Baby butchers admitting prenatal infantacide kills a baby

[AMonger]

So is the world 5000 years old or not? I'm confused.

Here's another potential example of how sometimes our understanding of scripture might have to catch up to what scripture actually says.
For millennia, Christians have believed that Genesis describes the beginning of creation, and starting with that supposition, arrive at the conclusion that the earth is between 5000 & 12,000 years old. However, evidence suggests that Genesis might be allegory. Now, I'd consider scientists understanding of geology as inferior to scripture, and I'm not one of those who doubts and then tries to reconcile scripture with our limited understanding of science. Rather, I'm looking at scriptural evidence that Genesis is allegory.
One of the prime principles of Bible interpretation is that types & shadows--allegories--remain consistent. So when the Bible uses an allegory in one place, it generally means the same thing elsewhere. One of those things is the heavens and the earth. The ancient Israelites understood this is a couple ways. They used this to refer to where heaven & earth met--the Holy of Holies, and by extension, used it to refer to their Personhood as the people of God.
So, according to the theory, when Genesis says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" it might not be referring to the creation of the earth and/or cosmos, but the time when God first reached down and began to deal with those who became known as His people, setting the stage for the rest of the Bible that tells how His people led to Christ and the Church.
Or, it could be literal. But as with other things, it may be that our understanding has to catch up to what scripture really says, just as science catches up to the truth.

 

[Turtle]

I like how it can be be literal or figurative, sometimes both at the same time, depending on what you need it to say.

 

[RLENT]

Now, I'd consider scientists understanding of geology as inferior to scripture ...

Inferior in what way ?

 

[RLENT]

I like how it can be be literal or figurative, sometimes both at the same time, depending on what you need it to say.

Yeah ... that certainly is rather sporty ...

 

[AMonger]

Inferior in what way ?

Science is an attempt to discover the truth. Scripture already has it. Science catches up to scripture. Until it does, it's behind. Remember, we're talking about science's understanding, which by the very nature of science, evolves.

 

[asjssl]

Here's another potential example of how sometimes our understanding[/] of scripture might have to catch up to what scripture actually says.
For millennia, Christians have believed that Genesis describes the beginning of creation, and starting with that supposition, arrive at the conclusion that the earth is between 5000 & 12,000 years old. However, evidence suggests that Genesis might be allegory. Now, I'd consider scientists understanding of geology as inferior to scripture, and I'm not one of those who doubts and then tries to reconcile scripture with our limited understanding of science. Rather, I'm looking at scriptural evidence that Genesis is allegory.
One of the prime principles of Bible interpretation is that types & shadows--allegories--remain consistent. So when the Bible uses an allegory in one place, it generally means the same thing elsewhere. One of those things is the heavens and the earth. The ancient Israelites understood this is a couple ways. They used this to refer to where heaven & earth met--the Holy of Holies, and by extension, used it to refer to their Personhood as the people of God.
So, according to the theory, when Genesis says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" it might not be referring to the creation of the earth and/or cosmos, but the time when God first reached down and began to deal with those who became known as His people, setting the stage for the rest of the Bible that tells how His people led to Christ and the Church.
Or, it could be literal. But as with other things, it may be that our understanding has to catch up to what scripture really says, just as science catches up to the truth.

.............

 

[scottm4211]

Holy smokes. The monger is all in, I give him props for that. :thumbup:

 

[AMonger]

Yeah ... that certainly is rather sporty ...

Such is the nature of allegory. Allegory, parable, metaphor. And it's complicated by the fact that people a couple thousand years ago in what we call the Holy Land had completely different thought processes, and it makes a big difference in concepts like God loving us or us loving God, in how we view what we call then End Times, etc. It's kind of like parallax, where you're not really seeing things how they are. Now throw in the fact that you have to determine what is allegory and what is literal... It's no wonder that even the orthodox doctrines of the end times are so distorted.

 

[davekc]

Kinda like global warming.

 

[Turtle]

Like I said earlier, literal, allegory, parable, metaphor, sometimes all at once at the same time, is a very Church Lady "conveeeeenient" way to make it say what you want or need it to say.

 

[davekc]

Like I said earlier, literal, allegory, parable, metaphor, sometimes all at once at the same time, is a very Church Lady "conveeeeenient" way to make it say what you want or need it to say.

Without a doubt. If scripture was exacting, there would be only one religion.

 

[AMonger]

Like I said earlier, literal, allegory, parable, metaphor, sometimes all at once at the same time, is a very Church Lady "conveeeeenient" way to make it say what you want or need it to say.

Such is the nature of allegory. The same goes for non-scripture literature.

 

[Turtle]

Such is the nature of allegory. The same goes for non-scripture literature.

No, non-scripture allegory is always allegory. It doesn't magically (or Divinely) become literal depending on what you want it to say.

 

[davekc]

No, non-scripture allegory is always allegory. It doesn't magically (or Divinely) become literal depending on what you want it to say.

He may have to go back and look up that definition.

 

[Turtle]

He's got his own special definitions for most words. I'm sure it means whatever he thinks it means.

 

[skyraider]

where ever they maybe now............................

 

[AMonger]

Like I said earlier, literal, allegory, parable, metaphor, sometimes all at once at the same time, is a very Church Lady "conveeeeenient" way to make it say what you want or need it to say.

If the Storyteller chooses to do it that way, then understanding it that way turns out to be correct.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Bottom line. The Roe Vs. Wade Decision states very clearly that under the due process provisions of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the same Constitution by the way in which you will find the Second Amendment, that abortion is a privacy issue, effectively saying pregnancy is the woman's business. End of story. It is a woman's choice whether or not to carry a gun, just as it is a woman's choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to full term. The same document gives them both of these rights.

 

[AMonger]

It is a woman's choice whether or not to carry a gun, just as it is a woman's choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to full term. The same document gives them both of these rights.

The document gives neither right, nor any other, though it would be great if the END OF STORY attitude you mention was regarded as such in the gun issue.
There is no privacy to murder. You can't murder someone in your living room and cite your right to privacy, nor can a woman murder a fetus in her womb and cite privacy.
I forget when this was, but the challenge to Roe vs. Wade that got the farthest--I think it was in the mid-late 90s--saw SCOTUS admit that Roe vs. Wade was flawed on that issue, but they still upheld Roe vs. Wade, saying that over the years since the decision, prenatal infanticide had in practice become a right. iow, the court said we've had it for so many years, we don't feel we can undo it. I remember listening to the Randall Terry Show on the radio the day that came out, and of course, that was the subject that day.
Hell is hot, and those that don't fear God now, will later. SCOTUS judges should remember that. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." There is a Judgment Day for us all, including judges, by the real Judge.

 

[layoutshooter]

"The same document gives them both of these rights."


This is a VERY incorrect statement.

Neither the federal government, or the Bill of Rights, grant us our rights. The federal government also has no LEGAL authority to grant, restrict or take away our rights.

The People are the ultimate power in the United States. The power flows DOWN from the People, to the States, and the remaining responsibilities are delegated to the federal government. The People retain the bulk of the rights. States have rights, but far fewer than the People.

What we see now is a federal government that is entirely out of control. It is pushing to replace the People with itself, as the sole power in the Nation. It must be resisted.