Worldviews

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by avb3

Eastcoast, you and I have been on the same side on most points of this issue, but there are a few things in this post we are not.

Some have considered me right of Attila the Hun, and you already know I am not even remotely fundamentalist. It's not a great idea to equate conservative leanings with religious thought, and I am disgusted that especially in the U.S. that the fundamentalists have hijacked the conservative political agenda.

I am very, very mixed on the whole abortion issue. From my perspective, there are very few reasons to have one; rape and incest are certainly two, and the life of the mother being endangered. I do think life begins at conception, and having a daughter who saw the ultrasound and then miscarried, I can not see how anyone can't say that it is not a human being in the womb. Seeing the little thumbs and limbs at an early stage certainly supports that viewpoint

Others may have a different point of view.

Stem cell research, as far as I am aware, does not require an aborted fetus. My understanding is that umbilical cord stem cells can be used. If I am wrong in this, please someone correct me.

None of this is connected with thinking a 2000 year old book of stories is the meaning of all life. That still doesn't make sense to me. After all, it is in the believe in science that has allowed parents to view their fetuses in the womb, not the magical believe in something occult.

I come from the liberatarion thought side of it, when medical science has to change somthing they do because it upsets the religious right it's a bad thing, the church should have no say on what happens in a research lab,they changed stem cell research from fetuses to umbilical cords to please the extremists, what if they don't find anything in embilical cords and the cures are in the fetus? we don't know but I don't pretend to know more than somebody else because of a religious belief I have.

as far as abortion goes I am not really mixed up at all I support it, all babies should be wanted and loved I see the personal dilema that women are in but it's their body to do with as they wish, the government doies not own their body no more than they own yours or mine, and if these religious people really wanted to save fetuses they would start adopting more and let gays do the same, to me it's about control over others and telling them how to live.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Harvesting the Unborn

http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/harvest.pdf?docID=150

I would think the intent is there, would you agree?

Even this article does not seem to object to stem cell research from umbilical cords sources, does it?

Are the fundamentalist religious groups opposed to any stem cell research at all? That would just not make any sense.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by avb3

Even this article does not seem to object to stem cell research from umbilical cords sources, does it?

Are the fundamentalist religious groups opposed to any stem cell research at all? That would just not make any sense.

when did religion ever make sense?

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Even this article does not seem to object to stem cell research from umbilical cords sources, does it?

Are the fundamentalist religious groups opposed to any stem cell research at all? That would just not make any sense.

Doesn't appear to be apposed to stem cell research from Umbilical cords. However will the deciding authorities stay to an ethical or moral guideline when it comes to attaining stem cells and from what source?

I have little knowledge as to what position fundamentalist religious groups are going to take, other than that the destruction of life from the moment of conception would likely raise objection. The long standing question as to when does life begin? Or if you believe in a soul when does it have it's being. For those of us that believe in scripture these answers can be found in the writings of David

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Doesn't appear to be apposed to stem cell research from Umbilical cords. However will the deciding authorities stay to an ethical or moral guideline when it comes to attaining stem cells and from what source?

I have little knowledge as to what position fundamentalist religious groups are going to take, other than that the destruction of life from the moment of conception would likely raise objection. The long standing question as to when does life begin? Or if you believe in a soul when does it have it's being. For those of us that believe in scripture these answers can be found in the writings of David

Yet if one reads Exodus, the bible is at best ambiguous. If one strikes a woman, and kills her, then one is subject to execution, however, if one strikes a woman and causes her to miscarry, then one is only subject to a fine, depending on what the husband demands and a judge allows.

Of course, there is no mention if she is pregnant and does not have a husband.

So, the interpretation from David's poems/songs is a stretch at best, yet Exodus is much more explicit.

There certainly was not much value placed on a fetus as far as Exodus is concerned, certainly not as much as a human after birth

Right?

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

im trying to prove how someone's religion is holding the rest of us back as a species, it's politicizing a small issue into a political point by the right wing extremists, what if they find a cure for cancer in stem cells? would the death of a few fetuses be worth saving millions of lives? and that's not even my problem if you feel like that fine do whatever you want, my problem is when you stop it for me because of your side of the story is my problem.

Hey eastcoast, let's play the 'what if' game scenario a little further: You say, "what if they find a cure for cancer in stem cells? would the death of a few fetuses be worth saving millions of lives?" Let's also look at it this way: what if the cure for cancer really was in one of those fetuses - but it would have required that fetus to be born, grow up, study and become a research scientist who discovers a cure for cancer? But that fetus was aborted, killed, and that ended that chance before it even had a living chance. And now millions of people had to suffer with cancer and millions of lives that person could have saved are lost?

Another 'what if' scenario: if I understand it correctly, in the theory of evolution for one thing to become something else, it requires a process wherein something triggers a change. If that process is random and not orchestrated (for it to be orchestrated would require an intelligent 'orchistrator' - and we don't want to go there because that might lead to calling that orchistrator "god"), then suppose that trigger change for the evolutionary advancement of the human race just happens to be in a particular fetus that is conceived one day ------ but fetus' mom doesn't want the fetus. She doesn't want to be pregnant. It was an 'accident'. So she aborts the fetus. No harm done - right? Except that now that evolutionary trigger is gone! And the evolutionary advancement of the human race stalls, or worse, begins to regress leading to the extinction of our species.
Isn't that also part of the theory of evolution - that when evolutionary advancement stops a species begins a journey to eventual extinction?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Hey eastcoast, let's play the 'what if' game scenario a little further: You say, "what if they find a cure for cancer in stem cells? would the death of a few fetuses be worth saving millions of lives?" Let's also look at it this way: what if the cure for cancer really was in one of those fetuses - but it would have required that fetus to be born, grow up, study and become a research scientist who discovers a cure for cancer? But that fetus was aborted, killed, and that ended that chance before it even had a living chance. And now millions of people had to suffer with cancer and millions of lives that person could have saved are lost?

Another 'what if' scenario: if I understand it correctly, in the theory of evolution for one thing to become something else, it requires a process wherein something triggers a change. If that process is random and not orchestrated (for it to be orchestrated would require an intelligent 'orchistrator' - and we don't want to go there because that might lead to calling that orchistrator "god"), then suppose that trigger change for the evolutionary advancement of the human race just happens to be in a particular fetus that is conceived one day ------ but fetus' mom doesn't want the fetus. She doesn't want to be pregnant. It was an 'accident'. So she aborts the fetus. No harm done - right? Except that now that evolutionary trigger is gone! And the evolutionary advancement of the human race stalls, or worse, begins to regress leading to the extinction of our species.
Isn't that also part of the theory of evolution - that when evolutionary advancement stops a species begins a journey to eventual extinction?

your what if doesn't make and sense, whatif a woman had an abortion for whatever reason or this futus was a test tube baby and the doctors aborted it and flushed it down the toilet and there was cures they could have found in it?, you are getting it wrong the fetuses are being aborted regardless if they get to research stem cells or not so what's the hysteria about?

you do realize that lots of fetuses are miscarried everyday right? lots of women are pregnant and don't even know it, think their period is a few days late and then they miscary, your argument is rediculous it's a strawman argument at best, let scientists help us without interference from religious fairy tails like the sanctity of life.

[eastcoast]

can't say it better than the master himself, this is about the "The Sanctity Of Life" which is fundamental to this stem cell argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yet if one reads Exodus, the bible is at best ambiguous. If one strikes a woman, and kills her, then one is subject to execution, however, if one strikes a woman and causes her to miscarry, then one is only subject to a fine, depending on what the husband demands and a judge allows.

Of course, there is no mention if she is pregnant and does not have a husband.

So, the interpretation from David's poems/songs is a stretch at best, yet Exodus is much more explicit.

There certainly was not much value placed on a fetus as far as Exodus is concerned, certainly not as much as a human after birth

Right?

If you are referring to Exd 21:22 the key word would be "prematurely" or "no mischief follows", which indicates the infant did not die. Whereas, the following verse Exd 21:23 refers to a serious injury. Therefore if there was a miscarriage in that the fetus died, I believe that it would be a life for a life. I'm not seeing how that is ambiguous

In respect to when life begins, I'm not certain why you feel that David's writings lack interpretation.

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb" (Psa 139:13)

The other verse I would consider is Jerimiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart"

These two verses alone would lead me to believe that life begins at conception.

However, one would have to believe that the spirit is an active participant in the forming of the child.

[eastcoast]

life is sacred who said so ? god? hey if you read history your realize that god is one of the leading causes of death, has been for thousands of years,hindu's muslim's jew's chrsitians all taking turns killing each other cause god said it was a good idea.

you know where the sanctity of life came from? we made it up, you know why? cause were alive....self interest.living people have a strong interest in somehow promoting life is sacred, you don't see abbot and costello running around talking about this do ya? were not hearing a whole lot form mousilini on the subject, what's the latest from jfk? not a god dam thing, you know why cause jfk, mousilini and abbot and costello are dead.

if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die where does the sacred part come in?

viruses,mold,mildew,maggots,fungus,weeds,e coli,bacteria,the crabs, nothing sacred about those things,so at best the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing, we get to choose what forms of life are sacred, and we get to kill the rest, pretty neat deal right you know how we got it? we made the whole thing up.

[greylynx]

Hey Eastcoast wuts up?

Did you buy yourselfself an icepick, shopvac and coathanger, and business is not so good?

I think you should market your business in a different manner.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Hey Eastcoast wuts up?

Did you buy yourselfself an icepick, shopvac and coathanger, and business is not so good?

I think you should market your business in a different manner.

maybe I should have just built a set of stairs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkp8-...eature=related

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

your what if doesn't make and sense, whatif a woman had an abortion for whatever reason or this futus was a test tube baby and the doctors aborted it and flushed it down the toilet and there was cures they could have found in it?, you are getting it wrong the fetuses are being aborted regardless if they get to research stem cells or not so what's the hysteria about?

you do realize that lots of fetuses are miscarried everyday right? lots of women are pregnant and don't even know it, think their period is a few days late and then they miscary, your argument is rediculous it's a strawman argument at best, let scientists help us without interference from religious fairy tails like the sanctity of life.

Whoa, back up a little! You're jumping to conclusions again.
Stick with the discussion, please! Instead of going all over the map .

I'm not talking about any fetus, I'm talking about a specific "what if" scenario - just like you did! But from the opposite side.

Also, please note - I am not bringing in "religious fairy tales like the sanctity of life."
For the sake of discussion, trying to be on the same ground you are, I'm just pointing out that just as a dead fetus whose stem cells could hold a key to curing cancer (theoretically), it could also on the other side of the argument be just as much a possibility that if an aborted fetus lived he or she could become the person to discover a cure! The tragedy in the second case would be that the abortion would have devastating consequences, so perhaps, as both 'what if' scenarios I presented suggest, we could be doing more damage to the human race than we think through the practice of abortion (which in Canada has no legal restrictions!).

It's abundantly clear from your POV that life has no 'sanctity' - at least not while in the womb!
If I may ask, do you have kids? If so, were you excited about them before they were born? Did you pick names for them?
My wife and I sure were and did! They were not just 'fetuses'. We loved them from the moment we knew they were on the way!

Oh, and I'm very, very well aware that many babies / fetuses are miscarried all the time, many from natural causes. I've been very close to the pain of it. I've cried with those who've suffered as a result of it.
I've also been there after abortions have ended the life of babies and seen the pain and regret that often accompanies that - often many, many years after the fact. For most people it's not akin to simply getting rid of an unwanted lump of flesh as you seem to imply.
I know of a young woman who had an abortion and then a few years later got married and she and her husband wanted to have children, but the abortion, done in a hospital, caused some damage and she was unable to conceive. When her husband found out why, let's just say it was an unpleasant situation with unpleasant 'fallout'.
I've counselled people who would have been grandparents except for the fact that their daughter aborted the fetus, and those grandparents were extremely hurt. They would have loved that little one.
I know of a young man who found out the fetus he fathered was aborted without his knowledge, and he ended his own life.

If a fetus doesn't mean anything, why do these kinds of things happen?

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

can't say it better than the master himself, this is about the "The Sanctity Of Life" which is fundamental to this stem cell argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

oh that's really cute, real 'funny' even.
Thank you so much for sharing that - it makes me feel so good to be sharing the same species identification with that piece of work. (NOTE THE HEAVY SARCASM).
Coming from you I should have known better than to click on the link. And no, I didn't watch the whole thing, I didn't feel like puking.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

If you are referring to Exd 21:22 the key word would be "prematurely" or "no mischief follows", which indicates the infant did not die. Whereas, the following verse Exd 21:23 refers to a serious injury. Therefore if there was a miscarriage in that the fetus died, I believe that it would be a life for a life. I'm not seeing how that is ambiguous

That is an incorrect interpretation. The word "prematurely" refers to a fetus that is unable to sustain life, in other words, if not yet developed into a human form, it was not to be regarded as in any sense a human being, so that the giver of the blow was only required to pay a pecuniary compensation.

The "no mischief follows" refers to a premature birth that can sustain life, and in that case is obviously viewed as a human.... or maybe not, as Numbers 3:15-16 seems to indicate that if a child is less then a month old, it doesn't count. Quote:

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

Soooooooooooo... God doesn't want to know about kids under the age of 1 month, Curious, don't you think?

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

life is sacred who said so ? god? hey if you read history your realize that god is one of the leading causes of death, has been for thousands of years,hindu's muslim's jew's chrsitians all taking turns killing each other cause god said it was a good idea.

you know where the sanctity of life came from? we made it up, you know why? cause were alive....self interest.living people have a strong interest in somehow promoting life is sacred, you don't see abbot and costello running around talking about this do ya? were not hearing a whole lot form mousilini on the subject, what's the latest from jfk? not a god dam thing, you know why cause jfk, mousilini and abbot and costello are dead.

if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die where does the sacred part come in?

viruses,mold,mildew,maggots,fungus,weeds,e coli,bacteria,the crabs, nothing sacred about those things,so at best the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing, we get to choose what forms of life are sacred, and we get to kill the rest, pretty neat deal right you know how we got it? we made the whole thing up.

I can only respond and speak from the Christian Biblical point of view (but you knew that anyway): The sanctity of HUMAN life, the sacredness of it, comes from being created in the image of God, and in the role we have in creation.

From Genesis 1:Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,b and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” ... God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Ge 1:26-31

God never said killing and death were, as you say, "a good idea." Death is 'our' fault. From Genesis 2, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Ge 2:15-17

Humans killing humans is the direct consequence and result of freely disobeying God. It can't be pinned on Him.

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by avb3

That is an incorrect interpretation. The word "prematurely" refers to a fetus that is unable to sustain life, in other words, if not yet developed into a human form, it was not to be regarded as in any sense a human being, so that the giver of the blow was only required to pay a pecuniary compensation.

The "no mischief follows" refers to a premature birth that can sustain life, and in that case is obviously viewed as a human.... or maybe not, as Numbers 3:15-16 seems to indicate that if a child is less then a month old, it doesn't count. Quote:

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

Soooooooooooo... God doesn't want to know about kids under the age of 1 month, Curious, don't you think?

Wrong avb3.
I quote, bold print highlighted text by me: "Of special interest to many Christians are verses 22–25. Unfortunately, most translations leave the reader with a false impression, which has led in turn to the wrong application of this passage to the abortion issue. In short, this law deals with the results of a pregnant woman being struck (accidentally) by two men who are fighting. The result of this unfortunate attack is a “miscarriage” according to most English translations. The text continues: “[If] there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined.... if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye...” (v. 23). This has often been interpreted to mean that a miscarriage occurred. Then the issue becomes how the mother was affected—the implication being that the fetus really did not matter; it was not considered a human and the focus of attention was the mother. This passage is often conveniently used by advocates of abortion to say that since God did not demand punishment for the loss of the child, then the fetus did not have image-of-God status.
However, the Hebrew of 21:22 literally reads “and hit a pregnant woman so that her child(ren) come forth, and no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined.” Here the King James and New International translations are helpful. The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used here. Our text portrays a woman being struck and then delivering prematurely.
The very passage used by some to support abortion, in fact, goes in the opposite direction. In this case the woman is accidentally struck, but if she or the child dies as a result, then the guilty party could be sentenced to death. This is the only instance in the Torah where involuntary manslaughter calls for the death penalty."
Elwell, Walter A.: Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book House, 1996, c1989 (Baker Reference Library 3)

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

you got to admit those stories are a very good coincidences aren't they?

Whether those are coincidences or not is a debate in itself. I think that the plethora of similar stories gives even more weight to the correct version of events.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

isn't that what religion does all the time? isn't that why you are trying to discredit carbon dating? I have seen the facts and made a choice I will choose common sense not fairy tails about sky daddies.

Here's something from a main stream journal for you to peruse. Or maybe you know more than those scientists as well?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ow-life-began/

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

santa clause has alot of songs,followers,movies dedicated to him.

More fail. Not really here to argue the validity of other beliefs or faiths; but to give mine credence. But since you needed to know:http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/origin-of-santa/.

Ok, so technically not Santa, but you get the idea. Evidently the Bishop Nicholas was a real person.

[Tactical Lever]

[QUOTE=avb3;1298940]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Phffffftt... what supernatural or spiritual belief system is promulgated by atheists?

Having a non-secular philosopher define atheism has as much credibility as an atheist trying to define a faith.

Question it's premises and explanations is valid, but defining it? How can anyone define what may be my spirituality? It's mine, not yours, not anyone else's and certainly not someone's who doesn't know mine.

Atheists happen to belief in no spiritual beliefs. That's OK. Don't call it a religion, because I can guarantee you my spiritual beliefs are not a religion.

I wouldn't call atheistic beliefs a religion per se (I don't even like the word); but I would question the impartiality of the individuals who so vehemently oppose the mention of anything Biblical that they are driven to profanity and insults and have to leave the debate to look at dog videos. Or use belittling language/terms and a bunch of cartoons as "argument". Some of you are so intimidated by the Word that you will not even spell out God! Other people suppose that they know the one creature left alive 2 billion(?) years ago.

Now that is amazing, now if they could only tell us what it ate and what colour it was. And also how it ended up being a couple hundred species (apparently devolving ? into bugs as well) when the prime motivator of evolution is the promotion of survival traits. This is counter intuitive to the very core of the theory; after all do they all survive better than one another?!

Pursuant to my above thoughts, no one seems to be up to the challenge of answering my puzzles. They are not hard, but they are thought provoking.

So is it a religion? Maybe not, but it is a faith which must not be questioned! Regardless of any new information on the topic. After all, aren't we always accused of relying on an outdated book?

[30Cal]

The quote mentioned in the above post is not from me. What happens is that if you quote somebody who has been quoted by another member, the second members name appears as having been the one that made the statement, although they didn't. In order to stop this you must remove the square brackets and members id following the person's id that actually made the comment. This way the person making the actual statement is quoted.

I believe the above noted quote possibly belongs to eastcoast? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

Horsepucky.

They knew a bird from a mammal from a reptile (remember the snake) from a fish (except whales apparently they got confuse on too).

And then there were the imaginary animals like unicorns and giants, which for some strange reason, no fossil evidence has been found.

2000 year old manuscripts dealing with the spiritual are not something to be relied on when dealing with the actual.

Use the allegory and metaphors contained therein, and like I said many times before, it can be used as a strong spiritual message. Taking it literally, naaaa, not so much

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...corns-in-bible

About the whales; functional not taxonomic. Remember? This is about observational science.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

The quote mentioned in the above post is not from me. What happens is that if you quote somebody who has been quoted by another member, the second members name appears as having been the one that made the statement, although they didn't. In order to stop this you must remove the square brackets and members id following the person's id that actually made the comment. This way the person making the actual statement is quoted.

I believe the above noted quote possibly belongs to eastcoast? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry, that quote was by avb3 who was quoting you I think but it showed up as a quote by eastcoast? That's kind of goofy.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Here's something from a main stream journal for you to peruse. Or maybe you know more than those scientists as well?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ow-life-began/

Yes, especially telling is the last few sentences:

Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse (see for example the screed "Darwinism Refuted," which cites my 1991 article), but they shouldn’t be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life’s mystery instead of blaming it all on God.

[avb3]

I asked the question before, but it must have been missed.

Numbers 3:15-16 seems to indicate that if a child is less then a month old, it doesn't count. Quote:

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

Soooooooooooo... God doesn't want to know about kids under the age of 1 month, Curious, don't you think?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

God never said killing and death were, as you say, "a good idea." Death is 'our' fault. From Genesis 2, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. electronic ed. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1996, c1984, S. Ge 2:15-17

Humans killing humans is the direct consequence and result of freely disobeying God. It can't be pinned on Him.

That would suggest humans were never to die, right, had they not had the fruit?

[30Cal]

Please read through completely before commenting...and enjoy

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Whether those are coincidences or not is a debate in itself. I think that the plethora of similar stories gives even more weight to the correct version of events.

That is not a credible statement at all. Mithra, Horus, Dionysus, Krishna, and Buddha all pre-dated the NT by hundreds if not thousands of years.

The NT is just another in a long line of similar tales.

Quit looking for the literal interpretation; look for the spiritual one, the metaphorical one, the allegorical one.... that will be the real truth, and it correlates with all of the previous ones. The others were understood that way, and no one confused viewed them as a literal interpretation.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

I asked the question before, but it must have been missed.

Numbers 3:15-16 seems to indicate that if a child is less then a month old, it doesn't count. Quote:

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

Soooooooooooo... God doesn't want to know about kids under the age of 1 month, Curious, don't you think?

No it wasn't missed I was still going over it. From what I understand this verse is referring to a count that applies to the Levi, who came into being as a result of the Exodus. It may have something to do with Exodus in 12:29. Numbers 3:13 God claims all the first born to be His. I'm questioning if there is a time frame here, in that any child before the month would not have been included in the PassOver?...don't quote me please, I'm working on this one. In any case I can use other verses if you would like to show that age is not an issue in respect to the importance of the age of a child or life to God.