The Bible on abortion

[Frozenwolf150]

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!

Obviously you do care a great deal, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to hard to defend your idiotic beliefs from the scrutiny of nonbelievers, and you wouldn't get so offended when nonbelievers criticize the bible or mock your God. Also, you might want to find time to take that tree trunk out of your eye before you worry about the plank in ours.

 

[arthwollipot]

Annyway, fstdt isn't about what nonbelievers say, it's all about the things that believers say.

Okay, returning to lurk mode.

 

[Kopji]

Oh I hope this means Radrook has me on ignore. When I get put on ignore a fairy dies.

I don't really see the Bible passage in the OP being very a comprehensive endorsement by God of pre-birth life. You could probably easily argue that God did not mean damaged stem cells for example, or even less than human looking fetuses. As we've seen, the Bible is broad enough that any crazy person can swear God told them to kill the evil spawn and be justified (whatever the heck justified means)...

Most non-fanatic Christians I know would argue that it is not so much that they are against abortion, but being for a culture that promotes the value of life. There is certainly room for a wide common ground with believers and non believers.

Abortion is a hot button issue like 'gun control' that I don't really have a fixed philosophy that I can apply as a universal rule; the answers seem situational. I can see myself staying up all night and ending up talking someone out of an abortion, or driving someone to an abortion clinic for an abortion. I'm for people making informed choices, and choices are often bound by limits of culture and society.

 

[Belz...]

The fig incident was done as a dramatic illustration of God's future judgement of Israel who was not prodcing the friutr oif righteousness.

I just love it when bible-thumpers arbitrarily decide to reinterpret the "litteral" words of god to their own liking...

 

[Egg]

I don't really see the Bible passage in the OP being very a comprehensive endorsement by God of pre-birth life. You could probably easily argue that God did not mean damaged stem cells for example, or even less than human looking fetuses. As we've seen, the Bible is broad enough that any crazy person can swear God told them to kill the evil spawn and be justified (whatever the heck justified means)...

Most non-fanatic Christians I know would argue that it is not so much that they are against abortion, but being for a culture that promotes the value of life. There is certainly room for a wide common ground with believers and non believers.

I thought the usual passage quoted was from Jeremiah:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you"

I've never really understood why the pro life/choice lines tend to usually be drawn between the religious and non-religious. Surely the relevant question is at what point do we consider the foetus to be life and what might be base that conclusion on?

I don't suppose anyone would suggest that a mother should be allowed to kill her 1 year old child. Not many people would advocate terminating a 9 month pregnancy, more maybe for 7 months and so on back to conception.

There's also a difference between the question of legality and morality. For instance, while it would have to be exceptional circumstances before I considered agreeing to my partner terminating a pregnancy, I would support making it possible by law, although perhaps not to the point of being taken lightly. I think it's one of those cases where trying to prevent it would do more harm than good to society.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I thought the usual passage quoted was from Jeremiah:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you"

I've never really understood why the pro life/choice lines tend to usually be drawn between the religious and non-religious. Surely the relevant question is at what point do we consider the foetus to be life and what might be base that conclusion on?

That passage, along with the 6th commandment, but only in its, "Thou shalt not kill," translation. The funny thing about that passage in Jeremiah is that, if one interprets it literally, it could be just as easily read to mean that God considers sperm and eggs to be human persons. All it really means is that God, being omniscient, would know the future of any given person long before they are born.

You have a point about the pro-choice/pro-life lines, although this topic was specifically about what the bible says. There's a much better debate on the topic of abortion, which can be found here.


In any event, allow me to save myself everyone else a bit of trouble. Every thread in which a certain bible humper is involved typically ends up like this:

1) The bible is the word of God and the word of God cannot be doubted.
2) Murder is love, because we can't understand the mind of God.
3) Execution is suspended animation, because God resurrects everyone.
(Oh no, I'm making a posterior anatomical orifice of myself! I've got to do something to save face!)
4) How dare you challenge my authoritah! I'll have you know I majored in history and teach bible study! Anyone who proves me wrong is only being insulting and spouting drivel! So snip, snip, bye!
5) *Puts skeptics on ignore*
6) I win again!

 

[This Guy]

I thought the usual passage quoted was from Jeremiah:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you"

I've never really understood why the pro life/choice lines tend to usually be drawn between the religious and non-religious. Surely the relevant question is at what point do we consider the foetus to be life and what might be base that conclusion on?

I don't suppose anyone would suggest that a mother should be allowed to kill her 1 year old child. Not many people would advocate terminating a 9 month pregnancy, more maybe for 7 months and so on back to conception.

There's also a difference between the question of legality and morality. For instance, while it would have to be exceptional circumstances before I considered agreeing to my partner terminating a pregnancy, I would support making it possible by law, although perhaps not to the point of being taken lightly. I think it's one of those cases where trying to prevent it would do more harm than good to society.

I was reminded of that passage last night. It had (like so many things) slipped my mind. I think it does do a better job of backing up an anti-abortion stance from the Bible.

FYI - There is a recent thread on being Atheist and being against abortion. Might want to check it out. I happen to be an Atheist that is also against abortion, though like you, I support a womans right to choose, and hope that choice is not made lightly.

As for killing one year olds, those aren't the problems. It's those terrible twos! Those are the ones you want to kill!

 

[Robert Oz]

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?

In His infinite insight God said:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Radrook, is it justified for a parent to stone his or her child to death if the child is rebellious or an alcoholic?

Please provide us with your opinion of the Iraqi father who dragged Du'a Khalil Aswad out to a crowd of people to have her stoned to death for falling in love with a Sunni Muslim in 2007 (I don't think I can link yet, but Google it). One of the men even kicked this teenage girl in the crotch while she lay on the ground bleeding and dying.

In God's infinite insight, Du'a Khalil Aswad's death was not only justified, but in line with His demands regarding children who don't obey their parents. God says her killing is justified, I say it is a horrible tragedy and disgusting. Please enlighten us.

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?

Please provide evidence that you understand the Bible and anyone opposed to you has misunderstood it. How can you presume that you understand the Word of God any more than anyone else? How many denominations of Christianity are there? Show us how you are right and the other denominations are wrong.


So far this has been your argument:

Radrook: God is merciful and kind.
Response: But what about these countless examples from the Bible.
Radrook: You're reading it out of context.
Response: How can genocide and infanticide be merciful and kind in any context?
Radrook: He's allowed! Why don't you say the same about nations that kill children in war.
Response: I do say the same about nations.
Radrook: That's comparing apples with oranges. You can't do that.

Your argument should be:

Radrook: God can do whatever he wants and as long as I worship him and call it ice cream, I'll be saved and resurrected and you will all rot.

There is no response to that and we can only pity you.

Robert Oz.

 

[Egg]

As for killing one year olds, those aren't the problems. It's those terrible twos! Those are the ones you want to kill!

You have a point about the pro-choice/pro-life lines, although this topic was specifically about what the bible says. There's a much better debate on the topic of abortion, which can be found here.

FYI - There is a recent thread on being Atheist and being against abortion. Might want to check it out. I happen to be an Atheist that is also against abortion, though like you, I support a womans right to choose, and hope that choice is not made lightly.

Doh! You're quite right I hadn't checked out that thread. My points were pretty much all covered in the first post.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

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!

And Radrook displays the strength of his argument, along with his level of maturity and mental stability, by putting yet another skeptic on Ignore!

 

[CaptainManacles]

We have absolutely no justifiable reason to assume otherwise. In fact, the ones who come out eating crow repeatedly are those who assume otherwise.

Yes, I sure do remember all that crow eating when they discovered the flood story to be completely true. Oh wait.....

I don't know what delusional world you live in, but there is plenty of reason to consider that possibility. The bible is very often wrong historically, often vasty wrong. In fact most of the old testiment clearly just didn't happen. Just plain factually wrong.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Just because Judah said so? How do you assume to take the words of Judah, and say that it was God saying them?

Radrook, you're on the right track. Keep at it.

Now replace 'Judah' with Joshua, in the context of the Jericho massacre.

ETA:

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan
....(Of course this assumes that the record in the bible is accurate)

We have absolutely no justifiable reason to assume otherwise. In fact, the ones who come out eating crow repeatedly are those who assume otherwise.

So the stuff in the Bible you like is 100% accurate, but the stuff you don't like should be cautiously approached with a skeptical mind?

 

[Radrook]

Radrook, you're on the right track. Keep at it.

Now replace 'Judah' with Joshua, in the context of the Jericho massacre.

That's your chosen modus operandi not mine. As for massacre, that is conveniently tagged as strategic military operations when YOUR troops do it. Any women and children killed are classified as collateral damage. So please spare me the posturing on your supposed moral higher ground.

ETA:
So the stuff in the Bible you like is 100% accurate, but the stuff you don't like should be cautiously approached with a skeptical mind?

Nope! Again, that's your modus operandi which is prevalent in all your anti ID or anti-biblical arguments. That's why it's very hard to take those arguments seriously. The lack of criterion consistency is too glaring and makes all supposed unbiased evaluations suspect of being otherwise.

 

[Robert Oz]

Radrook,

Please answer my earlier question. I'm interested in getting your insight:

In His infinite insight God said:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Radrook, is it justified for a parent to stone his or her child to death if the child is rebellious or an alcoholic?

Please provide us with your opinion of the Iraqi father who dragged Du'a Khalil Aswad out to a crowd of people to have her stoned to death for falling in love with a Sunni Muslim in 2007 (I don't think I can link yet, but Google it). One of the men even kicked this teenage girl in the crotch while she lay on the ground bleeding and dying.

In God's infinite insight, Du'a Khalil Aswad's death was not only justified, but in line with His demands regarding children who don't obey their parents. God says her killing is justified, I say it is a horrible tragedy and disgusting. Please enlighten us.

Robert Oz.

 

[Radrook]

In His infinite insight God said:


Please provide us with your opinion of the Iraqi father who dragged Du'a Khalil Aswad out to a crowd of people to have her stoned to death for falling in love with a Sunni Muslim in 2007 (I don't think I can link yet, but Google it). One of the men even kicked this teenage girl in the crotch while she lay on the ground bleeding and dying. In God's infinite insight, Du'a Khalil Aswad's death was not only justified, but in line with His demands regarding children who don't obey their parents. God says her killing is justified, I say it is a horrible tragedy and disgusting. Please enlighten us. Please provide evidence that you understand the Bible and anyone opposed to you has misunderstood it. How can you presume that you understand the Word of God any more than anyone else? How many denominations of Christianity are there? Show us how you are right and the other denominations are wrong


So far this has been your argument:

Radrook: God is merciful and kind.
Response: But what about these countless examples from the Bible.
Radrook: You're reading it out of context.
Response: How can genocide and infanticide be merciful and kind in any context?
Radrook: He's allowed! Why don't you say the same about nations that kill children in war.
Response: I do say the same about nations.
Radrook: That's comparing apples with oranges. You can't do that.

Your argument should be:

Radrook: God can do whatever he wants and as long as I worship him and call it ice cream, I'll be saved and resurrected and you will all rot.

There is no response to that and we can only pity you.

Robert Oz.

We aren't under the Mosaic Law. Neither is the man you mention that killed his daughter. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the difference between the NT and the OT. That's why you are imagining that OT laws are still applicable. Something that is basic theological knowledge and which clearly shows that you aren't qualified to engage in the type of biblical criticism you want us to believe you are qualified to engage in. Otherwise, why would you make such a mistake?

Another of your ideas indicating deep ignorance of biblical matters is your belief that there are no valid criteria upon which to evaluate differing biblical interpretations. Those who are adequately scripturally educated know that isn't so.

Your other questions aren't questions at all but merely disagreements with the previously explained.

As for pity? OK. Go ahead. But please remember that from where I stand, I consider anyone who postures as knowing a subject while displaying ignorance of its basic ideas as pitiful. So I guess the feeling is mutual.

 

[Robert Oz]

We aren't under the Mosaic Law. Neither is the man you mention that killed his daughter.

Nevertheless, at some point, God commanded that unruly children be stoned to death by their parents. So, I'll re-phrase the question. Is it justified for any parent at any time to stone their child to death for being rebellious or disobedient? Any parent at any time.

Hypothetically, please provide us with your opinion of a Hebrew father who drags his son out to a crowd of people to have him stoned to death for falling in love with an Egyptian in a time when Mosaic law applied.

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the difference between the NT and the OT. That's why you are imagining that OT laws are still applicable.

I was aware OT laws no longer apply. However, it is you who constantly defends actions depicted in the OT. It would be pointless for me to point out NT laws when we are discussing stories from Genesis and Exodus and Deuteronomy, etc.

Like you said, OT God and NT God are the same God. Although the laws have changed, it is the same God who saw it fit to make the law in the first place.

Which laws from the OT apply and which do not? On what basis?


Robert Oz.

 

[Radrook]

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.

Angel human hybrids.

Excerpt

Jude says these wicked angels left their own "habitation" (Jude 6). The word is oiketerion in Greek, and is also used in II Corinthians 5:2 -- "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Says Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of this word, it means, "habitation, house." Thus these angels left their own spirit body, and took on human form!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is how they accomplished this despicable, rebellious act of lust and wanton disregard for the laws of God. The result?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tragedy beyond measure. Wickedness supreme. Murder, lawlessness, and mayhem unparalleled in the history of the entire Universe!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The progeny of these rebellious angels were called "giants" -- Nephilim in the Hebrew. These were monsters of iniquity, and being superhuman in size and character had to be destroyed once and for all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This grievous intermarriage was an insidious attempt by Satan the devil to prevent the coming of the promised "Seed" of the woman to redeem the human race. He thought that he would pervert and corrupt the blood-line of human beings,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so that the Messiah could not be born! It was also an abortive attempt to "play God" on the part of Satan and his fallen angels -- to duplicate and copy God 's plan of procreation!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, these "half-breeds" of angels and women -- these offspring of the union of wicked angels and women -- since they are not truly "human" in the full sense of the word, have no place in the plan of God, and will not be in the resurrection. http://groups.msn.com/GiantstheBibleandEnoch/nephilim2.msnw

 

[Radrook]

Nevertheless, at some point, God commanded that unruly children be stoned to death by their parents. So, I'll rephrase the question. Is it justified for any parent at any time to stone their child to death for being rebellious or disobedient? Any parent at any time.

Hypothetically, please provide us with your opinion of a Hebrew father who drags his son out to a crowd of people to have him stoned to death for falling in love with an Egyptian in a time when Mosaic law applied.

The father wasn't told to imediately drag his son out to a crowd-much less for falling in love with an Egyptian. The procedure, if the parent wished to go threough that procedure, was to have a trial and only after the testimony of two or more witnesses was a sentence passed. Furthermore, the parents were not under strict obligation to bring all minor matters relating to their offspring to the elders. Neither is there a penalty against the parents mentioned if they refrained from doing so. Actually, since God knew that the law was impossible to follow to the letter, animal sacrifices were to be offerred for those sinning against the law. That included parents who might choose to ignore certain requirements in relation to their disobedient offspring. However, some cases might indeed justify parents to avail themsewlves of the law.


Excerpt

The one described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not a disobedient child or even a strong-willed child who is constantly challenging the authority of his parents. No, the subject of this Old Testament law would better be described as a young adult who is a full-blown rebel of a criminal disposition. For the parents to consider the step of bringing him to the authorities, they must have judged him as well-nigh hopeless and even dangerous.http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/stndisre.html

....Which laws from the OT apply and which do not? On what basis?


Robert Oz.

On the basis of the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus which fulfilled the law and made its ceremonial prophetic shadow requirements obsolete. Hebrews]10

All the ceremonial laws such as those involving ritual animal sacrifices, observation of special annual events, such as Passover, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Dietary restrictions against eating pork and other such a ceremonially unclean animals, and judicial laws requiring specific penalties in relationship to murder, manslaughter, adultery, and so on.

However, the moral requirements remained intact. Christians were still not to fornicate, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to dishonor father and mother, not to practice idolatry, etcetera. The guiding principle would be love for neighbor. Of course this principle had also been incumbent upon Israel. But they had the added burden of the law to deal with and Christians do not.

BTW

One Abraham had an Egyptian concubine and many Egyptians joined Israel in its Exodus.

 

[Robert Oz]

The father wasn't told to imediately drag his son out to a crowd. The procedure, if the poarent wished to go threough that procedure, was to have a trial and only after the testimony of two or more witnesses was a sentence passed. Furthermore, the parents were not under strict obligation to bring all minor matters relating to their offspring to the elders. Neither is there a penalty against the parents mentioned if they refrained from doing so. Actually, since God knew that the law was impossible to follow to the letter, animal sacrifices were to be offerred for those sinning against the law. That included parents who might choose to ignore certain requirements in relation to their disobedient offspring. However, some cases might indeed justify parents to avail themsewlves of the law.

The one described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not a disobedient child or even a strong-willed child who is constantly challenging the authority of his parents. No, the subject of this Old Testament law would better be described as a young adult who is a full-blown rebel of a criminal disposition. For the parents to consider the step of bringing him to the authorities, they must have judged him as well-nigh hopeless and even dangerous.

You are quoting interpretations of scripture from other web-sites. But let's look at the text again:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Show me where it says (whether in this verse or another) that the son was a full-blown rebel of criminal disposition.

Whose writing their own version of the Bible now?

The verse says the parents shall bring the child out and the men of his city shall stone him. Whether the parents obey the law or not, God decreed the stoning of the child as appropriate.

You have changed scripture to read:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a full-blown stubborn and rebellious son of criminal disposition, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, or the law, and that, when they have chastened him, and threatened him with the full force of the law will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then may his father and his mother, if they so wish, lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they may, if they so wish, say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious son and has a criminal disposition, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard, and a criminal.
21:21 And all the men of his city after giving the son a fair trial with two of his peers good and true may sentence him to be stoned with stones, that he die: so may thou put evil away from among you if you really want to; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Alternatively, you can just kill a lamb and all is good.

You change the Bible when it suits you and say others read it out of context when they read the text as written.

Robert Oz.

 

[Kopji]

Psalm 137:9
Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock!

So in some cases does God advocate infantcide or abortion?