I could give the example that a parent will set a bedtime for there children, but do the parents also have to follow that standard? Must they go to bed at the same time as the children.
No..but then again, there is a huge difference between a parent sending a child to bed and a god killing its creations (and making them go through an eternity of torture) because they didn't follow his rules.
the Old Testament is more brutal because God needed to move a certain group of people from one area to another and preserve their lineage so that Jesus could be born. God being God, on occasion gave His people the right to kill the people who would stand in their way.
Or god, being the omnipotent power that he is, could have just protected the people in harmless ways for all, so that Jesus could be born. Or just not care about the lineage..and just have Jesus born.
Jesus's birth has no need for lineage..just a host to birth him.
But, in all cases quoted, these deeds were being preformed against the will of the women/person and as a form of punishment.
Yet in today's society we are performing abortions not as punishment and on women who usually have the abortions of their own will.
So wait..abortion should only be condoned if done as punishment?
So..not only do we have oppression of woman in the form of no free will over their body during the pregnancy..but also the oppression of woman for they will have their child possibly aborted if they do something that would deem such a thing as proper punishment?
If God can create the humans why does He not have a right to destroy them?
A human can kill a pig and eat it. Humans have dominion over animals. Why cannot God have dominion over humans?
So god is allowed to be tyrannical towards those he supposedly "loves"?
Yes, hence why God in human form as Jesus does live up to the standard perfectly.
But god in god form (the hell am I saying right now...) doesn't.
Should dogs be required to do homework and get jobs and live up to the standards of humans?
See now, though, we aren't expecting god to "live up" to our standards..like we would a dog in your hypothetical situation. We are expecting that he would, as an omnipotent and omni-loving god, to at least meet the standards he created for us so that we could be good little human beings.
In fact, in this argument, humans would actually be the dogs, as we are the lesser form like them. That would make god the "humans". The only difference is, we are able to live up to some of the standards given by god (unlike in your situation, where a dog can, in now way, expect to live up to such standards), but he does not live up to those standards himself (unlike in your situation, where a human does live up to such standards)..instead he goes well below those standards, to the point that if he was judged by the rules he has in place, he would most likely go to hell.
Well..did I just say that?
You then give commentary on what the passages mean without any sources and expect the reader to accept that this is the only way the passage can be interpreted.
1) Welcome to the world of explications. The source is the passage.
2) But if taking at face value, as Mage did, then he is correct. All he initially stated is that they were instances within the Bible that approved of abortion (for god was the one enacting them).
you also do not present your credentials on how well you know this subject matter.
Appeal to accomplishment
Your initial commentary, as it stands, no sources, and no credentials is pure speculation and total nonsense.
See..but he doesn't need sources. He is explicating the passages..so they are the only sources he needs.
And again..stating that he needs credentials is an appeal to accomplishment.
