I think it would have been appropriate for you to literally laugh out loud. Those kinds of comments don't even deserve a reply.
It was hard not to, and instead I buried my face in my hands and started moaning.
I once listened to my minister - non-denom - teach that abortion was okay until a baby drew breath because of the whole God breathed on him and he became a living soul passage.
Sadly, so have I. Its a good thing these non-denom guys read their Bibles exegetically and with sincerity or there might end up being a whole lot of different interpretations.
<sorry guys... the sarcastic, slightly irritated bumble is coming out tonight>
Tell your MIL that King David himself said that "there is no god" so why are we worrying about what they bible says about anything anyway?
A good point. Ecclesiastes has passages that sound equally as terrifying when taken on their own and out of context.
csi also thinks Jesus is the Immaculate Conception...take that for what you will
It's a shame they can't investigate history and actual Catholic terminology with as much precision as they investigate crime scenes.
The blood of any animal has a sort of symbolism of its entire life. When we "bleed out" we die. And the "shedding of blood" means death. Conversely, then, this blood is its life. But, not in a biological sense. Biologically speaking, we could say the same thing about brain cells or liver cells. If I remove the brain and keep all of the blood in the body, the animal is still going to be dead. If I remove its liver it is still going to be dead.
You made some very good points. And I suppose, technically, this verse never, ever says that "the soul is in the blood." So all things considered, if this verse is taken in the manner my MIL took it, the life may be in the blood... but since life cannot exist without all the other things you mentioned (and many, many more) then really the life (in whatever sense it exists in the blood) would exist in those other things as well... more or less rendering her idea even more ridiculous... well... hang, on...
She can't be taking "life" there to be meaning "that which biologically keeps you alive" at all can she? Because even before the blastocyst receives blood there is "something keeping it biologically alive." So she is more-or-less interpreting "life" to mean "ensoulment" even though she doesn't know what ensoulment is. She can't be thinking life means physical life at all, I don't imagine.
Regardless of what she thinks, I agree with you, I take it more symbolically... or perhaps, more accurately, I take it 'ritually.'
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
I suppose I shouldn't point out that #2 was true up until the 1930s concerning contraception as well....
I had thought of that. Of course if one kept using that argument, why eventually they'd be consistent and start using it for all kinds of moral and theological topics like the divinity of Christ, efficacy of Baptist, the real presence... oh wait...
Baby puke does sometimes get in the way of whatever we are doing at the moment. Poor baby. Poor dad.
(sorry, but I am mentally envisioning you jumping up to take care of it and it is scrolling before my mental eyes ...)
It was a sight to behold, let me tell you. Me plopping down the computer and cleaning up yak and giving a bath...
Oh wow. So MIL & SIL know too - sort of.
Good for you!
Well, sort of. DW blew my cover early on with MIL and honestly I'm not terribly interested in SILs opinion (which is a rotten thing to say, but its the truth) and she might've known already and even if she didn't she doesn't know enough to be overly concerned. However, I am getting that brazen with some of my comments, mostly because I'm tired of taking little comments that are "hits below the belt" once in awhile over this whole thing. How some of you have endured the nasty things said about you and the Catholic faith is admirable. Its all new to me.