What would Jesus hate?

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Joe Bob's America: What would Jesus hate?
By Joe Bob Briggs
From the Life & Mind Desk
Published 12/6/2002 5:21 PM
View printer-friendly version

NEW YORK, Dec. 6 (UPI) -- Would somebody shut these Jesus People up?

What would Jesus do? What would Jesus drive? How would Jesus pick his nose? What do they think Jesus is, the Dr. Phil of the first century?

First of all, we already know the answer to all these

questions. What would he do? NOTHING THAT WE WOULD DO!

This latest assault by IQ-challenged Christian greenies -- the "What Would Jesus Drive?" ad campaign run by the Evangelical Environmental Network -- is easily answered, in fact. He would WALK. He once walked 75 miles from Nazareth to Jerusalem just to attend the feast. He could have hitched a ride. They had donkeys and other people-bearing animals. HE DIDN'T.

He didn't lessen his physical burden in any way, much less do it with the equivalent of what the Roman Senate was riding around in. If he owned an SUV, or even the most fuel-efficient subcompact on the market, he would not only NOT ride in it, he would either give it away or sell it and give the money to the poor. He's on record as being in favor of that.

I only remember two times when Jesus wasn't walking. He had to get on that ship so he could walk on water, and he had to enter Jerusalem on an ass so that he could fulfill a prophecy. If you'll recall, he didn't use the ass because he was in a hurry. There wasn't anything to look forward to on that trip.

There's a simple reason that we don't know what Jesus wore, what he ate, how he slept, whether he was right-handed or left-handed, or what the color of his eyes were. The reason is that, if we did know any of these details about his life, there would be entire religions based around trying to mimic him. Never underestimate the ability of otherwise clear-thinking men to take the most meaningless outward sign of holiness and build a monument to it. Those snake-handlers in eastern Tennessee DO have scripture supposedly justifying everything they do.

In fact, Isaiah warned us about trying to stick our own worldly idolatry on the messiah. He said the messiah would be "without form nor comeliness, so that no one would desire him." In other words, if we look at the scriptural evidence, he was probably an ugly guy -- or at least nondescript -- and none of his habits would be worth copying. He wouldn't be interested in the crease of his fedora.

At any rate, since this "What would Jesus do?" thing is apparently not going away any time soon, let's make a list of what we KNOW he would do:

He wouldn't own anything.

He wouldn't care what he ate or drank.

He wouldn't give any thought to what he was going to do or say today, which pretty much rules out petition campaigns and worries about commuting. It's that whole "take no thought for the morrow" thing.

Even though he could turn stone into bread, he wouldn't do it.

Even though he could avoid being wounded or hurt -- the very angels themselves would bear him up if he threw himself off a cliff -- he wouldn't take advantage of that.

He was uninterested in controlling all the kingdoms of the world, which pretty much rules out running General Motors in an environmentally-friendly way.

He never handled money. (That was Judas's job.) The one time he needed it, he told some guy to go catch a fish and there would be a gold coin inside to pay his taxes with. Notice he wanted the money to come from the fish, not from him.

He never joined any cause. He was too busy "going about my father's business."

He never spoke against the most cruel government in the

World -- that would be Rome -- and in fact urged cooperation with it. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," he said.

He didn't care much for family values. He said, in fact, that you need to first hate your family if you're to follow him.

The only use he had for the environment was that the plant kingdom was a perfect way to illustrate spiritual parables. Faith is like a kernel of wheat. Christians are like the fruit of the vine. If you asked him what the purpose of the environment was, he would probably say, "Simply to see something more important than the environment."

I should throw in one more for the pro-life people. He didn't speak against abortion at all. This was in a culture that not only had abortion, but the practice of abandoning babies to die of exposure if they were discovered to have physical flaws or diseases.

In other words, he wasn't a political sort of guy. He was the Son of God. If you really wanna ask what he would do, I hope you're prepared to go the whole nine yards. After all, the most important thing he did ... was die.

-0-

Wow.

[Scott Standridge]

Sweet. Joe Bob is awesome. I think we should start a church around his teachings. wink

Of course he's not the first philosopher to explore this issue. We musn't forget that incisive modern thinker and troubadour, Ray Stevens, who asked the biting question, "Would Jesus wear a Rolex on his television show?" :D

[billylove]

Reason # 5280 that Joe Bob is cool.

[CTDeLude]

And yet the man managed to be off about a couple things. At least in what Jesus would condone. I am not too impressed with the article except for the fact that WWJD in all its incarnations are not neccessairly the right way to approach things. More like what is it that God would have me do?

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CTDeLude:
<strong>And yet the man managed to be off about a couple things. At least in what Jesus would condone.</strong>

Such as?

<strong>I am not too impressed with the article except for the fact that WWJD in all its incarnations are not neccessairly the right way to approach things. More like what is it that God would have me do?</strong>

Well we are called upon to be imitators of Christ. What does that mean to you?

[Devin Updating]

Jesus would be hated by most Christians today.

[Hubris]

I think Jesus would hate frozen yogurt. If you're going to eat ice cream, fucking eat ice cream.

[CTDeLude]

Hubris:
I think Jesus would hate frozen yogurt. If you're going to eat ice cream, fucking eat ice cream.But forzen yogurt is good man. At least if you don't the cheap stuff.

[CTDeLude]

capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CTDeLude:
<strong>And yet the man managed to be off about a couple things. At least in what Jesus would condone.</strong>

Such as?

<strong>I am not too impressed with the article except for the fact that WWJD in all its incarnations are not neccessairly the right way to approach things. More like what is it that God would have me do?</strong>

Well we are called upon to be imitators of Christ. What does that mean to you?First off the bit about pro-life and such. As Christians we are called to value life (innocent life), as a government based on the principles of Christianity we should not condone the death of infants. As the people of God we should not be silent about such a thing.

As for campaigns and such that is in fact what is exactly wrong with Christians today. They pay no attention to politics or issues and simply believe God will handle everything so they don't have to move a finger thus they are not available to be used by God.

I'd like to see the wording on where Jesus said you must "hate" your family.

This whole article reads like Christians should be passive in their lives caring not for anything that happens around them. If Martin Luther had not cared we would still be chained to traditions rather then the freedom of Jesus. Many men had they not cared for the world around them would have made the face of this earth a much different place. If the missionary did not care for the suffering of the people in a thrid world country where would the light of Christ be? There is a reason why none of the scriptures say what would Jesus do. You are to meditate on what Jesus has done and is doing in your life and apply it. And to do what God calls of you. Whether it be running General Motors or being president or being the head of a non profit or simply live a simple life showing the light of Christ.

So I agree with him on the use of such phrasing of WWJD (do or drive). Especially considering Jesus is doing something right now. Just disagree on some others.

[Charlie Brigden]

Creed.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CTDeLude:
<strong>First off the bit about pro-life and such. As Christians we are called to value life (innocent life), as a government based on the principles of Christianity we should not condone the death of infants. As the people of God we should not be silent about such a thing.</strong>

I think his point was that Christ was silent on that issue, at least as far as we know. He was also silent on slavery. Matbe if we talked about it less and cared more about the women who choose to have an abortion there would be no issue.

<strong>As for campaigns and such that is in fact what is exactly wrong with Christians today. They pay no attention to politics or issues and simply believe God will handle everything so they don't have to move a finger thus they are not available to be used by God.</strong>

Again he was pointing out that Jesus wasn't about Politics. He was about love. No where did he say that we shouldn't be political.

<strong>I'd like to see the wording on where Jesus said you must "hate" your family.</strong>

Luke 14

The Cost of Being a Disciple

25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

<strong>So I agree with him on the use of such phrasing of WWJD (do or drive). Especially considering Jesus is doing something right now. Just disagree on some others.</strong>

The only thing Jesus is doing right now is sitting at God's right hand. The Spirit is the one moving people in the world.

[CTDeLude]

Yea but Scott that is saying Jesus is doing something. Trinity. 3 in one and 1 in 3. Something man has an incredibly difficult time comprehending when you think about it.

Also Scott you see his tone one way yet I see it another. Seems to me it is pretty obvious he is leaning against being politically motivated. I could be wrong but the way he has presented his column it seems that way to me.

Also Christ was anything but silent on issues. His actions spoke louder then anything. If Christ would heal a man no matter what his station in life does that not mean all men are equal to receive his blessing in His eyes? Also doesn't the Bible state God (Jesus) knew you in the womb? Before you were conceived? Seems God had some kind of connection with a fetus in the womb. Seems to me that Jesus was here on earth to spread His Father's words and die for our sins. He was not a total replacement for the Bible. Thus He did not need to address everything the Bible already goes over.

But again I just disagree with the implying tone of the article. I cannot base this guy's message nor talent on one article so I just disagree with some things in the article.

[Guttenberg Fan Club]

CTDeLude:
If the missionary did not care for the suffering of the people in a thrid world country where would the light of Christ be? Jesus would most certainly hate missionaries. Jesus gave food, healed & loved even to those who didn't believe. Missionaries bribe starving people into believing. Jesus didn't force himself on those he helped.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CTDeLude:
<strong>Yea but Scott that is saying Jesus is doing something. Trinity. 3 in one and 1 in 3. Something man has an incredibly difficult time comprehending when you think about it.</strong>

But they have different roles. It is not Jesus role to give you wisdom or call you to God. That belongs to the Spirit. Though they are equal and united they server different purposes

<strong>Also Scott you see his tone one way yet I see it another. Seems to me it is pretty obvious he is leaning against being politically motivated. I could be wrong but the way he has presented his column it seems that way to me.</strong>

I can see what you're saying. But I think all he's really saying is that all we can know for certainb ius what Jesus did, not what he would do. Our natures are so corrupted by sin that we cannot tell what precisely Jesus would do in any given situation.

<strong>Also Christ was anything but silent on issues. His actions spoke louder then anything. If Christ would heal a man no matter what his station in life does that not mean all men are equal to receive his blessing in His eyes?</strong>

Perhaps but he did not address politiocal issues head on because he was not here for that purpose. He healed the blind to show his power over sin.

<strong>Also doesn't the Bible state God (Jesus) knew you in the womb?</strong>

It says that he knew Jacob in the womb. You could interpret that to be he knew us all.

<strong>Before you were conceived? Seems God had some kind of connection with a fetus in the womb. Seems to me that Jesus was here on earth to spread His Father's words and die for our sins. He was not a total replacement for the Bible.</strong>

The Bible was post Jesus.

<strong>Thus He did not need to address everything the Bible already goes over.</strong>

Slavery in the Bible is usually positive and the Bible does not specifically mention abortion. (Keep in mind I am pro-life) His point was (I think) that we poiliticize Jesus far too much and forget that His sacrifice and resurrection are far more important than anything else.

[CTDeLude]

Guttenberg Fan Club:
CTDeLude:
If the missionary did not care for the suffering of the people in a thrid world country where would the light of Christ be? Jesus would most certainly hate missionaries. Jesus gave food, healed & loved even to those who didn't believe. Missionaries bribe starving people into believing. Jesus didn't force himself on those he helped.Well it is unfortunate that you have met such missionaries (have you?) but the people I have met certainly would not and do not take part in such activities. Or are you looking at this from general stand point of preaching while handing out food and medical supplies? Becaue if that is the case I still have not known any missionaries who said to the people they were helping "Accept God or you will not receive this food"

[Sammy Jankis]

CTDeLude
As Christians we are called to value life (innocent life), as a government based on the principles of Christianity we should not condone the death of infants. As the people of God we should not be silent about such a thing.
I thought we had freedom of religion and separation of church and state. We don't have a government based on the principles of Christianity, and it's unconstitutional for us to try to.

Oh, and Fett, that Creed crack was really funny.
I think Jesus would hate funions.

[CTDeLude]

capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CTDeLude:
<strong>Yea but Scott that is saying Jesus is doing something. Trinity. 3 in one and 1 in 3. Something man has an incredibly difficult time comprehending when you think about it.</strong>

But they have different roles. It is not Jesus role to give you wisdom or call you to God. That belongs to the Spirit. Though they are equal and united they server different purposes

<strong>Also Scott you see his tone one way yet I see it another. Seems to me it is pretty obvious he is leaning against being politically motivated. I could be wrong but the way he has presented his column it seems that way to me.</strong>

I can see what you're saying. But I think all he's really saying is that all we can know for certainb ius what Jesus did, not what he would do. Our natures are so corrupted by sin that we cannot tell what precisely Jesus would do in any given situation.

<strong>Also Christ was anything but silent on issues. His actions spoke louder then anything. If Christ would heal a man no matter what his station in life does that not mean all men are equal to receive his blessing in His eyes?</strong>

Perhaps but he did not address politiocal issues head on because he was not here for that purpose. He healed the blind to show his power over sin.

<strong>Also doesn't the Bible state God (Jesus) knew you in the womb?</strong>

It says that he knew Jacob in the womb. You could interpret that to be he knew us all.

<strong>Before you were conceived? Seems God had some kind of connection with a fetus in the womb. Seems to me that Jesus was here on earth to spread His Father's words and die for our sins. He was not a total replacement for the Bible.</strong>

The Bible was post Jesus.

<strong>Thus He did not need to address everything the Bible already goes over.</strong>

Slavery in the Bible is usually positive and the Bible does not specifically mention abortion. (Keep in mind I am pro-life) His point was (I think) that we poiliticize Jesus far too much and forget that His sacrifice and resurrection are far more important than anything else.They may have different roles Scott but Matthew clearly points to Jesus being the Word(Bible). I guess it is just how you look at it. Jesus does indeed say when He he ascends to the right hand of the Father He will send the Helper. But that doesn't mean Jesus is sitting there on the right of God exhalting in worship. He is very much active in our world. If you can "call on the name of the Lord and be saved" that imparts action on Jesus' part. Perhaps this is just a matter on how we viewit which is perfectly alright.

Also I believe Psalms mention the Lord knowing us in the womb. Will have to look it up to be sure though.

The Bible was post Jesus yes but the books of the Old Testament were still known documents used in the teaching at the synagouges. Hence Jesus referencing the words of the Prophets regularly. Jesus is the consumation of the Word of God. The only way to heaven but again His life was meant for the sacrafice He made for us all and to do His Father's bidding not to address every issue.

Also though perhaps the Bible doesn't mention abortion by name it is pretty obvious it is contrary to God's will.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Sammy Jankis
[QB] CTDeLude
As Christians we are called to value life (innocent life), as a government based on the principles of Christianity we should not condone the death of infants. As the people of God we should not be silent about such a thing.
I thought we had freedom of religion and separation of church and state. We don't have a government based on the principles of Christianity, and it's unconstitutional for us to try to.
[QB]The constitution says nothing about not having principles in line with Christianity. Principles such as truth, concern for you fellow man, and freedom exist in both documents.

[CTDeLude]

Sammy Jankis:
CTDeLude
As Christians we are called to value life (innocent life), as a government based on the principles of Christianity we should not condone the death of infants. As the people of God we should not be silent about such a thing.
I thought we had freedom of religion and separation of church and state. We don't have a government based on the principles of Christianity, and it's unconstitutional for us to try to.

Oh, and Fett, that Creed crack was really funny.
I think Jesus would hate funions.Yes indeed you are correct about freedom of religion but contrary to this new found "beliefs" that this nation wasn't founded on the ideas of Christianity but it was. It sure does rile feathers up and there are quotes flyoing around everywhere but it is has been proven (to me at least) that this nation was founded on God and is principles. The farther we drift away the less blessed we will be. The more we allow the worse the tide we rise on us.

But that has caused enough controversy here as it is and many of us no matter where the argument has gone have stood by whether we believe it or not and that looks like something that won't change.

I wouldn't want to distract from the current conversation any further though with rehashs..

God knows I have stuck my neck out so much lately I have a permanent cramp. :)

[Nelson]

capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
Luke 14

The Cost of Being a Disciple

25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

[QB]this verse is grossly translated. sorry.

what he meant to say (and somehow got lost in the translation) was that God would be a priority over everything else, even your own life.

how could someone that calls for love advocate hate. the only mention of hate in the bible that God has is hate for sin.

[Hubris]

capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):

The constitution says nothing about not having principles in line with Christianity. Principles such as truth, concern for you fellow man, and freedom exist in both documents.</strong>[/QUOTE]

Freedom, truth, and concern for your fellow man are not ideas limited to either document, nor did either invent the ideas. The line "We hold these truths to be self evident..." says it in a nutshell. The principles are not meant to be derivative or a reflection of any one faith or set of beliefs, but as a universal set of truths that bind us all regardless of faith.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Nelson:
capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
Luke 14

The Cost of Being a Disciple

25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

[QB]this verse is grossly translated. sorry.

what he meant to say (and somehow got lost in the translation) was that God would be a priority over everything else, even your own life.

how could someone that calls for love advocate hate. the only mention of hate in the bible that God has is hate for sin.Miseo 4:683,597
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mis-eh'-o Verb

Definition
to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
to be hated, detested

<a href="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3404&version=kjv" target="_blank">http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3404&version=kjv</a>

[Nelson]

Originally posted by capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):The only thing Jesus is doing right now is sitting at God's right hand. The Spirit is the one moving people in the world.Are you sure? Read the book of Hebrews.

And where does the Holy Spirit come from?

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Hubris:
capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):

The constitution says nothing about not having principles in line with Christianity. Principles such as truth, concern for you fellow man, and freedom exist in both documents.Freedom, truth, and concern for your fellow man are not ideas limited to either document, nor did either invent the ideas. The line "We hold these truths to be self evident..." says it in a nutshell. The principles are not meant to be derivative or a reflection of any one faith or set of beliefs, but as a universal set of truths that bind us all regardless of faith.</strong>[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Nelson:
Originally posted by capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):The only thing Jesus is doing right now is sitting at God's right hand. The Spirit is the one moving people in the world.Are you sure? Read the book of Hebrews.

And where does the Holy Spirit come from?Sent by the Father. And rather than me reading the whole book (which I've done) throw me the ref you're thinkin' of.

[Nelson]

not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in (Matthew 10:37) yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples. The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.

[otisthecat]

CTDeLude:
[QUOTE]Also though perhaps the Bible doesn't mention abortion by name it is pretty obvious it is contrary to God's will.For someone who is so literal in there interpretation of the Bible seems like speculating on what was left out would be just as bad as not taking what is in at face value.

[Nelson]

capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
Nelson:
Originally posted by capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):The only thing Jesus is doing right now is sitting at God's right hand. The Spirit is the one moving people in the world.Are you sure? Read the book of Hebrews.

And where does the Holy Spirit come from?Sent by the Father. And rather than me reading the whole book (which I've done) throw me the ref you're thinkin' of.Well, what was the Holy Spirit doing all the time in the OT? I mean, he's mention roughly about 2x.

[CTDeLude]

Nelson:
capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
Nelson:
Originally posted by capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):The only thing Jesus is doing right now is sitting at God's right hand. The Spirit is the one moving people in the world.Are you sure? Read the book of Hebrews.

And where does the Holy Spirit come from?Sent by the Father. And rather than me reading the whole book (which I've done) throw me the ref you're thinkin' of.Well, what was the Holy Spirit doing all the time in the OT? I mean, he's mention roughly about 2x.The movement of the Holy Spirt was limited to God's chosen, prophets, The Judges, kings. After Jesus ascended to Heaven it ws made available to all men who were baptized in it.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Nelson:
not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in (Matthew 10:37) yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples. The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account. Where in Hebrews is this?

[CTDeLude]

otisthecat:
CTDeLude:
[QUOTE]Also though perhaps the Bible doesn't mention abortion by name it is pretty obvious it is contrary to God's will.For someone who is so literal in there interpretation of the Bible seems like speculating on what was left out would be just as bad as not taking what is in at face value.Well when I say by name I mean by name: abortion. I do not think that word was either around or it didn't have the same context as today. Neither was the act itself exsisting in the way it does today. It used to be either you died(killed) with the baby, had the baby and it died(killed), or had the baby and lived with it.

If God knew you in the womb I highly doubt Hi will is for you to die in the womb because you are not wanted or are not feasible for the mother.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

CTDeLude:
The movement of the Holy Spirt was limited to God's chosen, prophets, The Judges, kings. After Jesus ascended to Heaven it ws made available to all men who were baptized in it.Word.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

Nelson:
Well, what was the Holy Spirit doing all the time in the OT? I mean, he's mention roughly about 2x.I count around 30 in the NT or did you want the OT count?

[Mad Man Mundt]

If Jesus was anything like me I think he'd hate a sweaty ass-crack.

[voltes5]

Jesus should have been borne as a multiracial gay hermaphroditic albino mute midget.

[Hubris]

We were created in his image, allegedly, sweaty ass cracks and all. Imagine the sand getting up under your robe, mixing with the sweat of walking around all the damn time. I imagine they all would need some Gold Bond Powder.

[voltes5]

.....and limbless, to boot!

[Hubris]

voltes5:
Jesus should have been borne as a multiracial gay hermaphroditic albino mute midget.You mean...I'M Jesus?!?!?

[voltes5]

We once had a thread where I pointed out Jesus' unsightly nose hairs.....

I have no point really, but to mention it again. :D

[Hubris]

voltes5:
We once had a thread where I pointed out Jesus' unsightly nose hairs.....

I have no point really, but to mention it again. :D Shouldn't this be in the "Shameless Liknks and Self promotion" area? All we need is voltes5 popping in every now and then saying "ooh, ooh, I said this once in another thread" or " Hey did you see how big my dick is? Anyway, back to Jesus.." :p

Jesus would LOVE this post.

[Burke]

CTDeLude:
otisthecat:
CTDeLude:
[QUOTE]Also though perhaps the Bible doesn't mention abortion by name it is pretty obvious it is contrary to God's will.For someone who is so literal in there interpretation of the Bible seems like speculating on what was left out would be just as bad as not taking what is in at face value.Well when I say by name I mean by name: abortion. I do not think that word was either around or it didn't have the same context as today. Neither was the act itself exsisting in the way it does today. It used to be either you died(killed) with the baby, had the baby and it died(killed), or had the baby and lived with it.

If God knew you in the womb I highly doubt Hi will is for you to die in the womb because you are not wanted or are not feasible for the mother.Not so. At the time of Christ, voluntary abortion was practiced in many parts of the so-called civilized world. In Rome, abortions were performed by inserting a stiff reed into the womb or using spices and unguents which had poison like effects. Infanticide after the baby was born was also practiced, but so was what we currently think of as abortion.

[voltes5]

Burke is correct. Hippocrates was completely against abortion and assisted suicide (which includes infanticide).

Here's an excerpt from "The Hippocratic Oath":

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give a woman an abortive remedy.

[CTDeLude]

Burke:
CTDeLude:
otisthecat:
CTDeLude:
[QUOTE]Also though perhaps the Bible doesn't mention abortion by name it is pretty obvious it is contrary to God's will.For someone who is so literal in there interpretation of the Bible seems like speculating on what was left out would be just as bad as not taking what is in at face value.Well when I say by name I mean by name: abortion. I do not think that word was either around or it didn't have the same context as today. Neither was the act itself exsisting in the way it does today. It used to be either you died(killed) with the baby, had the baby and it died(killed), or had the baby and lived with it.

If God knew you in the womb I highly doubt Hi will is for you to die in the womb because you are not wanted or are not feasible for the mother.Not so. At the time of Christ, voluntary abortion was practiced in many parts of the so-called civilized world. In Rome, abortions were performed by inserting a stiff reed into the womb or using spices and unguents which had poison like effects. Infanticide after the baby was born was also practiced, but so was what we currently think of as abortion.Ah alright. Thanks for pointing that out.

But I still stand by the asseertion that Jesus' life itself was testimony enough against abortion.

[ShogunAssassin]

More thank likely this has been posted allready but I didn't fell like reading the whole thing so here goes... Jesus would hate people with WWJD? stickers.