T-Bone

Yo Dave - let's make this whole shebang real easy - Telephone Hook-Up ! :)

Great post, Abigail – that is what I brought up in an earlier post [see below] – and I don't have a problem with what science can add as long as we can keep things on track with any relative sub-threads – which [and I'm not trying to speak for everyone just trying to help nail down what we're looking for] at this point I think is something along the lines of when does God consider a fetus a person, a human being. …And in wondering what God thinks of a fetus I thought of something from Psalm 139. Psalm 139 shows a very intimate relationship between the psalmist and his God. The portion I've quoted below offers a glimpse from inside the womb - from an unusual viewpoint - it is God's view of the unborn. I have put every one of the writer's personal references in bold red. From The NET Bible, Psalm 139: 13-16: 13. Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother's womb. 14. I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; 15. my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth. 16. Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence. When the writer speaks of himself in the womb – he refers to himself as a person – using personal pronouns "my, me, I." In addition, it appears that even in the earliest stages of the embryo God is some how intimately involved in human development. I am hard pressed to find a line of demarcation – a time before which the unborn is considered by God to be just an insignificant bunch of cells. And even if I would dare to pronounce a certain stage of growth as such – I think God's purpose for the individual - recorded BEFORE THEY EVEN CAME INTO EXISTENCE trumps my feeble attempt to dissect this awesome and mysterious work of wonder in the womb.

Gosh, Shellon, you were so close - it's EvEn !!!!!!!!! Now - we've found a way to get EvEn!

…I may be getting nit-picky but I think talking about the legality of abortion, philosophizing over the jurisdiction of death and obedience to the laws of the land - is getting off track with Twinot's thread-starter which I have copied below: The way I understand Twinot's questions is that our discussion should explore what the Bible says about abortion. And since there appears to be no explicit statements in the Bible on the subject – I would assume one of the next best things to do would be to explore the Bible on topics that would have a direct bearing on the issue – perhaps asking: When does a fetus become a human being? What defines a human being? Or, what does it mean to be human? What is the soul? What is the image of God? What is the relationship if any of the soul and/or image of God with a fetus? And of course – in honoring Twinot's stipulation – Scriptural references should be used as the basis for the discussion.

Very interesting post, Ala – and a very uncomfortable subject to think about [physical or emotional rape]. I cannot even begin to fathom dealing with the trauma of physical rape. The first time I read your post – I thought you may have gone overboard in your choice of words. But the more I thought about it – the way you put it could describe my TWI experience – a rape of the intellect, emotions and conscience. And it was not an overt act on TWI’s part – like a rapist stalking his victim and overpowering them. I would liken it to a date-rape-drug method. As a newcomer progresses in their involvement with TWI – the insidious doctrines and mental manipulations gently lull their critical thinking process to sleep. Warning!!!!!!!!! Don’t drink the Kool-Aid!!!!!!!

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I said I was wondering if the carpet matched the dash - - I was talking about that car across the street!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

…As I noted in my post # 107 the Judges were brought into the legal process so that damages awarded were fair and were not calculated out of vengeance. From the verse you're referring to [which I had cited below from two different versions] it appears to me the decision the judges/court deliberated over was the amount of compensation to be awarded in a personal injury case. Exodus 21: 22. When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. [RSV] Exodus 21: 22. And if men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman's husband will put on him, and he will pay what the court decides. [NET] …Maybe you can clarify something for me. I originally thought you were saying that Israel's court system arbitrarily decided IF an instance of personal injury was wrong. In other words – implying that Israel's court system set their own moral and legal standards. Is that what you are saying? It appears to me the moral and legal standards for Israel were already in place here – set up by God. Perhaps we are arguing over a misunderstanding between us. I agree that Israel's courts would be responsible to review the particulars of a personal injury case and much like any honorable court would review evidence/witnesses and see if a violation of their already established law had occurred. And if so, they would also deliberate over compensation to the victim/punishment to the perpetrator – again using their already established law ["eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"]. I have not been trying to use this passage to prove abortion is wrong – and by abortion I mean the deliberate – intentional termination of a pregnancy. My point in using the Exodus passage was to show how God's law dealt with personal injury of a pregnant woman – and in a worst case scenario of death to either or both mother/child. It appears to me the whole situation specified in this passage is over accidental injury or death to either [the mishap occurred during men fighting]. This passage DOES NOT address the deliberate killing of another person. But it does show God's care and concern for human life.

I don't see where you get the idea that God left it up to the courts to decide Israel's moral and legal issues such as the one in Exodus 21. Can you provide Scriptural evidence to back up your claim?

Tonto found this while reading the paper - we thought it post-worthy: http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/ make sure you click on the side menu "Best Kitlers"

…Those are good points, Vegan – the verse doesn't specify who is harmed. I am curious though why a pregnant woman is mentioned here. Yes, the baby is well protected in the womb – but there is such a thing as serious bodily trauma to the mother inducing labor. …Yes, God has set a moral standard in the Bible – and in this particular passage He also sets a standard of remuneration for violations of His moral standard. …I fail to see your logic here. Why would our justice system condemn a woman to death because through no fault of her own she miscarried? Do you mean she intentionally aborted her baby? …As I said above the moral and remuneration standards that God had written determine how Israel was to handle issues. Israel's legal system was there – not to determine or write law – but to uphold God's law. A note in The MacArthur Study Bible on Exodus 21:22 explains compensation and the role of their legal system, "Compensation was mandatory for accidentally causing a premature birth, even if no injury resulted to either mother or child. Judges were brought into the legal process so that damages awarded were fair and were not calculated out of vengeance." …I beg to differ with you saying there is an absence of Scripture that indicates the babe in the womb is a human life. There have been quite a few Scriptural references on this thread that acknowledge the fetus as a real person – one of them was in my post # 95 Psalm 139:13- 17. What is missing from Scripture is a definitive statement in our modern terminology that would say "Abortion is wrong – it is murdering another human being." Yes, the passage is about crime and punishment. The punishment should fit the crime. That is supposed to be a part of our own judicial system as well. Exodus 21:22-25 covers even the worst case scenario of this situation – an accidental death [of either the mother or child]. Which if anyone in the case had direct responsibility in that is charged with a crime and dealt with according to God's law – which says "life for a life." Now – abortion – and I assume we've been talking about the DELIBERATE termination of the embryo or fetus – is something different than what Exodus 21:22-25 is dealing with [the Exodus passage covers an accidental death]. One of the Ten Commandments forbids the deliberate murdering of another human being. So it comes down to what you think of the fetus in the mother's womb. Pond, do you think the baby in the womb is a human being – a living person?

I'm a little confused by your statement. Are you referring to my excerpt from Christian Theology? I thought the author was very clear in addressing the issue head on - by referring to Cottrell's interpretation of Exodus 21 as proof that God thought any injury to the child was wrong and should be handled according to the Law. The worst case scenario being the death of the child - which would deem the penalty "life for a life" appropriate. The NET Bible translators handle Exodus 21: 22-25 similarly to Cottrell's suggestion – which I will cite here along with an excerpt of a note on verse 22: Exodus 21: 22. And if men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman's husband will put on him, and he will pay what the court decides. 23. But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, 24. eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25. burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Verse 22, translator's note: "This line has occasioned a good deal of discussion. It may indicate that the child was killed, as in a miscarriage; or it may mean that there was a premature birth. The latter view is taken here because of the way the whole section is written: (1) "her children come out" reflects a birth and not a loss of children, (2) there is no serious damage, and (3) payment is to be set for any remuneration…" Also The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English, general editor and translator Jay Green translates Exodus 21:22-25 according to this same viewpoint: 22. And when men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her child goes forth, and there is no injury, surely he shall be fined. As much as the husband of the woman shall put on him, even he shall give through the judges. 23. But if injury occurs, you shall give life for life, 24. eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25. branding for branding, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Everybody calm down!....I've sent a pm to Mothra and Gamma Ra - I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help out GSC.

I found an interesting interpretation of Exodus 21: 22-25 [already discussed on this thread], which I thought, may be of some value here. I also am in very strong agreement with the author's recommendation of erring on the side of caution in his concluding paragraph. The following excerpt is from Christian Theology by Millard Erickson, 1985, pages 554 to 556: "…The passage most discussed in connection with the issue of the humanity of the fetus is probably Exodus 21:22-25, which appears in a long list of precepts and injunctions following the Ten Commandments. It reads, "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."This is an application of the lex talionis, the law of retaliation spelled out in Leviticus 24: 17-20 ["as he has done it shall be done to him"]. One common interpretation of Exodus 21: 22-25 is that in the case of a miscarriage caused by a struggle between men, the lex talionis is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human. An alternative interpretation, which, while less popular, has had a rather long history, has recently been revived in the midst of the modern controversy over abortion. Jack Cottrell has presented one of the clearest and most complete statements of this alternative [Jack W. Cottrell, "Abortion and the Mosaic Law," Christianity Today, March 16 1973, pp. 6-9]. According to Cottrell, the clause translated "so that there is a miscarriage" should be literally rendered – "so that her children come out." The noun here is yeled, which is a common word for child or offspring. The only thing unusual about the noun in Exodus 21: 22 is that it is in the plural. The verb here is yatsa', which usually means "to go out, to go forth, to come forth." It is often used to refer to the ordinary birth of children, as coming forth from the loins of the father or from the womb of the mother. Examples of the former usage are found in Genesis 15:4; 46:26; I Kings 8:19; and Isaiah 39:7. Instances of the latter are found in Genesis 25:25,26; 38:28,29; Job 1:21; 3:11; Ecclesiastes 5:15; and Jeremiah 1:5; 20:18. In each of these cases yatsa' refers to the ordinary birth of a normal child; in no case is the word used of a miscarriage. In Numbers 12:12 it refers to the birth of a stillborn child; it should be noted that this is a stillbirth, not a miscarriage. The concept of stillbirth is communicated through the specific description of the child ["one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb"], not through the verb yatsa'. There is a Hebrew word – shakhol – which specifically refers to miscarriage; It is used in Exodus 23:26 and Hosea 9:14. Cottrell concludes, "Thus, there seems to be no warrant for interpreting Exodus 21:22 to mean 'the destruction of the fetus.'" According to Cottrell, the situation in view in Exodus 21:22-25 is simply this: if there is no harm done in the case of a child born prematurely because its mother was hurt by men struggling against one another, there is no penalty other than a fine. If, however, there is harm, the principle of a life for a life and an eye for an eye is to be enforced. Note that there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies. Interpreted in this way, Exodus 21:22-25 supports the contention that the Bible regards the unborn as a person. The interpretation of Cottrell, Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch [Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch, Eerdmans, 1959, vol. 2, pp. 134, 135], and others is more in keeping with the data of the passage than is the commonly held or traditional rendering. At the very least, then, the idea that the passage does not treat the fetus as fully human has been rendered highly questionable. Yet we cannot say that the passage conclusively establishes the humanity of the unborn. Indeed, none of the passages we have examined demonstrates conclusively that the fetus is a human in God's sight. Nevertheless, when taken as a whole, they do give us enough evidence to render that conclusion very likely. And where one is dealing with an issue as momentous as the possible destruction of a human life, prudence dictates that a conservative course be followed. If one is hunting and sees a moving object which may be either a deer or another hunter, or if one is driving and sees what may be a pile of rags or a child lying in the street, one will assume that it is a human. And a conscientious Christian will treat a fetus as human, since it is highly likely that God regards a fetus as a person capable of [at least potentially] that fellowship with God for which man was created." End of excerpt

good one TopoftheWorld

......pssssssst, TempleLady - better keep this permit stuff under wraps - or they'll be slamming both of us in quarantine [silly].

Great points Bliss and JohnIam!! I do recall the drudgery of servitude in TWI – working my arse off for an organization – and trying to squeeze in the four 15s of prayer every morning [that was all the worship God was gonna get outta me]… Bliss, you sure do mention the spirit a lot! And that's a good thing! Especially remembering Jesus' words in John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." And that Zechariah 4:6 is a pretty cool verse –thanks for sharing it! JohnIam – you've got me thinking on that one! I thought of Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." I think there's a subtle nuance in the way our Lord said this. I hadn't noticed this before. I always understood this as someone serving two masters – but loving one and hating the other. There's probably some juicy details in the Greek text – but on the surface what I think He may be saying is: You only truly serve that which you love. Your true service/love cannot be divided. You could be going through the motions of service - but it's not coming from the heart. So if I may be permitted to re-word your statement – perhaps all true worship [love] is serving, but not all serving is true worship [love]. I like that!!! And so – linking service/worship/love back to Bliss' emphasis on being empowered by God's spirit I thought of – I know this may be a stretch – but it's the first thing that came to mind- Genesis 29:20 "So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her." I'm thinking – when we hit our stride spiritually – whatever we're doing – doing it because we love God – it becomes relatively easy to do. Service with a smile.

Thought I would share something from a theological dictionary, noting that it argues from inferences of key Scripture and defines three challenges to a rigid 'no abortion' policy. The following excerpt is from The New Dictionary of Theology edited by Sinclair Ferguson, David Wright, J.I.Packer, pages 2 and 3: "Abortion is the loss or expulsion from the womb of a living fetus before it has reached the stage of viability. Many abortions occur spontaneously [miscarriages], whereas others are deliberately induced…The chief theological ground for a strict anti-abortion stance is the conviction that every human being is made in God's image from the time of conception [cf. Genesis 1:27]. Life-taking, like life-giving, is God's prerogative, and man needs a special mandate to end any human being's physical existence. Permission to kill is given in Scripture in carefully defined circumstances as a response to injustice [specifically murder and war, cf. Genesis 9:6; I Kings 2:5,6], but no fetus has done anything to deserve the death penalty. Abortion, therefore, is morally bad. Biblical support for this conclusion is often found in the Old Testament's allusions to life before birth [e.g. Psalm 139:13-17; Jeremiah 1:5; Ecclesiastes 11:5] and in the New Testament's use of the Greek word brephos to describe both a fetus and a child [Luke 1:41; 2:21]. These references assume continuity of personhood on both sides of birth. A rigid 'no abortion' policy has been challenged in three ways. First, the Roman Catholic Church [which is otherwise implacably opposed to abortion] allows for a pregnancy to be terminated, under the ethical law of 'double effect', when a procedure intended to save the mother-to-be's life [such as hysterectomy for cancer] results in the death of the fetus. Secondly, some Protestant theologians argue that the fetus is a potential person, rather than an actual person with potential. While a fetus demands care and respect at any stage of its existence, its claim to life is proportional to its stage of development. Plausible though this theory sounds, it does not easily square with the Bible's stress on personhood's continuum, and it is by no means simple to apply in practice. Thirdly, and most radically, Christian situationists contend that love alone must dictate the decision whether or not to abort in a particular case. Compassion for the woman [if her life is threatened] or for the unborn child [if he or she is likely to be born deformed or defective] may dictate the ending of a pregnancy. Furthermore, they argue, because love must always choose the maximum benefit for the greatest number, abortion may be indicated when the baby is unwanted by the family, by society – or, for that matter, by an overcrowded world. Situation ethics has come under heavy fire from Christians who accept Scripture's authority. Nowhere does the Bible teach that love replaces divine principle or overrides divine law. Nor does it support the utilitarian assumption that the best actions can be calculated by counting heads. Nevertheless, the situationist's stress on compassion is a salutary and biblical reminder that those who oppose abortion on principle are obliged to find practical, loving alternatives for women with unwanted pregnancies [cf. James 2:14-17]." End of excerpt While I would classify myself as falling into line with the Roman Catholic Church's viewpoint [abortion allowed under the ethical law of 'double effect'] – I find the situation ethics type of thinking intriguing – in that it challenges Christians to put their faith into action and help women with unwanted pregnancies.

I'm looking forward to meeting you, TempleLady! Pay no attention to that Permit Clerk 1007 yammering about all the permit forms you have to fill out - in Texas we do things our way!

I think you've had enough Kool-Aid for one sitting!

There’s another book to check out: AMG’s Encyclopedia of World Religions, Cults & the Occult compiled by Mark Water, AMG Publishers, 2006. Pages 684 to 689 cover The Way International and briefly mentions Wierwille’s hearing God speak to him, his death, his teaching on sickness, TWI’s beliefs, prominent splinter groups [CES, Pacific West Fellowship, Great Lakes Fellowship, The Way of Great Britain headed by Chris Geer], and lists the current president as Rev. Rosalie F. Rivenbark.

Waysider, you’ve brought up something important. The point of this thread was answering the question “Abortion: what does God say?” As a Christian who believes the Bible is God’s Word I have a general rule of thumb on interpretation – that which is explicitly stated in the Bible I afford the most weight in terms of authority – in other words “this is what God says about…” An interpretation that depends on inferences from my logic I deem less authoritative – since my logic may be faulty. I know I’m stating the obvious here – just wanted to second Waysider’s idea – as a friendly reminder to everybody. That being said I wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the subject. Since I left TWI I have changed my opinion on abortion – now believing it is wrong. I’ve come to that conclusion a long time ago after considering the things implied from certain Scriptures [like some of the Old Testament verses referred to on this thread and most notably the conception of Jesus Christ - handled quite admirably by WordWolf in this discussion]. I think a few questions come to mind on this topic: When does soul life begin? When does soul life end? What is the nature of the soul? What is death? As I said above – I believe abortion is wrong – now I’m not wanting to derail this thread by writing a major dissertation on the four questions I just asked – I’m just throwing my opinion in regarding those questions. My answers that follow are from inferences I have made from Scripture – which has shaped my viewpoint on this topic. I believe the soul is present at the moment of conception. I don’t think a soul can die. I think God intended for the soul to have a body – it is eternal in nature. Physical death is separation of the soul from the body.

I wish that were true, Tom – I wish that were true. I think Shellon has been holding out on us – I did a little digging for the rest of the story – here's what I found out: Once upon a time [this guy and girl were living together], One day a [original text reads "the"] guy asked a [ditto for "the" here too] girl, "Will you marry me?" The girl said "No" [they continued to live together – a situation the girl realized was highly in her favor] and the girl lived happily ever after and went shopping [at the Beer Barn to stock up on bait], drank martinis [she ain't no dummy and falling for the Beer scam as mentioned above], always had a clean house [because the guy was cooking it], never had to cook [because the guy was cleaning it], stayed skinny [because the guy got what to clean and what to cook mixed up], and was never farted on [because the guy's farts were inadvertently burned off while he cooked the house]. The End.

Roy, I always get a kick out of your posts! Love ‘em!!! Because they’re so rich with ideas – they get me to thinking…I think small kids are so daring in their questions because they haven’t learned all the rules and boundaries established by grown ups. Like you said – kids aren’t so worried about what others think of them – and maybe their curiosity outweighs any inhibitions they do have… I believe this quest for answers are kid’s critical thinking skills under development – and SHOULD CONTINUE for the rest of their lives! And from my Christian perspective I see another aspect to this as they mature – and that is still having child-like faith in a loving God.

Hey Dan - the link you gave got me to some automotive thing - but when I googled Sidejack Baritone I found this http://www.eastwoodguitars.com/Other/sidej...dejackBarit.htm Wow! That is a pretty cool sound. I read something about the Ventures making the sound popular - after listening to the sample I realize I have heard that before...Yah know - I've always liked that sound - didn't realize it was a different instrument - dem dere low tones appeal to us bottom feeders...

So is it a Batar or a Guiss?...Seriously though - are they used as mostly a bass instrument or lead guitar? I would think chords would sound kind of muddy. Dunno - never heard one.