Big Tex

@Markoos88 @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta Please learn the differences. x.com/i/grok/share/4…

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta But when human blood is shed by another human, whether intentionally or unintentionally, monetary compensation is explicitly prohibited in Numbers 35. So you can't in any way say Exodus 21:22-25 allows monetary compensation for unless you think the Bible contradicts itself.

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta Funny how you go as far as saying Numbers 35 contradicts with Exodus 21:-22:25 rather than admitting you're wrong. Not to mention Exodus 21:22-25 doesn't say anything about unintentional which means it's not unintentional. There is nothing unintentional about starting a fight.

@Markoos88 @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta It outlines the owner of a deadly animal allowing it to roam freely despite prior warnings, making the owner criminally negligent and liable for the death it causes.

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta And your forth example the murderer is literally an animal not a human so it's irrelevant but what makes it interesting is that the author is perfectly capable of talking about monetary compensation and doesn't have to say life for life but instead mean monetary compensation 😂

@Markoos88 @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta The Bible doesn't contradict itself; you are not understanding the differences between what you are citing. Exodus 21:22-25, Exodus 21:29-30, and Numbers 35:9-12 all outline different cases of unintentional killing, negligence, and manslaughter under Mosaic law.

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta I'm not sure why you keep copy pasting from a source outside of the Bible from a book that also says Jesus is boiling in feces as some kind of evidence that it's okay for the Bible to contradict itself 😂

Im not sure why you keep saying this when Jewish Law is very clear: “‘An eye for an eye’ (Exodus 21:24) You might say that this means that the one who caused injury shall lose an actual eye rather than pay money. The Gemara responds: That interpretation should not enter your mind…one who strikes a person is liable to pay monetary compensation.” sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.83b… "The expression 'life for life' means that the one who unintentionally strikes must compensate the woman's husband for the value of her life if she dies and the value of her children if they die." sefaria.org/Exodus.21.23?l… “a life for a life” is not referring to execution; rather, the reference is to monetary restitution…Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the phrase “then you shall give a life for a life” does not mean execution, but rather monetary restitution for the life that he took. sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.79a.…

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta Lol you make things up as you go. 😂 There's literally no difference between the second and third, in theory. You're clutching at straws. A murder is either intentional or unintentional. There is no third. And the Bible explicitly prohibits monetary settlement for both.

@Markoos88 @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta "It doesn't"

"without relying on your twisted interpretation." You mean Jewish Law?

There is a difference: Premeditated murder: Death Exodus 21:14 biblegateway.com/passage/?searc… Unintentional but reckless harm: Monetary "life for life” Exodus 21:22-25 biblegateway.com/passage/?searc… Manslaughter without intent or recklessness: Exile only Numbers 35:9-12 biblegateway.com/passage/?searc… Negligent: Death or ransom Exodus 21:29-30 biblegateway.com/passage/?searc…

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta It doesn't. But it does cover monetary compensation for the death of someone in the same chapter without relying on your twisted interpretation. Except monetary compensation is only allowed when the murderer is an animal like an ox. The owner has to pay. Exodus 21:28–32.

@Markoos88 @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta Where does Exodus 21:22-25 outline cities of refuge?

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta You should take up your problem with Numbers 35. It explicitly says you should never accept a ransom for murder. Even if it's unintentional. You should also stop saying something is unintentional when the Bible doesn't classify it as unintentional.

@Markoos88 @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta You should take up your claim with Jewish Law, it says you are wrong.

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta You start a fight near a pregnant woman, intentionally. That's enough to make it intentional. Which is why their life is demanded instead of being given refuge until the death of a high priest. Bottom line is even unintentional murders weren't allowed to be settled by money.

Exodus 21:22-25 limits all punishment to financial compensation. Jewish Law states: The compensation structure is further defined in Bava Kamma 83b-97a, which divides the violations in Exodus 21:23-25 into two categories: 'Payments for damage' (e.g., life, eye, tooth, hand, foot) and 'Payments for pain' (e.g., burns, bruises, wounds). The amount was determined by "viewing the injured party as though he were a slave being sold in the slave market." sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.83b…

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta Also, the dominant Jewish understanding doesn't claim that the mother's life if lost, could be settled monetarily. That would be in direct contradiction with the laws of murder, even if unintentional, as described in Numbers 35. There are no exceptions in Numbers 35. None. Zero.

Christians, would this be grounds for divorce?

Exodus 21:22-25 is not a general law on manslaughter like Numbers 35. It is a case-specific law on assault causing pregnancy loss, injury, or death outlining unintentional but reckless harm. Exile to a city of refuge was never considered under the case law outlined in Exodus 21:22-25, only financial compensation. Again, Jewish Law states: “‘An eye for an eye’ (Exodus 21:24) You might say that this means that the one who caused injury shall lose an actual eye rather than pay money. The Gemara responds: That interpretation should not enter your mind…one who strikes a person is liable to pay monetary compensation.” sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.83b… "The expression 'life for life' means that the one who unintentionally strikes must compensate the woman's husband for the value of her life if she dies and the value of her children if they die." sefaria.org/Exodus.21.23?l… “a life for a life” is not referring to execution; rather, the reference is to monetary restitution…Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the phrase “then you shall give a life for a life” does not mean execution, but rather monetary restitution for the life that he took. sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.79a.…

@ProLifeBigTex @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta We had this discussion and I totally obliterated your claims. I showed you how even unintentional murder in Numbers 35 is handled. Not with money but with the life of the high priest. Why do you keep parroting the same nonsense?

@harman_geoff @1918Moonsh17670 @queenie4rmnola The Bible never states that image bearers of God lack human life in the womb or that their biological existence begins with their first breath of oxygen after birth.

@1918Moonsh17670 @queenie4rmnola I suppose you have a point if you believe life begins at conception. But I think the Bible says life begins at the first breath. And your point would be stronger if you supported better childcare and safe schools with no guns and you had a house full of adopted kids.

If all lives matter, you would never have been offended by Black Lives Matter.

@vivienkemp10 @MibshaD False The Sotah Ritual had nothing to do with abortion.

@MibshaD God gave the recipe for abortion in the Bible, Numbers 5:11-31, FYI. He also said why it should be used.

Abortion is murder. Period. Abortion is when a baby gets the death penalty for someone else’s actions.

Even Jewish Law outlines this: "A descendant of Noah is executed for killing fetuses… It is derived from that which is written: ‘One who sheds the blood of a person, by a person his blood shall be shed’ (Genesis 9:6). What is a person that is in a person? You must say: This is a fetus that is in its mother’s womb” - Sanhedrin 57b sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.57b.… "A Noachide who slays any soul, even a fetus in its mother's womb, should be executed in retribution for its death." - Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 9, Law 4 chabad.org/library/articl…

@ProLifeBigTex @Markoos88 @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus Can you imagine the consequences of intentional killing if a child in the womb? Also, there are other case laws where degrees of manslaughter can be death or a monetary payment of restitution. We wouldn’t say that just b/c there is payment it’s not murder.

@9Sling @MESandridge @KatelynTweeter Convincing her not to kill her child is not "judging" or "guilt tripping" her. Again, you prove yourself dishonest.

Not true. I trust women to make the best choice for themselves and don’t want to make her feel judged. I do support offerings of support to help her if she has financial barriers or needs emotional support but I disagree entirely with efforts to guilt trip her. I back that up with donations to organizations that feel the same way.

Dear pro-choicers, What exact week does an unborn baby change from a "clump of cells" into a human? And don't say it's gradual because: Week 1: unique DNA Week 6: heartbeat detected Week 7: synapses in brain Week 16: hiccups Week 20: organs measurable Week 24: viability Week 30: fingernails formed Week 36: lungs ready So, which is it? Where do you draw the line and begin to bestow human rights?

If you have zero issue with the death of another human through abortion, and do not interfere in any way to convince that mother not to kill her children, you are pro-abortion. You and @MESandridge have made it very clear that y'all would not engage to prevent the death of living human children in their mother's womb, and you would even go as far as to lie about the Bible in attempts to lessen the guilt of your actions.

@ProLifeBigTex @MESandridge @KatelynTweeter Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. That’s a major flaw in your perspective.

@Markoos88 @yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta False - again Exodus 21:22-25 addresses unintentional but reckless harm, not premeditated murder. Therefore, the penalties for the death of the mother are the same as if the child died, monetary compensation

@yesitswhouthink @farmingandJesus @kingagrifta Exodus 21:22-25 The loss of fetus is not treated like murder. The loss of the mother's life however is treated like murder.

@justmrjacob @digitalTodd @CantBeSilenced8 None of those have anything to do with abortion

@digitalTodd @CantBeSilenced8 The original text talks about a lump of flesh, but the first breath is when ensoulment occurs. You also need to actually read the bible. Which clearly you haven't. Start with: Genesis 2:7 Exodus 21:22-23 Exodus 30 (The Census)

The Bible does not mention abortion once. God has no opinion on the subject.

"Life after birth" or "Life after first breath" are pro-abortion mantras. The entire concept is "how could abortion be wrong if they are not alive yet?" I see it hundreds of times a day. Then they run to the Bible and point out scripture that has nothing to do with biological lines of demarcation. Then people like you come along and attack us for correcting their errors.

@ProLifeBigTex @MESandridge @KatelynTweeter That isn’t promoting abortion. That’s a dispute about personhood.