Science > Abortion > yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted!
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Richy 36" |
| Date: |
07 Dec 2003 04:46:23 PM |
| Object: |
yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
Jesus Himself said "he that is not with Me is against Me" (matt 12)
the Bible clearly tells us that a pregnant woman is carrying a "baby" in
her womb.
so this is not a posting for anyone who does not claim to be a
christian.
Luke 1:41,43 says "At the sound of Mary's greeting, Elizabeth's child
leaped within her...When you came in (Elizabeth speaking) and greeted
me, my baby jumped for joy the instant I heard your voice!"
so then, you must choose whether you will follow the Bible and be a
christian, or be a supporter of abortion (pro choice). you can not be
both.
perhaps you are a true christian who simply did not know what the Bible
taught concerning abortion.
If you have either supported, or actually had an abortion, it is not too
late.
Jesus has His arms outstretched to you. He loves you so much, and
promises "he that comes to me, I will never turn away" (John 6:37)
if you need to talk about these things, please write me at
cjvb@muchomail.com
Richy
.
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
07 Dec 2003 10:03:03 PM |
|
|
"Richy 36" <richy36@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14197-3FD3ADBF-211@storefull-2213.public.lawson.webtv.net...
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
Jesus Himself said "he that is not with Me is against Me" (matt 12)
I'll take against.
the Bible clearly tells us that a pregnant woman is carrying a "baby" in
her womb.
so this is not a posting for anyone who does not claim to be a
christian.
Luke 1:41,43 says "At the sound of Mary's greeting, Elizabeth's child
leaped within her...When you came in (Elizabeth speaking) and greeted
me, my baby jumped for joy the instant I heard your voice!"
so then, you must choose whether you will follow the Bible and be a
christian, or be a supporter of abortion (pro choice). you can not be
both.
Good thing I'm not a christian then.
perhaps you are a true christian who simply did not know what the Bible
taught concerning abortion.
If you have either supported, or actually had an abortion, it is not too
late.
Jesus has His arms outstretched to you. He loves you so much, and
promises "he that comes to me, I will never turn away" (John 6:37)
if you need to talk about these things, please write me at
cjvb@muchomail.com
Richy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richy 36" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, I'm smiling!!! |
09 Dec 2003 08:23:06 AM |
|
|
9 responses and 3 of them are from the same person. You just can't argue
with truth--even when you do the <snips>.
I love you all, but have to smile when I examine your "willing"
ignorance. it's like talking to someone suffering from mental
retardation. i have to repeat it and repeat it. still you act like you
can't comprehend.
and I had thought mr-potato-head lost his popularity in the 80s. reread
the post.
Richy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, I'm smiling!!! |
09 Dec 2003 02:11:39 PM |
|
|
(crossposted to four abortion newsgroups, because Richy the WebTV feeb can't
do so -- get a REAL ISP, will you?)
richy36@webtv.net (Richy 36) writes:
9 responses and 3 of them are from the same person. You just can't argue
with truth--even when you do the <snips>.
Of course, as can be seen in the References line, you're following up to
yourself. There's a real sign of intellect.
I love you all, but have to smile when I examine your "willing"
ignorance. it's like talking to someone suffering from mental
retardation. i have to repeat it and repeat it. still you act like you
can't comprehend.
Maybe that's because smarter people than you have examined the facts and
reached a different conclusion, and you're worried because you can't force
them to believe as you do.
and I had thought mr-potato-head lost his popularity in the 80s. reread
the post.
Why don't you, Brainiac? You're responding to your own post, after all...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: "Richy36" spews even MORE of his lying crap. |
07 Dec 2003 08:01:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:46:23 -0600 (CST),
"Richy36" <richy36@webtv.net> (who MAY someday
grow up and get himself a REAL computer), spewed the
following usual lying TRIPE:
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an
abortion supporter.
Bullcrap! And you don't even have enough respect
for Christ to capitalize his name.
...the two are simply contrary to one another.
(1) The Bible speaks not one word against abortion.
(2) ALL of the human life that the Bible defends had been BORN.
(3) The ONLY time the Bible ever defended a reproductive-
process entity was in Ex: 21:20-25... a passage that regards
a fetus to be PROPERTY and *condones* slavery!
(4) Jesus' prime directive to his followers was for them to love
and show compassion to their neighbors. People who seek
to impose immense hardship and misery upon women by
FORCING them to gestate-to-term against their will are the
hateful OPPOSITE of that.
Jesus Himself said "he that is not with Me is against Me" (matt 12)
Too bad for you then. (See point #4, above.)
The Bible clearly tells us that a pregnant woman is carrying a
"baby" in her womb.
Medical science didn't really exist yet in Biblical times, and the
terms "embryo" and "fetus" hadn't been coined yet.
So this is not a posting for anyone who does not claim to be a
christian.
It's not for anyone possessing common sense and a brain.
Luke 1:41,43 says "At the sound of Mary's greeting, Elizabeth's
child leaped within her...When you came in (Elizabeth speaking)
and greeted me, my baby jumped for joy the instant I heard your
voice!"
Luke wasn't even present at the time, so got that second-hand.
On top of that, there's no way that a woman could know a "reason"
for a fetal kick.
...so then, you must choose whether you will follow the Bible
and be a christian, or be a supporter of abortion (pro choice).
I follow the Bible and am a Christian. (Not a "christian," whatever
that is.) And per the highly-reliable Gallup Poll, 83% of Americans are
proclaimed Christians. And Americans are consistently PRO-Choice
by a 2-1 ratio. Do the math. The MAJORITY of Christians are PRO-
Choice. (Pseudo-Christians and deluded Christians of the RRR cult,
who hatefully seek to impose the above-mentioned misery, and are
mostly quite ignorant people, comprise only 1 to 2 percent of America's
proclaimed Christians. At the most.)
You can not be both.
No HONEST Christian could *be* an ANTI-Choicer.
Perhaps you are a true christian who simply did not know what
the Bible taught concerning abortion.
No. I'm a true Christian (capital "c," unlike your phony "christians")
who knows that the Bible says NOTHING against abortion.
<remaining lying bullcrap snipped>
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
07 Dec 2003 10:44:07 PM |
|
|
Richy 36 <richy36@webtv.net> wrote:
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:39-42
the Bible clearly tells us that a pregnant woman is carrying a "baby" in
her womb.
It does not.
so this is not a posting for anyone who does not claim to be a
christian.
According to Jesus (as quoted above), if a woman wants and abortion
then you must help her get one.
But you don't follow the teachings of Jesus. you offer only lies and
hatred.
And we all know whose domain those are from.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
08 Dec 2003 08:26:22 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br0vin$3ip$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Richy 36 <richy36@webtv.net> wrote:
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:39-42
Mat 5:38-42 -
In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner
repealed. Observe,
I. What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and here the
expression is only, Ye have heard that is has been said; not, as before,
concerning the commands of the decalogue, that it has been said by, or to,
them of old time. It was a command, that every one should of necessity
require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they
pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find,
Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20; Deu_19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be
done by the magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister
of God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom_13:4. It was a direction to the
judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims, for
terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand, and for a restraint to
such as have mischief done to them on the other hand, that they may not
insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an eye,
nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated
(Num_35:31), that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money;
for when it is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a
murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction was
allowed.
But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most compassionate men in
the world, insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken,
even by private persons themselves, and that there was no room left for
remission, or the acceptance of satisfaction. Even now, when they were under
the government of the Roman magistrates, and consequently the judicial law
fell to the ground of course, yet they were still zealous for any thing that
looked harsh and severe.
Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to magistrates, to use
the sword of justice according to the good and wholesome laws of the land,
for the terror of evil-doers, and the vindication of the oppressed. That
judge neither feared God nor regarded man, who would not avenge the poor
widow of her adversary, Luk_18:2, Luk_18:3. And it is in force as a rule to
lawgivers, to provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion punishments to
crimes, for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of
innocency.
II. What the New Testament precept is, as to the complainant himself, his
duty is, to forgive the injury as done to himself, and no further to insist
upon the punishment of it than is necessary to the public good: and this
precept is consonant to the meekness of Christ, and the gentleness of his
yoke.
Two things Christ teaches us here:
1. We must not be revengeful (Mat_5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not
evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill
attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the
resisting of the higher powers is (Rom_13:2); and yet this does not repeal
the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families;
we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own
security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor
avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us
unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro_20:22;
Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_12:7. The law of retaliation must be
made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our
recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must
give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is
necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify
us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow
that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not
to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of
Christ, by forgiving him.
Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must patiently
yield to those who bear hard upon them, rather than contend; and these
include others.
(1.) A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; "Whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek," which is not only a hurt, but an
affront and indignity (2Co_11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse
thee, "turn to him the other cheek;" that is, "instead of avenging that
injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the rude man as
good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if
it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour,
leave that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be
the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of it: there are
no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and forget it; and if proud
fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all wise men will
value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who,
though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the
cheek," Mic_5:1. Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us
to the like affront another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other
cheek, yet let not that disturb us, but let us trust God and his providence
to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the forgiving of one injury
may prevent another, when the avenging of it would but draw on another; some
will be overcome by submission, who by resistance would but be the more
exasperated, Pro_25:22. However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who
will reward us with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure;
and though it be not directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for
conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's example, it shall be put
upon the score of suffering for Christ.
(2.) The loss of a coat, which is a wrong to me in my estate (Mat_5:40); If
any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat. It is a hard case.
Note, It is common for legal processes to be made use of for the doing of
greatest injuries. Though judges be just and circumspect, yet it is possible
for bad men who make no conscience of oaths and forgeries, by course of law
to force off the coat from a man's back. Marvel not at the matter (Ecc_5:8),
but, in such a case, rather than go to the law by way of revenge, rather
than exhibit a cross bill, or stand out to the utmost, in defence of that
which is thy undoubted right, let him even take thy cloak also. If the
matter be small, which we may lose without an considerable damage to our
families, it is good to submit to it for peace' sake. "It will not cost thee
so much to buy another cloak, as it will cost thee by course of law to
recover that; and therefore unless thou canst get it again by fair means, it
is better to let him take it."
(3.) The going a mile by constraint, which is a wrong to me in my liberty
(Mat_5:41); "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, to run an errand for
him, or to wait upon him, grudge not at it, but go with him two miles rather
than fall out with him:" say not, "I would do it, if I were not compelled to
it, but I hate to be forced;" rather say, "Therefore I will do it, for
otherwise there will be a quarrel;" and it is better to serve him, than to
serve thy own lusts of pride and revenge. Some give this sense of it: The
Jews taught that the disciples of the wise, and the students of the law,
were not to be pressed, as others might, by the king's officers, to travel
upon the public service; but Christ will not have his disciples to insist
upon this privilege, but to comply rather than offend the government. The
sum of all is, that Christians must not be litigious; small injuries must be
submitted to, and no notice taken of them; and if the injury be such as
requires us to seek reparation, it must be for a good end, and without
thought of revenge: though we must not invite injuries, yet we must meet
them cheerfully in the way of duty, and make the best of them. If any say,
Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that
flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
2. We must be charitable and beneficent (Mat_5:42); must not only do no hurt
to our neighbours, but labour to do them all the good we can. (1.) We must
be ready to give; "Give to him that asketh thee. If thou has an ability,
look upon the request of the poor as giving thee an opportunity for the duty
of almsgiving." When a real object of charity presents itself, we should
give at the first word: Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; yet the
affairs of our charity must be guided with discretion (Psa_112:5), lest we
give that to the idle and unworthy, which should be given to those that are
necessitous, and deserve well. What God says to us, we should be ready to
say to our poor brethren, Ask, and it shall be given you. (2.) We must be
ready to lend. This is sometimes as great a piece of charity as giving; as
it not only relieves the present exigency, but obliges the borrower to
providence, industry, and honesty; and therefore, "From him that would
borrow of thee something to live on, or something to trade on, turn not thou
away: shun not those that thou knowest have such a request to make of thee,
nor contrive excuses to shake them off." Be easy of access to him that would
borrow: though he be bashful, and have not confidence to make known his case
and beg the favour, yet thou knowest both his need and his desire, and
therefore offer him the kindness. Exorabor antequam rogor; honestis precibus
occuram - I will be prevailed on before I am entreated; I will anticipate
the becoming petition. Seneca, De Vitâ Beatâ. It becomes us to be thus
forward in acts of kindness, for before we call, God hears us, and prevents
us with the blessings of his goodness.
the Bible clearly tells us that a pregnant woman is carrying a "baby" in
her womb.
It does not.
it is clearly taught in the Bible that murder - the unjustified killing of a
human being - is wrong (Exod. 20:13).
In Job 3:3, "Let the day perish on which I was to be born. And the night,
which said, "a boy [geber] is conceived." This verse connects the
individual born with the individual conceived. "Job traces his personal
history back beyond his birth to the night of conception. The process of
conception is described by the biblical writer in personal terms. There is
no abstract language of the 'products of conception,' but the concrete
language of humanity." It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word geber
is translated as "boy" and specifically applied to the unborn, although it
is usually used to describe postnatal humans and translated "male," "man,"
or "husband" (see Ps. 34:9; 52:9; 94:12 Prov 6:34).
Another verse, psalm 51:5, states: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin my mother conceived me." Again, we have evidence that the
beginning of existence can be traced back to conception.
In Luke 1:41, 44 the word baby (brephos) is applied to the unborn: "And it
came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her
womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 'For behold, when
he
sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."
Compare this with Luke 2:12, 16 where the infant Jesus is called a baby
(brephos): "And this will be a sign for you; you will find a baby wrapped in
clothes, and lying in a manger.' And they came in haste and found their way
to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as he lay in the manger."
so this is not a posting for anyone who does not claim to be a
christian.
According to Jesus (as quoted above), if a woman wants and abortion
then you must help her get one.
Wrong again, you clearly do not understand the biblical text
Some more education for you to ignore and snip
Mat 5:38-41 -
An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20, and
Deu_19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions
of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to
inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ
finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take
upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the
Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to
take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict
the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates
against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge,
that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private
conduct was to be governed by different principles.
The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist
evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil
person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be
pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our
families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance.
The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when
life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father
should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be
allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or
ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he
means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger,
he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of
statement than those which he did mention.
A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that
the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of
doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of
comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take
wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are
smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it
patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our
remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting
that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the
Saviour himself. See Joh_18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is
litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him,
following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us,
rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit
in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is
merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life.
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior.
The interior, here called the "coat," or the tunic, was made commonly of
linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes
beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another
garment corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the
neck. and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper
garment, here called "cloak," or mantle. It was made commonly nearly square,
of different sizes, 5 or 6 cubits long and as many broad, and was wrapped
around the body, and was thrown off when labor was performed. If, said
Christ, an adversary wished to obtain, at law, one of these garments, rather
than contend with him let him have the other also. A reference to various
articles of apparel occurs frequently in the New Testament, and it is
desirable to have a correct view of the ancient mode of dress. in order to a
proper understanding of the Bible. The Asiatic modes of dress are nearly the
same from age to age, and hence it is not difficult to illustrate the
passages where such a reference occurs. The ordinary dress consisted of the
inner garment, the outer garment, the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In
regard to the sandals, see the notes at Mat_3:11.
In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Mat_10:9, and to it the
sword and dirk were commonly attached. Compare 2Sa_20:8. In modern times the
pistols are also fastened to the belt. It is the usual place for the
handkerchief, smoking materials, inkhorn, and, in general, the implements of
one's profession. The belt served to confine the loose-flowing robe or outer
garment to the body. It held the garment when it was tucked up, as it was
usually in walking or in labor. Hence, "to gird up the loins" became a
significant figurative expression, denoting readiness for service, activity,
labor, and watchfulness; and "to loosen the loins" denoted the giving way to
repose and indolence, 2Ki_4:29; Job_38:3; Isa_5:27; Luk_12:35; Joh_21:7.
Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile - The word translated "shall
compel" is of Persian origin. Post-offices were then unknown. In order that
the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatch in different
parts of the empire, Cyrus stationed horsemen at proper intervals on all the
great public highways. One of those delivered the message to another, and
intelligence was thus rapidly and safely communicated. These heralds were
permitted to compel any person, or to press any horse, boat, ship, or other
vehicle that they might need for the quick transmission of the king's
commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers. Rather, says
he, than resist a public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a
certain distance, go peaceably twice the distance.
A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.
Twain - Two.
Mat 5:39 -
Resist not evil - Or, the evil person. So, I am fully persuaded, ?? ??????
ought to be translated. Our Lord's meaning is, "Do not repel one outrage by
another." He that does so makes himself precisely what the other is, a
wicked person.
Turn to him the other also - That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready
to suffer patiently a repetition of the same injury. But these exhortations
belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. Let
such leave the judgment of their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer.
The Jews always thought that every outrage should be resented; and thus the
spirit of hatred and strife was fostered.
Mat 5:40 -
And if any man will sue thee at the law - Every where our blessed Lord shows
the utmost disapprobation of such litigations as tended to destroy brotherly
kindness and charity. It is evident he would have his followers to suffer
rather the loss of all their property than to have recourse to such modes of
redress, at so great a risk. Having the mind averse from contentions, and
preferring peace and concord to temporal advantages, is most solemnly
recommended to all Christians. We are great gainers when we lose only our
money, or other property, and risk not the loss of our souls, by losing the
love of God and man.
Coat - ??????, upper garment. - Cloke, ????????, under garment. What we call
strait coat, and great coat. - See on Luk_6:29 (note).
Mat 5:41 -
Shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. - ??????????. This word
is said to be derived from the Persians, among whom the king's messengers,
or posts, were called ???????, or angari. This definition is given both by
Hesychius and Suidas.
The Persian messengers had the royal authority for pressing horses, ships,
and even men, to assist them in the business on which they were employed.
These angari are now termed chappars, and serve to carry despatches between
the court and the provinces. When a chappar sets out, the master of the
horse furnishes him with a single horse; and, when that is weary, he
dismounts the first man he meets, and takes his horse. There is no pardon
for a traveler that refuses to let a chappar have his horse, nor for any
other who should deny him the best horse in his stable. See Sir J. Chardin's
and Hanway's Travels. For pressing post horses, etc., the Persian term is
Sukhreh geriften. I find no Persian word exactly of the sound and
signification of ???????; but the Arabic agharet signifies spurring a horse,
attacking, plundering, etc. The Greek word itself is preserved among the
rabbins in Hebrew characters, ?????? angaria, and it has precisely the same
meaning: viz. to be compelled by violence to do any particular service,
especially of the public kind, by the king's authority. Lightfoot gives
several instances of this in his Horae Talmudicae.
We are here exhorted to patience and forgiveness:
First, When we receive in our persons all sorts of insults and affronts,
Mat_5:39.
Secondly, When we are despoiled of our goods, Mat_5:40.
Thirdly, When our bodies are forced to undergo all kinds of toils,
vexations, and torments, Mat_5:41.
The way to improve the injustice of man to our own advantage, is to exercise
under it meekness, gentleness, and long-suffering, without which disposition
of mind, no man can either be happy here or hereafter; for he that avenges
himself must lose the mind of Christ, and thus suffer an injury ten thousand
times greater than he can ever receive from man. Revenge, at such an
expense, is dear indeed.
Mat 5:42 -
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow - To give and
lend freely to all who are in need, is a general precept from which we are
only excused by our inability to perform it. Men are more or less obliged to
it as they are more or less able, as the want is more or less pressing, as
they are more or less burthened with common poor, or with necessitous
relatives. In all these matters, both prudence and charity must be
consulted. That God, who makes use of the beggar's hand to ask our charity,
is the same from whom we ourselves beg our daily bread: and dare we refuse
Him! Let us show at least mildness and compassion, when we can do no more;
and if we cannot or will not relieve a poor man, let us never give him an
ill word nor an ill look. If we do not relieve him, we have no right to
insult him.
To give and to lend, are two duties of charity which Christ joins together,
and which he sets on equal footing. A rich man is one of God's stewards: God
has given him money for the poor, and he cannot deny it without an act of
injustice. But no man, from what is called a principle of charity or
generosity, should give that in alms which belongs to his creditors.
Generosity is godlike; but justice has ever, both in law and Gospel, the
first claim.
A loan is often more beneficial than an absolute gift: first, because it
flatters less the vanity of him who lends; secondly, it spares more the
shame of him who is in real want; and, thirdly, it gives less encouragement
to the idleness of him who may not be very honest. However, no advantage
should be taken of the necessities of the borrower: he who does so is, at
least, half a murderer. The lending which our Lord here inculcates is that
which requires no more than the restoration of the principal in a convenient
time: otherwise to live upon trust is the sure way to pay double.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
08 Dec 2003 01:04:22 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<sbydnfpgx82WF0miRVn-uA@comcast.com>...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br0vin$3ip$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Richy 36 <richy36@webtv.net> wrote:
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:39-42
Mat 5:38-42 -
In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner
repealed. Observe,
I see Asspry is plaguarizing AGAIN. You'd think people in law
enforcement wouldn't break the law...
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
08 Dec 2003 04:58:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:26:22 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <sbydnfpgx82WF0miRVn-uA@comcast.com> wrote:
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than anyone
I have seen for some time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
08 Dec 2003 05:04:51 PM |
|
|
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
news:lc0atv00ui2tug75573l7it0d57f5f0krp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:26:22 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <sbydnfpgx82WF0miRVn-uA@comcast.com> wrote:
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it, and you snip away
anything that can refute your attempt to distort biblical text.
Are you that afraid? Are you that weak? Are you that insecure?
I consider this a victory for those who do study the bible, and you a
embarrassment for the atheist.
You simply ran away.
What did the atheist run from?
Here is the original post. You will see the biblical text that Ray Fischer
uses, and then the explanation I provided explaining what the verses mean.
And then you will see why pro-choice, atheist, snips it and runs.
Path:
internal1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.a
sh.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews
..com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:26:19 -0600
From: "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion
References: <14197-3FD3ADBF-211@storefull-2213.public.lawson.webtv.net>
<br0vin$3ip$1@bolt.sonic.net>
Subject: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted!
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:26:22 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <sbydnfpgx82WF0miRVn-uA@comcast.com>
Lines: 439
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.34.53.121
X-Trace:
sv3-PCwXAms/NXQ6nvro7W0t0k8lBHVfUsB2ske3NMSwNxEbbn8FMJEgwxwT5JRr/leqbSMKJfTq
FQquQ7r!1CZXHPIXngnwn/cm1yDxKU00yWVlm3z1sII9DxSLA8tGmvLNF6eSQ09kEE/e
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com alt.abortion:561085
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br0vin$3ip$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Richy 36 <richy36@webtv.net> wrote:
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:39-42
Mat 5:38-42 -
In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner
repealed. Observe,
I. What the Old Testament permission was, in case of injury; and here the
expression is only, Ye have heard that is has been said; not, as before,
concerning the commands of the decalogue, that it has been said by, or to,
them of old time. It was a command, that every one should of necessity
require such satisfaction; but they might lawfully insist upon it, if they
pleased; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This we find,
Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20; Deu_19:21; in all which places it is appointed to be
done by the magistrate, who bears not the sword in vain, but is the minister
of God, an avenger to execute wrath, Rom_13:4. It was a direction to the
judges of the Jewish nation what punishment to inflict in case of maims, for
terror to such as would do mischief on the one hand, and for a restraint to
such as have mischief done to them on the other hand, that they may not
insist on a greater punishment than is proper: it is not a life for an eye,
nor a limb for a tooth, but observe a proportion; and it is intimated
(Num_35:31), that the forfeiture in this case might be redeemed with money;
for when it is provided that no ransom shall be taken for the life of a
murderer, it is supposed that for maims a pecuniary satisfaction was
allowed.
But some of the Jewish teachers, who were not the most compassionate men in
the world, insisted upon it as necessary that such revenge should be taken,
even by private persons themselves, and that there was no room left for
remission, or the acceptance of satisfaction. Even now, when they were under
the government of the Roman magistrates, and consequently the judicial law
fell to the ground of course, yet they were still zealous for any thing that
looked harsh and severe.
Now, so far this is in force with us, as a direction to magistrates, to use
the sword of justice according to the good and wholesome laws of the land,
for the terror of evil-doers, and the vindication of the oppressed. That
judge neither feared God nor regarded man, who would not avenge the poor
widow of her adversary, Luk_18:2, Luk_18:3. And it is in force as a rule to
lawgivers, to provide accordingly, and wisely to apportion punishments to
crimes, for the restraint of rapine and violence, and the protection of
innocency.
II. What the New Testament precept is, as to the complainant himself, his
duty is, to forgive the injury as done to himself, and no further to insist
upon the punishment of it than is necessary to the public good: and this
precept is consonant to the meekness of Christ, and the gentleness of his
yoke.
Two things Christ teaches us here:
1. We must not be revengeful (Mat_5:39); I say unto you, that ye resist not
evil; - the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill
attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the
resisting of the higher powers is (Rom_13:2); and yet this does not repeal
the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families;
we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own
security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor
avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us
unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Pro_20:22;
Pro_24:29; Pro_25:21, Pro_25:22; Rom_12:7. The law of retaliation must be
made consistent with the law of love: nor, if any have injured us, is our
recompence in our own hands, but in the hands of God, to whose wrath we must
give place; and sometimes in the hands of his viceregents, where it is
necessary for the preservation of the public peace; but it will not justify
us in hurting our brother to say that he began, for it is the second blow
that makes the quarrel; and when we were injured, we had an opportunity not
to justify our injuring him, but to show ourselves the true disciples of
Christ, by forgiving him.
Three things our Saviour specifies, to show that Christians must patiently
yield to those who bear hard upon them, rather than contend; and these
include others.
(1.) A blow on the cheek, which is an injury to me in my body; "Whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek," which is not only a hurt, but an
affront and indignity (2Co_11:20), if a man in anger or scorn thus abuse
thee, "turn to him the other cheek;" that is, "instead of avenging that
injury, prepare for another, and bear it patiently: give not the rude man as
good as he brings; do not challenge him, nor enter an action against him; if
it be necessary to the public peace that he be bound to his good behaviour,
leave that to the magistrate; but for thine own part, it will ordinarily be
the wisest course to pass it by, and take no further notice of it: there are
no bones broken, no great harm done, forgive it and forget it; and if proud
fools think the worse of thee, and laugh at thee for it, all wise men will
value and honour thee for it, as a follower of the blessed Jesus, who,
though he was the Judge of Israel, did not smite those who smote him on the
cheek," Mic_5:1. Though this may perhaps, with some base spirits, expose us
to the like affront another time, and so it is, in effect, to turn the other
cheek, yet let not that disturb us, but let us trust God and his providence
to protect us in the way of our duty. Perhaps, the forgiving of one injury
may prevent another, when the avenging of it would but draw on another; some
will be overcome by submission, who by resistance would but be the more
exasperated, Pro_25:22. However, our recompence is in Christ's hands, who
will reward us with eternal glory for the shame we thus patiently endure;
and though it be not directly inflicted, it if be quietly borne for
conscience' sake, and in conformity to Christ's example, it shall be put
upon the score of suffering for Christ.
(2.) The loss of a coat, which is a wrong to me in my estate (Mat_5:40); If
any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat. It is a hard case.
Note, It is common for legal processes to be made use of for the doing of
greatest injuries. Though judges be just and circumspect, yet it is possible
for bad men who make no conscience of oaths and forgeries, by course of law
to force off the coat from a man's back. Marvel not at the matter (Ecc_5:8),
but, in such a case, rather than go to the law by way of revenge, rather
than exhibit a cross bill, or stand out to the utmost, in defence of that
which is thy undoubted right, let him even take thy cloak also. If the
matter be small, which we may lose without an considerable damage to our
families, it is good to submit to it for peace' sake. "It will not cost thee
so much to buy another cloak, as it will cost thee by course of law to
recover that; and therefore unless thou canst get it again by fair means, it
is better to let him take it."
(3.) The going a mile by constraint, which is a wrong to me in my liberty
(Mat_5:41); "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, to run an errand for
him, or to wait upon him, grudge not at it, but go with him two miles rather
than fall out with him:" say not, "I would do it, if I were not compelled to
it, but I hate to be forced;" rather say, "Therefore I will do it, for
otherwise there will be a quarrel;" and it is better to serve him, than to
serve thy own lusts of pride and revenge. Some give this sense of it: The
Jews taught that the disciples of the wise, and the students of the law,
were not to be pressed, as others might, by the king's officers, to travel
upon the public service; but Christ will not have his disciples to insist
upon this privilege, but to comply rather than offend the government. The
sum of all is, that Christians must not be litigious; small injuries must be
submitted to, and no notice taken of them; and if the injury be such as
requires us to seek reparation, it must be for a good end, and without
thought of revenge: though we must not invite injuries, yet we must meet
them cheerfully in the way of duty, and make the best of them. If any say,
Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that
flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
2. We must be charitable and beneficent (Mat_5:42); must not only do no hurt
to our neighbours, but labour to do them all the good we can. (1.) We must
be ready to give; "Give to him that asketh thee. If thou has an ability,
look upon the request of the poor as giving thee an opportunity for the duty
of almsgiving." When a real object of charity presents itself, we should
give at the first word: Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; yet the
affairs of our charity must be guided with discretion (Psa_112:5), lest we
give that to the idle and unworthy, which should be given to those that are
necessitous, and deserve well. What God says to us, we should be ready to
say to our poor brethren, Ask, and it shall be given you. (2.) We must be
ready to lend. This is sometimes as great a piece of charity as giving; as
it not only relieves the present exigency, but obliges the borrower to
providence, industry, and honesty; and therefore, "From him that would
borrow of thee something to live on, or something to trade on, turn not thou
away: shun not those that thou knowest have such a request to make of thee,
nor contrive excuses to shake them off." Be easy of access to him that would
borrow: though he be bashful, and have not confidence to make known his case
and beg the favour, yet thou knowest both his need and his desire, and
therefore offer him the kindness. Exorabor antequam rogor; honestis precibus
occuram - I will be prevailed on before I am entreated; I will anticipate
the becoming petition. Seneca, De Vitâ Beatâ. It becomes us to be thus
forward in acts of kindness, for before we call, God hears us, and prevents
us with the blessings of his goodness.
the Bible clearly tells us that a pregnant woman is carrying a "baby" in
her womb.
It does not.
it is clearly taught in the Bible that murder - the unjustified killing of a
human being - is wrong (Exod. 20:13).
In Job 3:3, "Let the da
perish on which I was to be born. And the night,
which said, "a boy [geber] is conceived." This verse connects the
individual born with the individual conceived. "Job traces his personal
history back beyond his birth to the night of conception. The process of
conception is described by the biblical writer in personal terms. There is
no abstract language of the 'products of conception,' but the concrete
language of humanity." It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word geber
is translated as "boy" and specifically applied to the unborn, although it
is usually used to describe postnatal humans and translated "male," "man,"
or "husband" (see Ps. 34:9; 52:9; 94:12 Prov 6:34).
Another verse, psalm 51:5, states: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin my mother conceived me." Again, we have evidence that the
beginning of existence can be traced back to conception.
In Luke 1:41, 44 the word baby (brephos) is applied to the unborn: "And it
came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her
womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 'For behold, when the
sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."
Compare this with Luke 2:12, 16 where the infant Jesus is called a baby
(brephos): "And this will be a sign for you; you will find a baby wrapped in
clothes, and lying in a manger.' And they came in haste and found their way
to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as he lay in the manger."
so this is not a posting for anyone who does not claim to be a
christian.
According to Jesus (as quoted above), if a woman wants and abortion
then you must help her get one.
Wrong again, you clearly do not understand the biblical text
Some more education for you to ignore and snip
Mat 5:38-41 -
An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20, and
Deu_19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions
of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to
inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ
finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take
upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the
Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to
take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict
the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates
against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge,
that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private
conduct was to be governed by different principles.
The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist
evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil
person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be
pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our
families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance.
The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when
life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father
should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be
allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or
ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he
means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger,
he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of
statement than those which he did mention.
A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that
the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of
doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of
comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take
wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are
smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it
patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our
remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting
that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the
Saviour himself. See Joh_18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is
litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him,
following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us,
rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit
in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is
merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life.
Coat - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior.
The interior, here called the "coat," or the tunic, was made commonly of
linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes
beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another
garment corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the
neck. and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper
garment, here called "cloak," or mantle. It was made commonly nearly square,
of different sizes, 5 or 6 cubits long and as many broad, and was wrapped
around the body, and was thrown off when labor was performed. If, said
Christ, an adversary wished to obtain, at law, one of these garments, rather
than contend with him let him have the other also. A reference to various
articles of apparel occurs frequently in the New Testament, and it is
desirable to have a correct view of the ancient mode of dress. in order to a
proper understanding of the Bible. The Asiatic modes of dress are nearly the
same from age to age, and hence it is not difficult to illustrate the
passages where such a reference occurs. The ordinary dress consisted of the
inner garment, the outer garment, the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In
regard to the sandals, see the notes at Mat_3:11.
In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Mat_10:9, and to it the
sword and dirk were commonly attached. Compare 2Sa_20:8. In modern times the
pistols are also fastened to the belt. It is the usual place for the
handkerchief, smoking materials, inkhorn, and, in general, the implements of
one's profession. The belt served to confine the loose-flowing robe or outer
garment to the body. It held the garment when it was tucked up, as it was
usually in walking or in labor. Hence, "to gird up the loins" became a
significant figurative expression, denoting readiness for service, activity,
labor, and watchfulness; and "to loosen the loins" denoted the giving way to
repose and indolence, 2Ki_4:29; Job_38:3; Isa_5:27; Luk_12:35; Joh_21:7.
Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile - The word translated "shall
compel" is of Persian origin. Post-offices were then unknown. In order that
the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatch in different
parts of the empire, Cyrus stationed horsemen at proper intervals on all the
great public highways. One of those delivered the message to another, and
intelligence was thus rapidly and safely communicated. These heralds were
permitted to compel any person, or to press any horse, boat, ship, or other
vehicle that they might need for the quick transmission of the king's
commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers. Rather, says
he, than resist a public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a
certain distance, go peaceably twice the distance.
A mile - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.
Twain - Two.
Mat 5:39 -
Resist not evil - Or, the evil person. So, I am fully persuaded, ?? ??????
ought to be translated. Our Lord's meaning is, "Do not repel one outrage by
another." He that does so makes himself precisely what the other is, a
wicked person.
Turn to him the other also - That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready
to suffer patiently a repetition of the same injury. But these exhortations
belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. Let
such leave the judgment of their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer.
The Jews always thought that every outrage should be resented; and thus the
spirit of hatred and strife was fostered.
Mat 5:40 -
And if any man will sue thee at the law - Every where our blessed Lord shows
the utmost disapprobation of such litigations as tended to destroy brotherly
kindness and charity. It is evident he would have his followers to suffer
rather the loss of all their property than to have recourse to such modes of
redress, at so great a risk. Having the mind averse from contentions, and
preferring peace and concord to temporal advantages, is most solemnly
recommended to all Christians. We are great gainers when we lose only our
money, or other property, and risk not the loss of our souls, by losing the
love of God and man.
Coat - ??????, upper garment. - Cloke, ????????, under garment. What we call
strait coat, and great coat. - See on Luk_6:29 (note).
Mat 5:41 -
Shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. - ??????????. This word
is said to be derived from the Persians, among whom the king's messengers,
or posts, were called ???????, or angari. This definition is given both by
Hesychius and Suidas.
The Persian messengers had the royal authority for pressing horses, ships,
and even men, to assist them in the business on which they were employed.
These angari are now termed chappars, and serve to carry despatches between
the court and the provinces. When a chappar sets out, the master of the
horse furnishes him with a single horse; and, when that is weary, he
dismounts the first man he meets, and takes his horse. There is no pardon
for a traveler that refuses to let a chappar have his horse, nor for any
other who should deny him the best horse in his stable. See Sir J. Chardin's
and Hanway's Travels. For pressing post horses, etc., the Persian term is
Sukhreh geriften. I find no Persian word exactly of the sound and
signification of ???????; but the Arabic agharet signifies spurring a horse,
attacking, plundering, etc. The Greek word itself is preserved among the
rabbins in Hebrew characters, ?????? angaria, and it has precisely the same
meaning: viz. to be compelled by violence to do any particular service,
especially of the public kind, by the king's authority. Lightfoot gives
several instances of this in his Horae Talmudicae.
We are here exhorted to patience and forgiveness:
First, When we receive in our persons all sorts of insults and affronts,
Mat_5:39.
Secondly, When we are despoiled of our goods, Mat_5:40.
Thirdly, When our bodies are forced to undergo all kinds of toils,
vexations, and torments, Mat_5:41.
The way to improve the injustice of man to our own advantage, is to exercise
under it meekness, gentleness, and long-suffering, without which disposition
of mind, no man can either be happy here or hereafter; for he that avenges
himself must lose the mind of Christ, and thus suffer an injury ten thousand
times greater than he can ever receive from man. Revenge, at such an
expense, is dear indeed.
Mat 5:42 -
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow - To give and
lend freely to all who are in need, is a general precept from which we are
only excused by our inability to perform it. Men are more or less obliged to
it as they are more or less able, as the want is more or less pressing, as
they are more or less burthened with common poor, or with necessitous
relatives. In all these matters, both prudence and charity must be
consulted. That God, who makes use of the beggar's hand to ask our charity,
is the same from whom we ourselves beg our daily bread: and dare we refuse
Him! Let us show at least mildness and compassion, when we can do no more;
and if we cannot or will not relieve a poor man, let us never give him an
ill word nor an ill look. If we do not relieve him, we have no right to
insult him.
To give and to lend, are two duties of charity which Christ joins together,
and which he sets on equal footing. A rich man is one of God's stewards: God
has given him money for the poor, and he cannot deny it without an act of
injustice. But no man, from what is called a principle of charity or
generosity, should give that in alms which belongs to his creditors.
Generosity is godlike; but justice has ever, both in law and Gospel, the
first claim.
A loan is often more beneficial than an absolute gift: first, because it
flatters less the vanity of him who lends; secondly, it spares more the
shame of him who is in real want; and, thirdly, it gives less encouragement
to the idleness of him who may not be very honest. However, no advantage
should be taken of the necessities of the borrower: he who does so is, at
least, half a murderer. The lending which our Lord here inculcates is that
which requires no more than the restoration of the principal in a convenient
time: otherwise to live upon trust is the sure way to pay double.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
08 Dec 2003 05:29:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:04:51 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <FpOdnQLa0pESnkiiRVn-gw@comcast.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
news:lc0atv00ui2tug75573l7it0d57f5f0krp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:26:22 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <sbydnfpgx82WF0miRVn-uA@comcast.com> wrote:
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it, and you snip away
anything that can refute your attempt to distort biblical text.
Your comment assumes I read what you wrote. You made an ***** out of
yourself again. I didn't.
Are you that afraid? Are you that weak? Are you that insecure?
No. I am selective about reading fiction - that's all.
I consider this a victory for those who do study the bible, and you a
embarrassment for the atheist.
It would take more effort that I am willing to spend to find something that
is of less interest to me than what you consider.
You simply ran away.
What did the atheist run from?
Nuts don't need religion to make them nuts but it does seem to give them a
certain added sense of commitment to whatever goals their nutdom decides to
embrace.
Here is the original post. You will see the biblical text that Ray Fischer
uses, and then the explanation I provided explaining what the verses mean.
And then you will see why pro-choice, atheist, snips it and runs.
Did it again, didn't I?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
08 Dec 2003 08:40:27 PM |
|
|
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
news:t22atvgbvvnpmf712surf9tiolicmdqd5q@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:04:51 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <FpOdnQLa0pESnkiiRVn-gw@comcast.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
news:lc0atv00ui2tug75573l7it0d57f5f0krp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:26:22 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <sbydnfpgx82WF0miRVn-uA@comcast.com>
wrote:
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it, and you snip away
anything that can refute your attempt to distort biblical text.
Your comment assumes I read what you wrote. You made an ***** out of
yourself again. I didn't.
You are the one who snipped and ran.
Are you that afraid? Are you that weak? Are you that insecure?
No. I am selective about reading fiction - that's all.
You snipped and ran
I consider this a victory for those who do study the bible, and you a
embarrassment for the atheist.
It would take more effort that I am willing to spend to find something
that
is of less interest to me than what you consider.
You snipped and ran
You simply ran away.
What did the atheist run from?
Nuts don't need religion to make them nuts but it does seem to give them a
certain added sense of commitment to whatever goals their nutdom decides
to
embrace.
You snipped and ran
Here is the original post. You will see the biblical text that Ray
Fischer
uses, and then the explanation I provided explaining what the verses
mean.
And then you will see why pro-choice, atheist, snips it and runs.
Did it again, didn't I?
You snipped and ran
nuff said
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
08 Dec 2003 11:03:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:40:27 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <wIqdneosUs-Lq0iiRVn-sA@comcast.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
news:t22atvgbvvnpmf712surf9tiolicmdqd5q@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:04:51 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <FpOdnQLa0pESnkiiRVn-gw@comcast.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
news:lc0atv00ui2tug75573l7it0d57f5f0krp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:26:22 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <sbydnfpgx82WF0miRVn-uA@comcast.com>
wrote:
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it, and you snip away
anything that can refute your attempt to distort biblical text.
Your comment assumes I read what you wrote. You made an ***** out of
yourself again. I didn't.
You are the one who snipped and ran.
I see your reading comprehension problem has kicked in again. But I must
admit this could be read two ways so I will clarify.
I did not read all that crap I cut. I considered the source and dumped it.
Are you that afraid? Are you that weak? Are you that insecure?
No. I am selective about reading fiction - that's all.
You snipped and ran
I consider this a victory for those who do study the bible, and you a
embarrassment for the atheist.
It would take more effort that I am willing to spend to find something
that
is of less interest to me than what you consider.
You snipped and ran
You simply ran away.
What did the atheist run from?
Nuts don't need religion to make them nuts but it does seem to give them a
certain added sense of commitment to whatever goals their nutdom decides
to
embrace.
You snipped and ran
Here is the original post. You will see the biblical text that Ray
Fischer
uses, and then the explanation I provided explaining what the verses
mean.
And then you will see why pro-choice, atheist, snips it and runs.
Did it again, didn't I?
You snipped and ran
nuff said
At least I don't need to bother cutting it again. And unread again.
What a moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
10 Dec 2003 04:22:17 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
Stop projecting your own immoral actions on others.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
10 Dec 2003 07:12:14 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br6s4o$9mc$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
I posted 400 lines of explanations of that biblical text.
400 lines that proved you distorted what the verses meant.
You snipped and ran.
You call it crap, you don't even know what the verses mean and you can't
even refute the explanations I provided.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
10 Dec 2003 02:55:29 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<9LSdnRCIb5Y-hkqi4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br6s4o$9mc$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
I posted 400 lines of explanations of that biblical text.
You mean you STOLE 400 lines of explanations...
400 lines that proved you distorted what the verses meant.
400 lines that didn't prove you know what they mean, either.
You snipped and ran.
You call it crap, you don't even know what the verses mean and you can't
even refute the explanations I provided.
Hell, you don't know what the explanations you provided mean either.
You stole them from someone else and splattered them into a newsgroup.
I guess you really don't care about what is legal and what isn't
legal, do you "Mr Law Enforcement"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
10 Dec 2003 07:14:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:12:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br6s4o$9mc$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> in
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
I posted 400 lines of explanations of that biblical text.
400 lines that proved you distorted what the verses meant.
You snipped and ran.
You call it crap,
It is crap. And he's not the only one who knows it.
you don't even know what the verses mean
What makes you believe so?
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
11 Dec 2003 12:57:34 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
I posted 400 lines of explanations of that biblical text.
400 lines of distortion.
400 lines that proved you distorted what the verses meant.
I quoted the Bible.
Sorry if you find the words of Jesus to be so offensive.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
11 Dec 2003 12:56:44 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
I posted 400 lines of explanations of that biblical text.
400 lines of distortion.
400 lines that proved you distorted what the verses meant.
You're a lying asshle, Heishman. I made no claim at all about what
the verses meant.
I simply quoted the Bible.
Sorry if you find the words of Jesus to be so offensive.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
11 Dec 2003 06:46:37 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br94fb$q21$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
I posted 400 lines of explanations of that biblical text.
400 lines of distortion.
Prove it
400 lines that proved you distorted what the verses meant.
You're a lying asshle, Heishman. I made no claim at all about what
the verses meant.
Yes you did
I simply quoted the Bible.
And you didn't even know what you quoted
Sorry if you find the words of Jesus to be so offensive.
Sorry if proving you are wrong is so offensive
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
14 Dec 2003 01:00:48 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br94fb$q21$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
I posted 400 lines of explanations of that biblical text.
400 lines of distortion.
Prove it
***** off, ***** Heishman.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist run from explanations on their distortion attempt |
14 Dec 2003 05:40:34 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brh1qv$rnm$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
news:br94fb$q21$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<prochoice@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
439 lines clipped
You have the least amount to say and spend more space saying it than
anyone
I have seen for some time.
As I suspected. You take biblical text, distort it,
I provided the Biblical text. You posted 400+ lines of crap.
I posted 400 lines of explanations of that biblical text.
400 lines of distortion.
Prove it
***** off, ***** Heishman.
awww, too much for you. I understand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
10 Dec 2003 04:20:59 AM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Richy 36 <richy36@webtv.net> wrote:
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:39-42
Mat 5:38-42 -
In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner
repealed. Observe,
How the cafeteria christian tries to deny Jesus.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
10 Dec 2003 06:57:53 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br6s2a$9lj$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Richy 36 <richy36@webtv.net> wrote:
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:39-42
Mat 5:38-42 -
In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner
repealed. Observe,
How the cafeteria christian tries to deny Jesus.
Are you that afraid Ray?
Don't worry Ray, the other atheist snipped and ran too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: yes, the Bible says that it is a "baby" that is aborted! |
10 Dec 2003 02:23:37 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<loidnW3UrZzbhUqi4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:br6s2a$9lj$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Richy 36 <richy36@webtv.net> wrote:
It is just not possible to be both a christian and an abortion
supporter.
the two are simply contrary to one another.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:39-42
Mat 5:38-42 -
In these verses the law of retaliation is expounded, and in a manner
repealed. Observe,
How the cafeteria christian tries to deny Jesus.
Are you that afraid Ray?
Don't worry Ray, the other athei | | | | | |
