General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswhat the bible says about abortion:
10 hours ago
"Pro-Life" is anti-Christian.
?w=480&h
Wow. Once again, so much for "christian" values. (lower case used intentionally)
get the red out
(13,466 posts)That's like expecting ISIS members to read the Koran.
niyad
(113,344 posts)erronis
(15,303 posts)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)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)Or 20:13, if they're really hard-core.
merrily
(45,251 posts)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)Question is, where in the Bible would one find that distinction? I know of no such passage anywhere.
merrily
(45,251 posts)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)Paul broke with J.C.'s original teachings in a number of significant ways.
merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
calimary
(81,322 posts)This one's a keeper.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)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)the one preaching compassion, acceptance, forgiveness, etc.,
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)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 womans 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)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.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)"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)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)some 500 versions out there the person means.
... 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.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Kber
(5,043 posts)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)"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)eventuality
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)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)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.
ileus
(15,396 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... that's about it and it hasn't changed from them too much
perdita9
(1,144 posts)Funny how the church rarely mentions this.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)pregnancy to birth, I will rejoice sayeth DcmShirley.
Jon82
(92 posts)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)do not believe Jesus meant what He said and most have to have somebody tell them how to believe.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)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)but I believe you are correct,,,, somebody took way too much liberty in these bible references
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)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)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)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)to lump them all together. They are not all the same .
angrychair
(8,702 posts)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.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)is cited way out of context for this subject.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts).......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)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)Luke 2:23
(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord" ,
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)human children? hell, we still dedicate children today... and not one of them is killed in the dedication.
sP
colorado_ufo
(5,734 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
Fla Dem
(23,691 posts)appleannie1
(5,067 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)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)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)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)There are just bad, taken out of context citations.
phil89
(1,043 posts)What's the objective standard for context in mythology?
phil89
(1,043 posts)The Old Testament and the creation myth, there's no basis for xtianity.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)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)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)They are made up.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Do you need links?
former9thward
(32,025 posts)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)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)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)was full of violence. To try and cherry pick verses to prove some point about abortion is simply anti-history.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Cerridwen
(13,258 posts)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.
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
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)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
phil89
(1,043 posts)"Bible hub" offers accurate information?? Wow
Cerridwen
(13,258 posts)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
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.
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)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).
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That is a serious distortion of the text.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Which it doesn't.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)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.
niyad
(113,344 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)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.
niyad
(113,344 posts)underpants
(182,829 posts)Okay I am marking this for research.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)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:
1The Lord said to Moses, 2Say 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 mans wifewith the wife of his neighborboth the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
11 If a man has sexual relations with his fathers 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 brothers 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 groundthose 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" .
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,
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Hmm...
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)about abortion:
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and it was blank on THAT side also
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)you improved on the first one.
niyad
(113,344 posts)Wella
(1,827 posts)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:
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)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)at least about Matthew. There is NO way to get away from that.
Cerridwen
(13,258 posts)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)Or do you feel because 1 is wrong therefore ALL must be wrong.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)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.
niyad
(113,344 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)sheshe2
(83,791 posts)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.
niyad
(113,344 posts)Response to niyad (Original post)
sheshe2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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)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)"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)are not fluent in ancient aramaic or greek, it always fascinates me to hear what is and isn't in there.
merrily
(45,251 posts)niyad
(113,344 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)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)a book that has no white europeans in it".
niyad
(113,344 posts)Faux pas
(14,681 posts)Thank you, niyad
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)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)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thank you!
valerief
(53,235 posts)niyad
(113,344 posts)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)impaired people. I was being metaphorical, so, people, please don't concern-bot me.)
Atman
(31,464 posts)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.
niyad
(113,344 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)He does have his detractors, but I thought it was one of his better rants.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6427045
niyad
(113,344 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)God is all knowing, but he has to make up a new vacation schedule every year. What's up with that?
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)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)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)You mean, the ones who don't believe in talking snakes and floating ghosts in the sky?
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)but moreover, your disdain for people who believe in more than you...
sP
Atman
(31,464 posts)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)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" .
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)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)will try it out at church tomorrow to see who has heard it... and who laughs.
sP
niyad
(113,344 posts)niyad
(113,344 posts)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)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."