The gutsiest QB in the Super Bowl may be …

posted at 10:12 am on January 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

There are few athletes as visible as starting NFL quarterbacks, on or off the field.  The league protects them from injury, sponsors throw cash them, and they get most of the attention from broadcasters looking for commentary, even after the QBs have hung up the cleats.  The two quarterbacks in this year’s Super Bowl are no exceptions.  Peyton Manning has a mini-empire of endorsements, while Drew Brees has emerged as a rallying point and morale leader for the renaissance of New Orleans, and both do good work in their communities.  They’ve had to dodge defenses all year long to make it to the final game, but a quarterback who has yet to sign his first NFL contract may be dodging heavier criticism by the end of the game:

He’s not even in the NFL yet, but former University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow is making a starring appearance at the 2010 Super Bowl in Miami.

While the Indianapolis Colts’ Peyton Manning and the New Orleans Saints’ Drew Brees will be the quarterbacks on the field, the Heisman Trophy-winning college star will appear with his mother, Pam, on TV in an ad for the pro-life Christian group Focus on the Family that will air during the game.

The 30-second ad’s theme is “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” and a Focus on the Family press release said the Tebows agreed to the ad because “the issue of life is one they feel strongly about.” As a result, the ad is widely expected to focus on Mrs. Tebow’s pregnancy with Tim, when she was encouraged by doctors to abort him.

Reportedly, CBS approved the ad because it doesn’t make an explicit political argument.  Instead, it will tell the story of how Mrs. Tebow contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with Tim, and had to take harsh antibiotics in order to rescue her from her coma.  Her doctors assured her that her child would be either stillborn or unable to survive long after birth and encouraged her to get an abortion.  Instead, she decided to go full term with her pregnancy, and Tim Tebow was the result.

LaShawn Barber can’t wait to see the commercial — and the reaction:

America will see Tim Tebow (who wears “John 3:16” on his eyeblack) and his mother during the Super Bowl next month. They’ll deliver a pro-life message in a commercial sponsored by Focus on the Family. Naturally, pro-aborts are having a collective hissy fit. “Shut up and play ball!”

This country needs more young Christian men like Tebow, men who stand for what’s right and don’t cave to peer pressure. Young people struggling to live the Christian life (yes, Christians do struggle!) could use a few high-profile Christians bucking the system and risking ridicule. If he decides to go public with a sexually- abstinent-until-marriage message, even better.

I received one hint of the reaction yesterday in an e-mail for a post on the hysterical-Left site AlterNet, which framed the ad as “Football Player Tim Tebow on What Should Happen in Your Womb” — without either of us, of course, having seen the ad or the script.  The description sounds much more like personal testimony than political harangue, and perhaps that’s why there will be such outrage over it.  It’s very hard to dispute the fact that Tim Tebow isn’t stillborn, isn’t damaged, and that his parents’ faith allowed them to make the right decision and take a chance on life.

Expect to see this kind of hysterical criticism reach a crescendo when the ad airs, and then a quick deflation afterward.  It’s just another form of advertising, after all, but instead of a new beer or bar of soap, it advertises faith in a personal and indisputable manner.  Personal witness is the most powerful form of testimony that there is, and the most effective … which, again, is why we see the reaction that just the idea of it generates.

Tebow might have calculated that an NFL career is fraught with risk, and that his initial contract (which will be eight figures) could be his last due to untimely injury.  Keeping his mouth shut may have allowed him to fully exploit the arena of personal endorsements, while making such a public stand on a contentious issue like abortion may very well cost him money in the short (and perhaps long) run.  Tebow made a gutsy call on the biggest national stage outside of an election that he could possibly choose.  Maybe that alone will have people listening to Tebow instead of dismissing him, much as his mother’s doctors did.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

So God is saying here that even killing a born man doesn’t automatically result in death.

And you just responded with one version. Here’s another:

22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Regardless, look throughout the chapter and take it in as a whole. It’s all about intent and personal responsibility.

18 “If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist [d] and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.
28 “If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
33 “If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.
Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM

–Right. But in the verse I posted, it’s a financial penalty for the fetus but eye for an eye for the mother. So without the same penalty, there’s not both treated the same.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Real serial killers actually do that. Of course it’s impossible to justify killing an innocent person just for your own pleasure, so they have to objectify their victims.

I’m pro life, but I don’t want to go so far as to compare women who have an abortion to serial killers.
BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Well, du-uh. Of course no analogy is perfect. I’m not saying that abortionists and other serial killers are identical. I’m only suggesting that they are similar.

Although unlikely, it is at least theoretically possible that an adult murder victim might have done something to deserve it.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 11:24 AM

TimTebowSavesAmerica on January 26, 2010 at 10:24 AM

The haters will never learn.

Squid Shark on January 26, 2010 at 11:24 AM

You mean it doesn’t sound like some primitive superstition to me? Gee thanks for letting me know.
MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM

It must be tough going through life so miserable.

kingsjester on January 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Unfortunately, I see this ad never running during the Super Bowl. The PC’s will get to CBS. I pray I am wrong in my prediction. This powerful message needs to be seen by the 90+ million eyeballs who will be watching.

Muletrain on January 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Please elaborate.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM

“Above (my) pay grade,” apparently.
I get the impression Jimbo is rationalizing a position of moral convenience, rather than trying to argue a position of informed faith. The best arguments, and there are some very good ones here, will not likely budge him from his position.

Tom_OC on January 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM

I wish it were on a lighter topic, but it’s interesting to see.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I do as well, but this is an issue I’ve always cared deeply about. I don’t even wish it illegal. I just wish people saw it for how horrible it truly is and would never again want to do it. Mothers killing their own children… there shouldn’t need to be a law against it.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM

JammieWearingFool on January 26, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Right on Rivers. I just remember some football commentary a couple years back and a meme has been stuck in my head, obviously wrong.

Stafford’s a bust. Just like Quinn, Leinart. Manning had a bad first year, but most people knew he was going to be great. Stafford just doesn’t have a wow effect. As the Russell/LSU fan commentator above said, a good college career doesn’t mean a good NFL career. But I do believe someone will give Tebow a chance because of his intangibles.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on January 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM

It must be tough going through life so miserable.

kingsjester on January 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM

LOL! I wouldn’t know, as I’m a pretty happy dude. Here’s wishing the same to you :-)

MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM

In the Old Testament a person who accidentally struck a pregnant woman resulting in her giving birth was penalized, depending on whether the child survived. Later Jewish writers clarified that it should also be factored in whether the person could tell the woman was pregnant or not – the point being that a person has the responsibility of behaving more carefully if they know there is a child to be protected as well.

John the Baptizer, while a fetus, responded with joy to the presence of Jesus, the embryo.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Thank you for kicking ass and taking names, in that order. =)

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM

–Justin, the verse you mentioned was the one I posted. And what does it matter whether John the Baptist leapt for joy or not? That doesn’t deal with whether John the Baptist was considered a full human being at that point.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Please elaborate.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM

“Above (my) pay grade,” apparently.
I get the impression Jimbo is rationalizing a position of moral convenience, rather than trying to argue a position of informed faith. The best arguments, and there are some very good ones here, will not likely budge him from his position.

Tom_OC on January 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM

–About 18 to 20 weeks, with a fully formed nervous system when pain can be felt.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I am of the opinion that if you want an abortion, first sit through an ultra-sound. THEN try to convince me that you are not murdering a child. Granted, you won’t convince me…but I would love to hear the argument after counting the heartbeats and watching the movement of that little baby.

search4truth on January 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Thank you! I’m 39 weeks pregnant with my second right now. I had ultrasounds very early with both children (at 6 weeks). There was a beating heart and you could definitely see that what was inside my womb wasn’t just come little “clump of cells”. We were actively trying to conceive both times, so I found out I was pregnant much earlier than most women do (at about 4 weeks both times). If I remember correctly, the average time when women realize they’re pregnant is around 9-12 weeks. At that point you would see what is definitely a baby if you were to have an ultrasound.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Liberals will protect a snail with their life, but will kill a fetus in a heartbeat.

faraway on January 26, 2010 at 11:29 AM

LOL! I wouldn’t know, as I’m a pretty happy dude. Here’s wishing the same to you :-)
MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Exactly right.

kingsjester on January 26, 2010 at 11:29 AM

but their vehement anti-gay rhetoric is, at a minimum, hateful and ignorant. I don’t take kindly to being called “ungodly” and “not deserving of citizenship”. Just sayin’.

JetBoy on January 26, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Does your entire life and every decision you make revolve around your sexual preference? Can you make a single decision without basing it on your gayness?

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen you make a comment regarding anything unless you’re able to slant it in one way or another toward your belief that everyone should be forced to believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

Gregor on January 26, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Mothers killing their own children… there shouldn’t need to be a law against it.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM

+ 1000

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Thank you! I’m 39 weeks pregnant with my second right now. I had ultrasounds very early with both children (at 6 weeks). There was a beating heart and you could definitely see that what was inside my womb wasn’t just come little “clump of cells”. We were actively trying to conceive both times, so I found out I was pregnant much earlier than most women do (at about 4 weeks both times). If I remember correctly, the average time when women realize they’re pregnant is around 9-12 weeks. At that point you would see what is definitely a baby if you were to have an ultrasound.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:28 AM

–At six weeks, it looks more like a tadpole than a human.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

kingsjester on January 26, 2010 at 11:29 AM

You mean I’m not a pretty happy dude? Wow, I learn so much here, such as whether I’m happy or not and that religion doesn’t wound like superstition to me. I’m getting quite an education, thank you.

MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

–At six weeks, it looks more like a tadpole than a human.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

I beg to differ.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

–At six weeks, it looks more like a tadpole than a human.
Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Well, what do you think is growing in there, a puppy?

kingsjester on January 26, 2010 at 11:32 AM

–Right. But in the verse I posted, it’s a financial penalty for the fetus but eye for an eye for the mother. So without the same penalty, there’s not both treated the same.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Yes, in the version of the verse you posted. The same verse posted in a different version mentioned not a miscarriage but a premature birth of an otherwise healthy baby.

Big difference.

And again, you’re missing the intent issue. Two men fighting who accidentally strike a pregnant woman they neither knew was pregnant nor intended to hit can be forgiven if they cause no serious harm. But if in their fighting, they cause serious harm, that indicates more than just recklessness and gets into the realm of intentional harm.

That again, is the difference.

God didn’t set a law punishing a man who unintentionally kills another man either. It’s not punishable by death if you accidentally kill another man, so it shouldn’t be punishable by death if you kill an unborn child on accident either.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:32 AM

–At six weeks, it looks more like a tadpole than a human.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

And even if that were the case, at 6 weeks the child is obviously NOT just a clump of cells. It may not be a complete being, but it is a human.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:33 AM

I dislike Focus on the Family, but I dont see anything too controversial about this ad in particular.

Squid Shark on January 26, 2010 at 11:33 AM

I feel that women that get an abortion are saying “my life and the things I want to do, are far more important than anything this baby could aspire to”. Which is patently false. Some say it is about money, but that is bunk, too. So many childless couples wanting babies out there. Mostly it is embarrassment. And how a civilized society could morph from embarrassment to murder, as the ultimate solution, is a tragedy.

When I was single and pregnant I counted the close friends and immediate family that urged me to abort: 12

My own mother urged me to abort saying “but you are so young and you could do so much”. And I did do so much; I raised a stunningly beautiful child.

Where are they all now? Wishing they were a part of my 18 year old daughter’s life.

Ris4victory on January 26, 2010 at 11:33 AM

–Justin, the verse you mentioned was the one I posted. And what does it matter whether John the Baptist leapt for joy or not? That doesn’t deal with whether John the Baptist was considered a full human being at that point.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:27 AM

What other non humans do you know of that can experience joy and leap because of it?

–At six weeks, it looks more like a tadpole than a human.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

So it’s OK to kill things that don’t look human.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM

I don’t even wish it illegal. I just wish people saw it for how horrible it truly is and would never again want to do it. Mothers killing their own children… there shouldn’t need to be a law against it.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM

This is pretty much my exact thought on the matter.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM

–Justin, the verse you mentioned was the one I posted. And what does it matter whether John the Baptist leapt for joy or not? That doesn’t deal with whether John the Baptist was considered a full human being at that point.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Now, that is a strong and well-founded argument there.

As with most topics, there’s no arguing with a moral relativist. If it’s a human being at birth, and it’s just a clump of cells at the start, it still follows that it will be a human being in a few months, so, either way, you’re taking a life.

Now, when the Lord says that he knows the soul before the kid is born, you can sit there, much like Job, and profess to both your righteousness and knowledge of the universe and of the will of God, while an Elihu or two attempt to reason with you, and stress the sovereign authority and this-is-the-way-it-is nature of His wisdom, and it will end the same way.

On a related note, your willingness to encourage your daughter to abort your granddaughter, were it to come to that, is chilling. The mind reels, and there’s just no stopping it.

I’m pro life, but I don’t want to go so far as to compare women who have an abortion to serial killers.
BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM

I’d dub the abortion specialists who perform the deed serial killers. Can we agree on that?

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:36 AM

–At six weeks, it looks more like a tadpole than a human.
Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

But of course it’s not a tadpole.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Uh, try this translation which more properly illustrates the use of the word “yasa” in the original Hebrew, which is used in this passage (the word “nepel” is used for either abortions or miscarriages [cf. Job 3:16 or Eccl. 6:3-4]):

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life….”

Here is what Gleason Archer in the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. (Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series, 1982) has to say:

There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages.

Since we are not ruled by the Bible, but are instead ruled by the laws of our country, the axioms associated with those laws are illustrative. Here we have Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 112, Section 12K:

Section 12K. As used in section twelve L to section twelve U, inclusive, the following words shall have the following meanings:—

Abortion, the knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child or the intentional expulsion or removal of an unborn child from the womb other than for the principal purpose of producing a live birth or removing a dead fetus.

Nothing in this is at odds with the Scripture you have quoted — except Massachusett’s set of exclusions from the above in other portions of the M.G.L.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Well I am late to this thread and a lot has been said, however, I would just like to say God Bless Tim’s mother for standing up to the “experts” who said she should abort.

You have NO IDEA the pressure that medical personnel will put upon a family to abort if they even THINK there may be something wrong with an unborn child. I have been there and it takes every ounce of strength you can muster to say no to killing under those conditions.

Doctors are RELENTLESS in pushing termination and many will refuse to treat a patient who refuses to abort if there is a diagnosis of a serious deformity.

Lily on January 26, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Yes, in the version of the verse you posted. The same verse posted in a different version mentioned not a miscarriage but a premature birth of an otherwise healthy baby.

Big difference.

And again, you’re missing the intent issue. Two men fighting who accidentally strike a pregnant woman they neither knew was pregnant nor intended to hit can be forgiven if they cause no serious harm. But if in their fighting, they cause serious harm, that indicates more than just recklessness and gets into the realm of intentional harm.

That again, is the difference.

God didn’t set a law punishing a man who unintentionally kills another man either. It’s not punishable by death if you accidentally kill another man, so it shouldn’t be punishable by death if you kill an unborn child on accident either.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:32 AM

–Intent is not really relevant to whether the Bible considers the fetus as human. The financial penalty for causing a miscarriage (in the version I posted) is the same as accidentally causing an animal to fall into a hole and die. It’s also the same when someone hits someone else and injures but doesn’t kill them. There is not a financial penalty for killing a human (although if it’s an accident, s/he can run away). If the fetus was fully considered a human, then the penalty for harming each of the mother and the fetus would be “an eye for an eye”.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Whoa @_@ I totally screwed up the blockquotes.

–Justin, the verse you mentioned was the one I posted. And what does it matter whether John the Baptist leapt for joy or not? That doesn’t deal with whether John the Baptist was considered a full human being at that point.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Now, that is a strong and well-founded argument there.

As with most topics, there’s no arguing with a moral relativist. If it’s a human being at birth, and it’s just a clump of cells at the start, it still follows that it will be a human being in a few months, so, either way, you’re taking a life.

Now, when the Lord says that he knows the soul before the kid is born, you can sit there, much like Job, and profess to both your righteousness and knowledge of the universe and of the will of God, while an Elihu or two attempt to reason with you, and stress the sovereign authority and this-is-the-way-it-is nature of His wisdom, and it will end the same way.

On a related note, your willingness to encourage your daughter to abort your granddaughter, were it to come to that, is chilling. The mind reels, and there’s just no stopping it.

I’m pro life, but I don’t want to go so far as to compare women who have an abortion to serial killers.
BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM

I’d dub the abortion specialists who perform the deed serial killers. Can we agree on that?


Apologies to Badgerhawk for putting words in his mouth. @_@; Very sorry!

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Does your entire life and every decision you make revolve around your sexual preference? Can you make a single decision without basing it on your gayness?

No, my entire life doesn’t revolve around teh gheyness. Obviously. I was only elaborating there on why I dislike Focus on the Family as an organization, but commend any pro-life stance any group takes.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen you make a comment regarding anything unless you’re able to slant it in one way or another toward your belief that everyone should be forced to believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

Gregor on January 26, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Then you haven’t read very many of my posts. My only point was that I wished Tebow would have picked a better organization to front his anti-abortion points with. That’s all. Read into it what you will.

JetBoy on January 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

I’d dub the abortion specialists who perform the deed serial killers. Can we agree on that?

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Seeing as how I believe that abortion is the killing of an unborn human being, I kind of have to agree with that.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM

It must be tough going through life so miserable.

kingsjester on January 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM

LOL! I wouldn’t know, as I’m a pretty happy dude. Here’s wishing the same to you :-)

MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 11:26 AM

I’m curious about something, then. See, I tell people about Jesus because I think accepting Him matters more than anything else there is. But if someone differs from me about something that doesn’t matter — say, for instance, they think the PAC-10 is the greatest football conference — what do I care?

Now, as an atheist, what causes you to CARE enough what other people think that you’ll go to the trouble of trying to poke a finger in their eye? I notice that these people seldom ridicule Jews, Hindus or Wickans for their beliefs — just Christians.

Based upon my experience, I’m always suspicious that either someone claiming to be a Christian was actually a jerk to you (maybe not really a Christian, or maybe a Christian who, like all Christians, is imperfect); or someone who was a Christian refused to approve of something you wanted to do.

Could be I’m wrong; but if so, you surely should be able to explain why you go out of your way to be insulting to people you don’t even know.

RegularJoe on January 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Yay America. Infinite ad time for beer, boner products, and Godaddy.com but not a minute for Focus on the Family!

johnboy on January 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM

I get the impression Jimbo is rationalizing a position of moral convenience, rather than trying to argue a position of informed faith. The best arguments, and there are some very good ones here, will not likely budge him from his position.
Tom_OC on January 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Liberalism is the Cult of the Ego. To liberals, the Bible exists for the exact same reason the Constitution (and everything else in the Universe) exists: to be infinitely re-interpreted as a justification for narcissim.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 11:40 AM

–About 18 to 20 weeks, with a fully formed nervous system when pain can be felt.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Ah, so if they can’t feel pain, it’s ok to kill them. Interesting morality here.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 11:40 AM

So it’s OK to kill things that don’t look human.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Of course it is! Oh, and because scientists don’t believe the baby can “feel” anything at that point (due to he central nervous system being incomplete). Although, that’s just what they’re saying now. The truth is they don’t really know. They know that once the egg is fertilized it’s alive, as it exhibits all the scientific signs of life. But being a human, well that’s just too hard to say. So, instead of erring on the side of life (which would be the smart thing to do, IMO), they err on the side of personal convenience to the mother.

The funny thing is that MOST people who present the “incomplete” human argument (or the “not viable” one), would be mortified if one were to suggest giving the same abortive treatment to a person who was born with physical defects that made them totally dependent upon others for their lives and well-being. The only difference being that one life managed to escape the womb and the other didn’t. But apparently there’s some kind of magic pixy dust in the birth canal that turns us into people once we exit the womb that seems to make all the difference to a lot of people.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM

http://www.pregnancy.org/fetaldevelopment/week-six.

Picture won’t post; hopefully the link works.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Good for him.

This may have been mentioned already, but Tebow is also the guy who invited a fan with a recent brain tumor to escort him to an awards presentation: http://www.clickorlando.com/sports/21935200/detail.html

mikeyboss on January 26, 2010 at 11:44 AM

I have pictures Jimbo. At 6 weeks. They give them to you when you get the ultrasound. NOT a clump of cells.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Separate your legal brain from your moral brain for a minute.

You’re plucking one verse and using it to justify a position of convenience, and ignoring every other verse that contradicts that position.

You’re also trying to imply that intent has no bearing on the matter, which, seeing how you’re a lawyer, I find perplexing.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM

And, my point stands that most women don’t even know they’re pregnant at that point. Try pictures from 9-12 weeks along, when most women actually realize what’s going on.

http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=359#content

Doesn’t look too much like a tadpole to me.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Seeing as how I believe that abortion is the killing of an unborn human being, I kind of have to agree with that.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM

I apologize if it was a redundant-sounding question, but many among my acquaintances refuse to make that correlation, and dub it a witch-hunt for drawing that parallel.

It may sound dumb, but a lot of pro-lifers maintain a “not evil, just wrong” line of thought about the George Tillers of the world, and, unconsciously or consciously, make a seperation between the murder of a free-born person or child and killing a child in the womb, which ends up weakening the entire argument and giving cannon fodder to the Left.

It’s damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don’t in both respects, because, in that scenario, one must either concur with the opposition that killing a person or child outside the womb is different than killing an unborn child, or maintain that there is no distinction, and then face the havoc that is “OH MY GOD YOU WANT TO BLOW UP ABORTION CLINICS YOU RIGHT-WING NUTJOB.”

That is my experience. All the more reason to press harder than ever. I’d be terribly happy if the Tea Parties were being held in protest of the slaughter of a sixth of our population instead of taxes, but that will never happen… our priorities as a nation are elsewhere. ><

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:47 AM

–Intent is not really relevant to whether the Bible considers the fetus as human. The financial penalty for causing a miscarriage (in the version I posted) is the same as accidentally causing an animal to fall into a hole and die. It’s also the same when someone hits someone else and injures but doesn’t kill them. There is not a financial penalty for killing a human (although if it’s an accident, s/he can run away). If the fetus was fully considered a human, then the penalty for harming each of the mother and the fetus would be “an eye for an eye”.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

It’s also the same penalty as causing a human to die unintentionally. Why do you keep glossing over this point?

12 “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

You aren’t put to death for causing the death of a human unintentionally.

So even if your quoted verse is correct (and that’s very much in doubt), it still isn’t saying the fetus isn’t a person, as it gives the same penalty for accidentally killing a fetus as it does for accidentally killing a human being – actually, it gives less of a penalty for accidentally killing a human being, because killing the fetus (if your version is correct) still carries a fine that accidentally killing a human does not.

You really have no leg to stand on with this verse.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:47 AM

But being a human, well that’s just too hard to say. So, instead of erring on the side of life (which would be the smart thing to do, IMO), they err on the side of personal convenience to the mother.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM

We know for a fact that the fertilized egg, whether implanted or not, contains the DNA of an individual which differs from the DNA of his/her father and mother. The reason I use his/her here is to point out that, even at such an early stage of development, the genome of the child indicates maleness or femaleness. That single cell is the earliest stage, scientifically, of a complete human being.

At least here in the good ‘ole USA — it’s equal opportunity — half of the babies aborted are male. In China, much more than half are female.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Picture won’t post; hopefully the link works.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM

It’s not as though we don’t know what they look like. I just don’t consider “not looking human” a moral reason to kill someone. It certainly isn’t a legal one.

You’re plucking one verse and using it to justify a position of convenience, and ignoring every other verse that contradicts that position.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM

That’s because he started with the idea that it isn’t wrong and then set out to prove that to himself.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM

12 “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

Esthier, under your verse (and the related ones), the person who unintentionally kills a human is still to be put to death. It’s just that God is giving that person a place to hide.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Voter from WA State on January 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM

This was a college. Maybe the rules are different since she was an adult?

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:05 AM

You really have to look at the original Hebrew text to get the meaning of that passage.

This is the King James Version of that passage. With the terminology from KJV I can look in my Strong’s Concordance to find out what the actual original words were:

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

What is translated as “miscarries” in your translation actually uses the KJV words “her fruit depart from her”.

“Fruit” is actually #3206 yeled, meaning something born (translated as boy, child, fruit, son, young man). The other uses of yeled are in contexts where it is talking about a living child who is doing things.

“Depart” is actually #3318 yatsah, which means to go out.

So this is talking about a child being born as a result of two fighting men hitting a pregnant woman.

“Mischief” is #611 and means hurt. It’s used in contexts where physical harm is implied.

Nowhere is it stated whether the harm is to the woman or to her child. It’s simply life for life. If a life is stolen a life is demanded in return. And what came out of the woman is referred to by the same term used for any child already born.

It seems to me that there is no point in even referring to the woman as being pregnant if the issue is simply whether SHE is injured. If that was the issue, why not just say that if fighting men injure a woman they will be punished according to how badly they injure her?

It seems to me that this passage is specifically addressing what happens if someone in the course of fighting strikes a woman, causing her to go into labor. If no harm is done – mother and baby are both fine – the husband can fine the person. But if harm is done to either mother or child, justice is demanded.

That would mean the exact opposite of what you’re saying it means.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

That’s because he started with the idea that it isn’t wrong and then set out to prove that to himself.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Spot on. That sums the entire matter up in a single sentence.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Oh, I agree 100%. It should be obvious that what’s growing inside a pregnant woman is a baby, a person, a human being, even at the earliest stages. It is factual that at conception, the fertilized egg is alive. And since women don’t go around giving birth to dogs or daffodils, it’s a pretty safe assumption that the life is a human being.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I apologize if it was a redundant-sounding question, but many among my acquaintances refuse to make that correlation, and dub it a witch-hunt for drawing that parallel.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:47 AM

It was a good question. It sounds harsh to make that comparison, but if I follow my own beliefs to their logical conclusion I don’t really have an option.

One point, though, would again go back to the issue of intent. Does someone who provides abortions recognize and understand that they are taking a human life and continue to do so anyway, or do they honestly feel they are not killing a person? I think that’s a fairly important distinction.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Separate your legal brain from your moral brain for a minute. You’re plucking one verse and using it to justify a position of convenience, and ignoring every other verse that contradicts that position.

You’re also trying to imply that intent has no bearing on the matter, which, seeing how you’re a lawyer, I find perplexing.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I hate to be overly technical, but he first mis-cited the verse; then he re-wrote and mis-interpreted it; and only THEN did he take it out of context.

This guy is as much a lawyer as he is an astronaut – or a Christian, for that matter.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 11:54 AM

You really have to look at the original Hebrew text to get the meaning of that passage.

This is the King James Version of that passage. With the terminology from KJV I can look in my Strong’s Concordance to find out what the actual original words were:

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

What is translated as “miscarries” in your translation actually uses the KJV words “her fruit depart from her”.

–Justin, various religious groups and Bibles translate this verse differently. In many cases, they do so because of the views of the group on abortion and other matters. But Jewish tradition generally allows abortion in most cases and believes that a fetus isn’t human until it takes a breath. Considering that Jews have lived with the Old Testament longer than Christians, I tend to look at their interpretations on this verse.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Now, as an atheist, what causes you to CARE enough what other people think that you’ll go to the trouble of trying to poke a finger in their eye? I notice that these people seldom ridicule Jews, Hindus or Wickans for their beliefs — just Christians.
RegularJoe on January 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Thank you for asking. I don’t usually go around poking fingers in anybody’s eyes. In fact I don’t think that’s what I am doing here, even if it comes off that way to you. I simply said that religious (and not specifically Christian) sentiments sound like superstition to me. After that, I responded to some backlash in what I think was a fairly restrained manner.

MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Then you haven’t read very many of my posts. My only point was that I wished Tebow would have picked a better organization to front his anti-abortion points with. That’s all. Read into it what you will.

JetBoy on January 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

I’ve been around here since the very first day HotAir went online, and every comment thread you show up in gets hijacked and twisted into a debate about how anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is an ignorant bigot.

Yeah, we know you’re gay already. Try to focus on something else once in a while.

Gregor on January 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Esthier, under your verse (and the related ones), the person who unintentionally kills a human is still to be put to death. It’s just that God is giving that person a place to hide.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Growing up reading the Old Testament and “THE BIBLE STORY” books put out, Volume 1-6 by the old Worldwide Church of God, the example was made about “unintentional killing” along the lines of, say, these two men were working, and one swung a wooden beam around, not knowing the other man was there, and struck him in the head, killing him.

Such was the reason for the cities of refuge, not for your modern-day cobblestone defense of infanticide. To draw any other conclusion is one hell of a stretch.

Nowadays we call this involuntary manslaughter., which is not the same as calmly putting the thrice-damned saline solution into the kid. Someone said you were a lawyer, I think it was Badgerhawk, oughtn’t you know the difference in these scenarios?

Or do you actually know it well, and are trying to escape it in your mind?

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Separate your legal brain from your moral brain for a minute. You’re plucking one verse and using it to justify a position of convenience, and ignoring every other verse that contradicts that position.

You’re also trying to imply that intent has no bearing on the matter, which, seeing how you’re a lawyer, I find perplexing.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM
I hate to be overly technical, but he first mis-cited the verse; then he re-wrote and mis-interpreted it; and only THEN did he take it out of context.

This guy is as much a lawyer as he is an astronaut – or a Christian, for that matter.

logis on January 26, 2010 at 11:54 AM

–I did not mis-cite the verse, re-write it or take it out of context. I said there were various translations.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Picture won’t post; hopefully the link works.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Yep, sure does look like a tadpole, but it isn’t.

A tadpole is an immature frog, just as that fetus is an immature human. Has something to do with the fact that frogs, being amphibians, lay eggs outside of their bodies, while humans, being mammals, don’t.

That said, the fact that a tadpole is a frog is indisputable. So why is the fact that an embryo is a human disputable?

Did you ever take biology, Jimbo?

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Esthier, under your verse (and the related ones), the person who unintentionally kills a human is still to be put to death. It’s just that God is giving that person a place to hide.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

That makes no sense whatsoever. God wants to hide a person he’s decided should be put to death?

So your position on this is that God believes in harboring fugitives from justice?

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

–I did not mis-cite the verse, re-write it or take it out of context. I said there were various translations.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

You forgot the “I did not misinterpret the verse”. Covers a world of sins.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM

It’s not as though we don’t know what they look like. I just don’t consider “not looking human” a moral reason to kill someone. It certainly isn’t a legal one.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Excellent point. Although, as you can see at the link I posted earlier, from the MRIs of fetuses that young, you can still see they are human. The only point where you can’t tell that the baby is a human is between conception and the 4 week mark (which is technically only a period of 2 weeks, because they count your first two weeks of pregnancy as the first two weeks of your menstrual cycle- as in, prior to conception). And, like I said, most women don’t even know they’re pregnant at that point.

mrflibbleisvryx on January 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Esthier, under your verse (and the related ones), the person who unintentionally kills a human is still to be put to death. It’s just that God is giving that person a place to hide.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Growing up reading the Old Testament and “THE BIBLE STORY” books put out, Volume 1-6 by the old Worldwide Church of God, the example was made about “unintentional killing” along the lines of, say, these two men were working, and one swung a wooden beam around, not knowing the other man was there, and struck him in the head, killing him.

Such was the reason for the cities of refuge, not for your modern-day cobblestone defense of infanticide. To draw any other conclusion is one hell of a stretch.

Nowadays we call this involuntary manslaughter., which is not the same as calmly putting the thrice-damned saline solution into the kid. Someone said you were a lawyer, I think it was Badgerhawk, oughtn’t you know the difference in these scenarios?

Or do you actually know it well, and are trying to escape it in your mind?

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

–No. Because the verse Esthier cited doesn’t say the person who accidentally kills a human pays a financial penalty and isn’t bound by an “eye for an eye”. That person, in fact, has to be bound by “an eye for an eye” or else there would be no reason to flee. The person who kills a fetus (in my translation) or an ox pays a financial penalty rather than being subject to “an eye for an eye”.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM

So why is the fact that an embryo is a human disputable?

Did you ever take biology, Jimbo?

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Is a chicken the same thing as an egg? Do you prefer your chicken scrambled or over easy? I suppose it doesn’t matter to you which came first :-)

MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM

It was a good question. It sounds harsh to make that comparison, but if I follow my own beliefs to their logical conclusion I don’t really have an option.

One point, though, would again go back to the issue of intent. Does someone who provides abortions recognize and understand that they are taking a human life and continue to do so anyway, or do they honestly feel they are not killing a person? I think that’s a fairly important distinction.

BadgerHawk on January 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Perhaps there is uncertainty there. For my part, my mind is made up that, much the same as Jimbo, the knowledge is indeed there, but they attempt to ignore it, gloss over it, or justify it in their minds with as many wheedling and transparent (for those with eyes to see) defenses as can be cobbled together.

Regarding ignorance of whether it is a life or not, for those who truly believe it is not a life, I would only be able to quote Romans 1:20.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Considering that Jews have lived with the Old Testament longer than Christians, I tend to look at their interpretations on this verse.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM

And yet, if you’re a Christian, you must also believe that the Jews (at least their religious leaders) have completely misunderstood their own scriptures, so much so that they did not recognize Christ when he came an instead plotted to have him killed.

But you’ve been full of nothing but contradictions this entire thread.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Liberals are anti-human

jp on January 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM

You forgot the “I did not misinterpret the verse”. Covers a world of sins.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM

–And I still don’t think I misinterpreted it, but I figured that most of you would disagree. (I really don’t like it when people effectively call me a liar, as you might have noticed.)

That makes no sense whatsoever. God wants to hide a person he’s decided should be put to death?

So your position on this is that God believes in harboring fugitives from justice?

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM

–Isn’t that the reason for Jesus? The law he wrote was too strict.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Is a chicken the same thing as an egg? Do you prefer your chicken scrambled or over easy? I suppose it doesn’t matter to you which came first :-)
MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM

If you think that’s a chicken growing in a woman’s womb, you’ve been horribly misled.

kingsjester on January 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Show me any place in Scripture where God divided people into “part” or “full” human being. Where he ever distinguished between human beings whose lives were sacred and those whose lives were not sacred in the eyes of His Law or the laws He told His people to abide by. Where in Scripture does it ever say that the sanctity of human life only belongs to some created human beings?

Scripture is full of God’s claim that all life is His – that He creates life and know it all down to the last, smallest detail from even before any of those details exist. He asks why anybody thinks they can ask the potter why he fashions the clay as he does. It is arrogant to think that anybody can ask the potter why he does with the clay, because the clay is his to do with as he pleases.

God specifically says that it is HE who fashions the child in the womb. Where does He ever say that somebody can destroy that innocent life and it doesn’t matter to Him?

Where in Scripture is there any difference in terminology between the fully-born child and the child in the womb? The same term used for “infant” is used for – as I mentioned before, a fetus (John) and an embryo (Jesus).

The distinctions you’re trying to make are totally alien to everything in Scripture. That’s because Scripture – all the way through, consistently – treats the pre-born child no differently than the born child.

justincase on January 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Considering that Jews have lived with the Old Testament longer than Christians, I tend to look at their interpretations on this verse.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM
//
Mr.,you have a lot of head knowledge,but if God says He formed us,Isaiah 44:2,and He knew us before we were born,Jeremiah 1:5,you have to put that head knowledge aside and have faith that that is true.

ohiobabe on January 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Is a chicken the same thing as an egg? Do you prefer your chicken scrambled or over easy? I suppose it doesn’t matter to you which came first :-)

MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM

I ordered a chicken sandwich but I think the waitress misunderstood me because she said, “How would you like your eggs?” So I tried to answer her anyhow. I said “Incubated, and then raised, and then beheaded, and then plucked and then cut up then put onto a grill then put onto a bun. Shit, it’s gonna take awhile. I don’t have time, scrambled!”

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Abortion is murder. You cannot argue otherwise.

uknowmorethanme on January 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM

You cannot <emlogically argue otherwise

uknowmorethanme on January 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM

And yet, if you’re a Christian, you must also believe that the Jews (at least their religious leaders) have completely misunderstood their own scriptures, so much so that they did not recognize Christ when he came an instead plotted to have him killed.

But you’ve been full of nothing but contradictions this entire thread.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM

–Wasn’t it a combination of Jewish leaders and the Romans? I don’t think I’d blame just Jewish leaders. And sorry to be full of contradictions. It makes sense to me, but I know almost all of you disagree with me.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM

–Isn’t that the reason for Jesus? The law he wrote was too strict.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Not at all. Jesus repeatedly stated that he came not to break but to fulfill the law.

And again, that’s completely illogical. God creates a law and then decides to break it himself? Is that really what you’re suggesting?

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM

–Isn’t that the reason for Jesus? The law he wrote was too strict.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM

In this, I detect the fundamental problem.

Jimbo, the law was not too strict. That is misunderstanding the entire point of the Old Testament.

THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED. Our sins demanded blood as payment, i.e. “an eye for an eye”. The nature of sin has not changed. The laws which mankind must live by have not changed.

What has changed is the divine forgiveness bought through the blood of Christ, which saves us from the penalty of the various transgressions we make, as listed back in the Old Testament.

The entire point of Christ’s coming was because the point was made in the Old Testament that mankind is patently unable to live according to the law, and would be condemned to death by his actions, which God sought to avoid, and was desperate enough to take all our crimes upon himself and pay “the eye for the eye”.

It is not that the law was too strict. It is that we could not follow the law, and we needed an Intercedor.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Show me any place in Scripture where God divided people into “part” or “full” human being. Where he ever distinguished between human beings whose lives were sacred and those whose lives were not sacred in the eyes of His Law or the laws He told His people to abide by. Where in Scripture does it ever say that the sanctity of human life only belongs to some created human beings?

-Look at the Exodus verse in the translation I posted. Financial penalty for miscarriage (in this translation); eye for an eye for killing a human being.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Is a chicken the same thing as an egg? Do you prefer your chicken scrambled or over easy? I suppose it doesn’t matter to you which came first :-)

MJBrutus on January 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Fertilized or unfertilized egg?

If unfertilized, no. If fertilized, the egg is an immature chicken. What we call a chick is also an immature chicken. What we call a chicken is mature.

If you crack open a fertilized egg, you may be in for a pretty big surprise, because your scrambled eggs may contain feathers, or even blood.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:09 PM

–Isn’t that the reason for Jesus? The law he wrote was too strict.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM
In this, I detect the fundamental problem.

Jimbo, the law was not too strict. That is misunderstanding the entire point of the Old Testament.

THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED. Our sins demanded blood as payment, i.e. “an eye for an eye”. The nature of sin has not changed. The laws which mankind must live by have not changed.

What has changed is the divine forgiveness bought through the blood of Christ, which saves us from the penalty of the various transgressions we make, as listed back in the Old Testament.

The entire point of Christ’s coming was because the point was made in the Old Testament that mankind is patently unable to live according to the law, and would be condemned to death by his actions, which God sought to avoid, and was desperate enough to take all our crimes upon himself and pay “the eye for the eye”.

It is not that the law was too strict. It is that we could not follow the law, and we needed an Intercedor.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM

–Well, if no one could comply with the law and would all die, it’s pretty tough to argue that the law wasn’t too strict, right. Which, again, is the reason for Jesus.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM

–Wasn’t it a combination of Jewish leaders and the Romans? I don’t think I’d blame just Jewish leaders. And sorry to be full of contradictions. It makes sense to me, but I know almost all of you disagree with me.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Well, Pilate tried not to kill Jesus and even made the people free Barabus instead of letting Jesus live, so it’s hard to blame Rome, especially when it was the Jewish leaders who regularly watched everything he did and every “law” he broke, trying to trap him and eventually pushing for his execution.

But even if you don’t like that explanation, Jesus preferred whores and tax collectors to the religious leaders of the day. They had that thoroughly misunderstood their own scripture.

But I guess you think another 2,000 years has made the difference, even though they still don’t recognize Christ as the Messiah?

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM

-Look at the Exodus verse in the translation I posted. Financial penalty for miscarriage (in this translation); eye for an eye for killing a human being.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Jimbo is guilty of private (mis)interpretation of Scripture.

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Ask yourself in your heart if the Lord would recommend an abortion to anyone, sir, and pray on it.

If you believe the Lord would, I pity, and pray for you, that you will come to see the truth.

If you believe he would not, then all that we have said must follow by logic.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Liberals will protect a snail with their life, but will kill a fetus in a heartbeat.

faraway on January 26, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Bumpersticker material!

lovingmyUSA on January 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM

–Well, if no one could comply with the law and would all die, it’s pretty tough to argue that the law wasn’t too strict, right. Which, again, is the reason for Jesus.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM

No, sir. That is placing the blame upon God for setting the bar ‘too high’, if you think of it in a different light.

The bar is absolute. It is the standard by which all are judged, and the bar does not vary, change, or waver. The reason for Jesus is because God has just that much love inside himself to do the absolutely crazy thing and get himself killed and shamed so that we might live.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM

–And I still don’t think I misinterpreted it, but I figured that most of you would disagree. (I really don’t like it when people effectively call me a liar, as you might have noticed.)

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM

How about just misguided due to your private interpretation, which doesn’t take into account either the original Hebrew or any established scholarship against same?

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM

–Well, if no one could comply with the law and would all die, it’s pretty tough to argue that the law wasn’t too strict, right. Which, again, is the reason for Jesus.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Except that Jesus didn’t do away with the law. He just took our penalty for it. It still exists.

And considering that people were in Heaven before Jesus was (as evidenced by the Transfiguration), it’s not as though the law was inept.

-Look at the Exodus verse in the translation I posted. Financial penalty for miscarriage (in this translation); eye for an eye for killing a human being.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM

You’re basing your entire argument on a verse you’ve likely read the wrong translation of and have definitely taken out of context.

This is what you would use to convince your own child to abort. That’s a really low standard.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Well, Pilate tried not to kill Jesus and even made the people free Barabus instead of letting Jesus live, so it’s hard to blame Rome, especially when it was the Jewish leaders who regularly watched everything he did and every “law” he broke, trying to trap him and eventually pushing for his execution.

But even if you don’t like that explanation, Jesus preferred whores and tax collectors to the religious leaders of the day. They had that thoroughly misunderstood their own scripture.

But I guess you think another 2,000 years has made the difference, even though they still don’t recognize Christ as the Messiah?

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM

–I always had trouble blaming Pilate for the crucifixtion. But I think his problem was that he knew the right thing to do and didn’t do it. Sorta went along with the crowd.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Liberals will protect a snail with their life, but will kill a fetus in a heartbeat.

faraway on January 26, 2010 at 11:29 AM

It is because Satan rules this world, and he hates children with all the fury of a thousand suns. By smooth talk and flattery, he deceives the people into accomplishing the bloodshed he desires.

It’s positively enough to make one bang one’s head against a wall sometimes, when the stark realization of what we, as a nation, a people, and a race, are doing to ourselves, and how we got to this point. One feels the need to scream.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:14 PM


And I still don’t think I misinterpreted it, but I figured that most of you would disagree. (I really don’t like it when people effectively call me a liar, as you might have noticed.)

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM
How about just misguided due to your private interpretation, which doesn’t take into account either the original Hebrew or any established scholarship against same?

unclesmrgol on January 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM

–So what about the Jews and the people on the pro-choice side? There are “established” scholars and people who read the original Hebrew which would disagree with you.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Tim Tebow, you sir, are the man.

nickj116 on January 26, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Well, if no one could comply with the law and would all die, it’s pretty tough to argue that the law wasn’t too strict, right. Which, again, is the reason for Jesus.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM
No, sir. That is placing the blame upon God for setting the bar ‘too high’, if you think of it in a different light.

The bar is absolute. It is the standard by which all are judged, and the bar does not vary, change, or waver. The reason for Jesus is because God has just that much love inside himself to do the absolutely crazy thing and get himself killed and shamed so that we might live.

KinleyArdal on January 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM

–So, put another way, the all-knowing and all-seeing God made such a big mistake in originally setting the laws that he had to come down here and get himself killed in order to save us?

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Look at the Exodus verse in the translation I posted. Financial penalty for miscarriage (in this translation); eye for an eye for killing a human being.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM

You’re basing your entire argument on a verse you’ve likely read the wrong translation of and have definitely taken out of context.

This is what you would use to convince your own child to abort. That’s a really low standard.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:13 PM

–The Catholic Bible translates this verse the same way.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM

–I always had trouble blaming Pilate for the crucifixtion. But I think his problem was that he knew the right thing to do and didn’t do it. Sorta went along with the crowd.

Jimbo3 on January 26, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Who’s to say what all he knew. His wife had a dream, but the people were determined to see Jesus killed. If they were that determined, Jesus was going to die. A public execution prevented a mob riot.

But I don’t blame anyone. Jesus sacrificed himself. He could have walked off the cross if he’d wanted to.

Esthier on January 26, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5