The title & short-link added Aug 18, 2018, because this post came up on a generic search for “Ohio Fatherhood Commission” which apparently pulled up all posts on “Ohio” including this one…], and it needed a Read-More link to enable better scrolling (i.e., show just an intro, not the entire post at first, unless you click to read more.  So it’s reformatted enough only to include the “Read-More” link in case it comes up again on a similar search and maybe clarify a few unclear phrases..

I still placed that Read-More link pretty far down; the subject matter remains relevant! I also might add an image from some missing organization (like the two mentioned in the title) logos referenced, either near the top, or where referenced in the post, to make its context at the time more obvious.  What I cannot afford to take time to do is clean up all the scripture quotes.  In 2012 I was still something of a novice (3 years) self-taught-html blogger. Nothing like what posts display as now.  But the content? I think the content was pretty right-on from early on…

As the prime “excuse for abuse” in my life (last third of it anyhow) — including my “excuse” for trying just a little harder than average to resolve the issues before separating has been “faith” and belief in the importance of marriage, and the redemptive qualities of God, while similarly HIS** excuse for every single type of abuse (when challenged) was that as a male, he was head of the household, period — this matter of spirituality vs. religion got a LOT of air time in my thinking over the years.  Then, after separation, it (my faith) was used to mock and belittle me (and others) in the family law system, while I absolutely know that my practice was not over the top and was marked throughout by a lifetime of tolerance and ability to get along with all kinds of people and groups professionally and personally.

{{**”HIS” referring to my batterer/husband/God-Jesus-Bible-talking husband, not God!//LGH 2018 clarification}}

• RELIGIOUS/DOMINIONIST/EVANGELIZE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, INCL. WAR, ADOPTION AND/OR FORCIBLE BREEDING PROGRAMS.  HATES THE “OTHER,” BUT CALLS IT LOVE.

• NONCONFRONTATIONAL, OBEDIENT AND STABLE WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEMS IN HOPE THE VANISHING SAFE ZONE BETWEEN ABOVE GROUPS OUTLASTS HIS/HER LIFETIME, AND IF POSSIBLE, OFFSPRING’S. LAYS LOW EXCEPT UNDER EXTREME & IMMEDIATE DURESS.  WALKS SOFTLY AND ATTEMPTS TO LEAVE A LIGHT FOOTPRINT.  TRUST OTHERS TO REFORM, OR DO THEIR JOBS RIGHT, AS THEY DO.

• BY VIRTUE OF CIRCUMSTANCE OR TEMPERAMENT (OR BOTH) HAVE BEEN EJECTED OUT OF TRADITIONAL CATEGORIES AND FIND THE ONLY SANE AND LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE TO BECOME ACTIVIST REPORTERS/CHALLENGERS/REFORMERS.  “DOORMAT” DOESNT WORK FOR THESE, EVER; THEY INTEND TO CHANGE SYSTEMS OF INANE CRUELTY.  

It’s the war between the groups in red that are of most concern.  They appear opposites but in truth are pretty well connected by love of money, power, prestige and a wonderful self-righteousness, at least when in a group.   When I speak of the “religious” group it’s inherent that religion is based on the root word for “tie.”  People are TIED together through common values, and sometimes so banded together to handle the basic hard conditions of life.

The top group in red seem to run in family lines and to run countries, and things like banks, economic systems, and wars.**  They are at their do NOT believe in “the resurrection” (but are not above of funding and manipulating well-networked groups who do) and make a sharp distinction between THEIR progeny and others’ progeny.  The latter are dispensable.  I have a post intended to talk about this, about some under-reported groups (though obviously someone has reported, or I wouldn’t know about them) with far wider influence than, say AFCC/CRC & the ones I typically blog on.   I became aware of these as an investigative reporter/researcher, simply pulling on threads til I saw where they crossed other threads, and where they came from, at least so far as I could pull in the short time of this blog’s existence.

These groups will seek to control two primary things:   1.  Language, which is the control of ideas, and discussion of ideas; and 2. Economy, meaning production of wealth and all that goes with it.   The more others can be conditioned (trained) to mimic or acquiesce to programs, the easier things are.  Alternately, the masses can be incited, in order to justify more control.  The subterranean nature of their dealings gives more freedom of operation, makes things simpler, as it were.

**My next post, “Time to Have This Talk” (or similar an alternate, very long title) is going to speak to that.

I am now by habit the group in BLUE, and can identify & connect with others who think and act this way.  Most of them have had a hard life, some since they were very young.  They are round pegs in square holes, know it, and don’t reside in holes, round OR square.

Typically, we’ve been ejected (spat out) from the normal places in life, but (to tell the truth), many can look back to childhood and see that this has been lifelong.  They have worked through and defined their own values.   I see some of these differences in my own children as well.  

A friend(?) of mine (we fight a lot), said it this way — she feels comfortable operating as a lone wolf and maintains connections with other lone wolves who don’t get along with each other.  She gets livid/very upset at groupthink / groupstupidity which is either leading others down dead ends (in respect to problems they supposedly want solved), and at these times, I duck out the back door to avoid friendly fire.  The unpredictability factor, I can’t incorporate into my life plan, either.  Similarly, I  know I’ve also behaved the same way when exceptionally frustrated at something just plain “WRONG” and destructive.  It’s the wrong and wildly expanding destructive part that gets to me – not whether or not it’s conforms to present norms.

Another thing in common with the “blue” people is that  — and I can think of several (four) people in my own life who function thus — is that they often experienced pretty bad treatment by their parents as a young child.  Either they rubbed those parents the wrong way, or they had more than average backbone, which irritated a dominant father, or in one case mother.  I have definitely irritated my own family line in this matter, although it’s simple enough to identify which parent I take after.

Some talk is out there about “indigo children,” but while this little description does apply, I really don’t like the concept of labeling people by their psychological attributes and if you say “Namaste” around me, I just labelled you — get out of my face!  That’s so “Berkeley.” . . . . 

Those in black, are survivors and producing fodder and income for both the other groups, with some left over for themselves and their own and maybe even some extra for charity.  These are normal, reasonably ethical and honest workers, (taken collectively) who accept most (though not all) of the status quo, and are often respected and well-integrated into their local communities.  They do not make waves and are not usually volatile, except individually when the pressure is too great, some may crack.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I know that in my marriage (which was the first time), there was something innate about me which pissed off that man. While as a single person and non-mother, I could flow between groups and balance participation, this situation was so “off the chart” that I had to change.  This change appears to be permanent, and I KNOW has also changed the way I see and respond to the world, namely, notice more things, and respond to them. Trust my intuition more and try to compromise less.

In the many years of attempting to get free from dangerous situations, or simply destructive ones, I have noticed that the people who could truly help me, were ONLY those in the blue category, who’d been through something similar and were no-holds-barred about speaking their mind on it, and acting to protect or intervene.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

NOTE:  Most of this was written yesterday, some today and some tinkering.  More tinkering isn’t going to improve the thing.  I took on the group from its theological attempt to justify the constitutional amendment, being shocked as I read, at how jumbled up the reasoning is.  This might not be apparent to those who aren’t too familiar with the context.  So, there is a lot of scripture quoted below, in rebuttal to the hacked-up version of scripture casually referenced in the rhetoric.

FYI, that casual & flippant handling of scripture shows a true disrespect for it.  People are just too busy with their agenda, or too lazy to spend some time in it, which is another reason I am no longer in the “attending” category.   I would learn more (and have) staying at home and reading the book, then, with prayer and intention, go out and practice what I read there.  In fact, it’s been a measurably more interesting and profitable lifestyle in the last few years since I made this decision.  Staying in the pews, and listening to the hack jobs on the book, or yet another lecture about women keeping silent in the church (if I’m overly participatory when participation is solicited from the front), is getting old.

That, and my knowledge that indeed it is a place, some of them, where predators go to pick up women my age who might be looking for relationship and tempted to fall for a Christian sorta guy.  Fact is, you become like people you hang out with, and if I want to hang out with some intelligent ideas, relevant now and relevant to the history of the world (at least in the West), resulting in understanding, let alone some stimulating conversation, among other things, I figured, how about with the author of the Book, which I can read in English thanks to the work and sacrifice of some very fine linguists and men of convictions, several of who gave their life for this privilege?

Two of these translaters (at least) had to virtually invent the language to accommodate it, and were influential thus to this day.  To understand this book and the history (and wars) over its translation and availability is to understand a good deal of the history of our world.   We have very little concept, it seems sometimes, of the amount of energy and dedication put into publishing it, the timing (invention of printing press) and how it spread.  How people translated from exile as fugitives  – – — and still got it done.

(University of Glasgow)

I copy two entries from here:

The Long Reign of the Latin Bible

For over one thousand years, the only Bible available in Western Europe was the Vulgate (meaning ‘in the vernacular’ or ‘in the language of the people’). This was St Jerome’s (c. 340-420) translation from the original biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek, into Latin, the spoken language of Italy and the Roman Empire. Jerome’s translation was one of  Western Christianity’s watershed events. The Vulgate has arguably been the most influential of all versions of Scripture, having been used by the Roman Catholic Church exclusively throughout its history until modern times.

Even after Latin ceased to be spoken or understood by ordinary people, the Vulgate retained exclusive status and authority in the Roman Catholic Church. Although understood only by a small minority of people in the Church and in society who could speak and write Latin, it remained the sole permitted Bible of the Church with a virtually sacred aura.

The Vulgate was first printed in 1455, by Johannes Gutenberg (c. 1397-1468) at Mainz in Germany (one of the 21 surviving complete copies is in the National Library of Scotland). Until the invention of printing, the Vulgate was copied by scribes, who could take months to complete just one copy.

A clandestine version of the Vulgate Bible in English circulated in manuscript form in England and parts of Scotland from the fourteenth century. This was associated with the names of John Wycliffe (c. 1330-1384) and John Purvey (c. 1354-1414), religious dissenters.

The Wycliffe Bible was groundbreaking and the first complete Bible in English. Done before printing with moveable type was invented, the texts circulated in manuscript form and many Wycliffite Bibles were miniatures to enhance their portability for use by itinerant preachers.

Wycliffe was a controversial theologian who systematically attacked the abuses, some doctrines and practices of the medieval Church, insisting that it should give up its worldly wealth. His teachings were condemned by the Pope and the English Catholic Church and he was declared heretical by the Church Council of Constance in 1415.

His controversial views were propagated by the Lollards, a heretical group remarkable for its demand to read the Bible in English. Yet since Wycliffe’s Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was of little interest to the later Reformers and classical scholars who wished to ‘get back to the original sources’ of Hebrew and Greek.

(LGH:   Wycliffe died a natural death, but so infuriated some that his bones were later dug up, burned and scattered! . . . .. )

Translations of the Reformers – Martin Luther, William Tyndale, and Myles Coverdale

The vernacular translation breakthrough was made by Martin Luther (1483-1546) with his German New Testament of 1522 directly from Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. This bestseller stimulated translations into many other languages, such as French, English, Italian, Swedish and Spanish. Luther, the initiator of the Reformation, grasped the opportunity to translate the New Testament whilst in hiding as a religious outlaw in Wartburg Castle. He completed the work, written in contemporary and idiomatic German, over six weeks in 1522. In collaboration with others he published the German Old Testament in 1534.

Luther’s exemplary translation of the New Testament was enormously influential and served as a model for William Tyndale’s English rendering. Inspired by Luther, the martyred Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) was responsible for the first English translation of the New Testament directly from Greek, printed abroad in 1525. He used the Greek editions of Erasmus and included a translation of Luther’s famous preface to his German New Testament laying down the rudiments of Reformation scriptural doctrine. Tyndale’s New Testament translation determined about 80% of the vocabulary and expressions in the 1611 King James Bible.  A Protestant like Tyndale, Myles Coverdale’s (1488-1569) Bible was also published in an unidentified and clandestine manner while he was in religious exile on the Continent, although the year 1535 is stated, and the preface to the reader is in Coverdale’s name. It was the first complete, printed Bible in English, and includes the Apocrypha. Although the New Testament and the first five books of the Old Testament are mostly William Tyndale’s translation from the Greek and Hebrew (published 1530), Coverdale did not translate the rest of the Scriptures from the original language. As stated in the title, he availed mostly from new Latin and German versions. It was dedicated to King Henry VIII (1491-1547), referred to as ‘Defendour of the Fayth, and under God the chef and suppreme heade of the Church of Englonde’.

[[END of quote from the University of Glasgow material]]

What I put down below doesn’t hold a candle, but I hope ignites some thinking, on the matter.

PART 2

(2)  PERSONHOOD OHIO.com, “parsed”

http://www.personhoodohio.com/ph/

Would you want someone who cites Bible (but can’t read it straight, and doesn’t quote it straight either, or in context)?

They seem about as accurate when citing the number of abortions per year in their own state.

FYI, There are 165 corporations with the name “fathers” (I only searched on that), in OHIO alone, many of them “cancelled” etc.  Some are religious, but many appear to be addressing this problem we have with the fights engendered by state-incentivized child support collections in combo with the custody courts.  There is ALSO a movement to outlaw no-fault divorce in Ohio, however, this was pushed by out-of-state organizations (Can you spell, National Council on Family Relations?) However two in Franklin County, are active, with the acronym “FACE” for “Fathers And Children’s Equity.”  The one above is not listed, that I can see.  Several were cancelled for simply failing to file renewals.   Ohio Practitioners Network for Fathers & Families (formed in 2007) still is active and I’ve blogged them; they helped lobby for this fatherhood commission.

Not to mention “personhood for fertilized eggs.”  This does not include poultry:

OHIO SUPREME COURT ASKED TO BLOCK PERSONHOOD FROM MOVING FORWARD

01/12/2012 — Healthy Families Ohio, a coalition fighting a proposal that would establish legal rights for fertilized eggs, asked the Ohio Supreme Court today to block supporters from gathering the signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot until changes are made.

Opponents argue that the measure should be split in two because it seeks to change two sections of the Ohio Constitution and they contend that the summary used to explain its impact to voters is not “fair and truthful.’’

Pushed by Personhood Ohio, the proposed constitutional amendment seeks to give fertilized eggs the same legal and constitutional rights as people. It would ban abortion and contains no exemptions for victims of rape and incest. Further, it could outlaw many commonly used forms of birth control and severely restrict safe and effective infertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization (IVF).

The lawsuit comes after Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine **ruled the amendment summary is fair and accurate, clearing the way for Personhood Ohio to begin gathering the 385,425 valid signatures needed to put the proposed amendment before voters in November.

In the lawsuit, Healthy Families Ohio said, “By certifying the summary of the Proposed Amendment is fair and truth, the Attorney General abused his discretion and/or clearly disregarded applicable law.’’

 

**MIKE DeWINE (I’m not from Ohio and didn’t know):

While others were on the sidelines, Mike DeWine has, for over 30 years, fought to protect the unborn. He was one of a handful of U.S. Senators to lead the charge to ban the horrific partial-birth abortion practice. DeWine wrote and pushed for passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which for the first time, created a federal law recognizing that an unborn child is a separate victim when the mother is attacked.(1) And, he wrote the “DeWine Amendment” each Congress to prohibit federal tax dollars from being used to pay for insurance to provide abortion coverage.

---

 (1) This has some merit.  In rocky or abusive marriages/relationships, it’s often when the woman becomes pregnant that she is attacked; it changes the relationship’s focus on the man.  There’s something truly sick about attacking a pregnant woman; it shows a total disregard for what’s happening inside her.   However, the Bible quote cited by the Ohio pro-life group handles the situation a little differently than treating it as a double-murder.

Mike DeWine is Catholic.  He has not moved since 1972, graduation from law school (and I note he graduated from law school before most of the laws against domestic violence were gathering steam, or written). He has eight children.   His wife also was in law school; I wonder what she’s up to.  Did she enter it anticipating practicing law, or practicing reproduction.

However, an article from 2012 states he’s advocating speeding up adoptions for children “languishing” in foster care.

They are doing more than “languishing” — they are being overly drugged (to control them), some are running away, some are beaten, and some are dying.  I wonder would his tune change if it were HIS family, all 8, who [if they]: ran afoul of the family court system, of an overly zealous CPS worker, or [if they] were targeted for trouble by virtue of being with a single African American biological mother, or even a married African-American couple– like the ones who suffered family breakup when their daughter’s medical problem was misdiagnosed as child abuse, which just so happened to coincide with a newly funded program to prevent shaken baby syndrome at PSU?

(The “Fatherhood Commission” in Ohio specifically targets counties with a high percentage of female-headed households.  Read the law!)

Sourcewatch on DeWine:

On July 29, 2005, he was one of only two Republican senators to vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which banned lawsuits from being filed against gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for the misuse of their products. DeWine has also broken with his party on issues such as funding for Headstart programs, the federal minimum wage, and drilling in ANWR. DeWine is strongly pro-life and voted in favor of the “Defense of Marriage” Amendment.[2]

Iraq War

DeWine voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in Oct. 2002.

Between HEALTHY FAMILIES & PERSONHOOD OHIO (at first look):

What’s confusing unless you’re there and aware, is that the very people who do NOT respect individual rights — only women as breeders and parts of a family — are PERSONHOOD Ohio, the group actually sticking up for the rights of grown individuals, including rape victims! (Hint:  this includes by incest) are called healthy FAMILIES  understands the concept of a woman, an adult and for whatever reasons, having-had-intercourse (without getting to technical about in-vitro, etc.) female does NOT exist as a full-status human being with rights over her own body, which in some cases was already violated by assault!

The site Personhood Ohio right now is featuring a picture of the late President Reagan among their other slide-show items, and cites (on the home page) that life begins at conception, in part because the Bible says so.

Despite ART, many centuries of it (see Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo, God creating man with a touch of the finger) and tradition (millennia of it), the basics of language tell us in more than one language that the word for Spirit is related to the word for breath, as in “perspire, inspire, expire,”  — get it?

Let me show you what great readers were the people who brought us, among other things, “Men are from Dirt, Women are from Men.” — which author IS on the HHS Marriage Promotion Stream, or was!  (search my blog!).

IF we are truly going to have this out the whole 9 yards, let the courageous “personhood ohio” try to pass an amendment saying the first woman, Eve, came from the side of an anesthetized Adam, literally.    (We know from other places, like John 6, John 3, at least in the words of the author of that gospel, that even Jesus Christ had the same trouble– with followers, religious ones especially, taking literally, physically, things that were meant symbolically, resulting in charges that the early Christians were cannibals (i.e., eat my flesh, drink my blood).  Wars, people, wars, were fought over that one alone!  People were tortured, burned, (drawn, quartered and sometimes beheaded), became fugitives, imprisoned, “abused” for being on the right side at the wrong time.

But here they are, claiming in public and trying to get it passed, because (allegedly) “The Bible Tells Me So,” which I assert it doesn’t.  Idiots!

A Case for the Ohio Personhood Amendment

By Patrick Johnston, D.O.

Table of Contents:What is the Ohio Personhood Amendment?
Restoring “Personhood” to Those Unlawfully Deprived of It
Scientific Fact Proves When Human Life Begins
The Bible Proves When Life Begins  ***
The Supreme Court Agrees that the Personhood Strategy Would Protect the Preborn Nationwide
Distinguishing Between Law and Lawlessness
Identifying the Smoke and Mirrors Arguments of the Abortion Advocates
False Remedies that Perpetuate the Holocaust
Why Ohio?
A Warning for Ohio
Those Who Do Not Learn from History Are Bound to Repeat It
The Ohio Personhood Amendment: The Remedy

This is a totally brilliant concept, I guess based on CHAPTERs 1 and 2 of Genesis, the FIRST book of Bible, i.e., 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.”  (KJV) and, in a little more detail:

The first verses of the book associate the term “create” with “the spirit of God,” as in:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was [=”became”: see “was 1961“] without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

(BlueletterBible.org — since “bible.cc” appears to have moved or eliminated their hyperlinked interlinear showing phonetic representations of the words):

Gen 1:27

So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347created 1254 he them.

Notice the repetition of the (same) word “created” in association with man, male & female — which was associated with the creation of the heavens and the earth, in close proximity to “the spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters.”   It’s a “Language” thing.

Genesis 2:4ff begins another account with a different interest and focus.  I’m sure a child of 10 reading this aloud could figure it out, and perceptive ones — along with atheists — would at least notice that the word “create” is not the word “formed.”  Sorry for all the scripture (and statistics), but I do have a point!

	Gen 2:3
And God 430 blessed 1288 the seventh 7637 day3117, and sanctified 6942 it: because 3588 that in it he had rested 7673 from all his work 4399which God 430 created 1254 and made 6213.  (Closure.  Now, new topic, after that intro 1:1-2:3)
	Gen 2:4	¶	These 428 [are] the generations 8435 of the heavens 8064 and of the earth 776 when they were created 1254 , in the day 3117 that the LORD 3068 God 430 made 6213 the earth 776 and the heavens 8064,
	Gen 2:5		And every plant 7880 of the field 7704 before2962 it was in the earth 776, and every herb 6212of the field 7704 before 2962 it grew 6779 : for3588 the LORD 3068 God 430 had not 3808 caused it to rain 4305 upon the earth 776, and [there was] not 369 a man 120 to till 5647 the ground127.
	Gen 2:6		But there went up 5927 a mist 108 from 4480 the earth 776, and watered 8248 the whole face 6440of the ground 127.
	Gen 2:7		And the LORD 3068 God 430 formed 3335 man 120[of] the dust 6083 of 4480 the ground 127, and breathed 5301(NAPHACH)  into his nostrils 639 the breath5397 of life 2416; and man 120 became a living2416 soul 5315(NEPHESH).
	Gen 2:8	¶	And the LORD 3068 God 430 planted 5193 a garden 1588 eastward 6924 in Eden 5731; and there 8033 he put 7760 the man 120 whom 834 he had formed 3335 .

Spirit-Create // a man FORMED – Breath into Nostrils = Living Soul. . . .

Jesus, regarding “spirit” (again, in John, chapter 17).  “The flesh profiteth nothing; spirit gives life; his words are spirit and life.”

Jhn 6:63

It is 2076 the spirit 4151 that quickeneth 2227; the flesh 45613756 profiteth 5623 nothing 3762: the words 4487 that 3739 I1473 speak 2980 unto you 5213, [they] are 2076 spirit 4151, and2532 [they] are 2076 life 2222.

Worship of God — in spirit and in truth.  The word spirit tied to the word “truth.”  God seeks people to worship Him this way, because He is Spirit (spoken to the “woman at the well,” (Samaritan woman):

Jhn 4:23

But 235 the hour 5610 cometh 2064, and 2532 now 3568 is 2076, when 3753 the true 228 worshippers 4353 shall worship 4352the Father 3962 in 1722 spirit 4151 and 2532 in truth 225: for2532 1063 the Father 3962 seeketh 2212 such 5108 to worship4352 him 846.

Below is the exact phrase.
Jhn 4:24	God 2316 [is] a Spirit 4151: and 2532 they that worship 4352 him846 must 1163 worship 4352 [him] in 1722 spirit 4151 and 2532 intruth 225.

– – – – – – – – – –

etc.   So here we are, PERSONHOOD OHIO, and what a mess.  Here’s their explanation, Bill of Rights and history of the founding of our country notwithstanding, that somehow, the rest of the population IS supposed to take their version of the Bible, and write it into law, when the rest of (us) (others) (commonsense) says, you put two Christians even from the same congregation in the same room, and you’d be lucky to get them to agree.  For example, ask them should their pastor report child abuse when he hears about it, and if so, whose life is more important?  The (tithes-paying) abuser or the (innocent) kid?  The group is KNOWN for disagreeing with each other among themselves, but suddenly uniting when a MORE different heresy involving their behaviors, is in question. THen suddenly, the spiritual superiority is pulled out of the back wallet and posted on the web.

And here it is, in an effort to make even teenaged or minor rape victims produce a child for someone’s programs, and if possible find that teenaged (or middle-aged!) father and create an attending family out of them.   Attendance and work ethic = more tithes for the coffer.

RE:

“The Bible Proves When Life Begins“

It is a verifiable fact of the Holy Bible that life begins in the womb. The Bible confirms repeatedly that a woman is pregnant with a “child” – not “products of conception”, not “a blob of tissue”. *** {{note:  Paper Tiger logical fallacy, to lend more credibility}} In Genesis 25, Rebekah’s “children” struggled within her. In Psalm 139, the inspired writer insists that he existed in his mother’s womb** – not a non-living, non-human “product of conception” that became him later on. Pregnant women were considered “great with child“, and Jesus’ mother Mary was found “with child of the Holy Ghost.”

Let’s look at the (eloquent, filled with rhetorical questions) Psalm 139 — and it’s talking about the omnipresent spirit of God KNOWING David, including knowing his thoughts, his inner most heart, which seems rather lost in this argument!  It’s beautiful writing and we know that these psalms were for singing, for expression of the panorama of human emotions and conditions, in response to this God; it’s also known that David was a musician:

IN CONTEXT (sorry about all the extra “buttons” in the left column):  The psalm is about the LORD knowing David inside out.   It is not talking about human reproductive processes.  It also has repetitions, hyperbole, etc. which is lost if one references a piece of it out of context.  Talk about missing the main point!

	Psa 139:1	¶	[[To the chief Musician 5329 , A Psalm 4210 of David 1732.]] O LORD 3068, thou hast searched2713 me, and known 3045 [me].
	Psa 139:2		Thou knowest 3045 my downsitting 3427 and mine uprising 6965 , thou understandest 995my thought 7454 afar off 7350.
	Psa 139:3		Thou compassest 2219 my path 734 and my lying down 7252, and art acquainted 5532[with] all my ways 1870.
	Psa 139:4		For [there is] not a word 4405 in my tongue3956, [but], lo, O LORD 3068, thou knowest3045 it altogether.
	Psa 139:5		Thou hast beset 6696 me behind 268 and before 6924, and laid 7896 thine hand 3709upon me.
	Psa 139:6		[Such] knowledge 1847 [is] too wonderful 63836383 for me; it is high 7682 , I cannot 3201[attain] unto it.
	Psa 139:7		Whither shall I go 3212 from thy spirit 7307? or whither shall I flee 1272 from thy presence6440?
	Psa 139:8		If I ascend up 5266 into heaven 8064, thou [art] there: if I make my bed 3331 in hell 7585, behold, thou [art there].
	Psa 139:9		[If] I take 5375 the wings 3671 of the morning7837, [and] dwell 7931 in the uttermost parts319 of the sea 3220;
	Psa 139:10		Even there shall thy hand 3027 lead 5148 me, and thy right hand 3225 shall hold 270 me.

The presence of God is associated with the presence of his spirit.    Nothing is hid from him.   Spirit is also associated elsewhere (I Corinthians 2) with knowing, and opposed to the natural (flesh, material, etc.) type of knowledge, or man.  You should check it out, it also talks baout different types of wisdom.  He is talking still about knowledge, including foreknowledge, and it’s David in particular saying this.  In context, David was indeed “chosen” of God as the next king of Israel, and so anointed by a prophet, Samuel, to replace the king Saul, who had rebelled.   this is later described in the book of Acts as God finding “a man after his own heart” (in context, shortly before the first known martyr for the name of Jesus Christ, and testamony to the resurrection, who was stoned to death shortly after speaking them — which some (while we’re on the topic) young women, rape victims, are TO THIS DAY in certain cultures.

Again, this is not talking about “existence” but God’s knowing, including foreknowledge. The Ohio group writes:  “In Psalm 139, the inspired writer insists that he existed in his mother’s womb**”For one, this is talking about a particular and notable individual, namely a prophet.  For another, by this same there must be reincarnation (surely not a topic for legislation?) because God has foreknowledge of ALL his elect, so perhaps “personhood” began before your Mama was born too.  But that’s irrelevant to the point.Anyhow, there is in the Bible, more than one form of life. Speaking of the resurrection (again, not a topic for constitutional amendments, or so I at least sure hope!) in I Corinthian 15, the apostle Paul, a better arguer than these present, finally lays it out to people who do NOT believe in said resurrection (something he’d personally staked his life on):

After laying out the gospel, again, and clarifying that his hope in Christ is about a future life, not this one, he summarizes:

	1Cr 15:34		Awake 1594 to righteousness 1346, and 2532 sin264 not 3361; for 1063 some 5100 have 2192 not the knowledge 56 of God 2316: I speak 3004[this] to 4314 your 5213 shame 1791.
	1Cr 15:35	¶	But 235 some 5100 [man] will say 2046 , How 4459are 1453 0 the dead 3498 raised up 1453 ? and1161 with what 4169 body 4983 do they come2064 ?

The same crowd is carrying out the same argument, right now, about how they are born.   Next words, “THOU FOOL!”

	1Cr 15:36		[Thou] fool 878, that which 3739 thou 4771sowest 4687 is 2227 0 not 3756 quickened 2227 , except 3362 it die 599 :
	1Cr 15:37		And 2532 that which 3739 thou sowest 4687 , thou sowest 4687 not 3756 that body 4983 that shall be 1096 , but 235 bare 1131 grain 2848, it may chance 1487 5177 of wheat 4621, or 2228 of some 5100 other 3062 [grain]:
	1Cr 15:38		But 1161 God 2316 giveth 1325 it 846 a body 4983as 2531 it hath pleased him 2309 , and 2532 to every 1538 seed 4690 his own 2398 body 4983.

He then clarifies, again, that the gospel is dealing with the resurrection and attending changes and in order.  NOtice the parallels and repetition, contrasting opposites; making it clear for those of simple understanding who seem confused on the matter.  I can imagine a person talking as if to a child, no insult meant to children:  All the qualities listed after “it is raised in” refer to spiritual power in resurrection.

	1Cr 15:42		So 3779 also 2532 [is] the resurrection 386 of the dead 3498. It is sown 4687 in 1722 corruption5356; it is raised 1453 in 1722 incorruption 861:
	1Cr 15:43		It is sown 4687 in 1722 dishonour 819; it is raised1453 in 1722 glory 1391: it is sown 4687 in 1722weakness 769; it is raised 1453 in 1722 power1411:
	1Cr 15:44		It is sown 4687 a natural 5591 body 4983; it is raised 1453 a spiritual 4152 body 4983. There is2076 a natural 5591 body 4983, and 2532 there is2076 a spiritual 4152 body 4983.
	1Cr 15:45		And 2532 so 3779 it is written 1125 , The first4413 man 444 Adam 76 was made 1096 1519 a living 2198 soul 5590; the last 2078 Adam 76 [was made] 1519 a quickening 2227 spirit 4151.
	1Cr 15:46		Howbeit 235 that [was] not 3756 first 4412 which is spiritual 4152, but 235 that which is natural5591; and afterward 1899 that which is spiritual4152.

It also clarifies:  FIRST natural (Adam, a living soul) the last Adam, a “quickening spirit.”  (referring to Jesus as “the last Adam”).  A lifegiving Spirit.

NATURAL first, SPIRITUAL second.  (These guys don’t believe Jesus Christ was of the same nature as Adam anyhow, which is bound to confuse the order, even though Genesis specifically spells out that God “saw” his garden lacked a man to till it, so he made one!   (i.e., foreknowledge).

Now let’s go back to that substance of David and what relationship, if any, it bears to all fetuses, all fertilized eggs.  :

	Psa 139:13		For thou hast possessed 7069 my reins 3629: thou hast covered 5526 me in my mother’s 517womb 990.
	Psa 139:14		I will praise 3034 thee; for I am fearfully 3372[and] wonderfully made 6395 : marvellous 6381[are] thy works 4639; and [that] my soul 5315knoweth 3045 right well 3966.
	Psa 139:15		My substance 6108 was not hid 3582 from thee, when I was made 6213** in secret 5643, [and] curiously wrought 7551 in the lowest parts8482 of the earth 776.
	Psa 139:16		Thine eyes 5869 did see 7200 my substance, yet being unperfect 1564; and in thy book 5612all [my members] were written 3789 , [which] in continuance 3117 were fashioned 3335 , when [as yet there was] none 259 of them.
	Psa 139:17		How precious 3365 also are thy thoughts 7454unto me, O God 410! how great 6105 is the sum 7218 of them!

The word “made” (verse 14) it says is:

to be distinct, marked out, be separated, be distinguished

a) (Niphal)

1) to be distinct, be separated, be distinguished

2) to be wonderful

b) (Hiphil) to make separate, set apart

Which assuredly this prophet, according to the Book, was, to the point that Jesus Christ is referred to as “the son of David” although genealogically, it was several generations later.   I am actually a little pissed off to even have to bring this up in the context of CONTRACT WITH AMERICA, WELFARE REFORM, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, AND FIXING SOCIETY’S PROBLEMS THROUGH EXTORTIONIST CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEMS, AND PATRONIZING WELFARE INSTITUTIONS.   Aren’t you a little irritated with me for bringing up bible at “familycourtmatters”?  But I wish to make it very clear, that people who can’t read their own scriptures straight –and don’t respect people’s right to atheism, let alone a little privacy, based probably on watching Christian behavior and groupthink  — will also misappropriate, cite out of context, alter and in general ignore legislative processes too, while attempting to dominate them.  And I think that’s important.

---

---

I am not a fan of casual abortion, and I’ve seen its influence firsthand (caused our family a bunch of trouble, when the person who aborted had a sudden “change of heart” on seeing our children, then set about trying to control their futures in an INappropriate way — which of course ‘necessitated’ eliminating parent influence (BOTH parents’ influence) in their lives.  I was used by this (couple) basically as a brood mare, and they have been historically furious when I showed up with some, pardon me, spirit, and speaking, walking, talking and saying NO!  and Mind your Limits!  

There is a proverb that indeed compares a barren womb to the grave, and something that is NEVER satisfied.  There’s some truth SOMEtimes to this, but it can’t be legislated and shouldn’t!  Especially not by such hypocrites.

“The Bible Proves When Life Begins”  (Thou fool! What kind of life?)*

 CONTINUED:

“Some have argued that since Adam did not begin to live until God breathed life into his nostrils, then therefore no one begins to live until they breathe air.”

 What they’re referring to is “and man became a living soul” (versus “begin to live.”).  After this image of God breathing into man, i can see why many might be confused.  Paul has to spell it out repeatedly; this is from earlier in his letter to the Corinthians, who (he notes I Cor 12) were formerly Gentiles, and in general couldn’t connect the dots . . . .    This a section of I Cor 2 which seems to apply:  It is talking about foreknowledge, and the difference between spiritual and natural (the word for “natural” resembles the word for “psychology” and refers to “soul” as opposed to “spirit,” namely, holy spirit, which is a gift from God).  Moreover, these are matters for within the community, not for the community to impose upon all!

9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, {{i.e., physical observation based on the senses}} neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with {{or, by means of}} spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Which is probably fair to say includes those involved in “Personhood Ohio.”  By the way, the word “personhood” (like the word “tri-une”) does not appear in the Bible, nor does the phrase “The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man.”   It does declare all men “of one blood,” which genetically is probably fair to say; public television likes to air people who trace back their own roots.  IN general a lot of the history of “man” has been to what degree he declares other parts of mankind subhuman based on superficial differences, like skin, hair, or the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.  Or, failing to subscribe to as confused a reading of the scriptures as whoever rules the throne currently, which is why we have a Bill of Rights, no?  ??

Spirit, gift, create, know & foreknow, worship, presence of God / Spirit of God, no spirit, doesn’t perceive the things of God, etc.   These things are NOT matters for legislation upon all. And, if you get right down to it, this PersonOhio is not a movement born from love for the unborn, but from fear of being outbred by certain sectors of society and coming up short in the general elections (or when the hat is passed), in addition to hatred of certain segments of society, and fear of women’s independence from their reproductive function.

This is the description:  “Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites:   You pay tithes of mint and anise, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.”  (true then, true now of a different set).  Or, talk of people drawing near with their mouths, but not their heart.  It’s all over the scripture.

Here’s how they get rid of the pattern that soul, physical life begins with the breath — Adam was the exception, pay no attention to this foundational chapter of the whole book!   God didn’t want His people to take it seriously:

Some have argued that since Adam did not begin to live until God breathed life into his nostrils, then therefore no one begins to live until they breathe air. However, God created Adam differently than he created the rest of humanity. He created Adam as an adult without a mother or a human father. The circumstances of his creation have no bearing on the creation of his posterity.** Moreover, although children in the womb do not breathe air into their lungs, they do require air to survive, and that air is diffused in their bloodstream from the air in the mother’s lungs. (*)

**See I Corinthians 15.  Apparently the apostle Paul thought it did, as he drew a direct comparison & contrast. Apparently at least one of the writers of the gospel also did, as they cited the generations from Adam to David and from David to Christ.

(*) which information about the lungs was described by a man that Calvin betrayed and caused to be slowly burned alive at the stake, because he did not believe in the Trinity. Michael Servetus, and I blogged this.  Now, the same crew is going to quote this scientific fact which wouldn’t have been discovered if he’d not had that insatiable curiosity and sense of observation. From that link:

Michael Servetus (1509 or 1511-October 27, 1553), a Spaniard martyred in the Reformation for his criticism of the doctrine of the trinity and his opposition to infant baptism, has often been considered an early unitarian. . . . Widespread aversion to Servetus’ death has been taken as signaling the birth in Europe of religious tolerance, a principle now more important to modern Unitarian Universalists than anti-trinitarianism. Servetus is also celebrated as a pioneering physician. He was the first to publish a description of the blood’s circulation through the lungs.

Another nonTrinitarian persecuted for it had more discoveries about what was circulating there:  Priestley, fast forward a few centuries, and what’s more, he was apparently raised without his biological father in the home.  Although she is a “Mrs.” no mention is made of her husband in directing his education, which apparently turned out just fine, starting with study of languages!   From “woodrow.org“

(blogger note: I added some lines not in the quote to force paragraph breaks where, this older version? of WordPress kept stripping them out. I often do this in my posts, particularly where it’s my own text not someone else’s being quoted).

The great men of science of today stand on the shoulders of giants. Joseph Priestley was one such intellectual “giant” whose works laid the foundation for that branch of science which we now call Chemistry.

---

Although Priestley is best known for his experiments with gases especially that which we now call oxygen, he was extraordinarily prolific in his writings on other areas of intellectual endeavors. He had important contributions in the fields of education, moral philosophy, theology, metaphysics, political economy, history and physical science.

---

Joseph Priestley was born at Fieldhead, in the parish of Birstal, not far from Leeds, in the northern English county of Yorkshire, on March 13, 1733 according to the Old Style Calendar, the Gregorian calendar not coming into use until 1751, after which he celebrated on March 24. He was the oldest of the six children – four sons and two daughters – of Jonas Priestley, a dresser and finisher of cloth and Mary Swift, a farmer’s daughter. Mary, having children so fast, sent Joseph as an infant to live at his maternal grandfather’s farm some miles away, returning to his father’s house after his mother’s death only to be adopted by his childless Aunt Sarah (Mrs. John Keighly, his father’s sister) when he was nine. It was at the Keighly household that he was exposed to discussions of theological questions and to liberal political attitudes for many of the dissenting ministers of the neighborhood were welcome there. He remained with his aunt until her death in 1764. (ca. AGE 13)

---

During his boyhood, Joseph went to the local schools where he learned Greek and Latin at an early age, and during school holidays, Hebrew. In his mid teens he fell seriously ill with tuberculosis of the lungs, was forced to drop out of school, and for a time abandoned his plan of entering the ministry. As he gathered strength after his illness, he taught himself** French, Italian, and German and learned Chaldean, Syrian and Arabic. Privately, he also learned the rudiments of geometry, algebra and mathematics.

---

Both languages and math have an inherent logic (as does scripture), perhaps our schools today would do better to teach more of them, and less of forced “values” indoctrination.  Kids are natural language learners, but somehow, we’re having trouble turning out kids literate in English ???

**Notice also Priestley’s eagerness to learn!  Doesn’t sound like someone had to whip him into shape or bribe him, as do our “fatherhood programs” into a work ethic, or obtaining some marketable skills.  Times have definitely changed…

Restoring “Personhood” to Those Unlawfully Deprived of It

Our American forefathers stated in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

You have the right to life and liberty because you are created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26-27). *** Not because you are wanted, not because you are fully developed, not because of your size, not because of the circumstances surrounding your conception, and not because of where you live – your rights come from God. You possess these rights by virtue of His law which forbids others to assault you, steal from you, or kill you. Moreover, your God-given rights are inalienable; that is, irrevocable except for punishment for a crime.

When precisely were you “created in the image of God”? When did your life begin? When did you first have the right to live?

One of the most convincing passages proving that the preborn had full human status is found in Exodus 21:22-24.

	Hbr 4:12		For 1063 the word 3056 of God 2316 [is] quick 2198, and 2532 powerful 1756, and 2532 sharper 5114than 5228 any 3956 twoedged 1366 sword 3162, piercing 1338 even to 891 the dividing asunder3311 of soul 5590 and 5037 2532 spirit 4151, and5037 2532 of the joints 719 and 2532 marrow 3452, and 2532 [is] a discerner 2924 of the thoughts1761 and 2532 intents 1771 of the heart 2588.
	Hbr 4:13		Neither 2532 3756 is there 2076 any creature 2937that is not manifest 852 in his 846 sight 1799: but1161 all things 3956 [are] naked 1131 and 2532opened 5136 unto the eyes 3788 of him 846 with4314 whom 3739 we have 2254 to do 3056.

Severe penalties for murder particularly intentional murder, which is different than accidental:

12	¶ He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. Lev. 24.17
13	And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. Num. 35.10-34 · Deut. 19.1-13 ·Josh. 20.1-9
14	But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.{{sounds like the Lord will personally deal with pre-meditated murder}}
15	¶ And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.{{PERSONHOOD OHIO, any comments?? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}
16	¶ And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Deut. 24.7 {{that should reduce the human trafficking trade….}}
17	¶ And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Lev. 20.9 · Mt. 15.4 · Mk. 7.10

OK, now that we have the context, there are circumstances in which, under the law, it’s permissible and even “the law” (Thou SHALT) to kill children.  And adults.  Even though they are all (allegedly) created in the image of God.  This is within a community, within Israel — and is not talking about the entire world…   Context, context!

18	¶ And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or withhisfist, and he die not, but keepethhisbed:
19	if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smotehimbe quit: only he shall payforthe loss of his time, and shall causehimto be thoroughly healed.

Surely we see parallels today, in damages, “tort” law, etc.

Now here they are when smiting a servant results in death — is it a “life for a life” there?

22	¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit departfrom 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 judgesdetermine.

I don’t know what “her fruit depart from her” but I know it doesn’t call it a “preborn” and it also calls it HER fruit.  Not her child.  The husband gets to set the fine, and judges are involved.  This may refer to premature delivery — because that fruit departed from her, and the mischief may mean either whether the “Fruit” survives, or whether she is injured to the point can’t bear more — at this point, I don’t know.

23	And ifanymischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24	eye for eye, tooth for tooth,Lev. 24.19, 20 · Deut. 19.21 · Mt. 5.38 hand for hand, foot for foot,
25	burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

DEUT 19:21……

19	And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20	breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: Ex. 21.23-25 · Deut. 19.21 · Mt. 5.38 as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to himagain.

Sounds like “mischief”means physical injury or disfigurement.  The next verses (in Exodus) next address disfiguring servants.  No one said this book wasn’t orderly! Here it goes, if a MAN smite a manservant and disfigurement, the punishment is, the person goes free (i.e., he loses what profit they’d have brought him).  Eye, or tooth.  In today’s terms, serious physical injury (for DV) distinguishes between felony & misdemeanor level (in my state).  it’s a moot point because typically they go to family law, or the case is dropped anyhow:

26	¶ And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.
27	And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

That’s criminal negligence, and the punishment is death to the owner of the ox.  No mention is made of what happens if he also has a family and children.  he was careless.  No animal training or batterers intervention classes for this!BUT — he may have a chance to pay his way out of being put to death in this situation:

30	If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31	Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

SEE?  Biblical ERA — at least a piece of it, when it comes to animals that kill, there is some punitive deterrence.

Of course, again, slaves are a different matter and in a different category:

32	If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

It rather does center around business expense and damages, don’t you think?  However manservants and maidservants were definitely above beasts of burden.  Also note:  How many people do you think it takes to stone an ox to death?  One or two?  I think there’s a lesson in there, in the spectacle, to other possibly careless owners.  cf. in our day, perhaps, drunk driving?   ??

33	¶ And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
34	the owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
35	¶ And if one man’s ox hurt another’s that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
36	Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

It seems that this LORD doesn’t like negligence or poor stewardship which harms others, even their animals.  However, there’s not too severe punishment on a man that actually beats a manservant or maidservant TO DEATH.   In the whole context, the section about causing a miscarriage and injury after doesn’t say “and if the child die or is born disfigured,” and it takes up less verbiage than the sections on servants and the sections on beasts of burden.   ! ! !

Seeing that spelled out, here’s the Ohio Group’s summary of the same section — the exact same section.  I’ll precede with “PO”

PO:  “The passage says that if a man carelessly injures a pregnant woman”

PO:   “and she has a premature delivery, yet no lasting harm follows to the mother or the child,”

PO:   “he shall be punished for his carelessness as the judges determine. However, if the mother or child are injured or killed,”

It says nothing about carelessness or HOW they hurt her.  The condition invoking the penalty is simply that they hurt her, resulting in her fruit departing.  Stop adding words!

Does “mischief follow” mean “be injured or killed” and did it say “mother or child”?    ???  I too could prove anything if I misquote and ad lib, especially after all this time in the courts, I have some good examples to learn from, if that were my practice or intent!  (See end of the bible for what it has to say on ad-libbing the texts).  

PO:  then “life for life.” God mandates the same civil penalty for those who would kill the preborn

in context, this could be, but isn’t necessarily, accidental– men were fighting, and the woman was assaulted/hurt, such that her fruit departed. The word “would” in Personhood Ohio signifies INTENT, not that they seem to notice minor details like “premeditated” versus “accidental.”   

Nor in context, does it imply if child was injured, man should be killed!  That’s entirely out of context.  Let us also remember that in these days, men often had several wives, and families could be large.  However, we know some have taken this to extreme for those who perform abortions, and make no apology about it.  Perhaps they learned from the same crowd.

PO:  as for those who would kill the born: “life for life.” Preborn human beings are children to God,

The Word of God (the Bible) in most translations – I don’t believe from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic — talk about “human beings” when referring to mankind.  There a number of other terms which do.  The word “Preborn” is a political usage and is never in there.

LOOK:  PO is trying to justify a theology by quoting from the law.  It seems to me if they had actually been READING the law — even the sections of it they are quoting, what comes out of their mouth might more specifically resemble what’s in there.  After all, in the book of Joshua, who succeeded Moses and was responsible to take the people into the Promised Land, he was told (Exodus 1):

7Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. 8This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

Or, Psalm 1, which is one of the books most quoted by Jesus (along with Deuteronomy), and is significant.  Three psalms were quoted on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), when Peter, speaking by the Spirit, gave as it were the “inaugural speech” of the new day, after the outpouring of the spirit (this is common theology to Christians, sorry to go into it all here):

1Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.2But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

OR, Deuteronomy, Chapter 1:  “These are the words.”  You tell me — does it speak specifically?

<< Deuteronomy 1 >> King James Version 1These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Redsea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab. 2(There are eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadeshbarnea.) 3And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;

Moses, here, faithfully delivered what he’d received “in commandment.”  It’s rather long, but it definitely has a flow and syntax, right?  After three chapters of rehearsing, step by step, where they were, what had been done and said (and quoting it), the writer comes to this chapter 4:

<< Deuteronomy 4 >> King James Version 1Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. 2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you

44And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel: 45These arethe testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which Moses spake unto the children of Israel, after they came forth out of Egypt,

And then it launches (Chapter 5) into what are commonly known as “The Ten Commandments.” 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

and nowhere does this awkward and artificial term appear in scripture:

“PREBORN HUMAN BEINGS”

! ! !

The term “human beings” seems in contrast to animals, and per Dictionary.com (and common sense) comes from the 1800s, not ### B.C.  It is a classification and scientific term, not a usage in scripture, which deals with the created mankind in relationship to each other and their Creator.

human being

noun

1.

any individual of the genus Homo,  especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

2.

a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:

living conditions not fit for human beings; a verygenerous human being.

Origin: 
1855–60

FOR COMPARISON (dates):  (Wikipedia, what else?)

Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist.^[I] He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theorythat this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.

He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species,

PO:  “and the intentional killing of innocent human beings at any stage of existence is unlawful and criminal – His Word is clear.”

5But the end of the charge {{Commandment}} is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned: 6from which things some having swerved have turned aside unto vain talking; 7desiring to be teachers of the law, though they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they confidently affirm. {{case in ppoint…}} 8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, 9as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man,** but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; 11according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

In light of this, it becomes obvious that we have committed a great travesty against the weakest and most helpless members of the human family – the preborn.** Forty-five thousand to fifty thousand innocent children die in Ohio every year by abortion. In this, as in all state-sponsored genocides throughout history, society first dehumanizes the victims before genocide can be committed against them. Thus, one of the first steps to protect the preborn and end the Abortion Holocaust is to inscribe into state law that which science, reason, and biblical truth affirms: that personhood begins at the beginning of our biological development, or at fertilization. Children in the womb are recipients of the God-given, inalienable right to life and liberty. It is the mission of Personhood Ohio to restore the God-given right to life and liberty to all Ohioans, and to secure “justice for all.”

This one includes apparently his wife also.

In the universe of anti-abortion activism, a complex and sometimes toxic stew of passive pray-ins and endless letter-writing campaigns uneasily coexists with much more aggressive and violent means of ending abortion through patient stalking, clinic bombings and murder.

One man stands in the nexus between the mainstream factions that espouse the politically correct “love the sinner/hate the sin” mantra and the more virulent behavior inspired by strained Biblical justifications for killing said sinner.

James Patrick Johnston, D.O., is, by all appearances, a polite country doctor in south-central Ohio, husband and father of six children under the age of 10 with a new baby on the way. A self-avowed “life, liberty, and jobs” guy, he lost his 2007 bid for a seat in the Ohio General Assembly, where he ran on a plank of cutting taxes, expanding homeschooling and “making Ohio the first state in the Union to defy Roe v. Wade with a statewide abortion ban.”

Less obvious are his links to some of the most radical elements of the anti-abortion movement — the paramilitary groups Army of God, Christian Gallery and Minutemen United that have been at the forefront of advocating for and celebrating violent clashes between anti-abortion forces and clinics. 

The path leading from Johnston’s activism in poor Appalachian Ohio to the hotbed of wealthy religious conservatism in Colorado exemplifies the fluid interchange between the more radical anti-abortion movement and those seeking to shield their past associations in order to appear more mainstream.

Kristi Burton, founder of Colorado for Equal Rights, the official sponsor of proposed Amendment 48, confirmed that Johnston, working from Ohio 1,300 miles away, is leading the group’s national outreach effort to doctors, pharmacists and others who share their philosophy.

Just to clarify where — it seems — this doctor stands, by definition, if preborn human beings were indeed PERSONS, then justifiable homicide is OK to protect them from abortion.   In his words (this is an older post, and “wayback” web archiving appears to give the 2004 version of it)

Dr. J. Patrick Johnston and wife

In Response to Jay Rogers’ article, “JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE — found at A COVENANTAL VIEW OF JUSTICE”

found at

http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0003_3._Justifiable_homic.html (LGH comment:  the article starts with the murder by Paul Hill of abortionist, and (going on, and on, and on) discusses whether or not there is a BIBLICAL justification for this.  Makes me sick, because I’m sure the same crowd would not step in to prevent a man from murdering a departing wife, or a “disobedient” one)

Dear Brother Rogers,

I would like to respond to your article entitled “Justifiable Homicide – A Covenantal View of Justice”.  First, letme briefly introduce myself.  I am a Christian family practicioner in central Ohio who believes that preborn humans have the same right to life as those outside the womb.  This is the basis of my refusal to condemn those who employ defensive force {{in context, murder}} to protect someone being assaulted or about to be assaulted.

What the Bible Says Should Be Done to Abortionists

How America Pollutes God

By Patrick Johnston, D.O.

“Will ye pollute Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save souls alive that should not live…?” Ezekiel 13:19

How is God polluted according this this passage?  By slaying the innocent and letting capital criminals live.  God declares the slaying of innocent human beings to be absolutely wrong, and He insists that murderers be executed.  He takes it as a personal affront when people allow the innocent to be killed and allow the killers of the innocent to live.  Rejecting God’s ways is not without sanction.  The Bible says that the shedding of innocent blood brings a curse upon the land and its people.  It also says that the curse can only be lifted by executing the shedder of innocent blood.

Hear the Word of God on this matter:

Numbers 35

30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
32 And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.
33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.

The Prophet Jeremiah and Jerusalem (6th century BCE)

The prophet Jeremiah was active in Jerusalem during the tragic period of the city’s destruction by the Babylonians, which occurred over several stages. Jeremiah prophesied during the reigns of various kings: beginning in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (626 BCE), and then Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah, and during the brief rule of Gedaliah ben Ahikam, whose assassination in ca. 585 BCE marked the final end of the remaining Jewish community in Judah and Jerusalem and symbolized the conclusion of the First Temple period.

I really don’t want to insult or offend others, but we are talking a doctor from Ohio wishing to re-establish so-called “Biblical law” upon all the land (through legislative reform) drawing from a time when the law was designed specifically for the chosen people to mark the relationship.  How is it possible to ignore this amount of document history (which Im about to paste, from “Jewish diaspora” under Wikipedia) and then, year 2012, and calling onesself a Christian, completely miss the message of Christ, and whose land you are presently in?

Pardon me, but “FYI” this law was already tried, failed, and pending the return of Christ, from what I can read,  the “law of the land,” including MY land, is not “kingdom.”  Individually and collectively, Christians are referred to as “the body of Christ,” but I fail to see where it tells them — and this guy claims to be a Christian — to do anything resembling what was told Israel centuries earlier.  Here we go; for a straight read-through.

The Jewish diaspora (or simply the Diaspora) is the English term used to describe the Galut גלות (Yiddish: ‘Golus’), or ‘exile’, of the Jews from the region of the Kingdom of Judah and Roman Iudaea and later emigration from wider Eretz Israel.The diaspora is commonly accepted to have begun with the 6th century BC conquest of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, destruction of the First Temple (c. 586 BC), and expulsion of the population, which is recorded in the Bible. The second major event in the dispersal is popularly thought to be the destruction of the Second Temple and aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt during the Roman occupation of Judea in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, although scholars generally believe that the effect of these events on the dispersal of the Jewish community was much less than their role in later communal narratives would indicate.^[1]The modern Hebrew term of Tefutzot תפוצות, “scattered”, was introduced in the 1930s by the German-American Zionist academic Simon Rawidowicz,^[2] who to some degree argued for the acceptance of the Jewish presence outside of the Land of Israel as a modern reality and an inevitability.There is little doubt that the term “diaspora” itself originated to describe the Jewish condition [According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘diaspora’ originates from the Septuagint, Deuteronomy 28:25, “thou shalt be a diaspora in all kingdoms of the earth” (1897 Ed. p. 321)].The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar, conquered the Kingdom of Judah and deported the Judaeans in 597 and 586 BC, he allowed them to remain in a unified community in Babylon. Another group of Judaeans fled to Egypt, where they settled in the Nile delta. So from 597 BC onwards, there were three distinct groups of Hebrews: a group in Babylon and other parts of the Middle East, a group in Judaea, and another group in Egypt.The destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians took place in 586 BC. as recorded in the Bible, and the writings of the prophet, Jeremiah. Thus, 597 BC is considered the beginning date of the Jewish Diaspora. While Cyrus the Persian allowed the Judaeans to return to their homeland in 538 BC, most chose to remain in Babylon. A large number of Jews in Egypt became mercenaries in Upper Egypt on an island called the Elephantine.All of these Jews retained their religion, identity, and social customs; both under the Persians and the Greeks, they were allowed to run their lives under their own laws.^[3]In 63 BC, Judaea became a protectorate of Rome. The Judaeans revolted in 70 AD that ended tragically in 73 AD, when the last of the revolutionaries were holed up in a mountain fort called Masada. The Romans besieged the fort for two years, and the 1,000 men, women, and children inside were beginning to starve. In desperation, the Jewish revolutionaries killed themselves rather than surrender to the Romans. The Romans then destroyed the Second Temple and most of Jerusalem, and annexed Judaea as a Roman province.^[4]When Hadrian first became the Roman emperor in 118 C.E., he was sympathetic to the Jews. He allowed them to return to Jerusalem and granted permission for the rebuilding of their Holy Temple. Hadrian quickly went back on his word, however, and requested that the site of the Temple be moved from its original location. He also began deporting Jews to North Africa.The Jews organized guerilla forces and, in 123 C.E., began launching surprise attacks against the Romans. From that point on, life only got worse for the Jews. Hadrian brought an extra army legion, the “Sixth Ferrata,” into Judea to deal with the terrorism. Hadrian hated “foreign” religions and forbade the Jews to perform circumcisions. He appointed Tinneius Rufus governor of Judea. Rufus was a harsh ruler who took advantage of Jewish women. In approximately 132 C.E., Hadrian began to establish a city in Jerusalem called Aelia Capitolina, the name being a combination of his own name and that of the Roman god Jupiter Capitolinus. He started to build a temple to Jupiter in place of the Jewish Holy Temple.When Hadrian left in 132, the Jews began their rebellion on a large scale. They seized towns and fortified them with walls and subterranean passages. Under the strong leadership of Shimon Bar-Kokhba, the Jews captured approximately 50 strongholds in Judea and 985 undefended towns and villages, including Jerusalem.In 135 C.E., Hadrian’s army besieged Bethar and on the 9th of Av, the Jewish fast day commemorating the destruction of the first and second Holy Temples, the walls of Bethar fell. After a fierce battle, every Jew in Bethar was killed. Six days passed before the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead.Following the battle of Bethar, there were a few small skirmishes in the Judean Desert Caves, but the war was essentially over and Judean independence was lost. The Romans plowed Jerusalem with a yoke of oxen. Jews were sold into slavery and many were transported to Egypt. Judean settlements were not rebuilt. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there. They were permitted to enter only on the 9th of Av to mourn their losses in the revolt. Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palestina.In the years following the revolt, Hadrian persecuted the religious Jews. He made anti-religious decrees forbidding Torah study, Sabbath observance, circumcision, Jewish courts, meeting in synagogues and other ritual practices. Many Jews assimilated and many sages and prominent men were martyred including Rabbi Akiva and the rest of the Asara Harugei Malchut (ten martyrs). This age of persecution lasted throughout the remainder of Hadrian’s reign, until 138 C.E.^[5]

But, this leader calls himself Christian.  So I recommend he stop making a fool of himself, and by association, others who also call themselves Christians, but read — and go back and review the New Testament, not snipped into pieces for insertion (cut & paste) into a nonprofit group so as to collection donations to change state laws — but for the purpose of admitting and understanding what it’s talking about, particularly passages regarding the Hope.

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and …

… ye (Gentiles) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints … Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of …

Hebrews — looking forward to a different city, not that we mae but that God has prepared:

II Peter too, talks about hope of a future heaven and earth “wherein dwelleth righteousness” and doesn’t mince words that as there had been a flood, the next destruction is going to be with fire, and a total change — initiated by God, not man, and his voice — is ahead; the believers’ current situation then, is preparing themselves (in their behavior and manner and expectation) for this time, and to stop making their home in this one so permanent!

It talks about the Day of the Lord, and a day of Judgment:

Paul, in Acts 17, also spoke of this:

The pre-occupation of a Christian should not be with trying to establish institutions and laws on this earth that, through ‘the wrath of man” are somehow going to bring about “the righteousness of God,” and in such manner identifying themselves thoroughly with every kind of tyranny that has existed throughout the ages, particularly I’m thinking Babylon forward, as it comes to this heritage.  In fact in Daniel, and interpretation of a dream was given which prophesied a variety of kingdoms, represented by different types of precious metal, to be ruling the world.  For someone pre-occuped with the “covenantal law” or so-called “Biblical law” I recommend looking it up!

But, the preoccupation of the Christian should be with witnessing to the resurrection of their Lord (“in demonstration of the spirit and of power”) and, like their Lord did, and as he anointed his 12 to do (see Matthew 10):

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.2Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils;  freely ye have received (power to do that, see v. 1), freely give

It doesn’t say, go murder abortionists to protect preborn human beings and try to justify this from scripture!  Did Jesus do that?  Is He Lord, or do you have a better idea?

REPEATED AS A MARK OF FAITH IN JOHN 14; Philip, being troubled (near end of Jesus’ life), Jesus comforts him and exhorts:

Someone that believes on Christ should do what He did.  That’s called discipleship, and it’s recorded in the book.  If you’re quoting the book, then “show me the money.”  It doesn’t say, go murder people, people of faith and/or atheists, to cleanse the polluted land — who are you, God?  A monarch? ?   ! ! It says — HEAL and demonstrate that there is a God that heals.  That’s why it’s “Good” news!

Healing was the hallmark of the start of the church (Acts 4), or at least closely associated with it:  (ACTS 4):

Jesus was preached also as one that was constantly doing good – not for the sake of the good only, but to testify to also to the salvation (forgiveness, eternal life, etc.) which He also was preaching.  The message is simple and straightforward throughout.  Here’s an account of Peter — having been (supernaturally, etc.) connected with a devout Roman Centurion, for the first time, invites the Gentiles into this new faith.  The account is straightforward:  Notice emphasis on Jesus “going about and doing good” and the resurrection and subsequent outpouring of the spirit, which then was gladly accepted (not forced on them!) by Cornelius — and his household — causing mutual rejoicing  (Acts 10).  This excerpt starts with Cornelius rehearsing to Peter (they are strangers to each other) the odd situation that prompted an observant Jew to walk into a Gentile home, which evidently took a little previous persuading (by God) that he should, indeed, go ahead and do.  Being smart, Peter also took some witnesses:

**I do not see that it’s the job of Dr. Johnston, me, or others to be judging ‘the quick (living) and the dead,” but rather to keep our heads screwed on straight to the gospel message and follow the pattern.   It is talking about remission of sins, not “cleansing the polluted land.’   Assuming the book is true (which quoting it would tend to indicate), then this world is going to be burned / melted (given some of the nuclear arms,  who knows, it may be self-immolation) and a new heaven and earth “wherein dwelleth righteousness” is ahead.

Other places (like Hebrews 2) said that Jesus was manifested to “destroy the works of the devil” and talks in several places about having ‘exposed principalities and powers and made a show of them openly,” referring to spiritual darkness in the world.    Where, in the gospels, Jesus was recorded to have thrown the legion of oppressing spirits out of individuals, and left the man “sitting, clothed and in his right mind” and in general bringing deliverance, often miraculous, from long-term, chronic oppressive diseases or circumstances — it seems to me that our father of six (last we checked) and brother of several boys in his own family of origin would, as a medical doctor, recommend taking up weapons and killing adults to save so-called “preborn human beings,” thus following proudly in a tradition of bloodshed and warfare, purging of heretics, etc., in the long and ignoble tradition of the so-called Christian church.  See Jerome (b. 347)  or HERE and realize that by this time there was already a Pope.

The Bible in Latin: 2nd – 4th century AD

During the 1st century Greek remains the language of the small Christian community, but with the spread of the faith through the Roman empire a Latin version of the Bible texts is needed in western regions. By the second century there is one such version in use in north Africa and another in Italy.

These versions become corrupted and others are added, until by the 4th century – in the words of St Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of the time – there are ‘almost as many texts as manuscripts’.

In 382 the pope, Damasus,** commissionsJerome to provide a definitive Latin version. In his monastery at Bethlehem, tended by aristocratic virgins, the saint produces theVulgate. This eventually becomes established as the Bible of the whole western church until the Reformation.

Read more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66#ixzz1koXI5aEf

Here’s an excellent &  speedy summary of translations (unbelievable, really) which shows the variety of languages involved, including an “Ulfilas” (360) who undertook to devise a written language, including alphabet of 27 letters, to translate the Bible for his people, who were Goth.  Truly, it’s a book that’s affected the development of languages, and been passed down for over a thousand years.

**Damasus, from “nndb” which is a sort of all-purpose database of people.  However, look at the in-fighting and factionism leading to bloodshed even this early — power struggles, and the secular response, etc.  This is the hallmark until today and indicates that, whatever was recorded, if it truly occurred, in the gospels and Acts, apparently was an entirely different animal than these — these are simple power struggles.  I’m including because, at the bottom, it brings us down to “Theodosius” which book (AD 381:  The Dawn of the Monotheistic State), I’ve referenced several times.  The degree of in-fighting brought in a virtual crackdown on the debates from the Emperor, which has characterized the church ever since.

 A serious conflict ensued between the rival factions, which quickly led to rioting and hand-to-hand fighting. In one of these encounters the then new basilica, called the Liberian Basilica (S. Maria Maggiore), was partially destroyed, and 137 dead bodies were left in the building. On several occasions the secular arm had to intervene, although the government of the emperor Valentinian was averse from involving itself in ecclesiastical affairs. . . .

((And we read on — I can’t even follow all this, but we get the gist:))

To the official support, which never failed him, Damasus endeavored to join the popular sympathy. From before his election he had been in high favor with the Roman aristocracy, and especially with the great ladies. {{smile}} At that period the urban masses, but recently converted to Christianity, sought in the worship of the martyrs a sort of substitute for polytheism. Damasus showed great zeal in discovering the tombs of martyrs, adorning them with precious marbles and monumental inscriptions. The inscriptions he composed himself, in mediocre verse, full of Virgilian reminiscences. Several have come down to us on the original marbles, entire or in fragments; others are known from old copies. In the interior of Rome he erected or embellished the church which still bears his name (S. Lorenzo in Damaso), near which his father’s house appears to have stood.

The West was recovering gradually from the troubles caused by the Arian crisis. Damasus took part, more or less effectually, in the efforts to eliminate from Italy and Illyria the last champions of the council of Rimini. {{of WHO??}} In spite of his declaration at the council convened by him in 372, he did not succeed in evicting Auxentius from Milan. But Auxentius died soon afterwards, and his successor, Ambrose, undertook to bring these hitherto abortive efforts to a successful conclusion, and to complete the return of Illyria to the confessions of Nicaea. The bishops of the East, however, under the direction of St. Basil, were involved in a struggle with the emperor Valens, whose policy was favorable to the council of Rimini. Damasus, to whom they appealed for help, was unable to be of much service to them, the more so because that episcopal group, viewed askance by St. Athanasius and his successor Peter, was incessantly combated at the papal court by the inveterate hatred of Alexandria. The Eastern bishops triumphed in the end under Theodosius, at the council of Constantinople (381), in which the pope and the Western church took no part. They were invited to a council of wider convocation, held at Rome in 382, but very few attended.

OK, this “Council of Rimini” reference indicates that already by this early time, there was fighting about the character and divinity of Jesus Christ.  They’d “lost it” that early. . . .

In 358, the Roman EmperorConstantius II requested two councils, one of the western bishops at Ariminum and one of the eastern bishops (planned forNicomedia but actually held at Seleucia) to resolve the Arian controversyover the nature of the divinity of Jesus Christ, which divided the 4th-century church.^[1]

They weren’t debating THAT Jesus was divine, but only HOW he was Divine — which to me sure sounds like a losing battle, defining the divine!  But then again, I was born in the 20th century . . . . 

In July 359, the western council (of about 300^[2] or over 400 bishops) met. Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa soon proposed a new creed, drafted at the Council of Sirmium of 359 but not presented there, holding that the Son was like the Father “according to the scriptures,” and avoiding the controversial terms “same substance” and “similar substance.”^[3] Others favored the creed of Nicaea.^[4]

Or, one could look at “Orthodox Wiki”

Some of these are to this day still in debate and consideration.  Regarding the role of Bishops — obviously I’m not going to be keeping up with the theology, but the themes still seem relevant.  This is a 2011 blog talking about things that occurred over 1000 years ago.   For example:

http://oxfordpatristics.blogspot.com/search/label/2011A:

Gavril Andreicut – Who Leads and Guides the Church? Scripture, Tradition, and Leadership

LIKE I SAID, IT WAS ABOUT EXERCISING WORLDLY POWER OVER VARIOUS FOLLOWERS, AND HAS BEEN FOR – “EVER” — BUT WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THIS?

“…GO TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL…

AND AS YE GO, PREACH, THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND

HEAL THE SICK, CLEANSE THE LEPERS, RAISE THE DEAD, CAST OUT DEVILS:

FREELY YE HAVE RECEIVED, FREELY GIVE*

.(MATTHEW 10):”

(IN OTHER WORDS, DON’T BE CHARGING ADMISSION!) . .This time, he commanded them not to bring along all their “stuff” because the WORKMAN IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE.”   Apparently, then, this was the work — see the first item (preach), as well as the deliverance that follows ..

Looking at the end of Mark — chapter 16 (post-resurrection), they get another commission (the SAME people) indicating this is still the business at hand:

GO YE INTO THE WORLD AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE

HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED* SHALL BE SAVED

BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE DAMNED.

**See above, Acts 10.  The Baptism in the holy spirit, as prophesied:  John baptized with water, Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with fire.  NOTE:  GO & PREACH.  THE CONCERN IS SALVATION (AND IN REFERENCE TO FUTURE DAY OF JUDGMENT IS CLEAR ENOUGH).  THE BUSINESS OF ‘CHRISTIANITY’ IS PREACHING SO THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE, AND ARE BAPTIZED IN THIS HOLY SPIRIT SHALL BE SAVED.  IT DOESN’T SAY GO AROUND CONDEMNING AND CURSING THOSE THAT DON’T! ! !  OR TRYING TO REWRITE THE LAWS OF THE LAND TO ACCOMMODATE THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW AND ENFORCE THEM, IF NECESSARY THROUGH KILLING OTHERS TO MAKE A POINT — DOES IT?  WHAT KIND OF “LIFE” would THAT testify to? . . .

AND THESE SIGNS SHALL FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE:

not referring to the original 12, but those who believe their word — this is called multiplication. . . .  get it? Note the order of items is slightly reversed from gospel times:

IN MY NAME SHALL THEY CAST OUT DEVILS,

THEY SHALL SPEAK WITH NEW TONGUES

THEY SHALL TAKE UP SERPENTS*

AND IF THEY DRINK ANY DEADLY THING IT SHALL NOT HARM THEM

There is no question that this is referring to a spiritual oppressive or destructive force in people, called “devils,” which in the name of Jesus Christ, spoken with faith, had to go.   Apparently people are still fascinated with the topic — watch the movie theater.  Perhaps there’s something to it . . . .   the FIRST thing was to “disarm the strong man,” then (with that freedom), they shall speak with new tongues (which has been described already in Acts and is considered a “sign” of the presence of holy spirit received.).   It also indicates praise and worship, plus prayer (but that’s for another time & place — this is not a religious blog.  It just ran into enough religion I felt “inspired” to set some of the record straight!

RE:  Serpents and drinking deadly things — there is an example at the end of the book of act, but I think (note:  opinion, not doctrine), this may be symbolic.  What would snake-handling, literally, have to do with preaching the gospel.  Perhaps it’s a reference to “evil” which in the bible IS characterized as “the serpent.”  Serpents were prominent in the story of Moses, and in the wilderness, i.e., people that sinned were bit by serpents, but were saved when they looked to a brass serpent on a stake (to my understanding, a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Christ).   Then apparently that token became an idol, later, and was destroyed.  We also know that the “serpent” theme was associated with some of the other theologies of the time, particularly with women.

Who is not afraid of snakes — it seems to be an innate human fear.  This is talking about power over and protection from.   The challenge is to go in, and change the status quo, starting with “cast out devils.”  The word devils has been USED (over the centuries) in reference to people — but there is no question that this is NOT how the Bible uses it.  Rather, it is something spiritual that is evicted from a “house,”namely the person.  OK?  Enough on that.

Reflection:  Some of the things many have gone through can only be described as “evil” and as a virtual “serpent” situation, and if one has not confronted some of this openly, then it’s not possible to portray.  You either get it or you don’t.  This also seems to surface most when confronting one form or another (there are “atheist” type forms) of a deeply held (for illogical reasons), religious beliefs.  The charm and smug compliance disappears and the person shows you what they’re really made of.  (See “Tyler, Shenkman” for a recent example.  The man was on TV, having held his wife hostage 12 hours, and the house being burnt down, he was in orange jumpsuit declaring that killing his wife would give his life meaning.   That’s EVIL.  Perhaps “take up serpents” means dealing with this.  Maybe, another day, I will understand better.)

Moving on — the same passage (end of Mark 16):

THEY SHALL LAY HANDS ON THE SICK, AND THEY SHALL RECOVER

People who wish to do the work of the Lord, to “cleanse” the polluted America, should try some of this.  I’m sure that believers will be knocking down the door to find out about this Lord, and want to know more of Him, and would just LOVE to go and bring healing to others.  Who doesn’t want to do that?  Who would NOT want to go about doing good and healing the oppressed?

What kind of theology is necessary to explain a healing?  How long can you argue about it?

Isn’t that what all this income tax is for — to protect, and to serve, and to provide good things for the community?  To spread a little love around, and assure people that a saving God is immanent (that means PRESENT to be called upon) in their lives?  Who knows how much substance abuse this might reduce, and all the programs associated with it — or spouse abuse — when it’s understand that one casts out devils and leaves the person intact, and/or healed; that one does not need to go around filling up a sense of emptiness in side with “looking for love in the wrong places, etc.”

. . . . When one’s sense of meaning and place in life is NOT wrapped up with which group do I belong to, and how successful or dominant is that group this decade?   When one is not just a functional in a social setting, but a truly effective INDIVIDUAL in any situation, including in community with others.

It’s either this world or the one to come, and in a characteristically plain way, Jesus (is alleged to have) said:  “Ye Cannot Serve God and Mammon” (wealth/riches).  How true it is.  We either march to the drum of THIS one and seek status in it, or of the NEXT one, in which case I strongly suggest following the owner’s manual, which seems plain enough to me.  Love it or leave it. Either practice, sharpen your tools, discern good from evil (see top of this post), and gain some mastery over yourself, rather than continually seeking to master and dominate others!

And spend a little more time in the Bible so when it comes out, you sound coherent at least.

I personally think that centered, confident, and spiritually filled (and know it)  — and familiar with their own faith tradition, IN historic context, make great citizens and are a wonderful thing to have around — because they will not sell out.  And their example will hopefully inspire at least a few others not to do so either.

But the religious groups — that’s a bird of another feather, and appear to be about an entirely different business.  I do not see that Jesus Christ, before his crucifixion, left directions about setting down roots, building temples (there WAS one when He left — not for much longer, though!), and establishing institutions and tax-exempt foundations.  These are all fine — but they are not “faith-based.”

(THIS BIT WAS WRITTEN EARLIER):

Also, we have to face that Jesus simplified this law — it wasn’t anguishingly complex, but unbelievably straightforward, Love God with your heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.  Paul, similarly, kept it simple, unusual for him!  (Romans 13):

This treatise (and following epistles) were not addressed to the entire region of Rome, but contained in a book addressed to the “faithful in Christ,” to communities of people who (from what I can tell) had in common that they had received this gift of holy spirit (as promised also to Philip, above) and were holding it together, in love, til Christ’s return:  Romans 1:

I hope that this exorbitant quoting of scripture, chunks of it, will show how different is the flow of the language, than simply throwing out the occasional chapter and verse reference, and continuing to ramble on with one’s particular agenda.    One things has some internal coherence; the other is a manipulation of the original — and as such should be rejected for that reason.  Manipulation and sloppy workmanship (to justify aggression) are habit forming.

I know I have more than made a fool of myself in this post — and (for now) don’t regret it.  One way to become the fool is to argue with one (particularly one who is not present and responding!) but I trust the difference of language shows up.  One flows — the other is awkward and inconsistent, borrows terms from the 1800s and 1900s, and attempts to read them back into ancient texts; exaggerates one sector of ‘the law” and gets that bit wrong as well, omitting the immediate context (let alone the scope of scripture and of the gospel of Christ).

Putting out this post took approximately a full day’s work.  It’s tiring and troublesome and there won’t be more like it.  Again, I am not trying to convert anyone, I am simply challenging the hypocritical religiousity and saying WATCH OUT — because the mentality can’t see straight, and you may get caught in either direct antagonism (from the blurred vision) or in the crossfire.

This is the “ahistorical” version of Christianity that prides itself on thinking it’s restoring something.  I wonder truly if such have the spirit (as in, Holy) at all but are simply attracted to the strict structure, the separation, and naturally (the father) to ruling his own brood and wife, which then enables him to seek to expand this rule to the rest of the country.

These are troublesome times for sure — but as we have read, times are always troublesome.  PERHAPS there’s not enough “righteousness” in this world, meaning, spiritually speaking.  Perhaps it is indeed on a collision course with its own explosive destiny despite the best efforts of environmentalists and other progressives who are, like me, disheartened when the look at EITHER upcoming Presidential possibility (Republican or Democrat).

It is the “natural” man that needs restraint.  The man walking by the spirit will not, and will not be engaged in these kinds of activities;

Here’s Galatians FIVE, which talks about this.  NOtice the qualities of ‘Fruit of the spirit,” even though (see above) this spirit apparently also comes with some serious power, too.  I”ll just put it all in here.  (And just noticed — so much for all the quotations — it have a 25,000 word post, which is possibly cause for being put in the stocks — but I’m not volunteering!)

A whole chapter at a time shows the internal consistency — and talks about liberty.  For the larger, context read the book.

**notice how consistently this keeps popping up?  Love your neighbor as yourself — and this will sufficiently ensure the law is kept.

*this doctor, below, is going to justify murdering an abortion doctor (context, one had just been convicted) as “justifiable defense.”

“Witchcraft” is a word indicating use of drugs to induce altered states and control self or others.  Reminds me of all the drugging of kids in foster care, to control THEM, something this family MD doesn’t seem very concerned about.

Below talks more specifically about the Ohio Group and its founder.   Back to the realm of the “secular”   (:

From this article (read the rest! though it’s 3 years old now) a link to a letter from Diane Irving, a former researcher/bioethicist at NIH (and with a Ph.D. from Georgetown) expresses her concerns about sloppy or fraudulent science in re:  ‘pre-embryo” and other matters.

I have been telling us — if the people cannot read plain English/Bible straight, what then of law or (God forbid) science?  I’m not qualified to judge science; but here’s a letter from someone who is.  Notice the bolded sections:

It’s a 1993 letter to

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology
Faculty of Medicine
Medical Sciences Building
University of Toronto
Toronto. Ontario
Canada M5S 1A8

I have often personally used references from your earlier editions in my own work, and have consistently recommended them to many others. My doctoral dissertation for Georgetown University (Department of Philosophy) was entitled Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo, in which I cited you extensively. In fact I cited you in an amicus curiae brief I wrote which was recently filed with the United States Supreme Court (I have enclosed a couple of papers published from the dissertation and a copy of the brief for your information). The dissertation analyzes only from the perspectives of logic, philosophy and science – not from religion or theology. It was simply in the intense context of reviewing simultaneously both the scientific and the philosophical/bioethical literature on the issue of “fetal personhood” that I realized for myself the depth and extent of both the incorrect science and the incorrect philosophy used throughout these current debates. [next para break, mine]

In fact, in selecting only 23 representative arguments which place “fetal personhood” along various embryological marker events during human embryogenesis, I concluded from my (very extensive) research that in virtually every one of the 23 articles, the science used as the supposed “objective” grounding of the argument was text-book and current-journal inaccurate, the philosophy used was historically inept and inaccurate, and none of the conclusions even followed logically from these premises. I would be pleased to send the entire 400 page dissertation to you for your inspection.

Where there is sound observation and sound thinking, there will be logical conclusions.  WHere there is not, there cannot be sound conclusions… I showed (not for this individual, but for another) how sloppy was the handling of even straightforward scripture.  The word “personhood” and “preborn human being” is an IDEA foreign to the scriptures.  Language counts, whether or not one believes in God, or a god.

Clearly there is a problem somewhere. As a former scientific researcher I decided to investigate and publish about the “science” being used first – as it is the science which is being used to ground or “prove” different philosophical, bioethical or political conclusions about “personhood”. Obviously, if the science is incorrect, then the philosophical, bioethical or political conclusions based on that science are also incorrect. As a realist philosopher and bioethicist, my starting point for philosophical research, definition of key terms, etc., is the correct science. Hence both scientifically and philosophically I am keenly sensitive to the propagation, publishing, etc., of any sort of fabricated “science”, caused for any sort of reason. Perhaps one reason is that in my field I see constantly the immediate application of this “science” on innocent human patients and populations.

There are many others who are now also concerned with this issue, and investigating on their own and in cooperation with peers and associations. Whether this situation is due to inferior course work, sloppy lab techniques, sheer ignorance, “publish or perish”, or politically correct (or incorrect) agendas, it is difficult to determine at this point. But as a member of the Board of Directors of the journal Accountability in Research, I am concerned with many others about all of these problems arising in scientific research. Why any researcher would want to deliberately falsify the true facts of nature, or extrapolate from them irrational or fanciful philosophical or political conclusions is beyond me. Ultimately they must know it won’t work. Hopefully most of the problems arise from the former categories. But it is interesting that, according to Patricia Woolf in a paper presented in 1991 at a FIDIA research ethics conference at Georgetown, over 80% of the fraud formally determined by the OPRR to date was generated by physician researchers in the field of embryology.

Interesting:  I looked up the addressee, this is a segment:

Embryology in the Qur’an

In his article, A Scientist’s Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur’an, Moore asserts that “statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur’an”, and that “the interpretation of the verses in the Qur’an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago.”^[12] Moore affirms that Qur’anic statements regarding human development make it clear that the book is of divine origin, concluding: “This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God or Allah.”^[13]

Controversy

Moore’s work on the Qur’an has aroused controversy among embryologists such as PZ Myers.^[14] In 2002, Moore chose not to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that “it’s been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur’an.”^[15]

(numbering is auto:  these are footnotes 12-15, below, despite the numbering):

[edit]

Obviously, I went all the way down the rabbit hole on this one.

“Kyrie Eleison!” (“Lord, have mercy”)

But out of a little concern for reason — is this the type of mentality who we want running the place and adjusting laws to suit themselves?

Hence, we need limited government (the REAL kind, not the Republican kind) and to yes, alter some institutions and practices previously collaborated upon, IF the plan is to save the legislative process, due process, or the concept of individual rights.