Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
136 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
what the bible says about abortion: (Original Post) niyad Mar 2015 OP
Are you expecting extremist Christians to read the Bible? get the red out Mar 2015 #1
I know, how silly of me. comes from an insufficient caffeine intake today. niyad Mar 2015 #2
Or any fundie preacher stealing $s from his flock erronis Mar 2015 #18
Don't expect fundie Christians to pay any attention to Numbers and Leviticus Yupster Mar 2015 #61
They're hypocrites though. They throw out the dietary stuff while hammering on Lev 18:22. nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #75
They do have an explanation for that. However, whenever I post it, I get treated as though I merrily Mar 2015 #81
They always claim the prohibition against homosexuality is still active, while the other stuff isn't nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #82
There is an answer for that, too, but, it's time consuming to give and, as stated, I've learned merrily Mar 2015 #84
The one NT passage they can cite is Romans 1:27-32. But those are Paul's words, not Christ's. nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #85
The position I referred to is not a one passage argument or I would have cited it. merrily Mar 2015 #90
DAYUM! calimary Mar 2015 #3
ouch! another question: guillaumeb Mar 2015 #4
thank you. funny how their jesus is so different from the one most of us have heard of- niyad Mar 2015 #6
Well, indirectly.. Jesus did speak about abortion, Motown_Johnny Mar 2015 #26
He stated that he came to fulfill and perfect the Law. guillaumeb Mar 2015 #29
... awoke_in_2003 Mar 2015 #47
the bible book they redacted guillaumeb Mar 2015 #57
Actually no. Check this out... nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #76
Years ago, I encountered a translation of the bible that omitted Hosea 13:16 arcane1 Mar 2015 #5
whenever I hear someone using the bible as a basis for whatever, I ask which one of the niyad Mar 2015 #7
Exactly.. sendero Mar 2015 #19
What a humane and enlightened assemblage of fairytales. hifiguy Mar 2015 #8
The talmud does specifically reference abortion, actually. Kber Mar 2015 #9
My late MIL was no scholar but she certainly knew about this. She said to me.... Hekate Mar 2015 #11
it also tells you what to do if your dog violates your cleaning lady--it's prepared for EVERY MisterP Mar 2015 #34
What's the prescribed "remedy"? Just curious. nomorenomore08 Mar 2015 #77
Oh those Hebrews.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #35
A minister's job is to give a sermon in safeinOhio Mar 2015 #10
I knew it... ileus Mar 2015 #12
Numbers says all we need to know... uponit7771 Mar 2015 #13
Numbers, chapter 5 explains how a priest should do an abortion perdita9 Mar 2015 #14
When the day cometh that it become immoral and criminal to force a woman to carry an unwanted Dont call me Shirley Mar 2015 #15
Great references from the one reference they say they will always stand behind Jon82 Mar 2015 #16
Most fundamental Christians Cryptoad Mar 2015 #23
Matthew 18:6 says nothing about harming a child ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2015 #17
There are many Bibles versions. Cryptoad Mar 2015 #22
there are plenty of 'iffy' things if you pick and choose ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2015 #31
Beyond taking liberty, I would call it lying. I read the referenced passages. Shrike47 Mar 2015 #116
I was trying to be nice about it, but you are Right,,,,,, nt Cryptoad Mar 2015 #125
There are over 41,000 Christian Sects,,,,, it unfair Cryptoad Mar 2015 #20
no offense angrychair Mar 2015 #25
Matthew 18:6 sulphurdunn Mar 2015 #21
It really is.....but then, mentioning the significance of the fact....... WillowTree Mar 2015 #27
Yes, and there is certainly sulphurdunn Mar 2015 #93
I just can't get over the sacrificing the 1st born . Fla Dem Mar 2015 #24
you think this is about sacrificing ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2015 #32
Consecration is not the same as sacrifice. colorado_ufo Mar 2015 #33
The firstborn was to be dedicated to the service of God, not killed. merrily Mar 2015 #78
1st born animals too? How does that work? nt Fla Dem Mar 2015 #94
My Bible says something different in Numbers 5:21. appleannie1 Mar 2015 #28
I aslo recall ending someone's pregnancy being a lesser punishment Bradical79 Mar 2015 #30
Such death of a fetus is mentioned a couple of times in the bible happyslug Mar 2015 #40
Only one of these verses is from the New Testament which is the only part former9thward Mar 2015 #36
See my cite below, I had to stop after looking up the first three "Cites" happyslug Mar 2015 #39
Oh the context argument again phil89 Mar 2015 #43
If you throw out phil89 Mar 2015 #41
I'm not throwing out anything. former9thward Mar 2015 #44
Cannibalism of live children? A Simple Game Mar 2015 #37
You really thought the verses quoted in the OP were real? former9thward Mar 2015 #45
Perhaps not word for word, but yes I do think they are really from the bible. A Simple Game Mar 2015 #50
I have a Bible. former9thward Mar 2015 #53
To be honest I was mainly concerned with the cannibalism. A Simple Game Mar 2015 #62
For the sake of honesty, okasha Mar 2015 #80
The Old Testament is full of violence because that era in human history former9thward Mar 2015 #89
I'm sure they cooked them first. Enthusiast Mar 2015 #49
Well to be honest it does say the children should eat their parents too. n/t A Simple Game Mar 2015 #51
Sounds like a nice book. Enthusiast Mar 2015 #52
That would be Ezekiel 5:10 and a couple of others. Cerridwen Mar 2015 #65
What a bad set of bibical quotes... happyslug Mar 2015 #38
And you think phil89 Mar 2015 #42
Bible hub is just what it sounds like. Cerridwen Mar 2015 #60
Actually it depends on the translations, is it still in copyright? happyslug Mar 2015 #131
Leviticus does not say that oberliner Mar 2015 #46
It's all serious distortion trying to make it say what they want to be able to claim that it says. WillowTree Mar 2015 #48
I would agree with that oberliner Mar 2015 #99
which version? niyad Mar 2015 #96
Take your pick oberliner Mar 2015 #100
there are some 500 versions out there. niyad Mar 2015 #101
Leviticus is the basis of the anti-gay thing, right underpants Mar 2015 #54
Leviticus 20, which starts with forbidding sacrificing children... happyslug Mar 2015 #132
May God bless and keep you all... onpatrol98 Mar 2015 #55
Here's a picture depicting exactly how much I care what the bible or any other religious text says PeaceNikki Mar 2015 #56
I tried turning the paper over guillaumeb Mar 2015 #58
That side depicts how much our government should care. PeaceNikki Mar 2015 #59
nice guillaumeb Mar 2015 #63
that is exactly as it should be. niyad Mar 2015 #106
The OP is lying. Matthew 18:6--see text below: Wella Mar 2015 #64
The image in the OP is wrong about Matthew 18:6. Cerridwen Mar 2015 #66
I'll check out the others, verse by verse. But the OP and the image are lying Wella Mar 2015 #67
The image has some issues. The OP is mistaken, not lying. Cerridwen Mar 2015 #68
so what about the other 11 citations? hobbit709 Mar 2015 #83
I suspect that the author of the poster is taking most of the verses quoted out of context or just jwirr Mar 2015 #92
again, to which of the some 500 versions out there do you refer? niyad Mar 2015 #105
The bible, a tabloid book of tales chosen for political impact of that day! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2015 #69
+1000 smirkymonkey Mar 2015 #70
Hey. Niyad. sheshe2 Mar 2015 #71
wow. PeaceNikki Mar 2015 #72
oh my, had not realized. thank you so much for letting me know. niyad Mar 2015 #107
This message was self-deleted by its author sheshe2 Mar 2015 #73
Thanks to all who went to the trouble of debunking this! Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #74
It is not completely debunkable because the Bible does say some of those things. At least, merrily Mar 2015 #79
The King James version isn't that good a translation. winter is coming Mar 2015 #87
The description of that battle was not a matter of translating 1 or 2 words or a filling in one merrily Mar 2015 #88
of course, since the bible was not originally written in english, and most of us niyad Mar 2015 #126
I did specify exactly which version I meant and please see also Reply 88. merrily Mar 2015 #130
you mean, thanks to the people who were using one of the other 500 versions? niyad Mar 2015 #98
Okay. Well you know most people probably have no idea of the full Gospel canon. Rex Mar 2015 #86
my favourite comment about the bible: "it is amazing that white europeans follow niyad Mar 2015 #97
LOL! Rex Mar 2015 #114
and then, of course, we have the thomasine and marian gospels. niyad Mar 2015 #108
Kickin' Faux pas Mar 2015 #91
K&R! marym625 Mar 2015 #95
RIghtwing asses hate abortion because it is a woman making a choice on her own NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #102
that is exactly correct. niyad Mar 2015 #103
That is it exactly! smirkymonkey Mar 2015 #129
I'm soooooooo tired of the freakin' bible. nt valerief Mar 2015 #104
especially when it is being used to promote legislation in a secular nation. it would be amusing niyad Mar 2015 #109
Yeah. Too bad the blind can't see their own reflection. (No offense to visually valerief Mar 2015 #124
So sorry, but WHY was the earlier Jesus thread locked, but this one thrives? Atman Mar 2015 #110
I have no idea to which thread you are referring. must have missed it. niyad Mar 2015 #111
Might have been because Willie P posted it. Atman Mar 2015 #112
thank you for posting the link. I had not yet seen it. niyad Mar 2015 #113
Oh, and if this all Biblical and God and stuff...why can't they get the date right? Atman Mar 2015 #115
new vacation schedule? n/t ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2015 #117
HE IS RISEN! Atman Mar 2015 #118
oh, so because we try to superimpose our solar calendar ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2015 #119
"People like me." Atman Mar 2015 #121
essentially... ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2015 #122
BWHAHA! So now it's "disdain." Atman Apr 2015 #135
Quit knocking the Roman Empire..... happyslug Apr 2015 #133
So, Jesus goes fishing one day. Atman Mar 2015 #120
Now THAT is a good walkin' on water joke... ProdigalJunkMail Mar 2015 #123
oh dear, you almost owed me a keyboard. niyad Mar 2015 #127
my favourite walking on water joke: niyad Mar 2015 #128
So Jesus and Moses go golfing one day Yupster Apr 2015 #134
always liked it. back when I first heard it, "but he thinks he's arnold palmer" niyad Apr 2015 #136

get the red out

(13,466 posts)
1. Are you expecting extremist Christians to read the Bible?
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 01:50 PM
Mar 2015

That's like expecting ISIS members to read the Koran.

erronis

(15,303 posts)
18. Or any fundie preacher stealing $s from his flock
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:45 PM
Mar 2015

To care about some random libral post? Sorry for the personal diatribe below but it's my perspective on religion and the "shepherds" of their "flocks".

The best thing that ever happened to me was when I married a (lapsed) "fundamentalist" person. We raised three children together but her lapsed fundamentalism started to rear its ugly head (I ascribe it to the "Left Behind" series.)

After I was declared sinful/anathema/atheist/etc we split ways. From what I understand she has once again lapsed into some <ahem>non-xian</ahem> ways. I wish her well in hell.

However the children have all hung in there even through threats of excommunication.

My blessedly limited experience with this craziness (and her pentacostal relatives) let me understand that they don't give a shit about no stinking bibble or "what would jesus do". They only understand that they have got to reap what others have.

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
61. Don't expect fundie Christians to pay any attention to Numbers and Leviticus
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:28 PM
Mar 2015

They have no use for the ancient Jewish laws about what kinds of food to eat and clothes to wear. The Council of Jerusalem which in my opinion is the point at which the Christian religion separated itself from Judaism gets rid of all that stuff. It even got rid of circumcision.

So, throwing verses of Leviticus at a Southern Baptist means nothing to him. He'll get a good laugh at your expense at his Sunday school class. That's all that will be accomplished.

Ask a Baptist what the bible says about abortion and he will be more likely to point to the Gospel of Luke 1:39-44. In these verses Elizabeth is pregnant though she is too old to be pregnant. When her pregnant cousin Mary visits her, Elizabeth's fetus leaps for joy in her womb because he recognizes that the son of God is near. That was the first meeting between John The Baptist and Jesus.

We can believe the story or not, but that's the story fundie Christians know and celebrate.

To talk about ancient Jewish rules that Christians feel completely released from 2000 years ago just shows our ignorance. Then we throw mockery and arrogance on top of it. Not quite the way to make friends.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
75. They're hypocrites though. They throw out the dietary stuff while hammering on Lev 18:22.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 10:58 PM
Mar 2015

Or 20:13, if they're really hard-core.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
81. They do have an explanation for that. However, whenever I post it, I get treated as though I
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:36 PM
Mar 2015

invented it and am defending it, as opposed to simply stating it exists. Kill the messenger type replies. And I really have no dog in the fight. So I stopped.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
82. They always claim the prohibition against homosexuality is still active, while the other stuff isn't
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:17 AM
Mar 2015

Question is, where in the Bible would one find that distinction? I know of no such passage anywhere.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
84. There is an answer for that, too, but, it's time consuming to give and, as stated, I've learned
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:52 AM
Mar 2015

my lesson. No desire for the abuse I often got after taking the time to explain, at least as best I knew. Not saying you would do that, but, based on prior experience, some other reader of my response sure might. I've decided to save such stuff for issues I care about. But, knowing there is a response a Christian steeped in all that might give you is at least a start.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
85. The one NT passage they can cite is Romans 1:27-32. But those are Paul's words, not Christ's.
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 01:19 AM
Mar 2015

Paul broke with J.C.'s original teachings in a number of significant ways.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
90. The position I referred to is not a one passage argument or I would have cited it.
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 02:42 AM
Mar 2015

Inasmuch as I am not willing to go into position myself though, I am going to leave off at this point and recommend that you raise the points with something more willing, if you are interested.

I probably should have stayed out of it to begin with, but I thought there was at least some value in mentioning that they do have positions that are at least more internally consistent than your Reply 75 would have suggested and even more internally consistent than your Reply 85 suggests. My apologies for my half-hearted responses and my unwillingness.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
4. ouch! another question:
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 01:58 PM
Mar 2015

What did Jesus say about abortion?

Nothing. The same nothing he said about homosexuality.

But he did talk about acceptance, not judging, and how hard it would be for the rich to enter the kingdom.

great post.

niyad

(113,344 posts)
6. thank you. funny how their jesus is so different from the one most of us have heard of-
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 02:00 PM
Mar 2015

the one preaching compassion, acceptance, forgiveness, etc.,

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
26. Well, indirectly.. Jesus did speak about abortion,
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:16 PM
Mar 2015

or at least he choose to not speak about it when the opportunity was presented.

In Matthew 5:38 he quotes Exodus chapter 21 (*You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth) and then says that he disagrees with it.

The thing is that Exodus 21:22 says** "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges."

Jesus says nothing about disagreeing with the statement about causing a miscarriage being something that should be punished with only a fine. This makes it clear that Jesus did not believe that ending a pregnancy fell into the "life for a life" category and supports the distinction between someone who is born and someone who is not which is made in Exodus.


Admittedly, Jesus did not directly say anything about abortion. It can only be inferred that he did not consider it a serious offense since he spoke directly about the part of the Torah which spells out the punishment for it and choose to not disagree with it.


Footnote: I have always wondered what the punishment might be if the father was the one who caused the miscarriage. I can only assume that there would be no fine since the person would be paying the fine to himself. To me that seems to imply that the Bible is pro choice. Misogynistic, but pro choice none the less. Our only disagreement would be which parent gets to make the choice.

* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A38&version=CEB

** https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A22&version=CEB

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
29. He stated that he came to fulfill and perfect the Law.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:27 PM
Mar 2015

When asked, Jesus stated in Mathew 22:40
the whole of the law is this, to love your neighbor as yourself

nothing about dietary restrictions, or wearing mixed fiber garments, or an eye for an eye.

Interesting footnote question.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
76. Actually no. Check this out...
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:02 PM
Mar 2015

"And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."

- Matthew 21:19

I like the grandiose, Shakespearean English of the KJV. So sue me.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
5. Years ago, I encountered a translation of the bible that omitted Hosea 13:16
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 02:00 PM
Mar 2015

It was one of those newer, modern-English translations, though I don't recall which one.

I thought that was rather curious

niyad

(113,344 posts)
7. whenever I hear someone using the bible as a basis for whatever, I ask which one of the
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 02:01 PM
Mar 2015

some 500 versions out there the person means.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
19. Exactly..
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:46 PM
Mar 2015

... or my personal take, are we talking God 1.0 (the old testament) or God 2.0 (the new testament)? Because I'm not sure I buy the idea that an all powerful god that changes so drastically in basically an instant.

Kber

(5,043 posts)
9. The talmud does specifically reference abortion, actually.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 02:21 PM
Mar 2015

It specifically says that in choosing between the life of a woman and that of her unborn child, you are obligated to save the woman's life even if it means "cutting the fetus out, limb by limb" and even if the pregnancy is so progressed that she is in labor.

The biblical root for this Talmudic decision was a passage listing the various punishments for misdeeds in which killing someone, even a slave, was punishable by death where as hitting a woman and causing her to miscarry got you a fine. The rabbis reasoned, therefore, that if murder is always punishable by death, but causing a miscarriage wasn't, that an abortion was not murder because the fetus was not a person yet.

They then applied the well established rule that saving a life was the highest priority that superseded all others, except you can't kill an innocent person to save another. So you can't kill an already living and breathing kid so you can transfer his heart to someone else who needs a new one.

But, if the fetus is not a person, there is no moral issue with an abortion.

Note: this reasoning was not "pro-choice". A woman was not supposed to choose to, for example, delay or forgo medical treatment that would cause a miscarriage but was necessary to save her own life (i.e. chemo). She is "obligated" to try to save her own life first.

Interestingly, the Talmud also says that if choosing between saving a man or saving a woman's life, you should save the woman first. However, if you had to choose between saving a man from being raped or saving a woman from the same fate, you should save the man first. I forget the reasoning behind that one, though.

Hekate

(90,714 posts)
11. My late MIL was no scholar but she certainly knew about this. She said to me....
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:05 PM
Mar 2015

"We believe you don't cut down the tree to save the branch."

We had this enlightening conversation during Randall Terry's "No Place To Hide" campaign of attacks against Planned Parenthood. In my efforts not to give offense to a very elderly lady I was probably a little too shy about my activities in defense of PP.

With just a few words she set me straight. I already knew that the RW didn't have a lock on religion or morality, and that women have always had a need for this medical service. But I didn't know there was a well thought out set of religious laws in Judaism going back centuries that permitted abortion.

Later on I did some personal research into the religious dimensions of abortion in different traditions, but it started there.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
34. it also tells you what to do if your dog violates your cleaning lady--it's prepared for EVERY
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:46 PM
Mar 2015

eventuality

mountain grammy

(26,624 posts)
35. Oh those Hebrews..
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:48 PM
Mar 2015

such jokers.. life or death? save the woman before the man but, in the case of rape, the woman gets it first.

safeinOhio

(32,688 posts)
10. A minister's job is to give a sermon in
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 02:53 PM
Mar 2015

church on Sunday. I like to ask them "if that's your job, why are you working on the Sabbath".

If you are going by the exact words of the Bible, at least pay attention to the main 10 Commandments.

perdita9

(1,144 posts)
14. Numbers, chapter 5 explains how a priest should do an abortion
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:33 PM
Mar 2015

Funny how the church rarely mentions this.

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)
15. When the day cometh that it become immoral and criminal to force a woman to carry an unwanted
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:38 PM
Mar 2015

pregnancy to birth, I will rejoice sayeth DcmShirley.

Jon82

(92 posts)
16. Great references from the one reference they say they will always stand behind
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:40 PM
Mar 2015

Unfortunately, they pick and choose. Many say that Jesus abolished the old laws. But, Matthew 5:17 states, "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

They always forget this part of the Bible.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
23. Most fundamental Christians
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:59 PM
Mar 2015

do not believe Jesus meant what He said and most have to have somebody tell them how to believe.

ProdigalJunkMail

(12,017 posts)
17. Matthew 18:6 says nothing about harming a child
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:40 PM
Mar 2015

other than the punishment that awaits someone in the afterlife for misleading 'little ones'...

Genesis 19:24 is about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ezekiel 5:10 says nothing about is being permissible that children should eat their parents and vice versa...

talk about not knowing the bible...

sP

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
22. There are many Bibles versions.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:56 PM
Mar 2015

but I believe you are correct,,,, somebody took way too much liberty in these bible references

ProdigalJunkMail

(12,017 posts)
31. there are plenty of 'iffy' things if you pick and choose
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:38 PM
Mar 2015

in this manner. the image-maker doesn't look like they actually looked at any of the passages before they were included them... likely just took someone else's word which is comically what is being lamented.

sP

Shrike47

(6,913 posts)
116. Beyond taking liberty, I would call it lying. I read the referenced passages.
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 01:31 PM
Mar 2015

The Bible has lots of strange directives and prohibitions, but the author of this piece is mis describing the referenced sites.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
20. There are over 41,000 Christian Sects,,,,, it unfair
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:49 PM
Mar 2015

to lump them all together. They are not all the same .

angrychair

(8,702 posts)
25. no offense
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:16 PM
Mar 2015

But, at their respective cores, all Christian sects are the same. They were all begat from a core set of allegories, poems and a compilation of belief systems from different ancient societies mythologies in order to be as inclusive and appealing to as many disparate groups as possible.

WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
27. It really is.....but then, mentioning the significance of the fact.......
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:20 PM
Mar 2015

.......that the rest of the tracts cited are from the Old Testament would also probably be lost on the participants of this conversation, either.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
93. Yes, and there is certainly
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 11:22 AM
Mar 2015

plenty that is morally repugnant in the scriptures, especially the Old Testament. There is also plenty that is ethically enlightened. That's why it is important for people who point such things out not to lose credibility by making dubious assertions.

Fla Dem

(23,691 posts)
24. I just can't get over the sacrificing the 1st born .
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:08 PM
Mar 2015
http://biblehub.com/exodus/13-2.htm

Luke 2:23
(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord&quot ,

Exodus 13:1
The LORD said to Moses,

Exodus 13:12
you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD.

Exodus 13:13
Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.

Exodus 22:29
"Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. "You must give me the firstborn of your sons.

Exodus 34:19
"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.

Leviticus 27:26
"'No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the LORD; whether an ox or a sheep, it is the LORD's.

Numbers 3:12
"I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine,

Numbers 3:13
for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether human or animal. They are to be mine. I am the LORD."

ProdigalJunkMail

(12,017 posts)
32. you think this is about sacrificing
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:42 PM
Mar 2015

human children? hell, we still dedicate children today... and not one of them is killed in the dedication.

sP

merrily

(45,251 posts)
78. The firstborn was to be dedicated to the service of God, not killed.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:21 PM
Mar 2015

However, it was the firstborn of the Egyptians whom God supposedly killed in the story of Passover/the departure of Jews from Israel, as punishment to the Pharaoh for not letting the Jews leave peacefully.

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
30. I aslo recall ending someone's pregnancy being a lesser punishment
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:36 PM
Mar 2015

Say a guy attacked a pregnant woman and ended her pregnancy as a result, it certainly wasn't treated as a murder.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
40. Such death of a fetus is mentioned a couple of times in the bible
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 05:44 PM
Mar 2015

Exodus 21:22 is one:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."

http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm

Please note this implies a Miscarriage NOT a live birth of a healthy child. Thus this section of the Bible says a Fetus is NOT a living person and the death of a Fetus, while a wrong (Sin) it is NOT something the violates the Ten Commandments and thus only punished by making the victim (in this case the Father of the prospective child).

former9thward

(32,025 posts)
36. Only one of these verses is from the New Testament which is the only part
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 04:57 PM
Mar 2015

of the Bible I have. It is a flat out lie to say Matthew 18:6 says what the OP quotes. It says no such thing. So I suspect the rest of the verses have been misquoted or lied about also.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
39. See my cite below, I had to stop after looking up the first three "Cites"
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 05:25 PM
Mar 2015

There are just bad, taken out of context citations.

former9thward

(32,025 posts)
44. I'm not throwing out anything.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 06:26 PM
Mar 2015

You take from the Bible whatever you want to take from it or not. But I'm not going to make up shit about verses just so I have something to back up my views.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
37. Cannibalism of live children?
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 05:13 PM
Mar 2015

Not to endorse stoning, drowning, starvation, burning, stabbing and poison.

But cannibalism of live children endorsed by the bible?

Who in their right mind follows this book, the Dahmer and Donner parties?

former9thward

(32,025 posts)
53. I have a Bible.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:03 PM
Mar 2015

So of course I don't need links. I posted in the thread about the one from Matthew. Totally made up lie. Have you read that verse?

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
62. To be honest I was mainly concerned with the cannibalism.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:32 PM
Mar 2015

I hadn't heard, that I can recall, about that before.

No the one from Matthew doesn't seem to apply here, so whip your bible open to Ezekiel 5:10 and take a gander. Now for the sake of honesty it does say the children should also eat their parents. Most of the other cites are more or less accurate, again for honesty's sake I didn't check all of them.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
80. For the sake of honesty,
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:28 PM
Mar 2015

note that the passage does not say such behavior is acceptable. It describes something that has reportedly happened many times in a besieged city cut off from food supplies, and is in this verse specifically the evil result of Jerssalem's own "abominations." The whole point is that it's unacceptable.

former9thward

(32,025 posts)
89. The Old Testament is full of violence because that era in human history
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 02:40 AM
Mar 2015

was full of violence. To try and cherry pick verses to prove some point about abortion is simply anti-history.

Cerridwen

(13,258 posts)
65. That would be Ezekiel 5:10 and a couple of others.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:41 PM
Mar 2015
Context
Judgment against Jerusalem
…9'And because of all your abominations, I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again. 10Therefore, fathers will eat their sons among you, and sons will eat their fathers; for I will execute judgments on you and scatter all your remnant to every wind. 11'So as I live,' declares the Lord GOD, 'surely, because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable idols and with all your abominations, therefore I will also withdraw, and My eye will have no pity and I will not spare.


Parallel Verses
New International Version
Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds.

New Living Translation
Parents will eat their own children, and children will eat their parents. I will punish you and scatter to the winds the few who survive.

English Standard Version
Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.

New American Standard Bible
Therefore, fathers will eat their sons among you, and sons will eat their fathers; for I will execute judgments on you and scatter all your remnant to every wind.

King James Bible
Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds.


http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/5-10.htm

Cross References
Leviticus 26:29
You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

Jeremiah 19: 9
I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.'

Lamentations 4:10
With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed.


 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
38. What a bad set of bibical quotes...
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 05:24 PM
Mar 2015

Hosea 13, 16, is NOT that women with child can be killed, but will be killed when the Kingdom of Samaria falls by the sword to the Assyrians (more a lamentations that such women and children shall die then a decision by God that they should die).

http://biblehub.com/asv/hosea/13.htm

http://biblehub.com/hosea/13-16.htm

Gensisis 38, 24 is about Tamar, the wife of Er, the then deceased son of Judah. Tamar had become pregnant after Judah's other son refused to impregnate her after the death of her Husband. Tamar had NO child to take care of her in her old age and by custom if one's brother died and left his wife without a child, it was the duty of the other brothers to get her pregnant so she would have someone to take care of her in her old age. The problem was such a Child was NOT viewed as the Child of the brother who impregnated the woman, but of her deceased husband. i.e. such a child took the place of his mother's husband in the line of inheritance NOT the line of the brother who was the child's natural father.

Tamar was pregnant when brought in front of her Father in Law AND Judah's others sons said she became pregnant by someone other then them. Judah then listened to Tamar and that she was his faithful daughter in law but she became pregnant for she needed a child to take care of her in her old age AND her brothers in laws, who had a DUTY to make hr pregnant, had refused to do so, do to their own greed. i.e. they wanted a larger share of Judah's inheritance.

Judah then ruled that Tamar had done nothing wrong and when she gave birth, her twin sons were his grandsons.

http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/38.htm

That is just the first line, bad quotes involving other issues NOT the killing of a pregnant woman just to kill a pregnant woman.

The third Biblical citation Hosea 9:16 the book is about the Sins of Israel (mostly, again, the rich getting richer and the poor poorer and no one doing anything about it). 9:16 is about the City of Ephraim and that that city will be punished by being taken by force by someone and that it will produce nothing, even its children will die out in time (i.e. NOT killing of Children but the City will bare no fruit, a common analogy showing that something is rotten to the core.

Thus the bible section quoted are taken out of context and given an interpretation that almost no one else gives the sections being cited. I would go on, but three bad quotes is enough for me. You have to be careful on some of the Biblical "Citations" on the net, many are just bad. Watch out for such quotes, question them for many are just bad.

http://biblehub.com/niv/hosea/9.htm

Cerridwen

(13,258 posts)
60. Bible hub is just what it sounds like.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:17 PM
Mar 2015

A central location on the web, with text from each of the various versions of the canon of texts referred to as The Bible.

It also has a feature where you can have a few versions side by side to see the different language used.

For example:

The first cite in the OP, Hosea 13:16

Context:

The Judgment on Samaria

15Though he flourishes among the reeds, An east wind will come, The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness; And his fountain will become dry And his spring will be dried up; It will plunder his treasury of every precious article. 16Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.


New International Version
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

New Living Translation
The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

English Standard Version
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

New American Standard Bible
Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

King James Bible
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.


I don't think Biblical text is covered by IP law, so a couple over the 4 paragraph limit might be okay. If not, someone let me know and I'll cut out some paragraphs; no pun intended.



 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
131. Actually it depends on the translations, is it still in copyright?
Tue Mar 31, 2015, 04:27 PM
Mar 2015

For example the King James bible is long out of Copyright and can be quoted in length.

The New American Standard Bible is still in copyright but the owner of the copyright wants people to read the bible so had no objections to people quoting it is length:

http://lockman.org/

This seems to be true of the other translations of the bible, the translators want people to read the bible NOT collect their copyright fee. Thus the bible translation being in copyright may be moot, if the translators do NOT care if they get their copyright fee, then anyone can use the translation. Most do a copyright for they do NOT want someone to take their translation, makes changes and still be able to use the name of the original translation group (people can do this to the King James bible and still call it a "King James Bible" but that translation is so well known people will catch on sooner or later of the changes).


WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
48. It's all serious distortion trying to make it say what they want to be able to claim that it says.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 08:09 PM
Mar 2015

Which it doesn't.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
99. I would agree with that
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:25 PM
Mar 2015

However, I don't think it's helpful to distort the text in return to make the point. The point stands on its own merits.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
100. Take your pick
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:26 PM
Mar 2015

If you can point me to a version where it does say that, I would be grateful. I do not believe such a version exists but am happy to be proved wrong on that.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
132. Leviticus 20, which starts with forbidding sacrificing children...
Tue Mar 31, 2015, 05:20 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Wed Apr 1, 2015, 11:34 PM - Edit history (3)

Leviticus 20 starts out forbidding a lot of "sins" that were part of the religious ceremonies of other nations in the mid-east. It requires people to actually SEE the sin being committed, which means it had to be done in the OPEN. Thus the acts forbidden in Leviticus 20 appears NOT to be sins in themselves, but sins for they involved REJECTING Israel's God in favor of the Pagan gods of the tribes around Israel (and embracing such tribes as one own, and rejecting Israel i.e. Treason more then blasphemy).

Please note Paragraphing was invented in the Dark Ages, attributed to Charlemagne. thus when this was written it was one long "paragraph" not the multitude of paragraphs used in modern Translations:

Punishments for Sin

1The Lord said to Moses, 2“Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. 3I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, 5I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.

6“ ‘I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people.

7“ ‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God. 8Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy.

9“ ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.

10“ ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

11“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14“ ‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16“ ‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17“ ‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.

19“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

21“ ‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

22“ ‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

25“ ‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you. 26You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

27“ ‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’ ”

http://biblehub.com/niv/leviticus/20.htm


Just a comment that many of the "Sexual" acts outlawed above, appeared to have been "Religious" acts among the various tribes around Israel. i.e sex NOT for sex sake, but as part of some sort of religious ceremony, thus Leviticus starts with a ban on Child Sacrificing and end on a ban on "Mediums". In between you see a ban on sex with their children, their parents, other close relatives AND animals. Some of these acts appear to be reenacted as part of the religious ceremonies of tribes (For example the people of Moab were viewed as descendants from Lot and his two daughters, thus a ceremony of the people of Moab included sexual acts between "Father Lot" and his "Daughters&quot .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_%28biblical_person%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab

Edomites Claim decent from Abraham, but via Issac's son Esau NOT Jacob, who was the father of Joseph and his brothers who were the founders of the Ancient Israeli tribe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom

In Egypt the Pharaohs were known to marry their own sisters, thus such relationships were know to the Ancient Israelis and again part of the Egyptian Religious Culture.

Marduk was the chief god of Ancient Babylonia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marduk

Just a comment that much of Leviticus 20 appears to be attacks on people who worship other religions (and by that reject one's own country and relatives i,e, more like Treason then Blasphemy).

I keep forgetting about the Philistines. The Philistines lived in what is now Gaza, an extremely rich agricultural area of Sinai Peninsula, but with NO ports, but easy beaches to operate small ships out of. i.e a lot of fishing boats but few if any cargo ships. The bible uses the term Philistine quite broadly. Most Scholars believe (and agreeing with some of the first translators of the bible in the days of Classical Greece) that prior to the division of the Kingdom of Israel at the death of King Solomon, the term Philistine applies to the people living on the coast, but were of semitic/Egyptian people. At the time of the break up of the Kingdom of Israel, the "Sea people" invaded Egypt, these were defeated and settle in Gaza by the Egyptians, but these were greek speaking people with connections to Crete and Greece.

In Greek legends, about the same time as the "Sea People" were hitting Egypt, the "Dorian Invasion" was occurring in Greece, destroying the Greece that had fought the Trojan War. Athens did NOT fall to that Invasion, but Sparta would claim it was part of that invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines

The "Dorian Invasion" also occurred about that same time period,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion

One of the problem for this time period, roughly 1200-950 BC, is that you had a break down in society, trade roots were disrupted as Iron replaced Bronze (But Bronze remain an important metal), climate became colder so that people moved about, and formed into bands and broke up. Conquered new lands, then were absorbed by the locals, or were defeated and settled by their conquerors (as in the case of Egypt and Gaza) into areas were populations had collapsed but could be rebuilt.

Thus Moses left Egypt, wondered the Sinai, at his death the Israelis moved into the West Bank, and stayed there and came out on top as they and other local tribes fought over who lived where, till David took over. At Solomon's death the short period of stability came to an end, Israel broke into two kingdoms.

In Greece a similar situation was occurring, but given they had used a hieroglyphic alphabet that was forgotten as times went bad, the details of the changes were forgotten till the Greeks adopted the Semitic Phonetic Alphabet about 700 BC.

The Destruction of Thera of the West Coast of Modern Turkey, was involved and it would have caused more problems in Greece and Modern day Turkey then is the more distant Egypt and Palestine (It is believed to have lead to the destruction of the Hittite nation).

Thera destruction is set about 1600 BC, a little to early but it is a factor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd2b88ba970b-400wi

Another factor is climate change. The following Chart I found an a denier page, but it shows when temperatures did drop over the last 5000 years, and the key to understanding the collapse of society of abut 1200-950 BC(and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the Dark ages 350-950 AD, is the DROP in tempertures compared to previous periods and for that reason I am using this chart):

?w=720

Notice the drop in temperature after about 400 AD, and the previous drop in the 200s. Both were periods that Rome came under attack AND Roman Resources disappeared. The movement of the Barbarians and Roman finding new resources in the 300s can be seen in the previous decline that was brief but enough to cause all types of problem for Rome. Temperature peaked about 200 BC and then went into a slow decline, a decline that Rome could handle and did for it was a spike and warm spikes cause little problems.

Research has indicated that rapid declines in temperatures have lead to Crisis, not a upward spike follow by a decline to "normal" temperatures, nor an increase (but we have had NO increase like we are having today, which is a different story).

Another chart showing temperatures peaking about 1200 BC (about 3200 years before the present which is how the chart is set up) and then steady from 1000 BC (3000 years BP on the Chart) till about 200 BC



https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2010/05/dear-mr-abbott/

Just a comment that roughly 1200-900 BC, you had a sharp decline in world wide temperatures and thus a change in crop outcomes (i.e. people had to move to find some place to farm or raise their herds of sheep or cattle or die of starvation). And out of that mess came the states of Ancient Israel and Judea. The people did not know what was happening, but they had to react to it, those that reacted the best survived and that reaction is reflected in their religion and given the success of the Jews the Bible,

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
56. Here's a picture depicting exactly how much I care what the bible or any other religious text says
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:06 PM
Mar 2015

about abortion:

 

Wella

(1,827 posts)
64. The OP is lying. Matthew 18:6--see text below:
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:40 PM
Mar 2015
5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.



For those of you not educated in the Bible, Matthew 18:6 refers to Jesus and a little child. The back story is that the disciples are arguing among themselves as to who would be the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus calls a small child to him and tells the disciples:

"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven


He then goes on to say that whoever humbles himself as this child will enter the kingdom of heaven. And if a person accepts a humble child like this, he also will enter the kingdom of heaven.

The quote referenced in the inaccurate OP (Matthew 18:6) is actually a warning to those who would hurt a child or cause that child to do evil. The entire quote is about the PROTECTION of the child.

Cerridwen

(13,258 posts)
66. The image in the OP is wrong about Matthew 18:6.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:44 PM
Mar 2015

A few of the others; not so much.

Though it would have been better titled something to do with the "pro-life" stance taken by those who claim ownership of The Bible in the name of politics.



 

Wella

(1,827 posts)
67. I'll check out the others, verse by verse. But the OP and the image are lying
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:45 PM
Mar 2015

at least about Matthew. There is NO way to get away from that.

Cerridwen

(13,258 posts)
68. The image has some issues. The OP is mistaken, not lying.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:49 PM
Mar 2015

Her posts are generally reliable. I'll give her a pass for the occasional miss.

While you're checking the others, verse by verse, you can check out a couple of the posts I've put up above.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)
83. so what about the other 11 citations?
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:22 AM
Mar 2015

Or do you feel because 1 is wrong therefore ALL must be wrong.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
92. I suspect that the author of the poster is taking most of the verses quoted out of context or just
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 10:12 AM
Mar 2015

plain lying.

Years ago one of the young men from our congregation became a preacher (Lutheran). When he came back to visit he was asked what the Bible says about abortion. His answer was surprising. He told us that the Bible says nothing directly about abortion. The word is never used. The only verse that MAY speak directly to this is the commandment that say "Thou shalt not kill." and even that does not settle this issue of when life begins.

sheshe2

(83,791 posts)
71. Hey. Niyad.
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 10:36 PM
Mar 2015

Voted to leave.....

On Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:42 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

what the bible says about abortion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026423745

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is lying. Matthew 18:6, for example, is not in any way about hurting children; it is actually about protecting them.

4"Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

What the OP has done is tantamount to slander, of a religion and its followers. It should be hidden.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 27, 2015, 10:07 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter you post quote Matthew. Niyad quoted Hosea 13:16 Hosea 13:16. Samaria shall become desolate, for she hath rebelled,
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Abandon religion and free your mind.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: not slander, or libel for that matter. If the author made factual errors indicate so in a reply
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ok, so one of the references is incorrect. What about the rest of them? Why not respond in the thread. I'm fed up with whiny Christians complaining that they're being oppressed while they torture and kill other people. Attend to the log in your own eye, alerter.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Response to niyad (Original post)

merrily

(45,251 posts)
79. It is not completely debunkable because the Bible does say some of those things. At least,
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 11:28 PM
Mar 2015

in the original King James version. It's been a while since I read the Bible, but I distinctly remember a battle in which the Jews were to attack the bellies of pregnant women. When it sinks in for the first time as you are reading, it's quite a stunner. Was for me, anyway.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
87. The King James version isn't that good a translation.
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 01:58 AM
Mar 2015

It's widely known, and it has some beautiful phrasing, but given a choice between being accurate/description and poetic/majestic, the translators opted for poetic/majestic.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
88. The description of that battle was not a matter of translating 1 or 2 words or a filling in one
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 02:19 AM
Mar 2015

"lacuna" in a particular way. (I question the existence of an "accurate" way to fill in a lacuna anyway, but that is a different story). So, I don't know that your comment about the King James version applies to my post to Nye, though it probably applies in other contexts. Conversely, I don't know that that any translation of the Bible that is agenda free says a lot about abortion or inducing miscarriages, let alone about imposing a duty on believers to make sure the secular laws of the places they may live prohibit and contraceptives and abortion. Or the rhythm method.

I am not a Biblical scholar, but I have met at least one person who specialized in differentiating among various translations and people like him debate which translation is most accurate. So, accuracy of various translations is subjective, to a degree. And, since I'd have to take someone else's opinion on which version is the most accurate, I'd just as soon make my own choice. At least I can explain my reason for my own choice.

I understand the objections to the King James, but use it for a particular reason. I think most who produce a new "translation" of the Bible have one or more agenda. The same may well have been true of the King James translators. However, their agendas are probably mostly moot at this point, while more modern translators have more modern agendas.

For just one example, from a lay person, there are all kinds of variations and nuances that words and phrases have, so subjectivity enters in in many translation choices, even if you have no agenda. Moreoever, meanings and nuances change over time. "Don we now our gay apparel" can convey something today that it did not even hint at when the carol was first penned.

Only God knows (pun intended) what was in the minds of the first people to write down various things that we now consider part of the Bible. And who knows how many iterations existed in the original ancient Hebrew and Greek before the documents modern scholars work from.

So, for the reason stated above, I will stick with the King James.

niyad

(113,344 posts)
126. of course, since the bible was not originally written in english, and most of us
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 05:59 PM
Mar 2015

are not fluent in ancient aramaic or greek, it always fascinates me to hear what is and isn't in there.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
86. Okay. Well you know most people probably have no idea of the full Gospel canon.
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 01:38 AM
Mar 2015

Nobody here probably knows who Marcion of Sinopes is. How many books were left out of the Bible? Why? What was the Council of Trent? The Great Schism. I always find Christains fascinating, because most hardly know anything about what they stake their life on! What is the difference between a Cherbub and a Seraphim?

I guess none of that matters really, all you have to do is believe in Jesus. Still...the biblical quote game is so silly, that anyone can play and be a winner!

Okay some GREAT biblical quotes! And my comments.

Fuck this up and God gets pissed;
"Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about." -- Exodus 29:20

Kids pick on the wrong holy dude;
"As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."--2 Kings 2:23-24

Everyone that shops at Old Navy is going to Hell;
"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." --Deuteronomy 22:11

God shows up with a huge can of whip ass;
I saw the LORD standing upon the altar: and he said ... I will slay the last of them with the sword.--Amos 9:1

God is the original Dungeon Master;
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels." --Revelation 12

Dam...what is coming out of my nose!?;
"Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you." --Numbers 11:19-20

Point is...anyone can take any cannon and find whatever they want in it if they look hard enough.

niyad

(113,344 posts)
97. my favourite comment about the bible: "it is amazing that white europeans follow
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:09 PM
Mar 2015

a book that has no white europeans in it".

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
102. RIghtwing asses hate abortion because it is a woman making a choice on her own
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:31 PM
Mar 2015

without the priest or husband or man making it for her

it is that simple

women who support that garbage are brainwashed women who think men are superior to them

has nothing to do with life or babies or anything like that

hate is what it is about, and control

niyad

(113,344 posts)
109. especially when it is being used to promote legislation in a secular nation. it would be amusing
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:47 PM
Mar 2015

to listen to those screaming about sharia law in this country, when they are doing their best to impose their own version of it.

valerief

(53,235 posts)
124. Yeah. Too bad the blind can't see their own reflection. (No offense to visually
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 03:15 PM
Mar 2015

impaired people. I was being metaphorical, so, people, please don't concern-bot me.)

Atman

(31,464 posts)
110. So sorry, but WHY was the earlier Jesus thread locked, but this one thrives?
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 12:50 PM
Mar 2015

Hmmm...did a particular moderator get her religious panties in a wad? It was very little different from this thread, which has gone on and on and on, except for that the other was locked and advised to post in one of the religious dungeons. Maybe that thread will appear again three days from now.

Atman

(31,464 posts)
115. Oh, and if this all Biblical and God and stuff...why can't they get the date right?
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 01:17 PM
Mar 2015

God is all knowing, but he has to make up a new vacation schedule every year. What's up with that?

Atman

(31,464 posts)
118. HE IS RISEN!
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 01:54 PM
Mar 2015

Maybe it was the last Sunday. April. Maybe it was the first Sunday. It changes every year. Maybe Jesus was looking for the best Spring Break Deals on "ResurrectionAdvisor.com" You know, to get more bonus points.

"Easter Day is the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon, or next after the 21st day of March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the Sunday after."

Kind of proves it's all bullshit. He either crawled from the cave on a specific date or he didn't. WTF does the moon have to do with it? It just proves it's a Pagan ritual, and has nothing to do with the "Son O' God."

ProdigalJunkMail

(12,017 posts)
119. oh, so because we try to superimpose our solar calendar
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 01:58 PM
Mar 2015

with the jews's lunar calendar that makes it all bunk... interesting reasoning. but, people like you, wouldn't be persuaded if you had seen Jesus walk out yourself, so...

sP

Atman

(31,464 posts)
121. "People like me."
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 02:04 PM
Mar 2015

You mean, the ones who don't believe in talking snakes and floating ghosts in the sky?


Atman

(31,464 posts)
135. BWHAHA! So now it's "disdain."
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 08:59 AM
Apr 2015

How about, I simply don't share your belief. You don't believe in more than me. You believe in something different than I belief in. Why is it "disdain" to not share a belief in a floating ghost, a talking snake, and a blue-eyed blond dude from the Middle East who came back from the dead?

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
133. Quit knocking the Roman Empire.....
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 12:12 AM
Apr 2015

Easter's date is set under Rules the reflect the long term budget (19 years) adopted by the Emperor Diocletian. When Constantine became Emperor he asked the Christian Bishops to standardize some Christian holidays to reflect traditional Roman Holiday. For over 100 years prior to Constantine, the Roman Army had slowly adopted the Sun as its "god" and that worship (And this is NOT worship of the Sun God Apollo, but the sun itself) had a holiday every 14 days on what we call Sunday. The Christians bishops read the bible and notice the bible only says one out of 7 days is a day of rest and that day could be Sunday instead of Saturday, thus to keep the Sun Worshippers happy, the day of rest was transferred to Sunday.

Worshipping of the almighty Sun continued under Constantine but seems to have been replaced by Arianism in the Roman Army by the time of death of Constantine's son. Emperor Julian then became emperor and seems to have a plan to return Rome to Pagan Worship, but died in battle as he retreated from his failed attempt to sack the Capital of Persia so he could pay for the reconversion. Subsequent Emperors returned to Constantine's policy of looting Pagan Temples for the Gold in those temples, so the troops could be paid (Constantine minted Gold Coins from such Loots called "Soldius" from which we get the term Soldier). This "Looting" was always controlled, called "Riots" by pagan writers, but here were NEVER riots, the Emperor and his troops were always in control for they wanted the gold from the Temples to pay the troops.

As to Easter, most Christian Churches in the Western Empire did NOT have access to Jewish calendars, so it was decided to adopt a rule based on the 19 year long term Roman Budget. The reason 19 was picked was Rome, when it came to numbers had a tendency to be "Inclusive" as oppose to being 'exclusive" i.e. Year One of a 20 year cycle was also the 20th year of the previous cycle. We tend to be "exclusive" i.e year one of a 20 year cycle is the year AFTER the 20th year of the previous cycle. This caused some problems after Julius Ceasar had adopted the Julian Calendar for Rome when he was Dictator of Rome. The Julian Calendar had a leap year every four years (like today's Gregorian Calendar) and it was clear Julius Ceasar wanted it be four exclusive years, but for about 20-30 years it was done on an exclusive basis, i.e. every three years as we calculate three years, but that was every four years as the Ancient Romans counted years. Augustus Ceasar discovered this error and corrected it but it does cause some problems for the years the three year rule was used.

Thus the date of Easter is based on Roman Budget periods for even the invading barbarians knew of those periods for they had been paid based on those periods. The Christian Church that survived the fall of the Roman Empire, also kept that long term budget and with it the 19 year "golden period". It was called the "Golden Period" for the budget from Constantine onward was in terms of gold (and the troops were paid in gold AND the entrance for any visiting royalty to Constantinople, the capital of the Roman Empire AFTER the fall of the Empire in the West, entered that city through its "Golden Gate&quot .

Side note: The older Roman Empire had paid is troops and debts in silver, but when the Silver mines of Spain watered out in the mid 200s, something had to replace the silver and no one came up with a replacement till Constantine decided to abandon paganism (and its Golden Idols) in favor of Christianity. n many ways, Rome was forced to become Christian for it was the only Empire Wide Religion that did NOT have golden idols to maintain. Gold was used by the Christians but in times of Crisis they would give it up, unlike the Pagan Temples that refused to do so.

Such a comment that HOW we calculate when Easter occurs is based on What the Roman Emperors required. It is NOT religious in calculation except that Easter had to be one day for all Christians (or as few as different days as possible, thus the Orthodox add the requirement it be after Passover, some thing many Christians in the Western Roman Empire did not know how to calculate thus NOT a requirement in Catholic or Protestant Religions.

Atman

(31,464 posts)
120. So, Jesus goes fishing one day.
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 02:03 PM
Mar 2015

It's Easter break. Jesus is taking a little vacation time with Paul and Peter, doing some fishing. Paul taunts him..."Hey, I hear you used to be pretty good with that walk on water thing!"

"Of course, man! That's my gig!" says Jesus. "Check this out!"

At that, Jesus steps out of the boat and immediately sinks to the bottom of the lake. Gasping for air, he swims back to the boat. "I don't understand it! I used to be so good at that!" he cries.

"Sure," says Paul. "But that was before you got those holes in your feet."



Badoom. Thank you, I'll be here all week. Or until I burn in hell.

ProdigalJunkMail

(12,017 posts)
123. Now THAT is a good walkin' on water joke...
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 02:26 PM
Mar 2015

will try it out at church tomorrow to see who has heard it... and who laughs.

sP

niyad

(113,344 posts)
128. my favourite walking on water joke:
Sat Mar 28, 2015, 06:03 PM
Mar 2015

A Christian Priest, a Rabbi, and a Pagan High Priestess?
As part of an Interfaith community project, A right wing Christian priest, a rabbi, and a Pagan priestess decided that in order to improve relations in the community, they will go on a fishing trip together on a local pond. They're out in the boat, and the Pagan priestess excuses herself to go to the bathroom back on the shore. She gets out, walks across the water back to shore, and then walks back across the water to the boat.

The Christian priest looks in amazement, crosses himself, and they continue fishing. It comes on about noon time, and the rabbi realizes they left their lunches back on shore. So he gets up, walks across the water to the shore, retrieves the lunches, and walks back across the water to the boat.

The Christian priest, now completely amazed, and a little bit righteous, thinks, "not to be outdone by two heathens, I can do that too!!" So he gets up, excuses himself to go to the bathroom, takes a step out of the boat and promptly sinks to the bottom.

While he's flailing around in the water, the rabbi looks at the priestess and says, "Do you think we should have told him about the rocks?"

The Pagan priestess replies, "What rocks?"

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
134. So Jesus and Moses go golfing one day
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 02:20 AM
Apr 2015

and they come to a long water hazard.

Moses plays it safe and takes the long way around the lake. Jesus tries to go over the lake but plops the ball well short of the far shore. He walks across to get his ball and then tries again but again drops the shot in the water far from shore. After dropping the ball in the lake five times there is now a line of golfers being held up unhappily.

Finally the greenskeeper comes up to Moses and says "hey buddy. Tell your friend there to get out of the lake. Who does he think he is? Jesus Christ?""

Moses says, "Nah - he is Jesus Christ, but he thinks he's Tiger Woods."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»what the bible says about...