. Thus interpretations of scriptural extracts cut no ice, not least when they are decontextualised. You have hung a lot onto my reference to the Bible - rather too much, I think, given that it was with particular reference to abortion, a point you conceded. The point here is that any argument adduced by citing Biblical authority has no weight with me.
The notion of personhood has been contested for many years and will not be resolved here. I am content to politely reject your view in favour of a more widely accepted view - that the unborn are not persons.
I see that you love the Bible and set much store by it. I don't
It’s called logical reasoning. Rational reasoning. Logical argument. Premise, conclusion, assumptions, inferences, deductive reasoning, and the wise notion of comment on subject matter with sufficient knowledge and research to do so.
Th present situation less to do with love for the Bible and everything to do with what is said in the preceding paragraph.
Thus interpretations of scriptural extracts cut no ice, not least when they are decontextualised.
This is as germane to my argument as the price of tea in China. My argument did what you and your argument didn’t. My argument scrutinized the Hebrew meaning of the words used. It’s shocking, I know, the idea of the OT was composed in Hebrew, hence, when interpreting the OT look to the meaning of the Hebrew words used and consult dictionaries from the era for word usage that illuminates its meaning(s), INCLUDING meaning derived by use in contexts.
Which, by the way, that is exactly what my argument did. My argument looked to how the Hebrew was defined in Hebrew and then how the word was used elsewhere in the Bible. That gave me a foundation to rationally conclude a consistent meaning and the meaning for the word in Exodous. My argument also looked to the literal translation of the plain text of the verse. My analyzing is rooted in the evidence, the verse, the words, the meaning of the words. Your POV isn’t at all.
So, you’re bloviating by use of the word “decontextualoxed” is for show, it’s ostentatious, using a big word for the appearance you offer some ineluctable POV, but that word has no applicability to my argument and isn’t a correct characterization of my argument.
Resorting to SAT vocabulary words isn’t a rebuttal. A rebuttal is going to require something that your present modus operandi does not do, which is a rebuttal based on thr evidence and logic of the argument made.
You have hung a lot onto my reference to the Bible - rather too much, I think, given that it was with particular reference to abortion, a point you conceded.
Too the contrary, I have not. It was YOUR WORD CHOICE, when discussing abortion, prolife arguments, and the status of the unborn. The word “Bible” includes both the OT and NT. Hence, YOUR WORD CHOICE opened your POV up to a reply invoking the OT, which is part of the “Bible.”
The point here is that any argument adduced by citing Biblical authority has no weight with me
Who cares? The issue never was about YOU. The issue isn’t presently about YOU. The issue is your unsubstantiated, unsupported, lacking supporting evidence, commentary about the veracity of the prolife arguments, the status of the unborn, in relation to what is in the “Bible” and in “Christianity.”
The notion of personhood has been contested for many years and will not be resolved here.
So what? Something “contested” doesn’t mean a rational, logical, conclusion cannot exist or does not exist. Neither does “contested” demonstrate some conclusion, based on the evidence, cannot or doesn’t justify a belief to a reasonable degree of confidence some conclusion is true. Evolution is contested and that doesn’t demonstrate it is false doctrine. The origins of the universe are contested but that doesn’t establish the Big Bang is comic book material. How DNA came to exist is contested, along with the cell, and how life came to exist but that doesn’t mean some specific claim about how is false.
Evidence and logical reasoning are the basis for determining whether some claim is false, likely false, true, likely true, etcetera.
I am content to politely reject your view in favour of a more widely accepted view - that the unborn are not persons
My present POV is limited to the claim that your comments as to what the Bible does or doesn’t say about the status of the unborn, abortion, and the proflife arguments is erroneous, mistaken, very likely false, lacking any supporting evidence or reasoning. That’s my POV. And based on the evidence and reasoning, my claim is very likely correct.
Outside that specific and narrow context of our colloquy, I express presently no opinion as to the status of the unborn. Neither do I express any opinion whether the Bible’s status of the unborn, illuminated in my argument in a prior post, IS, SHOULD BE, or MUST BE the status of the unborn for wider society or the government.
