"God" Is Pro-Abortion
Not that I believe in the bugger, as I see no evidence there is a god, but I posted yesterday on how Huckanut defines an egg as a person, and "endorsed a proposed Colorado Human Life Amendment that would define personhood as a fertilized egg."
According to evilbible.com, god was not even wishy-washy "pro-choice." No, he was for ripping little fetuses right out of the mommies -- well, when the mommies were the wrong kind of mommies (not M.O.T., ya know -- Members Of Tribe).
The details are here, where they complain that, out of Christian determination to control women, they're force to rely on biblical statements like:
...“thou shall not kill”,”I kneweth thou in the womb” and their favorite: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth...“--Exodus 21:22-24The problem here is that the man who injures a pregnant woman in the process, shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted on her, not the fetus. I am often dumbfounded at how Christians can assume that abortion is wrong judging by these feeble verses when the Bible clearly advocates infanticide and many other atrocities against children and pregnant women. I can no longer allow such ignorance of the Bible and deem it necessary to expose the true agenda. I am tired of the many young Christians who are brainwashed by their clergy. They are only taught the “love and mercy” parts of the Bible and never bother to read what is not so openly preached. The Church thrives off of speaking in half truths and concealing their blood soaked robes.
Here, from evilbible.com, are some of the Bible's abortion-promoting verses:
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?
How do the 'thumpers miss this stuff? Do they even read the damn book? Or do they just try to slam the rest of us over the head with it?
Personally, I'm not just pro-choice, but pro-abortion. In fact, I think more people should have been aborted, such as those Jerry described the other day in a comment, who were in a bar using their cell phones on the speaker phone feature.
Ahem. I find that "thumpers" miss that stuff because they have spent years disconnecting one Bible passage from another; only the passage they are currently looking at is "true". It's a universal human trait: part of the population is convinced that what they think is the truth, and nearly all of the population thinks that something they think is "the truth", even though they have partial understanding at best. You can not only see that in discussion about education, the sciences and debate about the role of religion in America, you can see that in the vitriol leveled at the President, merely because he is the only person in government many people can name. Something wrong? Must be the President's fault. Damn him! Something right? Must be God did it, because Rule One Is That God Is Good, Rule Two Is Repeat Rule One.
I mean, come on. People bless The Lord for saving them from the tornado without once noticing that their own religion says He was the one that sent the damned thing in the first place. "Gee, thanks, God, I'm homeless now." Hey, there's a reason you've noted that people are biohazards. They call each other on the cell phone while driving to talk about the person talking on the cell phone while driving that just cut them off, and they stand outside in the hospital parking lot smoking, talking about what a shame it is that their Mom has lung cancer - after 30 years of smoking. Gahh!
Radwaste at February 27, 2008 2:38 AM
Methinks that you confuse "God allows X" with "God exhorts me to do X." There is a not insignificant difference.
Also, the "'thumpers" were not always against abortion - they appropriated this moral belief from we crafty Catholics, for whom the bible, while normative, is not exclusive. We have other oral and written traditions, and are informed by the natural law.
Alec Leamas at February 27, 2008 5:13 AM
See I always have a sneaking admiration for real hard core fundementalists. Being able to believe multiple contradictory 'facts' at the same time takes a certain level of mental skill.
I'm just too lazy I guess, I try and stick to stuff that seems to not contradict itself. But hey, that's just me, I'm probably going to hell or something.
Simon Proctor at February 27, 2008 6:24 AM
Well, Simon, you'll be in good company. Us and all of the OB-Gyns who perform abortions. Guess we'll never have to worry about accidentally procreating in hell.
Jessica at February 27, 2008 6:45 AM
Guess we'll never have to worry about accidentally procreating in hell.
But just think of all the fun we'll have trying! o_O
Flynne at February 27, 2008 6:51 AM
so sassy flynne :)
Check this out, wonder what old huck-a-buck would think about this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23358791/?GT1=10856
dena at February 27, 2008 8:24 AM
Ah, yes, Flynne, I can only imagine the extra heat we'll all generate. :)
Jessica at February 27, 2008 8:45 AM
...took the 4 PM train home on Monday. Pretty empty since it was before the rush hour jam. I settled into my big comfy, expensive commuter rail seat and opened my magazine. Only to have some out of town schmucks sit in the seat next to me and proceed to listen to voice mail on speaker phone; leave someone else a voice mail on speaker phone; then have a convo w/ incoming caller on speaker phone.
There's a chance he and wifey didn't know how to use his phone but I have little patience for persistent rudeness and complete dumb ass-ness. Read the manual or step out into the vestibule. In other words, shut the fuck up.
P.S: why do people wear ugly, random baseball caps (you know, for the company that no longer exists or a Disney one) when they travel? Is it an unspoken rule amongst non-city folk? IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU BLEND IN WITH THE SCARY, DANGEROUS BOSTON PEOPLE! Maybe if you didn't have LUGGAGE and weren't using the word "y'all" you might stand a chance against the bad ass, suit-wearing, brief case-wielding gang members on the train.
Gretchen at February 27, 2008 9:45 AM
I only have one baseball cap. It says "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" I don't wear it often, but I make a point to save it until I become a softball coach or something.
The one I had in high school just said "Die Yuppie Scum." It was a great conversation starter.
I don't wear either when traveling.
Jamie at February 27, 2008 10:30 AM
Jesus Christ, Amy, don't forget Psalms 137:9: "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little one against the stones". When you bring up these verses to the religious nuts that love JC and company, they always come up with an "explanation" which essentially says these vile verses don't really mean what they clearly say. Never mind the fact that their apologetics make no sense and are clearly just bullshit.
Bill Henry at February 27, 2008 1:26 PM
I think the point being missed about "thumpers" is it depends on the part of the Bible they live in... That is to say that many Christians don't know the Old Testement, because Jesus and their religion is The New Testament. There may well be similar abortive areas in the New, but I don't know of them...
As for the contradictions, it was written over an eon of time, translated many times and so on, and in 3 different languages. It isn't like a shop manual, except in terms of the basics. One thing important to keep in mind is there are differences between what it says God will do, and what humans should do. I'm not sure why people assume that God and human should act the same. Also, it has a vast difference between what you do to people in general, and what you do to an enemy. Everyone in the ancient world was vicious to an enemy, without compunction, without mercy, and to all of their people. After all, the children of an enemy were a future army, with the fire in their belly to extract revenge. The Greeks and Romans were particularly nasty, The Jews were small potatos. Seems easy to forget that The Bible is a historical document as well. What was happening in Abraham's time was vastly different then what was happening in Solomon's, or in Jesus'. I think that is why it's often ignored which tribe slew another, since that's not so much philosophical, and that is why The Old Testament is different in tone than the New. The New is designed to be much broader, and for people who don't necessarily have the same cultural context.
I don't know that any of that is important, but it is a basic explanation of why Judaism isn't the same as Christianity, and they are far different now than they were 1500+ years ago. Additionally as has been mentioned, the Christian traditions grow differently from each other as well.
There is tons and tons more but it's even MORE tangential to the question of right to lifers and thumpers... Simply put, they are defaulting to the "thou shalt not kill" with the assumption that since an unborn would be as innocent as a human can possibly be from our perspective, it is against the Commandment to take it's life. This is why the WHEN of the life is so important, and I think pro-lifers just default to conception, because they don't wish to be wrong about when it begins.
I don't necessarily disagree, except for the part where they wish to make that public policy. The consensus of public policy is that it is up to the individual to decide, when the fetus itself is not viable yet on it's own.
From a religious perspective, don't prolifers trust their own faiths, what ever they are? To guide the faithful? Or do they feel the need to be busybodies for everyone else.
Yup. That one. This is why I see a consistantly see a bright-line on separation of Church and State. Public Policy MUST serve the whole public equally...
SwissArmyD at February 27, 2008 2:30 PM
Good insight "on the part of the Bible they live in...[SwissArmyD]" makes sense indeed, but what contradicts the most is how there is even an old and new testament. If this god divinely guides all life in such a miraculous way then how are new and improved versions even needed for such an all knowing what-cha-ma-call-it. Otherwise - it's a guide for people who only have the capacity for living a borrowed life.
kbling at February 28, 2008 8:17 AM
"how are new and improved versions even needed"
I think this depends on if your point of view is that The Bible is the beginning or the ending. If it is a point of departure or a basis, then it doesn't contain everything, just the basics. If it is the ending, then it contains all there ever is or will be.
You might imagine I follow the first idea. Perhaps think about it this way. Why doesn't The Contitution cover speeding? Not only had cars not been invented, but that is a very specific sort of law, where The Constitution is a guiding document. In the Bible, some laws are very specific and others not, and when you get to the philosophical area of the New Testament, they are more guiding, instead of specific.
As far as a guide for a borrowed life... do you view the laws of the US [or your country] as making your life borrowed? Laws and rules and society in general have been pulled together over eons, in order to give people a general direction, and sometimes a specific one about living and what is permitted, and what is not.
What I often find when dealing with The Bible, is that people are ACTUALLY having a problem with other people interpreting what is written.
That part is us dealing with each other, and THAT, is difficult, if we let it be so.
SwissArmyD at February 28, 2008 2:24 PM
Cool site. Thank you!
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?tid=1740 buy cialis custom hrt
buy cialis custom hrt at March 27, 2008 5:42 AM
Cool site. Thank you!
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?tid=1740 buy cialis custom hrt
buy cialis custom hrt at March 27, 2008 5:42 AM
Leave a comment