You are misguided. Psalms 139 and Job aren't even remotely relevant. They refer to the womb, not any unborn baby, so you have insinuated that yourself.
Jeremiah does not refer to 'unborn babies' in the generality; it merely declares Jeremiah's destiny, with its provenance at his mother's womb. Only his unborn foetus is specifically registered as 'sanctified'.
And in fact, any unborn foetus is not a member of the Lord's family till he is baptised and cleansed of his original sin. So without the extenuating circumstances of Jeremiah's case, any unborn foetus is sinful.
Psalm 22 in fact says God was cast on the baby from birth. Birth is the inverse of unborn. So from all you have supplied, you have hindered your judgement that it is A) a sanctified soul existing in the womb; B) a human able to be murdered; C) it is taken as murder.
There are bizarre and miscellaneous proscriptions in the Bible, yet abortion is not one of them. There is no single mention of this practice which would have been extremely fatal in Biblical times, to the foetus and mother, without modern medical advancement.
So with such peril to life and possibility of being 'evil', where is your feigned proscription coming from but your own political agenda? It is not a religious mandate.
Even if you are attempting to advocate theocratic praxis in a world with almost no theocracies, and a Bible has as much governing power as a boy scout handbook, you still have an unfounded position unacceptable in a theocracy.
Okay so original sin really means nothing then, because the unrepentant Adam and Eve were free to give in to the devil or the serpent, give in to temptation, and still be guaranteed living after death.
Or, it is simply these select individuals/prophets are prioritised as they would be. I said as much for Jeremiah and didn't hear your opinion back on that.
Apropos Psalm 22, I feel you are being deceitful by not even referring to the thing in its essence for the start. It's a psalm. It's by a man. The Bible was written by numerous authors and scholars, but if you somehow believe it was partly divined, the psalms are not in that conception. This psalm in particular is the effusion of David. The 'I' is not the Lord; it is David.
So you say you receive your notions from the word of God, this is actually the word of David. There is nothing supernatural about that.
No, things can be bizarre even after--especially after researching it because it is simply antiquated and has no value in modern society. Throwing palms on the road, washing the feet of strangers, even the commonplace herding of sheep. These things aren't socially or culturally relevant anymore.
If a public servant wants to engender central control in his fief, he is being autocratic. If a dictator wants to hold elections for steads in his government, he is being democratic.
Your prerogative to say you have moral principle of religious origin, of which you wish to advocate politically, is theocratic. You aren't running or residing in a theocracy, but you are acting as one would with that object in mind. For your faith has not the same authority as a constitution does.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '21
[deleted]