he wasn't writing about the messiah. He was warning King Ahaz not to fret about which nation to ally Israel with. A young woman shall conceive, he tells the king, and by the time that child is old enough to eat solid foods, the rulers he worries about will not be a problem. It would make no sense for Isaiah to tell Ahaz, "You wait a few hundred years, and you'll see I'm right." He was speaking about the near future in his time and circumstance. And any plain reading of the whole chapter shows that.
What Matthew did was to find in that story the truth for him -- that as God had used a son as a sign in the past, in Jesus, God uses a son as a son in a big way.
But again, it's not blindness that keeps all the Jewish people from believing that Jesus is the Messiah. They read the text in its own context. And we'd all be a lot better off if everybody did that with their own Scriptures.
posted by Michael Riley at 10:07 AM
81 Comments:
Here we go...you are assuming that we have the entire book of Isaiah.
Mr. Riley,
If this post is a response to the comment I made in your previous post, you've not addressed even one fo the issues raised.
Shall I take that to mean you have conceded the matters?
Rev. Riley: Don't be afraid to discuss matters of religion. It's a calling, and likely a reason why you're a published columnist.
By the same token, don't be afraid to state your interpretation of scripture for fear of offending others. Christians can respect our Jewish friends' interpretation of Isaiah (and other OT prophets) without abandoning our own.
It's also OK to admit that your christology is adoptionist or aryan, if indeed it is, thopugh it would raise some interesting denominational issues.
"But again, it's not blindness that keeps all the Jewish people from believing that Jesus is the Messiah." (M. Riley)
Sure it is.
Consider these Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament fulfillment by Christ:
* Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
* Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23) as a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16), of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14), and of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
* Herod killing the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
* Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
* Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
* Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
* Preached good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
* Performed miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
* Cleansed the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
* Ministered in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16)
* Entered Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
* First presented Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
* Rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; 1 Peter 2:7)
* Died a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving: rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48), betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18), sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15), silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14), being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31), beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26), spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30), piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31), being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38), praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34), piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34), given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36), no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36), buried in a rich man's tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60), casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24).
* Rose from the dead! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
* Ascended into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
* Sat down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)
Pat aka believer is back, look at all those links, except not blue now.
I still believe it's all hooey -ray will agree I am sure and margaret will cite her catholic bible. It's all mythology.none of it ever happened people.take off your blinders. you've all been conned by snake oil salesmen all these centuries.
What links?
The biblical scripture links-same thing-both annoying.
It annoying to you because it requires one to think -- something you don't do particularly well.
Believer did a good job, and again there's some anonymous person thinking he or she knows something about me. I do have a Catholic bible, and some King James versions as well.
Whoever you are, believer, bravo.
And mister or missus hooey person, right back at ya.
Believer,
As a Christian, I have profound belief in Christ the Redeemer.
As an author, however, I find the Bible an absolutely fascinating study in typology. Pretypes for Christ exist throughout the Old Testament in numerous books and prophesies. However, the Israelites were a small, geographically defined ethnic/religious group who, like many other religions, included the belief of a deliverer to come.
Many of the Jews of Christ's time and after found particular interest in the Deliverer as they existed in a time of great oppression (the way many oppressed Christians today focus on the book of Revelation), and the New Testament was authored quite intentionally with all of these pretypes in mind.
With all of my faith, I still believe the Old Testament can be interpretted without Christ, and yet it is central to my personal faith that it is.
Mythology, indeed. Arbitrary, too. But they've been annointed to not see that.
A few years ago someone at the University of Rhode Island, I believe, did a study about people and what they accept as true and how they respond to contradictory ideas that come later. The results indicated that almost invariably, people accept the first side of an issue that they come into contact with and will defend it when they encounter something to the contrary. It doesn't even matter if the first take is wrong - they want to believe what they heard first. That goes a long way toward explaining why people cling to their beliefs.
Like ducklings "imprinting" whatever species raises them, they believe they are their mothers no matter if humans, dogs, etc. Also known as brainwashing and nurture vs. nature, If you are raised as certain religion, chances are that's what you'll believe life long.
Atheist rhetoric.
Says who? The Catholics? Narrow-minded "Peggy"?
Margaret wrote:
"Atheist rhetoric."
Closed-minded believer excusism.
But thanks for being the example for what I said.
The way you dismiss scripture you may not have ever read amazes me. And, if you HAVE read all the scripture verses that believer posted and still dismiss them...well, then I just wonder who's the close minded one(s).
The Catholics don't have complete and total ownership of the New Testament, oh misinformed anonymous person who uses my name in the familiar.
Actually, anyone who reads The Word and believes has ownership.
Ray, can you explain to us why you support partial-birth abortion in spite of convincing evidence that demonstrates that a 34 week old fetus is not at all biologically different from a baby that was born just one hour ago?
When you're done doing that, please do tell us again how those you disagree with are oh-so-obstinate in clinging to their incorrect beliefs in spite of convincing evidence that demonstrates just how wrong those beliefs are. Remind us again how you, "the free thinker," only look to the empirical evidence when reaching a decision or when otherwise taking a position on an issue of import. I am sure we can all use the laughs.
Anonymous thinks he's got me. He thinks I've come out in support of partial birth abortion. To this I say, show me where I've said anything about partial birth abortion. I've spoken about choice in general but I've never discussed partial birth abortion. Try again?
Anonymous again:
"Remind us again how you, "the free thinker," only look to the empirical evidence when reaching a decision or when otherwise taking a position on an issue of import."
It's easy. All you have to do is realize how silly and unnecessary belief is. Once that's done then you're in a position to think more critically, i.e. more freely, about the issues. Critical thinking isn't possible while beliefs are maintained.
You reject beliefs yourself (UFOs? The Loch Ness Monster? Paranormal stuff?) if they're not linked to your personal belief system so your approach isn't all that different from mine. The only difference is that you won't go the extra mile and think critically about the beliefs you do accept. Someone once calculated that there have been about 2500 proposed gods over the course of human existence. You've rejected all but one. That makes you an atheist, too, and you're 2499/2500, or 99.96% like me. You're almost there!
Ray, you were once asked on this blog whether you would join others in supporting legislation that would outlaw partial-birth abortion. You answered no to that question. In the interests of saving time, and rather than look through the archives, I'll ask you directly: Do you support legislation that would outlaw the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion?
I guess the APP blog editors are trying to beef up their monthly ratings so they ask Riley to mention religion in his blog and off we go!
anonymous wrote:
"In the interests of saving time, and rather than look through the archives..."
Bull. Show me.
I do believe in partial-birth abortions. So there!
Ray, only one God came down from Heaven and took on the form of a human. He gave sight to the blind, cured diseases and even brought the dead back to life. 3 days after being put to death for the sins of mankind, He rose from the dead and appeared before His Apostles and many others. 40 days later, He ascended into Heaven. All of this was done in front of countless witnesses. 10 of his closest friends, His Apostles, willingly chose to die brutal deaths rather than deny Him and who He is. He is history's most significant personality. He is my Lord and Savior. He is the Son of God. His name is Jesus Christ.
I don't know what partial birth abortions have to do with this strand. Maybe because it is a strand about the Jews and Christians and bible quotes.(??)
These third trimester abortions have little to do with faith, and a lot more to do with science. We know those kicking, writhing beings partially born before their brains are extracted, are human beings. Science. Yet, I guess science can be ignored on occasion (for those who ascribe to it religiously) when it suits them.
I find the procedure and the hypocrisy repulsive.
margaret read what ray wrote on october 18 about christians believing in myths...remember ray always says he only goes on only evidence...anonymous says ray is lying...ray supports late abortions even when the 'evidence' shows it is a baby...rays religion is his liberal politics and ray always follows his religion and not the evidence...ray is a hypocrite..thats the point.
I wish a couple of these bloggers had been aborted, partially or completed because they appear to be a complete waste of life.
Please note: I did NOT make the comment of 11:31 PM, October 22, 2007 even though the poster used my name. This isn't the first time this has happened.
Stop wasting your time, Believer. I don't buy that stuff.
Have you ever stopped to think about the fact that you believe in such things because you were born in a predominantly Christian country? Were you born elsewhere or at a time when there were other popular religions around (i.e. Deism, Unitarianism) you might be saying something completely different. With the popularity of beliefs waxing and waning over time and in different areas it should be apparent how capricious and random belief is.
Now back to anonymous who wrote: "Ray, you were once asked on this blog whether you would join others in supporting legislation that would outlaw partial-birth abortion. You answered no to that question."
Thinking back, it's possible that I did say yes to that question. I don't recall if I gave any rationale, though. I would not support legislation that would outlaw it because the issue of the woman's health isn't addressed by such. There are times when it is medically necessary to do the procedure. Outlawing the procedure would put the government in charge of a decision that should be made between the woman and her doctor.
Margaret, it's not a scientific question. It's an emotional question. Science can no more define what is human for you than it can define when life begins. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong or lying.
FWIW, when we bomb the hell out of the rest of the world we're killing humans, too: adults, children as well as pregnant women and their fetuses. We've supported despots who've done the same to their own people with our blessings, weapons and money. Yet there's no such outrage about it as when an abortion is performed over here. Now tell me about hypocrisy.
Ray, how is it not scientific? The proof is staring at you, if only his or her head could be birthed BEFORE the brains are extracted.
I haven't heard of any human female giving birth to a cow, alien, chicken...only human beings (unless you read the National Enquirer).
That argument is popular for some, but holds no water for me. It was never a decision based on my faith. I discovered what abortion was through pictures and then asking questions, and then learning about what is done to the growing human fetus, if you will.
Now again I repeat that this strand was not about this, but it was brought up.
Ray, it sounds like someone in a previous blog tried to set you up by using your name to say something hideous. I think he/she may have just blogged here, because the sentiments expressed (supposedly) by you...I remember the words; it was something like I wish Pat were aborted...are being expressed again.
And in reference to your assertion that few care about happenings overseas, the "with our blessings" statement assumes that many Americans are on board with decisions made by those who run the country. No way.
The atrocities committed, whether here on the unborn, or far away, on innocent lives, are still that - atrocities, and to me they are heinous and evil, and weigh heavy upon my mind.
I've written to the president about them. And I've written to others about things. Outrage...there is no such outrage? War is outrageous. You think some people don't care as much about the atrocities of war like they do the fight against abortion? Maybe you just haven't been talking to the right people.
As for me, the defenseless, voiceless unborn human has my vote for being protected and defended. If we cannot see the value in protecting and understanding the sanctity or importance of the most vulnerable humans, then how can we even begin to recognize the sanctity or importance of others?
Wow, Margaret.
That was a genuinely touching post and I appreciate it.
believer, honey..hate to burst your delusional bubble, but there is no proof.It is as mythological as the Greek mythical creatures. Is there really a half-man/goat, half-man/lion, half-man anything cavorting around or a virgin giving birth or a wild man with long robes/hair parting the Red Sea or any of the other hooey you all believe proven? No , it is all hearsay, family oral folklore written into a fairy tale for generations to adopt as belief because it makes them feel better about Life and Death's mysteries and uncertainties. There are thousands of gods in hundreds of religions/sects based on people's fears, uncertainties but does not make them true or real. Believer, dude, are you trippin' on some magic mushrooms?
Good luck on your death day, a-theist.
Ray, by supporting partial-birth abortion, you are rationalizing away the murder of innocent humans in furtherance of a political ideology. Morally, you are no different than the despots that you claim to deplore.
Incidentally, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 -- now the law of the land and a piece of legislation that was supported by the American Medical Association, among many others -- most certainly does make exceptions for those extremely rare cases when the life and health of the mother are at risk. Section 1531 of that Act contains the following language:
"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
That being the case, I'll ask the question again: "Ray, can you explain to us why you support partial-birth abortion in spite of convincing evidence that demonstrates that a 34 week-old fetus is not at all biologically different from a baby that was born just one hour ago?"
Margaret, you Catholics have caused millions of humans to be massacred over the centuries, religious genocide in the name of your inquistions, Popes and your Christian Catholic religion and you whine about how horrid partial birth aborts are? Hypocrites all. and what, you kill the doctors, nurses and receptionist at these clinics to save one fetus? Distorted, twisted Christian, catholic logic is what it is. And believer,aka another anonymous, when I die, don't fret, I will be right beside you..in the ground. Death is the great equalizer afterall.
Margaret, there's nothing scientific about this. All you're doing is throwing around the word 'scientific' and hoping it sticks somewhere. There are scientific questions and there are non-scientific questions. Questions such as these are not scientific. BTW, can you define 'scientific' seeing how as you've introduced it here?
The reality of it is that what is 'human' grades into other things. Earlier species within our genus differed from us by some quite small things and drawing a line between us and them is arbitrary and necessarily self-serving. Further, since humans and chimpanzees are about 98+% similar genetically, what criterion shall we use to decide what is "human". Clearly, what is "human" is what we want it to be: we define it to suit ourselves. Thus, it's not a scientific issue. Science tells us that we all differ by degree, not by kind. Similarly, when human life begins is not a scientific question.
Margaret wrote:
"I've written to the president about them. And I've written to others about things. Outrage...there is no such outrage? War is outrageous. You think some people don't care as much about the atrocities of war like they do the fight against abortion? Maybe you just haven't been talking to the right people."
I'm glad you wrote to the president. BTW, who did you vote for in 2004? It never ceases to amaze me how Catholics seem to fall into line with the evangelical Protestants who wave the flag and mention God at every possible opportunity and are so successful at pulling the wool over so many Catholic eyes.
The fact remains that the religious right, who is quite pro-war and who strongly supports those murderous despots, are the ones who complain the loudest about abortion here. That's what I mean when I ask "Where's the outrage?"
Anonymous wrote:
"Ray, by supporting partial-birth abortion, you are rationalizing away the murder of innocent humans in furtherance of a political ideology. Morally, you are no different than the despots that you claim to deplore."
First, freedom is not a political ideology. It's a basic right. What you're doing is inserting your religious beliefs before the rights of others in a country that was intended to be a secular nation.
Second, my support is for the right of a woman to choose for herself without the interference of the government or the religious Gestapo.
Third, morality is a relative term. What is moral in one religion can be immoral in another. In short, what is moral is merely what is consistent with a particular religion's code. There's no universality there.
Fourth, why is it "moral" for a woman to have to give up her life in a risky delivery yet "immoral" to save her life by sacrificing the fetus? Morality is clearly a slippery slope and decisions about life and death are best left to those directly involved and NOT to the government or the phony moralists.
Anonymous again:
"Incidentally, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 -- now the law of the land and a piece of legislation that was supported by the American Medical Association, among many others -- most certainly does make exceptions for those extremely rare cases when the life and health of the mother are at risk..."
You've changed the question, haven't you? I wasn't referring to any specific legislation and the question, as posed, didn't mention any. But now you've brought forth something specific and compared my general answer to it. That's deceptive. I was asked if I would support a ban on partial-birth abortions, period. I wasn't asked if I supported any specific legislation with more complex language and conditions. But as you can see, my answer was in fact, quite in accord with the quote from the legislation you provided. Thus, your objections are moot.
"... That being the case, I'll ask the question again: "Ray, can you explain to us why you support partial-birth abortion in spite of convincing evidence that demonstrates that a 34 week-old fetus is not at all biologically different from a baby that was born just one hour ago?"
Already answered. I would not support any legislation without the necessary medical exceptions.
Spare us the semantics, Ray. Do you support the Partial-Birth Act of 2003 or not? If you'd like, I can support you with a copy of the bill.
Typo...I meant supply not support in the last sentence.
Ray wrote:
"First, freedom is not a political ideology. It's a basic right."
You mean like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Do those basic rights only apply once an unbiblical cord is cut?
"What you're doing is inserting your religious beliefs before the rights of others in a country that was intended to be a secular nation."
No, I'm not. And who said anything about religion? Cannot a secularist as well as a person of faith be opposed to the infanticide that is partial-birth abortion? If a person of religious faith expressed her opposition to income tax evasion, would you suggest that she was trying to impose her religious beliefs upon others?
"Second, my support is for the right of a woman to choose for herself without the interference of the government or the religious Gestapo."
Again you resort to the religion smokescreen.
Tell us, Ray, is domestic violence a matter that should not be within the purview of the government as well? After all, in some cultures is it considered entirely appropriate to smack your wife around if she steps out of line. Are you suggesting that domestic violence laws that somehow "interfere" with the "choice" a husband/batterer makes are somehow improper or in someway violative of the husband's basic rights?
"Third, morality is a relative term. What is moral in one religion can be immoral in another. In short, what is moral is merely what is consistent with a particular religion's code. There's no universality there."
Were you out sick on the day your college Philosophy 101 class discussed the concept of natural law, Ray? Are you really suggesting that sticking a pair of scissors into the base of the skull of a partially delivered baby before sucking out the brains of that kicking and screaming child is somehow moral? Boy, Dr. Mengele sure could have used a spinmiester like you.
"Fourth, why is it "moral" for a woman to have to give up her life in a risky delivery yet "immoral" to save her life by sacrificing the fetus? Morality is clearly a slippery slope and decisions about life and death are best left to those directly involved and NOT to the government or the phony moralists."
The AMA, The American Medical Association, supported the ban on partial-birth abortion, a procedure they deem "not good medicine." Indeed, the AMA had the following to say with respect the necessity of partial-birth abortion: "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X [partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion."
Should we include the American Medical Association on your list of "phony moralists," Ray?
Ray wrote:
"It never ceases to amaze me how Catholics seem to fall into line with the evangelical Protestants who wave the flag and mention God at every possible opportunity and are so successful at pulling the wool over so many Catholic eyes."
Catholics, a diverse lot to say the least, are no different than anyone else in that they cast their individual ballots for a variety reasons. More often than not, they are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Voting for a lousy pro-life candidate, for example, is nonetheless a vote against the holocaust that is legalized abortion, a policy which is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million children each year in the United States. But then again, maybe some folks voted for Bush because they thought Kerry would make for a weak and ineffectual leader.
"The fact remains that the religious right, who is quite pro-war and who strongly supports those murderous despots..."
Correct me if I am wrong, Ray, but didn't Senator Hillary Clinton vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq? Is she part of the religious right to which you refer?
a-theist wrote:
"Margaret, you Catholics have caused millions of humans to be massacred over the centuries, religious genocide in the name of your inquistions, Popes and your Christian Catholic religion and you whine about how horrid partial birth aborts are? Hypocrites all. and what, you kill the doctors, nurses and receptionist at these clinics to save one fetus? Distorted, twisted Christian, catholic logic is what it is."
Aren't you running late for a Klan meeting?
Tell me, a-theist, and since we are talking about genocide here, how many innocent people were killed at the hands of Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim II Sung, Kim Jong-il and other leaders of officially atheist nations? How many millions more were killed by nations or organizations that were led by Protestants, Jews or Muslims? By all means, please continue to lecture us all on the subject of "twisted logic." I am sure we can all use the laughs.
I should point out, Ray, that Al Gore received more Catholic votes than did George Bush did in 2000. In 2004, 52% of Catholics voted for Bush; 47% voted for Kerry. How you are able to conclude that Catholics are "falling into line" with anyone is beyond me. But then again, you never let anything like pesky little facts get in the way of your preconceived notion of how the world is run, do you?
Ray wrote:
"Further, since humans and chimpanzees are about 98+% similar genetically, what criterion shall we use to decide what is "human". Clearly, what is "human" is what we want it to be: we define it to suit ourselves. Thus, it's not a scientific issue. Science tells us that we all differ by degree, not by kind."
Did you catch that, JustifiedRight? The next time you are representing someone charged with murder, you can tell the jury that your client isn't guilty of murder but rather that he was merely experimenting on a chimpanzee. Who is to say what's human, after all?
Ray, I think you missed your calling.
Ray, we have to agree to disagree here because I can't believe the splitting hairs over what science is, and what a human being is, all in the name of proving you're right...I can't even go there.
The person who has to say that Catholics did this and that and the other 500 years ago...Helloooo. Last time I checked, I'm not that old (though sometimes I feel that old), and I did not do the stuff that happened then. Neither did any of my contemporaries. Um...lots of people who were not Catholic have done a lot of slaughtering in the name of ethnic cleansing and anti Jewish and Christian sentiments, so please, spare me the rhetoric. When it comes down to it, all humans are capable of horrible things in the name of their belief system, or, their lack of one. (I think someone else said something similar here).
To anonymous who liked my post...thank you.
To the guy who wished a-theist good luck on his death day - don't judge, lest you be judged harshly. If you are a believer, you may held more accountable.
Instructing the ignorant and counseling the doubtful, Margaret, are acts of spiritual mercy.
I say give that anonymous a spiritual mercy killing. Put all of us out of his misery, please!
I see pat is amongst our fold again (with a blogger alias)-like an STD, he never goes away.
anonymous wrote:
"Spare us the semantics, Ray. Do you support the Partial-Birth Act of 2003 or not? If you'd like, I can support you with a copy of the bill."
What didn't you understand about what I said?
anonymous wrote:
"You mean like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Do those basic rights only apply once an unbiblical cord is cut?"
We've already decided as a society that fetuses have no such rights. That's why abortion is legal? Kapische?
"No, I'm not. And who said anything about religion? Cannot a secularist as well as a person of faith be opposed to the infanticide that is partial-birth abortion?"
Baloney. You oppose abortion because it's not in accord with your religion. Why are you afraid to admit that?
"If a person of religious faith expressed her opposition to income tax evasion, would you suggest that she was trying to impose her religious beliefs upon others?"
Another one of those ubiquitous non sequiturs that seem to be so popular around here.
"Tell us, Ray, is domestic violence a matter that should not be within the purview of the government as well?"
Yes it should. A fetus that is not sentient doesn't fallinto this domain, though. Society has already decided on this, too.
"After all, in some cultures is it considered entirely appropriate to smack your wife around if she steps out of line."
In some societies, sadly, it is considered that way. And it's also considered moral to do so.
"Are you suggesting that domestic violence laws that somehow "interfere" with the "choice" a husband/batterer makes are somehow improper or in someway violative of the husband's basic rights?"
You're really not expecting me to say 'yes' to this, are you? Or are you? I'll simply state what I said again: Morality differs according to the dictates of the codes of each religion. In some religions it is acceptable and moral to do so. That's what I said about the non-universality of morality. Stop pretending that your "morality" is the only one.
"Are you really suggesting that sticking a pair of scissors into the base of the skull of a partially delivered baby before sucking out the brains of that kicking and screaming child is somehow moral? Boy, Dr. Mengele sure could have used a spinmiester like you."
Sheesh. How do you manage to get that out of what I said?
"The AMA, The American Medical Association, supported the ban on partial-birth abortion, a procedure they deem "not good medicine." Indeed, the AMA had the following to say with respect the necessity of partial-birth abortion: "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X [partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion."
I don't know what source you used for that but I just Googled "AMA, partial birth" and got a CNN report from which I extracted:
"The AMA recommends against intact dilation and extraction, unless alternative procedures pose a greater risk to the woman.
One alternative procedure is called "labor induction," in which a solution is injected into the amniotic fluid, ending the life of the fetus and inducing labor.
Other options include surgical removal of the fetus, and surgical removal of the uterus and fetus. The latter two methods are rarely used due to the significant medical risks they pose to the woman.
The AMA report goes on to say, "The physician must, however, retain the discretion" to decide what procedure is used. The AMA says in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion.
The AMA report also recommends that "abortion not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life."
Sounds like what I've already said.
"Should we include the American Medical Association on your list of "phony moralists," Ray?"
Not when you include what I've given you, above.
anonymous wrote:
"Correct me if I am wrong, Ray, but didn't Senator Hillary Clinton vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq? Is she part of the religious right to which you refer?"
Actually, yes. If you'll stop listening to the pundits for a while and do some research for yourself you'll discover that Hillary Clinton is probably more religious than most who claim to be religious and more conservative than you'll ever learn by believing the clowns at Fox News. Go to:
Hillary's Prayer
I see that Margaret's defense of the killing done by Catholics is to note that others have done it, too.
Noted.
anonymous:
"How you are able to conclude that Catholics are "falling into line" with anyone is beyond me."
Gee, a growing majority of Catholics are voting Republican and it's beyond you?
anonymous:
"Did you catch that, JustifiedRight? The next time you are representing someone charged with murder, you can tell the jury that your client isn't guilty of murder but rather that he was merely experimenting on a chimpanzee. Who is to say what's human, after all?"
Wow! Talk about confusing the issue! The issue was, how does science define what is human, if indeed, it does. I illustrated the fact that science doesn't define what is human since we differ from earlier species of our genus and from modern apes by degree and not by kind. And from this you contrive the argument that I said that the legal definition of 'human' would include chimpanzees?!
Is your life a Monty Python sketch?
Margaret, you brought up the idea of the science of what is human, not me. I just thought it fair to ask you what you were talking about.
Ray, you like to perpetuate the same arguments, and no, I did not bring up science, in the big scheme of things. You did. You are the proponent of a science as the only explanation for the world. I'm saying you use that explanation when it suits you.
And, I said that Catholics had been one of many foolish groups that did heinous things in the name of their cause. Another person (unless it was you under the name anonymous, and it seems not like you to hide) brought up the "you Catholics" thing.
People are people. The pigeon-holing and religion-bashing in the name of proving some point is just, well, tedious.
And, anonymous...the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are my two favorite things. I'm not always perfect at living them out, but I sure like to focus on them.
Margaret:
"You are the proponent of a science as the only explanation for the world.
I said that science is our only source of dependable knowledge. Other sources for explanations abound but they're, again, all derived from belief and laden with the requirements of the belief system. The beauty of science is that anyone, anywhere, no matter what religious belief they maintain, can do science and, when it is approached objectively, can arrive at the same results. The problem is when the process is polluted by beliefs and results are skewed to conform to the belief system.
" I'm saying you use that explanation when it suits you."
No, I said that science has it's limits and that there are scientific and non-scientific questions. Only ideas that are testable can be scientific.
A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.
Proponents of partial birth abortion have not even considered the scientific method to disprove human life here. Otherwise they'd find out they were wrong.
I see Margaret has dusted off the old junior high science textbook. Good. But:
"Proponents of partial birth abortion have not even considered the scientific method to disprove human life here. Otherwise they'd find out they were wrong."
"Human life". What is that? Are zygotes human life? Are sperm and egg human life? They're derived from what we call humans but you still haven't defined what "human" is. When you've finally done that you'll have to include the above into whatever "human life" turns out to be so the result doesn't aid in the discussion about partial birth abortions as every cell in our bodies is "human life". So how would you decide (using the scientific method) what's human and what's not? What I'm saying is that what we call human is not based on science, it's based on necessity: legal, societal, cultural, religious, psychological. But if you've got a way to define scientifically what is human, let me know.
Ray, maybe your atheist parents should have given you a sex lesson instead of anti-religion lessons. here goes: when a MAN inserts his penis filled with semen into a WOMAN's vagina and if all goes according to your "scientic formulas"..in 39-40 weeks, whatever pops out of the WOMAN's vagina (or stomach if C-section performed)is a HUMAN BEING. Any further questions?
Wow, graphic, but somehow appropriate. Zygotes are human life, Ray. Eggs and sperm are eggs and sperm(human eggs and sperm) that when fertilized (moment of conception here) form a separate entity, a human being. Not a cow. Not a whale (we like to save them a lot though - lucky them). Not a non-human. So...now you know.
Ray wrote"
"We've already decided as a society that fetuses have no such rights. That's why abortion is legal? Kapische?"
We?? As a society? Tell me, who elected William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall?
Anonymous wrote:
"Ray, maybe your atheist parents should have given you a sex lesson instead of anti-religion lessons."
My parents weren't atheists. But yours probably became atheists when you were born.
"...here goes: when a MAN inserts his penis filled with semen into a WOMAN's vagina.."
A penis is filled with semen? ROTFLMAO! That's what happens when you get your education from a porno website.
"... and if all goes according to your "scientic formulas".."
What's a "scientic formula"?
"...in 39-40 weeks, whatever pops out of the WOMAN's vagina (or stomach if C-section performed)is a HUMAN BEING." Any further questions?"
Yeah. How do we account for you?
Me: "We've already decided as a society that fetuses have no such rights. That's why abortion is legal? Kapische?"
Anonymous: "We?? As a society? Tell me, who elected William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall?"
Yes, we did. That's why it's the law. We elected the people who put Brennan and Marshall on the court. That's the way it works, isn't it? Unless it's your intent to argue that only laws that you agree with are actually law? Unless you can argue that abortion is not legal your question is moot.
I am your long lost bro, man.Didn't your Mom tell you about her part-time night job meeting up with strange men(and I do not mean your father). Guess that's why you converted to atheism, huh?
Ray wrote:
"Yes, we did. That's why it's the law. We elected the people who put Brennan and Marshall on the court. That's the way it works, isn't it?"
No, Ray, that's not the way it works. In this country, "We the People" directly elect senators, congressmen, governors and legislators to enact our laws. What we don't do -- or shouldn't do, anyway -- is look to an unelected and unaccountable court made up of members holding lifetime tenure -- a quasi-Politburo, if you will -- to create those "laws" that would never see the light of day were they, as mere proposals, to undergo the scrutiny inherent in normal democratic processes.
Incidentally, where in the constitution can I find any mention of the words abortion or trimesters? I ask for a reason. As I am sure you are aware, the Tenth Amendment to our Federal Constitution holds that where the constitution is silent, the matter is appropriately left to the States or the People respectively. That being the case, and in that Roe initially held that a state could not prohibit an abortion at 2 trimesters (but could do just that at 2 trimesters plus one second), perhaps you can explain to us how it is that Roe should be viewed as anything but judicial activism at its worst?
Ray wrote:
"Gee, a growing majority of Catholics are voting Republican and it's beyond you?
Does one election establish a pattern in your mind, Ray? In 2000, more Catholics voted for Al Gore than did vote for George Bush. In the 2006 midterm elections, Catholics favored Democratic candidates by a rather wide margin of 55% to 45%.
Catholic Vote Swings Democratic in Midterm Elections
Please remind us again, Ray, how Catholics are "falling into line" with anyone.
Ray wrote:
"We've already decided as a society that fetuses have no such rights."
You mean in the same way that Nazi Germany decided -- "as a society," no less -- that it was appropriate to deny Jews and others their basic rights, not to mention the full and equal protection of the law?
Ray also wrote:
"A fetus that is not sentient doesn't fall into this domain, though. Society has already decided on this, too."
Definition of the word "Sentient"
Are you suggesting, Ray, that a 34 week-old, third-trimester fetus is not sentient? Incidentally, where, when and in what manner did the American people pass judgment on this question?
Ray wrote:
"I see that Margaret's defense of the killing done by Catholics is to note that others have done it, too."
"Noted."
Funny thing, what I noted was that you rather conveniently ignored the reference to the tens of millions killed by officially atheist nations and/or their leaders -- killings committed, I might add, that were all too often done in furtherance what they, the killers, claimed or believed, at the time or afterwards, to be a moral imperative. What I noted is that when the killing done is by those you support (e.g., a leftist or an abortionist), then the moral issues surrounding the killing suddenly get murky and you, Ray, find yourself writing the following sort of nonsense:
"...morality is a relative term. What is moral in one religion can be immoral in another. In short, what is moral is merely what is consistent with a particular religion's code. There's no universality there."
Or ...
"Clearly, what is 'human' is what we want it to be: we define it to suit ourselves."
I don't think the executioners at Stalin's gulags could have summed up their beliefs any better.
anonymous:
"I am your long lost bro, man..."
Why are you here? I thought we discarded the brain from the jar labeled 'Abby'.
Anonymous:
"... the Tenth Amendment to our Federal Constitution holds that where the constitution is silent, the matter is appropriately left to the States or the People respectively. That being the case, and in that Roe initially held that a state could not prohibit an abortion at 2 trimesters (but could do just that at 2 trimesters plus one second), perhaps you can explain to us how it is that Roe should be viewed as anything but judicial activism at its worst?"
What baloney. First you argue that partial birth abortion is immoral and then you argue that it should be left up to the states to decide. Don't pretend that you wouldn't support a Supreme Court decision to outlaw partial birth abortion.
Anonymous:
Please remind us again, Ray, how Catholics are "falling into line" with anyone."
Because so many of them are being made to vote against their own church. Bush: For the death penalty, Catholic church: It's immoral; Bush: Let's go to war, Catholic church: It's immoral. Yet so many Catholics have voted with Bush. That's how they're falling into line - they're being made to vote against their own church.
Anonymous:
"Are you suggesting, Ray, that a 34 week-old, third-trimester fetus is not sentient?"
The issue was, if you remember, the health of the mother, not just the random use of the method. I've spoken to this at least twice already.
Let me ask you the same question I asked before, which you didn't answer: Why is it "moral" for a woman to have to give up her life in a risky delivery yet "immoral" to save her life by sacrificing the fetus?
All you did was to refer to the AMA statement which I showed you was not complete. I said: "The AMA says in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion." So given the medical necessity for D&X is it moral to let the mother die when her life could be saved?
[Me:]"I see that Margaret's defense of the killing done by Catholics is to note that others have done it, too. Noted."
Anonymous:
"Funny thing, what I noted was that you rather conveniently ignored the reference to the tens of millions killed by officially atheist nations and/or their leaders -- killings committed, I might add, that were all too often done in furtherance what they, the killers, claimed or believed, at the time or afterwards, to be a moral imperative."
1) The point of the post was the fact that the reasoning was poor. IOW, it is not a defense to note that others do the same thing.
2) Given that "theist nations" are supposed to heed the teachings of their God, aren't such nations to be held to a higher standard? You're doing the same thing Margaret did, namely, you're looking to take someone else down with you instead of either mounting a real defense or admitting that it is wrong.
3) You've summed up my feelings precisely regarding the "moral imperative". The "moral imperative" is quite relative and arbitrary, shape-shifting into whatever the politics of its adherents call for it to be. Further, those "atheist nations" were guided by belief systems, just as you are. That's the problem. It's all to easy to rally around a belief and defend it whether it involves a god or something else. Killing is too easily rationalized when a belief system is in charge.
"What I noted is that when the killing done is by those you support (e.g., a leftist or an abortionist), then the moral issues surrounding the killing suddenly get murky..."
How many times do I have to repeat that the issue for me is the health of the mother? The murkiness you refer to is in your own mind in that you don't understand that your own position is no more moral than mine.
"I don't think the executioners at Stalin's gulags could have summed up their beliefs any better."
A contrived and tired metaphor. Stalin, et al, were believers. Real atheists understand the dangers of belief. In fact, you and Stalin are more similar than you dare acknowledge.
Ray, you seem real good at discarding fetus babies from jars.You confirm my suspicions, you are living proof of a partial birth abortion performed by your atheist daddy probably.
Hey, stupid. What did you not understand about what I said about partial birth abortions? Let me ask you what I've already asked others who won't answer the question:
Given the medical necessity for D&X is it moral to let the mother die when her life could be saved?
you are right ray..tell those wacky radical pro-lifers is it justified murdering the clinic nurse/doctor or receptionist to save a fetus? they are all whack jobs like those peta nuts/
Post a Comment
<< Home