35 of 40
35
Pro-life Atheists
Posted: 08 January 2009 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 511 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 08 January 2009 03:42 PM

The Jewish view is based on a mistranslation, then.

This Jewish view precedes the English translation made in 2004 (the one you claim is “mistranslated”) from which I quoted by thousands of years. So that means Jews have always understood it the way I do even with the original verb meaning “coming out.” 

Because it is left ambiguous, harm to either gets punished eye for eye.

You don’t follow an acknowledgment of ambiguity with a statement of certainty. The text doesn’t set up an “either or” proposition nor does it speak from the point of view of the woman or the fetus or both. The POV is from some distant law giver. Because it is left ambiguous, it could simply mean no harm to the woman results in a fine, whereas harm to her results in an eye for an eye with the understanding that the fetus is born dead in each case.

I do not need to consult a Jew to see what verb is used.

Yet you needed to consult someone who knows ancient Hebrew to give you the meaning of the original verb, a process which ultimately proved fruitless. If you think you can understand all the bizarre stories in the bible by your lonesome, you’re not doing a good job of it.

Why are you responding to a hypothetical religiously motivated Christian and not to the person you are actually debating, who has not made any religious arguments?

Why did you respond if you are not a “hypothetical religiously motivated Christian”? The first post I made in this thread had nothing to do with you.

I’m not denying religiously motivated pro-lifers are on a very shaky foundation. You are just using a red herring to ignore my arguments.

Just because you failed to convince any others of your arguments doesn’t make them guilty of ignoring your arguments. Why do you keep on “ignoring” theirs?

Ad populum.

I was making an interesting observation, not posing an argument. Name all the Latin phrases for informal fallacies that there are—you’ll just continue to make yourself look like a jackass.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2009 02:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 512 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

If I tell you no eating in my house, you can’t assume I just mean don’t eat fruit. If there is no modifier, the word’s basic meaning is to be taken. The pasage says if harm is done, not if harm is done to the woman.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2009 04:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 513 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 08 January 2009 07:38 PM

If there is no modifier, the word’s basic meaning is to be taken.

There’s no modifier because there’s no need for one: the fetus is born dead.

The pasage says if harm is done, not if harm is done to the woman.

It can only mean harm to the woman because the fetus is born dead in both cases due to the violent attack it suffered.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2009 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 514 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
Giova - 08 January 2009 09:24 PM
Nulono - 08 January 2009 07:38 PM

If there is no modifier, the word’s basic meaning is to be taken.

There’s no modifier because there’s no need for one: the fetus is born dead.

The pasage says if harm is done, not if harm is done to the woman.

It can only mean harm to the woman because the fetus is born dead in both cases due to the violent attack it suffered.

If the original text mentioned a miscarriage at all,  you would be right. The verb is simply “to go forth”. Because of the modifier “yet no harm is done”, a miscarriage is ruled out.

The KJV reads as follows:

22 If 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. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This is the correct translation. So that her fruit depart from her.

But this is completely irrelevant to anything. Let’s assume the passage says the child is worth less than the mother. The Bible is not a reliable source. You’re an atheist; you should know that! Exodus 21:17, just a few verses earlier, says cursing your parents deserves the death penalty.

[ Edited: 08 January 2009 04:34 PM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2009 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 515 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 08 January 2009 09:31 PM

If the original text mentioned a miscarriage at all,  you would be right. The verb is simply “to go forth”. Because of the modifier “yet no harm is done”, a miscarriage is ruled out.

Your KJV quotation does not change anything. You say because of the clause “yet no harm is done,” a miscarriage is ruled out. I say with equal weight that “yet no harm is done” refers to the woman as she gives birth to a dead fetus either way as a result of the violent attack the fetus suffered in the abdomen. The Hebrew verb yatsa meaning to “to go out” is used several times in the OT to refer to babies who are born dead: once in Numbers 12:12 and again in Job 3:11. Furthermore, the verb itself does not preclude a meaning of miscarriage: it’s neutral and can refer to anything that comes out of the woman’s womb.

And this is why you definitively lose: even you admit that this same verb truly refers to a miscarriage in verse 23 when, following your line of interpretation, the assailant will get capital punishment for having killed the baby (thus representing a veritable ‘miscarriage’). If it’s good enough to mean a miscarriage in that case, it’s good enough to mean a miscarriage in the first case in verse 22 with all that talk of harm referring all along to the woman only. Game over. 

But this is completely irrelevant to anything. Let’s assume the passage says the child is worth less than the mother. The Bible is not a reliable source.

If it’s so irrelevant, why the hell are you so adamant and so unyielding in sharing the interpretation of those who think Bible is a reliable source? It’s like you at least admire or appreciate how, according to your interpretation, the ancient Hebrews viewed people and unborn babies equal in personhood.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 05:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 516 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

It is also used to refer to live births. It just means a birth. If there is a birth and no harm is done, it must, by definition, be a live birth.

Just use another verse.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 08:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 517 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 09 January 2009 10:35 AM

It is also used to refer to live births.

First you said it could only mean a live birth and thus staked your entire argument on this claim. You were wrong. I showed you two other verses that use the same verb in reference to nonviable fetuses. 

It just means a birth.

Yeah, a birth of anything, dead fetuses included.

If there is a birth and no harm is done, it must, by definition, be a live birth.

When you admit the possibility, in verse 23, of a deadly injury to both mother and child, you admit that the verb can indeed mean a stillbirth or miscarriage. This destroys your “live-birth only” interpretation for the verb and forces one to limit the ‘harm’ done to the woman with the understanding that she miscarries in each case. This is the verdict of all the prevailing textual, historical, and medical evidence of such a case and most scholars concur. End of story. Next time, have a better response than to be a broken record.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 09:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 518 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

The verb can mean a miscarriage, but not when modified by “and no harm is done”.

If a birth is caused and no harm is done, a miscarriage is ruled out.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 09:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 519 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 09 January 2009 02:10 PM

The verb can mean a miscarriage, but not when modified by “and no harm is done”.

If a birth is caused and no harm is done, a miscarriage is ruled out.

And taking the conditional “no harm in done” in reference to the mother, this makes our interpretations 50/50. All I’m saying is that when you take other evidence relating to this text in its historical context—all the textual, historical, and medical—then my interpretation wins out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 520 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
Giova - 09 January 2009 02:50 PM
Nulono - 09 January 2009 02:10 PM

The verb can mean a miscarriage, but not when modified by “and no harm is done”.

If a birth is caused and no harm is done, a miscarriage is ruled out.

And taking the conditional “no harm in done” in reference to the mother, this makes our interpretations 50/50. All I’m saying is that when you take other evidence relating to this text in its historical context—all the textual, historical, and medical—then my interpretation wins out.

But “harm” is not qualified, so it could apply to both. If I hire you to babysit my 2 children, and tell you not to cause harm, you mustn’t harm my daughter, or my son, or my television.

If you harmed my daughter, you can’t say “I thought ‘harm’ only applied to your son, because you didn’t list all the entities to which harm was forbidden.”.

If the noun “harm” is not qualified, it defalts to ANY harm; harm to the child is harm, harm to the mother is harm, and harm to both is harm.

Also, the link you posted presents a false dichotomy:  that the word either refers to a live birth or a miscarriage. The word simply refers to a birth, live or not. Thus, the qualifier “no harm is done” restricts it to a live birth in Exodus 21:22, but a different modifier “more mischief follows” is used in Exodus 21:23 to have it mean a miscarriage and/or death of the mother.

But, if the only choices were live birth and miscarriage, the link would be right. But the verp was simply “to go forth”, or “to depart”, as the KJV translates it. It simply refers to a birth.

[ Edited: 09 January 2009 10:21 AM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 521 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 09 January 2009 03:04 PM

But “harm” is not qualified, so it could apply to both.

It does not need to be qualified because the mother could have miscarried in both cases, thus the harm only applies to her. The fetus is already harmed on account of the assault, and it was unthinkable in the ancient society in which the Hebrews lived that a fetus could survive such a violent attack as that described in Exodus. We’re going in circles. There is nothing more to be said unless you can contradict all the historical context that weighs in favor of my interpretation. Your analogies are incomparable due to the circumstance of a violent attack already being perpetrated on the woman and her baby.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 11:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 522 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

The woman could not have miscarried in both circumstances because no harm is done in the first.

We are, in fact, going in circles. Our argument is basically:

Nulono: It clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.

et cetera…

Your devotion to the mistranslation is almost religious in nature, which is strange because of all the other verses you could use. I’m putting you on ignore, because you don’t understand that “‘Harm’ only applies to the mother because she could’ve miscarried in either case because ‘harm’ only applies to the mother because she could’ve miscarried in either case because ‘harm’ only applies to the mother because she could’ve miscarried in either case because ‘harm’ only applies to the mother because she could’ve miscarried in either case because ‘harm’ only applies to the mother because…” is not a reasonable argument.

You also insist on citing the Bible for some odd reason, even though we are both atheists.

[ Edited: 09 January 2009 11:21 AM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 523 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24

As you can see, Nulono hired me a while back to babysit his children. Upon arriving at his house, and right after he had left, they were all begging for me to kill them before he returned. I left that night feeling a little sorry about their predicament. What should I do when I go back? Is it ever morally permissible to put a human being out of their misery in the circumstances they live in, however deplorable and degenerate?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2009 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 524 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

I see I put you on ignore for a good reason. Nice maturity.

But it is never moral to “put someone out of their ‘misery’” without their express permission. Even with thier permission, one must be sure they are in a reasonable mental state; sex with a drunk person is rape. Since being suicidal is generally considered a mental disorder, the anwer to your question is no.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2009 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 525 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 09 January 2009 08:01 PM

I see I put you on ignore for a good reason.

Enjoy the last conversation you may ever have—everyone else has already put you on their ignore list. And I can completely understand why they have done so without ever considering your last word syndrome.

And like fuck I was asking you for that moral advice. I don’t need moral advice from someone who supports pedophilia. I see you are quite the NAMBLA fan on that site. No wonder you are opposed to abortion so much: you want the kiddies all to yourself!

Profile
 
 
   
35 of 40
35
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed