The Bible on abortion

[arthwollipot]

Are we drifting somewhat off-topic here? Or does whether God kills indiscriminately or not actually have something to do with abortion? A connection that I've missed, perhaps?

 

[Robert Oz]

I would bet my bottom dollar that the atrocities demanded of its citizens from certain countries doesn't disturb them in one bit and that they still salute their flags with tearful eye.

That's the sort of critical eye we're looking for. Now turn that same eye to the Bible.

Re: a country's atrocities. If I look at a country's actions and find them immoral, I call the actions immoral. But I do the same with the actions of the God of Abraham.

If a man kills another man in war, altough it's an awful thing, it might (not is, but might) be necessary. However, I will never, ever say that the killing of a race or of a child (even in war) is ever necessary nor moral. It is reprehensible and it is reprehensible for us and for God.

As I previously pointed out and you completely choose to ignore-there are no innocent humans deserving life since we are all sinners.

So, a minutes old child doesn't deserve life since said child is sinful (carried forward from original sin, perhaps?). So a fetus doesn't deserve life since said fetus is sinful. What's all the hoohah about abortion then? Rhetorical question. I know what your answer will be with this one.

Perhaps that he temporarily terminated their life among those devil worshippers is an act of kindness as well since their practices involved child sacrifice bestiality, child abuse via incest etcetera.

That's it. Kill the victims. Won't somebody please think of the children?

You are missing the context because to you context is limited to the page you are reading and anything beyond that is conveniently out of context. In short, you are writing your own entire Bible based on selected texts.

There's that word again. Please explain how these actions are justified in any context. Don't quote passages that say God is merciful and kind and ignore His actions. What has the death of all these people (children included) achieved. The Great Flood was to wipe out the sinful. So why is there so much evil still in the world. God's omniscience should have told him that killing everyone in the Great Flood apart from Noah and his managerie wouldn't change a damn thing.

Some people deserve no mercy.

Won't somebody please think of the children?

ignoring the scriptures I provided and choosing to continue to tag God that way only serves to show that you have a hidden agenda.

The scriptures that say God is merciful and forgiving are contradictory to other scriptures that describe His actions.

As I indicated earlier, I was unbiased when I first read the Bible. The scriptures changed my mind.

Like when you crisped all those little human children in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki and I don't see you even blinking an eyelash over it?

I'm not an American and please refer to my comment above regarding the actions of a country. In short, I do blink. I blink a lot.

However, if you did and are still defending that genetically contaminated population as worthy of living next to normal humans

Careful where you're going with this comment.

Robert Oz.

 

[Robert Oz]

Are we drifting somewhat off-topic here? Or does whether God kills indiscriminately or not actually have something to do with abortion? A connection that I've missed, perhaps?

Back to the topic of what the Bible says of abortion...

'Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.' (Genesis 38:24)

Apparently, pregnant whores are to be burnt. Judah said so. (But it's out of context.)

Robert Oz.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

However, if you did and are still defending that genetically contaminated population as worthy of living next to normal humans...

What do you mean by "genetically contaminated?" Who are "normal humans?"

 

[Robert Oz]

What do you mean by "genetically contaminated?" Who are "normal humans?"

I tried to warn him about where he was heading with this comment.

Tread carefully, Radrook.

Robert Oz.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Since you seem to be unfamiliar with he details of the flood account while feeling qualified to delve on its contents let me elucidate you by informing you that the population involved is not described as being totally human.

Like human fetuses.

You are missing the context because to you context is limited to the page you are reading and anything beyond that is conveniently out of context.

You don't honestly expect us to put entire Bible chapters in quote tags, do you? Don't you quote out of context here, too?

 

[Robert Oz]

...the population involved is not described as being totally human.

So the entire population of the world apart from Noah's family were not totally human? How can that be if they all came from Adam and Eve only nine generations earlier? It almost sounds like evolution on speed.

Adam must have had some dodgy seed if all but one family were contaminated after only nine generations. A result of inbreeding perhaps?

Robert Oz.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Here's Carlin's views on abortion:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xPkYFH4imw


(The very first comment he makes is priceless)

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Before anyone gets too far into this, keep in mind that Radrook is the one who argued that biblical executions were justified, because killing people is no different from placing them in suspended animation due to the promise of resurrection. This ought to show you how much he, and the God he worships, care about the value of human life.

Here's what the Talmud has to say about abortion:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Also, consider Numbers 5:12-31. These are Yahweh's instructions for how a husband can use a potion to inflict a curse on a wife he suspects of cheating on him, which would make her thigh rot and her belly swell. In other words, it takes away her ability to become pregnant, which was considered a serious disadvantage in Hebrew culture at the time. A woman's worth was determined by her ability to bear children. If the woman were pregnant at the time this curse took effect, it would certainly induce an abortion, yet nobody was concerned with the fate of any embryo or fetus she might be carrying.

 

[Radrook]

Back to the topic of what the Bible says of abortion...

'Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.' (Genesis 38:24)

Apparently, pregnant whores are to be burnt. Judah said so. (But it's out of context.)

Robert Oz.

Just because Judah said so? How do you assume to take the words of Judah, and say that it was God saying them? Please take your time to explain. Judah was merely one of Jacob's sons-and wasn't a prophet nor was he ever authorized to speak on God's behalf. So it will be interesting to see how uyou convolute yourself out of it.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Adam must have had some dodgy seed if all but one family were contaminated after only nine generations. A result of inbreeding perhaps?

After reading a few more of his inane and insane posts, I think the "genetic contamination" Radrook is referring to was the myth of humans breeding with the "sons of God," producing the so-called "nephilim" (aka "giants"). The trouble is, the Bible doesn't say that these half-human/half-gods were causing any sort of trouble for Yahweh. In fact...

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. [Emphasis Mine]

In other words, the Bible refers to the product of such couplings as heroes, not "genetic contamination."

The Bible doesn't say that Yahweh caused the flood because he wanted to wipe out the nephillim, but...

6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

It doesn't say a thing about the nephilim being the source of the "wickedness of man." In fact the whole story about the nephilim appears to be a non sequitur with no connection what so ever to the Noah Myth.

One would think a Biblical literalist like Radrook would know better than to read his own interpretations into the revealed word of his infallible God.

 

[Robert Oz]

Just because Judah said so? How do you assume to take the words of Judah, and say that it was God saying them? Please take your time to explain. Judah was merely one of Jacob's sons-and wasn't a prophet nor was he ever authorized to speak on God's behalf. So it will be interesting to see how uyou convolute yourself out of it.

God punishes for spilling semen and not producing figs. Shouldn't he be at least a little upset with someone who orders the execution of a pregnant woman?

From the mouth of God then:

Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

and from his prophet, Moses:

Numbers 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Pregnant women would fall into this category, wouldn't they?

Robert Oz.

 

[Kopji]

God can deprive anyone at any time of life and it would not have been murder because sinners have no inherent right to life - Radrook

It is only my better nature that kept me from making this my sig today.

 

[Radrook]

That's the sort of critical eye we're looking for. Now turn that same eye to the Bible.

You are trying to give man the same rights that God has in reference to life. That is not justifiable. Man is not the source of life. God is.

Psalm
For with You is the fountain of life;

Revelation21:6
And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.

And as the source of life he has certain privileges. Namely to terminate or grant it. We as mere humans can only pass on life as given us. We lack the power to resurrect. We lack the power to read hearts and judge based on innermost thoughts and motives.

We lack the ability to see the effects of actions in all their millions of ramifications., So in view of our limited status, it is the height of presumption to attempt to judge the creator's judicial decisions in the manner that we would judge the same decisions when humans make them.

Re: a country's atrocities. If I look at a country's actions and find them immoral, I call the actions immoral. But I do the same with the actions of the God of Abraham.

Again you are comparing apples with oranges since nations are mere people while God is God. With all that it implies.

If a man kills another man in war, although it's an awful thing, it might (not is, but might) be necessary. However, I will never, ever say that the killing of a race or of a child (even in war) is ever necessary nor moral. It is reprehensible and it is reprehensible for us and for God.

Not if God judges it to be otherwise based on his infinite wisdom. Who am I to trust? -your limited insight or his infinite insight?

So, a minutes old child doesn't deserve life since said child is sinful (carried forward from original sin, perhaps?). So a fetus doesn't deserve life since said fetus is sinful.

Said fetus cannot be said to have an inherent right to life. But it does have a right to life as allowed by God's mercy.

What's all the hoohah about abortion then? Rhetorical question. I know what your answer will be with this one.

The hooha about abortion is that humans have no right to take life as they please unless taking of that life is justifiable. God gave us the right to use capital punishment. But the infliction could not be arbitrary. Neither are we authorized to consider prenatal life as worthless simply because it is prenatal. The example of the men who injure the pregnant woman's unborn fetus indicates that. Your conclusion that God's taking of children's lives means that he considered those lives worthless goes contrary to the resurrection of the dead promise. If indeed those lives are worthless then he would not resurrect them in order to give them a chance for eternal life in perfect health and under paradise earth conditions.

That's it. Kill the victims. Won't somebody please think of the children?

I am not suggesting that killing of children is an acceptable war practice for humans. However, we are talking about a specific incident in relation to the land of Caanan where God decided that the lives of certain people and their children would be temporarily discontinued. Since I believe in God's justice based on his wisdom, as well as his right to terminate life whenever he so deems it necessary, I accept that as a judicial decision which I have no business arguing against.

There's that word again. Please explain how these actions are justified in any context. Don't quote passages that say God is merciful and kind and ignore His actions.

I haven't ignored his actions. I have explained his actions from the biblical standpoint. About not quoting, how is that possible when the subject requires it?

What has the death of all these people (children included) achieved.

The Great Flood was to wipe out the sinful.

The great flood was not merely to wipe out the sinful. It was to restore mankind to its genetic purity and give us a fresh start. You keep ignoring that the preflood population wasn't entirely human. Why?

So why is there so much evil still in the world. God's omniscience should have told him that killing everyone in the Great Flood apart from Noah and his managerie wouldn't change a damn thing.

As explained above.

Won't somebody please think of the children?

Deuteronomy 11:20-22

20 And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, 21 that your days and the days of your childrenmay be multiplied in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give them, like the days of the heavens above the earth.


Proverbs 20:7
The righteous man walks in his integrity; His children are blessed after him.


Luke 18:
Jesus Blesses Little Children

15 Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God

The scriptures that say God is merciful and forgiving are contradictory to other scriptures that describe His actions.

Anything can come across as contradictory if we are unwilling to accept that we are here merely as tenants and not landlords as you seem to imagine we are. You also seem completely quite content on allowing those Caananite children to have been raised by their Caananite child molestors parents who also practiced bestiality, as well as child sacrifices in order to get their crops to grow. How come?

As I indicated earlier, I was unbiased when I first read the Bible. The scriptures changed my mind.

Happens. I once heard aboutr a man who read the Bible from cover to cover and then blew his brains out with a Smith and Wesson. He read all right. But did he understand? Or was he in fact writing his own version as he went along?

I'm not an American and please refer to my comment above regarding the actions of a country. In short, I do blink. I blink a lot.

My comment wasn't meant to target any specific country but the general attitude of mankind when itcomes to their nastionalistic sentiments after their countries commit certain dubious mortal acts instead. If I used the examples I did it was because they are the ones that most readily come to mind. The Spanish Inquisition and Spain's conquistador ravages against native Americans could just as well have been used as equally pertinent examples.

Careful where you're going with this comment.

Robert Oz.

Now whatever could you possibly mean by that? Are you pro Nephilim?

 

[Kopji]

I am not suggesting that killing of children is an acceptable war practice for humans.

Unless humans are directed to kill by God. We stand chastised.

However, we are talking about a specific incident in relation to the land of Caanan where God decided that the lives of certain people and their children would be temporarily discontinued. Since I believe in God's justice based on his wisdom, as well as his right to terminate life whenever he so deems it necessary, I accept that as a judicial decision which I have no business arguing against.

Delightfully Jihadist.

 

[Kopji]

Temporarily discontinued? Aren't you a little worried about being this weeks entrée over at 'fundies say the darndest things?'
http://www.fstdt.com/

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[Radrook]

God punishes for spilling semen and not producing figs.

The fig incident was done as a dramatic illustration of God's future judgement of Israel who was not prodcing the friutr oif righteousness. The About spilling semen, although the specifics are a bit fuszzy I do recall that it involved much more than just spillage, it involved the fellow's cruel refusal to honor his obligation toward his dead brother to produce offspring in his brother's name via his brother's widow as was his obligation inorder that his brother's name should not be erased for heritage purposes . His refusal was based on selfishness to a degree that God considered him unworthy of life.

Shouldn't he be at least a little upset with someone who orders the execution of a pregnant woman?

Judah had no authority to order anything since he wasn't the patriarch, Jacob his father was. About upsetness or lack thereof, the Bible has a theme and every single place where you demand a certain expression isn't going to give you one.

From the mouth of God then:

I never denied that God gave orders of executions involving women and children. So you are wasting your time repeating something that I am not denying. However, the scripture about Samaria is merely telling Israel what will happen to that region at the hands of invaders as a consequence of their rebellion and is not a direct order to the invaders to do these things. However, the one involving the prophet Moses is a direct order. Did it include pregnant women? Could have.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You are trying to give man the same rights that God has in reference to life. That is not justifiable. Man is not the source of life. God is.

Congratulations. You're making up excuses for people who kill others in the name of God.

And as the source of life he has certain privileges. Namely to terminate or grant it. We as mere humans can only pass on life as given us. We lack the power to resurrect. We lack the power to read hearts and judge based on innermost thoughts and motives.

So does God. How many people, out of those that he slaughtered in the OT, did he resurrect? The answer is none. How often does God give a thorough critical analysis of people's innermost thoughts and motives when the belong to a rival tribe or religion before ordering their execution? Never. It's always the same after the fact justifications, that they were leading God's people astray, therefore he had no other choice but to slaughter them.

But I'm sure the bible is full of many detailed and well thought-out analysis of people's thoughts and motivations, especially before God orders their execution, right?

We lack the ability to see the effects of actions in all their millions of ramifications., So in view of our limited status, it is the height of presumption to attempt to judge the creator's judicial decisions in the manner that we would judge the same decisions when humans make them.

If anyone's limited, it's God. As humans, we can resolve our differences with others without spilling their blood or utterly destroying them. Apparently, according to your reasoning, God lacks this ability, or even the wisdom to devise a better solution than bloodshed. For humans, the taking of life is a last resort for a good reason. You are the one who is conflating human prejudices with the will of God by trying to justify everything done in his name.

Not if God judges it to be otherwise based on his infinite wisdom. Who am I to trust? -your limited insight or his infinite insight?

Funny, because God's "infinite insight" seems no different from the petty prejudices of primitive tribal humans: Kill everyone who isn't like you. Claim they deserved it after they're all dead. That way, they can't say otherwise.

The one who is truly insulting and making your God look bad is you.

The hooha about abortion is that humans have no right to take life as they please unless taking of that life is justifiable. God gave us the right to use capital punishment. But the infliction could not be arbitrary. Neither are we authorized to consider prenatal life as worthless simply because it is prenatal. The example of the men who injure the pregnant woman's unborn fetus indicates that.

Wrong. Men who injure pregnant women, according to that pet passage of yours, were charged with a property crime if they caused a miscarriage. They were not charged the same as if they had taken a human life. Guess who the property is in this case? The woman herself.

Your conclusion that God's taking of children's lives means that he considered those lives worthless goes contrary to the resurrection of the dead promise. If indeed those lives are worthless then he would not resurrect them in order to give them a chance for eternal life in perfect health and under paradise earth conditions.

Again, how many of his victims has God resurrected so far? This is an empty promise and a sadistic excuse. Given that God is generally believed to be the omnipotent source of all, or that God has people carry out his will in these affairs, you're only one step away from arguing that anyone can murder anyone else whenever they feel like it.

I am not suggesting that killing of children is an acceptable war practice for humans. However, we are talking about a specific incident in relation to the land of Caanan where God decided that the lives of certain people and their children would be temporarily discontinued. Since I believe in God's justice based on his wisdom, as well as his right to terminate life whenever he so deems it necessary, I accept that as a judicial decision which I have no business arguing against.

Guess who God supposedly used to carry out this killing? Humans. Guess who frequently uses God as a means of absolving themselves from the guilt of murdering others? Humans. So guess whose decision you're actually defending and accepting? That of fallible humans, not God.

Anything can come across as contradictory if we are unwilling to accept that we are here merely as tenants and not landlords as you seem to imagine we are. You also seem completely quite content on allowing those Caananite children to have been raised by their Caananite child molestors parents who also practiced bestiality, as well as child sacrifices in order to get their crops to grow. How come?

The Israelites raped female captives and sacrificed children, just in the name of a different god. How is killing a Canaanite child in the name of God any different from sacrificing that child to God? You seem completely quite content on their slaughtering these children to "save them" as opposed to rescuing them and raising them under the laws of Israel (which just seems so much more sensible to me). Also, way to suggest that it's acceptable to kill people to teach them that killing is wrong.

You frequently overlook the fact that it was humans who wrote the bible, and humans who have used God to justify their worst atrocities throughout history. You always talk about the difference between God and humans, yet it never occurred to you that you are only defending words written by men working with limited human perspectives and pushing their own political agendas. If God is omnipresent, then how can one highly flawed ancient book speak for him? How can you?

I think it's clear who the presumptuous arrogant one is here.

Edit: Hmm, not enough sarcasm to be funny. I'll try harder next post.

 

[Radrook]

Temporarily discontinued? Aren't you a little worried about being this weeks entrée over at 'fundies say the darndest things?'
http://www.fstdt.com/

Why would I worry about what mere nonbelivies say one way or the other? In any case, since you have obviously reached the end of your nonbelievie rope-Bye!