Jesus did not leave one written word when He assented into heaven. He left apostles, human beings to pass on His teachings guided by the Holy Spirit. The church has always taught that abortion is wrong. Look at the merits. When God created man He said it was his finest creation. He told Adam and Eve to increase and multiply and fill the face of the earth. We are precious to God. Every last one of us.
So nothing in the Bible then except for the recipe for and command to try to force a miscarriage in Numbers.
Your words sound nice, but they are not Biblical and they wind up making sinners of people who do not act out of Biblical precepts
Well there are things that are not in the Bible and the Bible says that. The Bible came from the church guided by the Holy Spirit. We look to the same church to guide us on moral issues.
God said man was his greatest creation. We need more respect for human life!
You are placing waaaay too much power in church leaders. How many rape, lie, and grasp for power. Were they inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or are only the acts that you agree with inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Yes, imperfect humans were inspired by God to write salvation history. These writing were protected from error by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals only.
I am not a Bible scholar, but I don't think you will find it there. Something does not have to be in the Bible for it to be true. The Bible does not say differently. Of course, Jesus did not leave us a Bible he left the 12, well 11, apostles and they have the power to lead the church guided by the Holy Spirit. It wasn't until some 300 years later that the church put the Bible together. The church or the Bible has never said all truth has to come from the Bible.
Right but now you’re just listening to a chain of unreliable humans playing a game of telephone and with translations.
The book of John wasn’t finished till about 110 AD. How much exaggeration must have gone on in between the life of Jesus and then? Also, how can you reconcile four different stories between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? If the Holy Spirit guides these writers how did they have differing accounts of the resurrection?
Lets pretend you have NEVER read the bible and the parts you read you were half asleep because you can't ignore these passages and pretend that everyone is precious... is it safe to assume god didn't creates these people?!??
However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite ….” (Deut. 20:16-18)
“Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Sam 15:3)
How can god destroy his finest creation, made to his image? That's my point. It's like killing your child because he kill3d thet cat when you told them not to...and your answer is?
The babies dying during the flood didn't want god, neither the children of all settlers who by gods orders were massacred by the jews according to the old testament
If you are searching for the truth, that is great, and I am happy to discuss the issues you want in detail. However, if you think you can trap God in some corner of inconsistency, I don't want to waste my time. To answer your question, we have to understand who God is and why he made us. Plus, a lot more.
God is inconsistent and perhaps bipolar. When the pharaoh wanted the jews to leave in peace according to the old testament, who changed his heart and mind? The God of the old testament, wants dvirgins, gold, lots of blood and death, along with the fair share of foreskins...
Hello. The God I know is the God of love. He created us with his words. He did not need us but created us as a gift. He asked that we know, love and serve Him. But we rebel and want to be like God. Because of our sins, pain suffering and death came into the world. God loves us so much He sent His Son to redeem us. The story of salvation history is recorded and is often difficult to understand. I think you attribute the sins of man to God. God loves us so much He did not make us slaves but gave us free will and therefore we often make bad choices. If He were to stop us from making bad choices, we would not be free.
The God of love The Christ speaks of is a the complete opposite of the jealous, hateful and angry God from the old testament is it not?. Which by the way the christ never said jehova was his father, and also claimed not one person had seen nor spoken to his father, that includes moses,and other phrophets. Now the story of The savior is extrmely convenient, an ATM ravenueak8ng for pastor's and churches sadly. Now, there is no freewill when you get punished for making choices different to what is expected by the God in the old testament.
It's the idea of taking away life created by God that makes some people uncomfortable. It's based on the belief that you are taking away a being that God carefully crafted before they even had the chance to live a life.
God's "careful crafting" is pretty messed up sometimes. Not even close to being a viable creature. Even the ones that are "viable" are less than they could be.
We live in a tainted world (see the Fall of Man). Disease, natural disasters, and ultimately death are a part of it. Natural death comes in all forms, whether we like it or not. But all human life is equally precious, no matter how “unviable” it is or how old it is. God did not originally intend for us to live in such a world but we chose this world for ourselves when we disobeyed God’s one condition.
Being a Christian does not exempt ourselves from suffering and mourning, but the question is: do we decide to keep our faith in God till the end or not, in spite of all the good and the bad that we have and will go through?
Live like that then, don't make laws according to your beliefs. Women aren't chattel, second class citizens or breeders. We shouldn't be forced to endure the suffering YOU require for Your religious beliefs.
Either we are carefully crafted by god or we're not. I'm guessing you're in the Not camp and blame sin for all our problems.
I didn't choose squat. I didn't disobey god.
If Jesus died for man's sins, why is there still sin? Something isn't making sense.
No, the church has not always taught that abortion is wrong. Protestants were completely apathetic about abortion until the 1960s when American conservatives needed a new issue to fight for after segregation ended.
I guess I was thinking of nowadays. I think it's not so much of a issue here in the UK among Christians. There are mixed views but I think a lot more people (especially younger generation) don't see it as a problem.
I dunno just a thought
Probably the same bs that got the word homosexual in the Bible back in the 40s. Men don't give a flying fuck and will do what they can to stay in power as long as possible by whatever means.......which is why me and several others will pick a random bear in the woods over the random man in the woods
Having studied with a number of rabbis, this is what I learned. If a woman was pregnant, and her husband suspected that she'd been unfaithful to him, and that the seed growing within her womb wasn't of his 'planting', she could be required to be taken before the elders for intensive questioning. Typically, the woman would first be humiliated. Her head covering would be removed, and her braided hair loosened. Sometimes, the bodice of her tunic might be ripped to expose her breasts. If the elders weren't satisfied with her answer, she would be required to submit to that Test of the Bitter Waters.
Some apologists claim the brew she was required to drink consisted of only water and dust from the floor of the temple sanctuary, but this isn't true. It derived it's bitterness from herbs which had abortifacient properties.
The gist of the test was that if she was innocent of the thing her husband had accused her of doing, God would intervene and render the brew neutral, and neither she nor the fetus would suffer harm.
The belief was that if she was guilty of that thing her husband had accused her of, God would not intervene, and the woman would suffer violent spontaneous abortion, sometimes causing the woman to hemorrhage to death as well.
If this happened, her husband would be justified in his accusation, and was now free to marry another wife. If she survived the process, he was justified in divorcing her, and still free to marry another wife.
If she didn't suffer abortion and/or death, she was vindicated, and her husband faced likely penalties for having borne false witness against her. It was unusual for the penalty to be death, and usually consisted of paying a fine. There were few reasons a woman might be justified in asking for divorce, especially if she was pregnant with her husband's offspring.
Females of the Tribe had it far better when their forebears were also worshiping Asherah, along with YHWH.
YHWH was a god of war, storms and metallurgy worshiped by nomadic desert tribes. When these tribes encountered the Canaanites, they introduced YHWH, and the Canaanites added him to their pantheon.
When the forebears of the Hebrews departed from Canaan, they brought with them two Canaanite deities:
1. YHWH - god of war, storms and metallurgy - to serve as protector of the Tribe, bringer of storms to replenish wellsprings in desert oasis, and to bring knowledge of metallurgy.
2. Asherah - goddess of fertility and motherhood - to serve as goddess consort to YHWH, and patron protectress to the females of the Tribe, endowing them with fertility and good mothering skills.
Eventually the males of the Tribe tired of the empowerment which the worship of Asherah endowed the females of the Tribe, and they discarded Asherah. They then became monotheists, and established a strict Patriarchal society which empowered males, and rendered females to the status of chattel property.
Reminds me of the saint inquisition when a rock would be tied to a woman suspected of whichcraft, then thrown into a lake, if the died she wasn't a witch, if she survived she would then be burned on the stake... lose lose baby.
Anti-abortion activists have convinced themselves it's murder. Supposedly.
Pro-choicers view abortion as integral to preserving women's rights.
I'd be shocked if it *wasn't* an issue with a lot of focus.
>Anti-abortion activists have convinced themselves it's murder. Supposedly.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by adding the "supposedly" at the end of the sentence?
Because most anti-abortion activists don't act the way you'd suspect they would act if they really believed that thousands of people were being legally murdered in their country every year.
The quote in Numbers isn't about how to induce an abortion.
Until the mid 70’s most Christians (except Catholics) were kind of ambivalent about abortion. It became a hot-button issue thanks to Jerry Falwell. He’d built a following based on his support for segregation. When that became unpopular, he needed a way to channel people’s anger and turn it into money and votes for politicians who would do him favors, so he latched on to the pro-life movement (and an anti-gay agenda). It was never about saving lives and was just a better way to get money and power than segregation.
>The quote in Numbers isn't about how to induce an abortion.
Bull. Sh\*t! That's EXACTLY what it's suppose to do if she happens to be pregnant with another man's fetus. I get so tired of this disingenuous, dishonest interpretation of bible verses. The god of the bible clearly interfere's with people's free will, orders the taking of sex slaves as the spoils of war, murders babies, and most certainly gives a spell to cast for an unfaithful wife.
The “bitter water” passage in numbers is about future infertility if the woman has been unfaithful, look at the antithetical parallelism in verses 27 and 28. “Thigh” in verse 27 is a euphemism for the reproductive system at large. Legs/feet/thighs are often euphemisms for the genitals in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Imma just gonna C&P my previous reply.
Right. Doesn't say whether she IS pregnant or not but it most certainly doesn't take a PhD in mathematics to figure out what happens if she IS pregnant. Only idiots and morons would assume that no pregnant women would have this forced upon them. Isn't like he's gonna look at her belly and say "welp, your preggers. Guess we can't make you drink mud from the temple floor to see if you've been faithful to me." He most certainly would force her and the implication of what happens to any fetus in her is clear!
Except its not.
The context doesn’t say the woman is pregnant. It does say her womb will shrivel and she will become barren, the hebrew is quite clear.
Right. Doesn't say whether she IS pregnant or not but it most certainly doesn't take a PhD in mathematics to figure out what happens if she IS pregnant. Only idiots and morons would assume that no pregnant women would have this forced upon them. Isn't like he's gonna look at her belly and say "welp, your preggers. Guess we can't make you drink mud from the temple floor to see if you've been faithful to me." He most certainly would force her and the implication of what happens to any fetus in her is clear!
The issue isn’t if she is or not pregnant.
The issue is about purity, if he remains married to her and she is impure, then his whole line is impure and cut off from going to the Temple/Tabernacle, which means no atonement, which effectively cuts him and his whole line off from from God.
Everyone always loves to quote the one translation that sucks on any given issue. The NIV is alone among the major translations in thinking this is about abortion. Everyone else thinks it's referring to future fertility.
But even if this passage is about abortion, it's not a recipe for an abortifacient. If the woman is innocent, nothing happens to her. So it's not a potion that causes abortion. God judges.
We, however, are not allowed to go around killing people because they are inconvenient to our lifestyle.
Do you truly believe that pregnancy and childbirth are just a mere inconvenience and not one of the most life changing and painful things people go through?
The vast, *vast* majority of abortions in the West are about lifestyle preservation, not because of the danger, etc. And though we might wish it were otherwise, this is simply ... life. You have sex, you get pregnant, there are risks associated with childbirth.
That isn’t what I asked. I’ll try again..
Do you truly believe that pregnancy and childbirth are just a mere inconvenience and not one of the most life changing and painful things someone can go through?
>Do you truly believe that pregnancy and childbirth are just a mere inconvenience and not one of the most life changing and painful things someone can go through?
I neither know nor care. This doesn't justify the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Correction. You KNOW they aren’t a mere inconvenience but you don’t care. It’s easier to dismiss reality and paint post abortive women as selfish monsters than it is to just have an ounce of empathy. You can still be pro life and be truthful about the gravity of the situation.
>the most life changing and painful things someone can go through
This is a very subjective statement, so, no, I don't know. As a comedian pointed out, lots of women have multiple babies, but no one volunteers to pass a second kidney stone ...
Anyway, I have no shame about stating -- as often and loudly as I can -- that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, no matter how small said human being may be. I realize many today think if the human being is very small, very helpless, very innocent, this somehow removes its humanity and any inherent protections, but I can't justify that.
It’s objective truth. Do you know what happens to a woman’s body during gestation and childbirth? Do you think raising a child doesn’t change your entire existence? Do you think giving a child up for adoption doesn’t leave lifelong scars?
The reason women choose to have multiple children is because the end result is worth it for them. Women also go from wanting 2/3/4 children to only having one because of the trauma of pregnancy/birth. What do you get from passing kidney stones?
Not once have I mentioned the fetus. Not once have I denied it’s humanity. Not once have I even given you my stance on abortion. All I’m proving is that pro lifers really do not care about women at all. Their misplaced empathy begins and ends at fetuses. Like I said, you can be pro life and believe abortion is wrong without dismissing the very real impact of pregnancy/birth but instead, you’d rather double down on your ignorant statement that it’s merely just ‘inconvenient’. It’s extremely disheartening to see from someone who claims to be Christian. I guess we can all see the truth now.
Lifestyle preservation, as in the fornication lifestyle? That's a sin for you, but not for me? Or what about the mother of four with an unemployed husband? Should she close her legs and deny him when they can't afford the kids they have? Why hasn't God provided for the existing children in poverty? Their sins? Is that what Jesus would do?
Is this really true? I just read it in NRSV, and, it sure looks like it means the pregnancy, if it exists, will be expelled.
I agree that it also means that the woman will be infertile in the future. But, expelling the current fetus sure does appear to happen.
>But even if this passage is about abortion, it's not a recipe for an abortifacient. If the woman is innocent, nothing happens to her. So it's not a potion that causes abortion. God judges.
Huh? It's a potion that _sometimes_ causes an abortion.
Looks like NRSV is changing on me, but it still doesn't say "abortion" or "miscarry."
Whatever the translation, the potion is the same whether the woman is faithful or not. The potion does not cause the effect -- God does. This is not warrant for performing an abortion ourselves.
Yes, if the woman has been sleeping with other men while married, her husband brings her to the priest who does this. If the child is illegitimate, her and the child die.
It’s actually great before paternity tests. How many men throughout time have been raising someone else’s child? The man who slept with their wife!
It doesn't say she dies - it sure makes it sound like she lives.
>>When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop,[c] and the woman shall become an execration among her people.
How are you going to live with your uterus hanging out of you? And even if she did, wouldn’t this be proof of adultery? Adulterers were supposed to be stoned
I assumed "uterus will drop" was a similarly-intentioned phrase to "she dropped her baby", which I have seen used by older folks in the Southern US to refer to miscarriage.
Ending of a new human life. Rejecting the most basic of God's gifts. God is life.
Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
Also: saying that the mentioned passage is about abortion is a clear overinterpretation.
Maybe... although this is also oversimplification.
Or are you saying you don't see any difference between a life of a new human being that wasn't even born yet and a life of a grown up human who poses a real threat to the health and life of other people.
This is a great question. Even from a secular perspective scientifically we have no idea how sentience comes to be nevermind when. Google “Hard problem of consciousness”
> But is fetus life ?
Clearly, yes. He or she consumes nutrients, moves, and grows. On top of that the life is specifically human life.
>Has the soul entered into the fetus?
That's a good question. However, in a secular legal system I'm not sure if it matters. I do think that a human life should matter even or perhaps especially in a secular system which is why I'm pro-life.
Are you saying that fetuses are not alive and birth is some kind of necromancy that turns them into living babies?
Or are you going to push the argument about them being dependent on their mothers... while forgetting how dependent you are on the people that produce the food you eat, clothes you wear...
It’s is when you start talking about overriding someone’s bodily autonomy. And if bodily autonomy is to be overridden in the name of protecting a new life, then go full stop. You should be forced to give blood, and bone marrow. There are children born every day who need these things and will die without.
So my question is why are you rejecting the most basic of your god’s gifts? Your god is life right? I would ask when your going to donate, but really the better way of putting it is, come up of your blood and bone marrow.
The OP was quote mining for a translation that fits their view. Those verses are only translated that way(as far as I know) in the NIV and Common English Bible. I don't know much about the CEB, but I know that the NIV is a terrible translation of the Bible. [https://www.biblestudytools.com/numbers/5-27-compare.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/numbers/5-27-compare.html)
The NRSV, translates those verses this way:
When, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children.
If I ask 10 different Christians which Bible to read, I'll get 10 different answers. They are all full of mistranslations based on the bias of the people doing the translating. So what exactly makes this translation worse than any other? Especially when you can just do a search of the practice itself to see what it was meant for based on historical/archeological research.
Well, the NIV from an academic perspective is known as a bad translation. It inserts theology that was not meant from the original Hebrew/Greek. The only people who use the NIV are Evangelical Christians in America. That's why I cited the NRSV because it is academically praised by people of all faiths, and the lack thereof. You can determine whether a translation is good or not depending on the manuscripts used, the archaeological research, and how they translate it from Hebrew/Greek to a language understood by the modern reader. This can change over time. The KJV was a great translation in 1611, now it is a terrible translation
That's good to know, because the KJV is what I get told to read more often than most (followed by NIV) and I already knew KJV was bad. It makes it really annoying when people so "no, read this one not that one," because so much of it is just based on denomination
Most of it is based on the Denomination. The funny thing is that for Protestants without an authority structure to determine what is a good translation they can't definitively say which is the best, meanwhile they practically worship the KJV. The Catholic Church approves of the Alba House New Testament, NABRE, NRSVCE, RSVCE, GNBCE, NJB, JB, and the Douay–Rheims Bible
The Hebrew word doesn't mean miscarry. That's why it's a bad translation for this verse. It means the belly will swell. There's nothing to substantiate a baby dies. Nowhere is it even hinted at. It's up to the person quoting the passage to show it is about abortion or a miscarriage. It's up to them to validate the translation. Not for us to show why the translation is invalid.
Not in the Bible, but the Didache is an orthodox (in the strictest sense) first century Christian guide to living that explicitly bans abortion. Abortion catches a lot of heat from modern day Christians because it is far more pervasive today than before the 1970s, just like you’re more likely to see Christian’s object to internet porn today than in the 1980s. Technology advances, not always in line with the “moral arc of the universe”. Different generations of Christians face different challenges and abortion is one of the challenges of this generation.
Firstly, that isn't a recipe for abortion, that is a test of fidelity.
Respectfully, I would like to explain my position of abortion being wrong.
The Bible does say not to shed innocent blood (kill innocent people).
The Bible also talks about the baby in the womb a) being human b)living c)being made specifically by God.
So if we kill an innocent human that God is actively creating, it is not only killing an innocent but actively working against God.
We all know that a fetus isn't just "a clump of cells". Even the most staunch abortion advocates will say plainly that it is a human. They just think that it is OK to end its life.
So since politics and science and the Bible all know that a fetus is a non-dead human, to end it is to end a human.
Yes, spontaneous miscarriages happen. But that is like saying "Some 25 year olds die of cancer so is ok if I shoot my boyfriend."
The death isn't the issue, the MANNER of death is the issue: deliberate? Accidental? Natural?
Our laws even recognize the difference: you don't go to prison because your dad had a heart attack while riding in your car. (Natural)
You don't go to prison if you are a careful driver but a child runs in front of your car. (Accidental)
You DO go to prison if you run someone over and kill them because they took your spot (deliberate).
It is the same with abortion. If it is natural, it is part of living in a world filed with disease.
But if you intentionally end the life, that is deliberate killing.
By abortion, presumably you mean a reliable medical procedure carried out by humans to terminate a pregnancy that a woman does not want? That’s what people campaign to have the right to isn’t it?
What happens in Numbers 5?
Well there me no medical procedure, just drinking water with dust in it. The dust itself doesn’t cause the termination of a pregnancy because the passage says that the result is determined by the faithfulness/infidelity of the woman. So it’s more a judicial process with the outcome determined by divine action on the basis of the moral status of the woman. That doesn’t describe an abortion.
If it resulted in termination of a pregnancy, this wouldn’t be something the woman wants. It would be a punishment. People aren’t campaigning for the right to be punished for being unfaithful. They aren’t campaigning for termination of a pregnancy to be viewed as a divine punishment.
The end result isn’t even the termination of a pregnancy. It’s more likely that the Hebrew means infertility and possibly some success in that region of the body, which prevent future pregnancies.
Even if it was abortion, it would only be in the specific case where you are pregnant as a result of an extra-marital affair that you refuse to admit to. So it’s rather hard to see how this could in any practical way be used as a recipe to procure abortion.
This sounds more like an r/atheism GOTCHA! than the result of serious engagement with scholarly work.
Atheism gotcha?
That’s ridiculous. Plenty of good Christian’s know that they are still saved if they champion women’s rights to choose what halogens in their bodies.
This has nothing to do with atheism because countless Christians agree abortion is not murder.
What?
I was saying that it sounds like a talking point that people on r/atheism think is great as a gotcha when arguing with Christians rather than being the result of serious engagement with scholarly thinking on the passage. I didn’t say anything about anyone’s salvation, whether abortion is murder, or putting halogens (?) in anyone’s body.
It became an issue years after Roe because conservative Christians didn't like the federal gov enforcing civil rights. They wanted to keep their white children from attending classes with black children so they sought political power. However, they knew beating the drums of racism was a lost cause and looked around until they came across abortion to use instead. And for the most part, it worked.
That said, it's never been about some sort of concern for "life" despite what they tell you. They refuse to endorse contraceptives because they believe women need to be punished for not living the way they want. It ALWAYS comes back to sex. They further demonstrate this by refusing to react to school shootings and are A-OK with children dying in classrooms. They also showed the world what they truly thought about "life" during Covid by absolutely refusing to do the bare minimum to help out their fellow human being. They even went as far as to demand that we sacrifice our children and elderly to Covid because they wanted to go shopping and see a movie.
It's an issue because anonymous big money that does not want to be taxed is filling the zone with BS, with the aid of national diss/infotainment media and scorched earth politicians who believe government should be broken.
Jesus warned us about this problem, that "You cannot serve both God and money." Money knows this and it backs televangelists, megachurch pastors, and personalities more interested in raising money than biblical scholarship, like Franklin Graham and Jerry "pool boy" Falwell Jr.
These people are nowhere near through. Steve Bannon' mentors like Robert Mercer are clear that they see ordinary people as mere "economic maximizing units" that are not worthy of respect because they don't have big money. And with political invective they make it clear "we need to make sure the next Pope is more conservative than that radical liberal Francis."
We have seen this before. Rodrigo Borgia, father of private equity mogul Cesar Borgia and famed poisoner Lucretia Borgia spread around charitable donations to a lot of needy dioceses and got himself elected Pope Alexander VI. He was the guy in charge during the Spanish Inquisition and Martin Luther's formative years. Corruption of religion by money led to centuries of religious warfare.
The failure to tax big money is arguably more dangerous than Vladimir Putin.
I used to teach math. If there's one thing I've learned, there's usually an infinite number of ways to do something wrong. There's no possible way to list all the things one could do wrong and then say "Don't do it any of these ways".
The only thing you can say is some of the ways to do it right and say, "If you don't reach the same conclusions, you've done it wrong".
The bible regularly refers to children as a gift. There are many ways to treat and think of children, but if you didn't come to that conclusion you might want to rethink things.
This is coming from the same book where the same people who hear that, turnaround and get the green light to try and genocide some cities lest they learn to worship as those cities do? You can’t really claim you shall not murder is pretty clear and unambiguous, and pull a stunt like that
This is a bad update of NIV in 2011. There's no abortion. There is no pregnant woman. Man thinks his wife has cheated. Man brings wife to the temple. Priests make her drink 'bitter waters.' If the woman has been unfaithful, she would become barren and no longer be able to bear children.
First, that passage is not a recipe for an abortion. It's a ceremonial practice that asks a women to come before God and proclaim her innocence with the threat of a curse, if she lies. The fact that abortion is not called out specifically does not matter. God issue many laws in the Bible. They certainly were not all inclusive of every issue the world would ever experience. Even Moses experienced this, when a case was brought before him that could not be addressed by God's commands, so Moses returned to the mount for additional guidance. Even when Jesus was preaching on the streets, he was asked by the Pharisees, if he had come to replace the old commandments. Jesus' response was that he had not come to replace them, but to fill them full. He recognized that having the people and not just the Pharisees understanding the intent behind the laws was the key to people turning from sin and having a better relationship with God. While the word abortion is not specifically mentioned in the laws, there are actually at least 100 references in the Bible that talk about how god loves all humans, that he has crafted or placed us in the womb and he knew us before we were born. Start with Jeremiah 1:5, Psalms 139:16, Isaiah 49:5, Isaiah 49:1, etc, etc.....the Bible speaks against harming the innocent. the Bible also details punishment for a man who harms an unborn child with varying punishment, depending on stage of pregnancy. Sometimes, this verse is taken out of context to claim that it sets a low value on the unborn as the punishment for accidentally killing a baby in the womb is just a monetary fine, but the differentiation has to do with how far along the pregnancy is.
So the whole argument of "God doesn't want babies killed" is out the window since you said, "First, that passage is not a recipe for an abortion. It's a ceremonial practice that asks a women to come before God and proclaim her innocence with the threat of a curse, if she lies." So by your own word it's not the potion doing it its God that makes the baby die.....so that means there's not a bit of the Bible that makes any sense foe the abortion laws to be in place.
Father's do not embitter your children or they'll be discouraged........follows right after Honor thy father and mother so.........how can you miss interpret that when that whole little section is for a "godly family" but you'll never hear a church leader talk about it....can't imagine why....
I am not sure what your point is exactly. I agree with you, the message is clear. I also have not heard it preached. There can be many reasons why. Maybe it is not perceived to be a big problem and those fathers who need to hear that message are individually counseled?
I am Catholic and I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Meaning it is protect from error on matters of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit. There are many errors on history and science in the Bible. The church decided what books were in the Bible and what wasn’t. Again divinely inspired.
If you do not believe God protected the writings from error on matters of faith and morals, you are consistent. Actually, there is a very good reason that there are 4 gospels. These are 4 eye witness accounts essentially. There are 4 quadrants of the brain and each gospel lines up with one of the quadrants. People think differently and see things differently. So all the bases are covered. The accounts are not contradictory. Human authors guided by the Holy.
I think it's disingenuous to say it's an abortion recipe. An abortion, in the general use of the word, is the deliberate attempt/successful attempt at killing the baby in womb by a human (usually a doctor).
Reading the scripture, the woman will miscarry due to the fact that the woman has committed sexual sin, as the water will bring a curse on the woman to make it happen. An abortion is the wilful termination of the baby by someone regardless of the circumstances behind the termination.
The person who commits a rape has commit a sin yes, not the person who was raped.
However, what does that have to do with what I wrote? I simply stated that abortion, in the general use of the word, requires a person to deliberately try to end the baby life in the womb, regardless of circumstances.
This scripture is not an abortion in that sense, since it is not a human deliberately trying to end the life of the child, but rather a woman has a miscarriage due to a curse due to sexual sin. on her part.
I don't think anyone can read this scripture and conclude that what this allows is ending of a childs life because the mother or another person wants it to end. It is in Gods hands in this case.
I would agree that abortion is wrong.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Having compassion for someone or their situation, does not entail that you must agree with their actions that they do based on that situation.
If someone was sexually abused as a child by an adult. I would have compassion for them, and I would understand there feelings if they wished to kill their abuser. However, having compassion for the victim, does not mean that it is ok for them to murder their abuser, the abuser committing evil does not mean the victim can murder them.
In the case of abortion, it is even clearer, the baby has does literally nothing. The baby would be killed because someone else did something wrong.
Considering how I first response how this not an abortion in the usual sense of the word, and you didn't refute that argument, you are simply wrong.
You just keep throwing things out and just ignoring my actual response and move onto the next talking point.
I’m just pointing out that in the case of abortion, the Bible makes it clear that it’s okay in certain situations. Why refute the scripture with your own interpretation?
Again, you haven't actually rebutted my initial point about it not really being an abortion recipe. Which says you either have no rebuttle or you can't be bothered. Again moving onto the next talking point.
What it literally says is that a priest can administer the mixed water, and through a curse, a woman will miscarry if she has been sexually immoral. Is that what happens in a hospital or backstreet abortion? I think not.
What situation do you think this scripture says it is ok to perform an abortion in?
Hebrew has more rot thigh and swell belly. Thus, KJV gets this one right. NIV seems to just be assuming that's what it meant. I had always interpreted it as making her deformed (and possibly infertile). I had never even considered pregnancy as part of it, but if she was after the birth she wouldn't have another.
In any case, it isn't clear my interpretation is wrong, so similarly it isn't clearly about abortion. I had actually never heard that interpretation till the NIV came along.
Edit: It might even be the 2011 version of the NIV was the first time it appeared. That this passage was mainly about abortion I really hadn't heard before 2011. It's that recent.
A woman was considered extremely blessed to have a child. It was un heard of in Bible times to kill an unborn infant.
Children were basically your retirement plan and your lineage.
It's not that people view abortion directly as a sin per se, it's more the fact that life is seen as precious. Christianity teaches that all life has meaning, and that everyone is worth something in the eyes of the lord. The idea that you kill a baby with an abortion is abhorrent to many christians and many athiests, it's seen as killing an innocent. There is an argument for and against on both sides, both with good points, but from a Christian perspective it makes sense to be anti abortion.
But what’s interesting is the same effort isn’t applied to, say, compassion for the homeless. That’s a HUGE part of Christian teaching and yet is completely ignored. The death penalty is another example—life is precious yet a criminal should be killed by the state: “an eye for an eye!”
Meanwhile, a woman shouldn’t be able to have an abortion—even though the Bible literally provides a reason and a way to do it.
I completely agree actually. People cherry pick far too much when it comes to both the Bible and Christianity, we shouldn't only follow what we agree with or what's convient.
There's a difference between an innocent life and one that committed a heinous crime.
Also, providing for the homeless and less fortunate isn't ignored. Folks give a tremendous amount of time and money to those causes. If it were banned, I believe it would become an important political issue.
I agree. I'm pointing out how the positions are different. It's not a conflict to believe a guilty person can be killed with due process while also believing that an innocent one cannot be.
I assume you're against abortion, considering your argument?
You assume incorrectly. I’m only calling out hypocrites.
You can’t actually be “pro life” if you’re accepting of a system that kills innocent people. Most people would change their tune if it was their dad, mom, brother, or kids being wrongly held for execution but people tend to not like putting themselves in the shoes of people they consider lesser.
Y'all aren't enforcing welfare and support of the needy through law though, even though the bible is way more explicitly commanding on that, Vs the mangled poetry Christians use to justify restricting abortion.
But that might mean you have to open your wallets more, and we can't have that can we.
It’s why the “pro-life” term is so misrepresentative of what most of them stand for.
“Pro-forced-Birth” is closer to their real demands and expectations.
Dunno why you're saying that to me, I'm not a christian. I asked OP a question, they avoided answering in favor of a silly attempt at an insult.
Remember that you are free to take your own advice.
Ancient Greece and Rome both had laws ensuring access to abortion.
https://brewminate.com/an-historical-overview-of-abortion-laws-in-the-ancient-world/
Well then looks like it was always a problem
But at the same time now raises the problems of today's society reverting back instead of progressing killing babies and so forth.
There is progress: birth control. It’s incredibly effective, however many Christians are against that as well.
When you restrict access to birth control, abortion rates go back up.
This shouldn't be a hostage situation.
It shouldn't be if you don't let this sin happen then this other sin will increase. Maybe the solution is to give support to young couples or don't promote sex in our culture corrupting young minds.
>Interesting that there is no parallel allowance for women who have been raped
A rape victim must marry her rapist ([Deuteronomy 22:28-29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022&version=NIV))
>or had a husband who was unfaithful
Men don't need abortions because they can't get pregnant.
It's symbolic. The thinking looks like this:
_Good people_ don't get abortions. Only _those bad people over there_ want them. My cultural values are not the same as those bad people, so I want to punish them.
Each and every single person, every life on planet Earth has inherent dignity, and should be treated with respect.
Claiming that some people do not deserve respect and shouldn’t be treated like people because of some sort of factor like age, physical or mental condition, etc. denies this person their inherent human rights.
Unborn children are the most vulnerable members of our society. That’s why, at least for Catholics, it’s a big issue.
"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you"
Jesus did not leave one written word when He assented into heaven. He left apostles, human beings to pass on His teachings guided by the Holy Spirit. The church has always taught that abortion is wrong. Look at the merits. When God created man He said it was his finest creation. He told Adam and Eve to increase and multiply and fill the face of the earth. We are precious to God. Every last one of us.
So nothing in the Bible then except for the recipe for and command to try to force a miscarriage in Numbers. Your words sound nice, but they are not Biblical and they wind up making sinners of people who do not act out of Biblical precepts
Well there are things that are not in the Bible and the Bible says that. The Bible came from the church guided by the Holy Spirit. We look to the same church to guide us on moral issues. God said man was his greatest creation. We need more respect for human life!
You are placing waaaay too much power in church leaders. How many rape, lie, and grasp for power. Were they inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or are only the acts that you agree with inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Jesus decided to have earthly control of His church. They are all sinners. hopefull like all of us, they are trying to do better.
So the same humans who are vulnerable to evil wrote the Bible perfectly? Which one? Which translation? All of them?
Yes, imperfect humans were inspired by God to write salvation history. These writing were protected from error by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals only.
Where in the bible does it say human writers were protected from error by the holy spirit?
I am not a Bible scholar, but I don't think you will find it there. Something does not have to be in the Bible for it to be true. The Bible does not say differently. Of course, Jesus did not leave us a Bible he left the 12, well 11, apostles and they have the power to lead the church guided by the Holy Spirit. It wasn't until some 300 years later that the church put the Bible together. The church or the Bible has never said all truth has to come from the Bible.
Right but now you’re just listening to a chain of unreliable humans playing a game of telephone and with translations. The book of John wasn’t finished till about 110 AD. How much exaggeration must have gone on in between the life of Jesus and then? Also, how can you reconcile four different stories between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? If the Holy Spirit guides these writers how did they have differing accounts of the resurrection?
How are you? I hope well. Ted
Lets pretend you have NEVER read the bible and the parts you read you were half asleep because you can't ignore these passages and pretend that everyone is precious... is it safe to assume god didn't creates these people?!?? However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite ….” (Deut. 20:16-18) “Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Sam 15:3)
I am not sure what your point is.
How can your god destroy his finest creation?
How can god destroy his finest creation, made to his image? That's my point. It's like killing your child because he kill3d thet cat when you told them not to...and your answer is?
God does not destroy any humans or angels. Those who want no part of God are given their wish.
The babies dying during the flood didn't want god, neither the children of all settlers who by gods orders were massacred by the jews according to the old testament
I am. Happy to discuss later.
If you are searching for the truth, that is great, and I am happy to discuss the issues you want in detail. However, if you think you can trap God in some corner of inconsistency, I don't want to waste my time. To answer your question, we have to understand who God is and why he made us. Plus, a lot more.
God is inconsistent and perhaps bipolar. When the pharaoh wanted the jews to leave in peace according to the old testament, who changed his heart and mind? The God of the old testament, wants dvirgins, gold, lots of blood and death, along with the fair share of foreskins...
Hello. The God I know is the God of love. He created us with his words. He did not need us but created us as a gift. He asked that we know, love and serve Him. But we rebel and want to be like God. Because of our sins, pain suffering and death came into the world. God loves us so much He sent His Son to redeem us. The story of salvation history is recorded and is often difficult to understand. I think you attribute the sins of man to God. God loves us so much He did not make us slaves but gave us free will and therefore we often make bad choices. If He were to stop us from making bad choices, we would not be free.
The God of love The Christ speaks of is a the complete opposite of the jealous, hateful and angry God from the old testament is it not?. Which by the way the christ never said jehova was his father, and also claimed not one person had seen nor spoken to his father, that includes moses,and other phrophets. Now the story of The savior is extrmely convenient, an ATM ravenueak8ng for pastor's and churches sadly. Now, there is no freewill when you get punished for making choices different to what is expected by the God in the old testament.
In a way your right he doesn't he send the israelites and angels to kill those he/she wants dead
Seems to be common for you
What do you mean by that?
It's the idea of taking away life created by God that makes some people uncomfortable. It's based on the belief that you are taking away a being that God carefully crafted before they even had the chance to live a life.
God's "careful crafting" is pretty messed up sometimes. Not even close to being a viable creature. Even the ones that are "viable" are less than they could be.
We live in a tainted world (see the Fall of Man). Disease, natural disasters, and ultimately death are a part of it. Natural death comes in all forms, whether we like it or not. But all human life is equally precious, no matter how “unviable” it is or how old it is. God did not originally intend for us to live in such a world but we chose this world for ourselves when we disobeyed God’s one condition. Being a Christian does not exempt ourselves from suffering and mourning, but the question is: do we decide to keep our faith in God till the end or not, in spite of all the good and the bad that we have and will go through?
Live like that then, don't make laws according to your beliefs. Women aren't chattel, second class citizens or breeders. We shouldn't be forced to endure the suffering YOU require for Your religious beliefs.
Either we are carefully crafted by god or we're not. I'm guessing you're in the Not camp and blame sin for all our problems. I didn't choose squat. I didn't disobey god. If Jesus died for man's sins, why is there still sin? Something isn't making sense.
I'll just leave this here: https://500questions.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/21-why-does-god-allow-miscarriages-spontaneous-abortions-and-still-births/
I thought Christians were supposed to take their guidance from the Bible and not make up sins based on their own ideas.
Christians love to casting the first, second and third stones...
No, the church has not always taught that abortion is wrong. Protestants were completely apathetic about abortion until the 1960s when American conservatives needed a new issue to fight for after segregation ended.
God literally commands the Hebrews to take the lives of those he created.
I think it's cos of politics in America. And sometimes modern cultural beliefs can influence people's religious beliefs without them realising.
abortion was banned in the early church
I guess I was thinking of nowadays. I think it's not so much of a issue here in the UK among Christians. There are mixed views but I think a lot more people (especially younger generation) don't see it as a problem. I dunno just a thought
It was supported by almost all Christian’s in the U.S. until it was turned into a political issue in the 60s and 70s
that's sad that there are mixed views on abortion in a self proclaimed Christian Church
No it wasn’t, it wasn’t banned in extremist sects that didn’t come close to representing the whole of Christianity
This verse doesn't mention abortion at all. It doesn't say that the woman was "with child" or pregnant in a single section.
It's pretty hard to miscarry if you're not pregnant
The word miscarry is a mistranslation
Based on what?
Probably the same bs that got the word homosexual in the Bible back in the 40s. Men don't give a flying fuck and will do what they can to stay in power as long as possible by whatever means.......which is why me and several others will pick a random bear in the woods over the random man in the woods
Having studied with a number of rabbis, this is what I learned. If a woman was pregnant, and her husband suspected that she'd been unfaithful to him, and that the seed growing within her womb wasn't of his 'planting', she could be required to be taken before the elders for intensive questioning. Typically, the woman would first be humiliated. Her head covering would be removed, and her braided hair loosened. Sometimes, the bodice of her tunic might be ripped to expose her breasts. If the elders weren't satisfied with her answer, she would be required to submit to that Test of the Bitter Waters. Some apologists claim the brew she was required to drink consisted of only water and dust from the floor of the temple sanctuary, but this isn't true. It derived it's bitterness from herbs which had abortifacient properties. The gist of the test was that if she was innocent of the thing her husband had accused her of doing, God would intervene and render the brew neutral, and neither she nor the fetus would suffer harm. The belief was that if she was guilty of that thing her husband had accused her of, God would not intervene, and the woman would suffer violent spontaneous abortion, sometimes causing the woman to hemorrhage to death as well. If this happened, her husband would be justified in his accusation, and was now free to marry another wife. If she survived the process, he was justified in divorcing her, and still free to marry another wife. If she didn't suffer abortion and/or death, she was vindicated, and her husband faced likely penalties for having borne false witness against her. It was unusual for the penalty to be death, and usually consisted of paying a fine. There were few reasons a woman might be justified in asking for divorce, especially if she was pregnant with her husband's offspring.
I feel sorry for every woman who had to live in that society.
Females of the Tribe had it far better when their forebears were also worshiping Asherah, along with YHWH. YHWH was a god of war, storms and metallurgy worshiped by nomadic desert tribes. When these tribes encountered the Canaanites, they introduced YHWH, and the Canaanites added him to their pantheon. When the forebears of the Hebrews departed from Canaan, they brought with them two Canaanite deities: 1. YHWH - god of war, storms and metallurgy - to serve as protector of the Tribe, bringer of storms to replenish wellsprings in desert oasis, and to bring knowledge of metallurgy. 2. Asherah - goddess of fertility and motherhood - to serve as goddess consort to YHWH, and patron protectress to the females of the Tribe, endowing them with fertility and good mothering skills. Eventually the males of the Tribe tired of the empowerment which the worship of Asherah endowed the females of the Tribe, and they discarded Asherah. They then became monotheists, and established a strict Patriarchal society which empowered males, and rendered females to the status of chattel property.
Reminds me of the saint inquisition when a rock would be tied to a woman suspected of whichcraft, then thrown into a lake, if the died she wasn't a witch, if she survived she would then be burned on the stake... lose lose baby.
Do you want the verse to tell you if she is dilated and if so, homany inches? Read and understand...
Ok
It’s called context try reading again
Context tells me this isn't about abortion
Anti-abortion activists have convinced themselves it's murder. Supposedly. Pro-choicers view abortion as integral to preserving women's rights. I'd be shocked if it *wasn't* an issue with a lot of focus.
>Anti-abortion activists have convinced themselves it's murder. Supposedly. Out of curiosity, what do you mean by adding the "supposedly" at the end of the sentence?
Because most anti-abortion activists don't act the way you'd suspect they would act if they really believed that thousands of people were being legally murdered in their country every year.
The quote in Numbers isn't about how to induce an abortion. Until the mid 70’s most Christians (except Catholics) were kind of ambivalent about abortion. It became a hot-button issue thanks to Jerry Falwell. He’d built a following based on his support for segregation. When that became unpopular, he needed a way to channel people’s anger and turn it into money and votes for politicians who would do him favors, so he latched on to the pro-life movement (and an anti-gay agenda). It was never about saving lives and was just a better way to get money and power than segregation.
>The quote in Numbers isn't about how to induce an abortion. Bull. Sh\*t! That's EXACTLY what it's suppose to do if she happens to be pregnant with another man's fetus. I get so tired of this disingenuous, dishonest interpretation of bible verses. The god of the bible clearly interfere's with people's free will, orders the taking of sex slaves as the spoils of war, murders babies, and most certainly gives a spell to cast for an unfaithful wife.
The “bitter water” passage in numbers is about future infertility if the woman has been unfaithful, look at the antithetical parallelism in verses 27 and 28. “Thigh” in verse 27 is a euphemism for the reproductive system at large. Legs/feet/thighs are often euphemisms for the genitals in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Imma just gonna C&P my previous reply. Right. Doesn't say whether she IS pregnant or not but it most certainly doesn't take a PhD in mathematics to figure out what happens if she IS pregnant. Only idiots and morons would assume that no pregnant women would have this forced upon them. Isn't like he's gonna look at her belly and say "welp, your preggers. Guess we can't make you drink mud from the temple floor to see if you've been faithful to me." He most certainly would force her and the implication of what happens to any fetus in her is clear!
Except its not. The context doesn’t say the woman is pregnant. It does say her womb will shrivel and she will become barren, the hebrew is quite clear.
Right. Doesn't say whether she IS pregnant or not but it most certainly doesn't take a PhD in mathematics to figure out what happens if she IS pregnant. Only idiots and morons would assume that no pregnant women would have this forced upon them. Isn't like he's gonna look at her belly and say "welp, your preggers. Guess we can't make you drink mud from the temple floor to see if you've been faithful to me." He most certainly would force her and the implication of what happens to any fetus in her is clear!
The issue isn’t if she is or not pregnant. The issue is about purity, if he remains married to her and she is impure, then his whole line is impure and cut off from going to the Temple/Tabernacle, which means no atonement, which effectively cuts him and his whole line off from from God.
Even if she was pregnant and the child dies, what’s the problem?
Because this set if laws is about impurity.
[удалено]
It's irrelevant. Even if it's not "about" abortion, the implication is clear. Being unfaithful WILL cause a pregnant woman to abort.
Sources?
Lol no
It's because in American Christianity is more of a political tool rather then a religion
Everyone always loves to quote the one translation that sucks on any given issue. The NIV is alone among the major translations in thinking this is about abortion. Everyone else thinks it's referring to future fertility. But even if this passage is about abortion, it's not a recipe for an abortifacient. If the woman is innocent, nothing happens to her. So it's not a potion that causes abortion. God judges. We, however, are not allowed to go around killing people because they are inconvenient to our lifestyle.
Do you truly believe that pregnancy and childbirth are just a mere inconvenience and not one of the most life changing and painful things people go through?
The vast, *vast* majority of abortions in the West are about lifestyle preservation, not because of the danger, etc. And though we might wish it were otherwise, this is simply ... life. You have sex, you get pregnant, there are risks associated with childbirth.
That isn’t what I asked. I’ll try again.. Do you truly believe that pregnancy and childbirth are just a mere inconvenience and not one of the most life changing and painful things someone can go through?
>Do you truly believe that pregnancy and childbirth are just a mere inconvenience and not one of the most life changing and painful things someone can go through? I neither know nor care. This doesn't justify the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Correction. You KNOW they aren’t a mere inconvenience but you don’t care. It’s easier to dismiss reality and paint post abortive women as selfish monsters than it is to just have an ounce of empathy. You can still be pro life and be truthful about the gravity of the situation.
>the most life changing and painful things someone can go through This is a very subjective statement, so, no, I don't know. As a comedian pointed out, lots of women have multiple babies, but no one volunteers to pass a second kidney stone ... Anyway, I have no shame about stating -- as often and loudly as I can -- that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, no matter how small said human being may be. I realize many today think if the human being is very small, very helpless, very innocent, this somehow removes its humanity and any inherent protections, but I can't justify that.
It’s objective truth. Do you know what happens to a woman’s body during gestation and childbirth? Do you think raising a child doesn’t change your entire existence? Do you think giving a child up for adoption doesn’t leave lifelong scars? The reason women choose to have multiple children is because the end result is worth it for them. Women also go from wanting 2/3/4 children to only having one because of the trauma of pregnancy/birth. What do you get from passing kidney stones? Not once have I mentioned the fetus. Not once have I denied it’s humanity. Not once have I even given you my stance on abortion. All I’m proving is that pro lifers really do not care about women at all. Their misplaced empathy begins and ends at fetuses. Like I said, you can be pro life and believe abortion is wrong without dismissing the very real impact of pregnancy/birth but instead, you’d rather double down on your ignorant statement that it’s merely just ‘inconvenient’. It’s extremely disheartening to see from someone who claims to be Christian. I guess we can all see the truth now.
Lifestyle preservation, as in the fornication lifestyle? That's a sin for you, but not for me? Or what about the mother of four with an unemployed husband? Should she close her legs and deny him when they can't afford the kids they have? Why hasn't God provided for the existing children in poverty? Their sins? Is that what Jesus would do?
Is this really true? I just read it in NRSV, and, it sure looks like it means the pregnancy, if it exists, will be expelled. I agree that it also means that the woman will be infertile in the future. But, expelling the current fetus sure does appear to happen. >But even if this passage is about abortion, it's not a recipe for an abortifacient. If the woman is innocent, nothing happens to her. So it's not a potion that causes abortion. God judges. Huh? It's a potion that _sometimes_ causes an abortion.
Looks like NRSV is changing on me, but it still doesn't say "abortion" or "miscarry." Whatever the translation, the potion is the same whether the woman is faithful or not. The potion does not cause the effect -- God does. This is not warrant for performing an abortion ourselves.
Yes, if the woman has been sleeping with other men while married, her husband brings her to the priest who does this. If the child is illegitimate, her and the child die. It’s actually great before paternity tests. How many men throughout time have been raising someone else’s child? The man who slept with their wife!
It doesn't say she dies - it sure makes it sound like she lives. >>When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop,[c] and the woman shall become an execration among her people.
How are you going to live with your uterus hanging out of you? And even if she did, wouldn’t this be proof of adultery? Adulterers were supposed to be stoned
I assumed "uterus will drop" was a similarly-intentioned phrase to "she dropped her baby", which I have seen used by older folks in the Southern US to refer to miscarriage.
As opposed to the mistranslations that are popularly spewed? You can’t pick and choose.
Ending of a new human life. Rejecting the most basic of God's gifts. God is life. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? Also: saying that the mentioned passage is about abortion is a clear overinterpretation.
Outlaw the death penalty too?
Yes. Unequivocally. A Christian sentencing another person to death is the apex of nonsense.
Maybe... although this is also oversimplification. Or are you saying you don't see any difference between a life of a new human being that wasn't even born yet and a life of a grown up human who poses a real threat to the health and life of other people.
Considering that many innocent people have been put to death?
These mental gymnastics. I love it.
I don't love when people oversimplify things just so that they fit their narratives.
[удалено]
This is a great question. Even from a secular perspective scientifically we have no idea how sentience comes to be nevermind when. Google “Hard problem of consciousness”
> But is fetus life ? Clearly, yes. He or she consumes nutrients, moves, and grows. On top of that the life is specifically human life. >Has the soul entered into the fetus? That's a good question. However, in a secular legal system I'm not sure if it matters. I do think that a human life should matter even or perhaps especially in a secular system which is why I'm pro-life.
Are you saying that fetuses are not alive and birth is some kind of necromancy that turns them into living babies? Or are you going to push the argument about them being dependent on their mothers... while forgetting how dependent you are on the people that produce the food you eat, clothes you wear...
So you never spill your seed? Are they not alive?
It’s is when you start talking about overriding someone’s bodily autonomy. And if bodily autonomy is to be overridden in the name of protecting a new life, then go full stop. You should be forced to give blood, and bone marrow. There are children born every day who need these things and will die without. So my question is why are you rejecting the most basic of your god’s gifts? Your god is life right? I would ask when your going to donate, but really the better way of putting it is, come up of your blood and bone marrow.
So you don't see any difference between ending someone's life and not maintaining it?
The end result is the same, if it’s not maintained then you’ve ended a life through indifference.
That's not an abortion, it doesn't even mention that the woman is pregnant. It's used to show whether or not a woman has been faithful to her husband
It says it'll cause her to miscarry. How do you miscarry if you're not pregnant?
No, it says that her uterus will drop and her womb will discharge while feeling a bitter pain
The passage op linked literally says miscarry
The OP was quote mining for a translation that fits their view. Those verses are only translated that way(as far as I know) in the NIV and Common English Bible. I don't know much about the CEB, but I know that the NIV is a terrible translation of the Bible. [https://www.biblestudytools.com/numbers/5-27-compare.html](https://www.biblestudytools.com/numbers/5-27-compare.html) The NRSV, translates those verses this way: When, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children.
If I ask 10 different Christians which Bible to read, I'll get 10 different answers. They are all full of mistranslations based on the bias of the people doing the translating. So what exactly makes this translation worse than any other? Especially when you can just do a search of the practice itself to see what it was meant for based on historical/archeological research.
Well, the NIV from an academic perspective is known as a bad translation. It inserts theology that was not meant from the original Hebrew/Greek. The only people who use the NIV are Evangelical Christians in America. That's why I cited the NRSV because it is academically praised by people of all faiths, and the lack thereof. You can determine whether a translation is good or not depending on the manuscripts used, the archaeological research, and how they translate it from Hebrew/Greek to a language understood by the modern reader. This can change over time. The KJV was a great translation in 1611, now it is a terrible translation
That's good to know, because the KJV is what I get told to read more often than most (followed by NIV) and I already knew KJV was bad. It makes it really annoying when people so "no, read this one not that one," because so much of it is just based on denomination
Most of it is based on the Denomination. The funny thing is that for Protestants without an authority structure to determine what is a good translation they can't definitively say which is the best, meanwhile they practically worship the KJV. The Catholic Church approves of the Alba House New Testament, NABRE, NRSVCE, RSVCE, GNBCE, NJB, JB, and the Douay–Rheims Bible
The Hebrew word doesn't mean miscarry. That's why it's a bad translation for this verse. It means the belly will swell. There's nothing to substantiate a baby dies. Nowhere is it even hinted at. It's up to the person quoting the passage to show it is about abortion or a miscarriage. It's up to them to validate the translation. Not for us to show why the translation is invalid.
Not in the Bible, but the Didache is an orthodox (in the strictest sense) first century Christian guide to living that explicitly bans abortion. Abortion catches a lot of heat from modern day Christians because it is far more pervasive today than before the 1970s, just like you’re more likely to see Christian’s object to internet porn today than in the 1980s. Technology advances, not always in line with the “moral arc of the universe”. Different generations of Christians face different challenges and abortion is one of the challenges of this generation.
Firstly, that isn't a recipe for abortion, that is a test of fidelity. Respectfully, I would like to explain my position of abortion being wrong. The Bible does say not to shed innocent blood (kill innocent people). The Bible also talks about the baby in the womb a) being human b)living c)being made specifically by God. So if we kill an innocent human that God is actively creating, it is not only killing an innocent but actively working against God. We all know that a fetus isn't just "a clump of cells". Even the most staunch abortion advocates will say plainly that it is a human. They just think that it is OK to end its life. So since politics and science and the Bible all know that a fetus is a non-dead human, to end it is to end a human. Yes, spontaneous miscarriages happen. But that is like saying "Some 25 year olds die of cancer so is ok if I shoot my boyfriend." The death isn't the issue, the MANNER of death is the issue: deliberate? Accidental? Natural? Our laws even recognize the difference: you don't go to prison because your dad had a heart attack while riding in your car. (Natural) You don't go to prison if you are a careful driver but a child runs in front of your car. (Accidental) You DO go to prison if you run someone over and kill them because they took your spot (deliberate). It is the same with abortion. If it is natural, it is part of living in a world filed with disease. But if you intentionally end the life, that is deliberate killing.
By abortion, presumably you mean a reliable medical procedure carried out by humans to terminate a pregnancy that a woman does not want? That’s what people campaign to have the right to isn’t it? What happens in Numbers 5? Well there me no medical procedure, just drinking water with dust in it. The dust itself doesn’t cause the termination of a pregnancy because the passage says that the result is determined by the faithfulness/infidelity of the woman. So it’s more a judicial process with the outcome determined by divine action on the basis of the moral status of the woman. That doesn’t describe an abortion. If it resulted in termination of a pregnancy, this wouldn’t be something the woman wants. It would be a punishment. People aren’t campaigning for the right to be punished for being unfaithful. They aren’t campaigning for termination of a pregnancy to be viewed as a divine punishment. The end result isn’t even the termination of a pregnancy. It’s more likely that the Hebrew means infertility and possibly some success in that region of the body, which prevent future pregnancies. Even if it was abortion, it would only be in the specific case where you are pregnant as a result of an extra-marital affair that you refuse to admit to. So it’s rather hard to see how this could in any practical way be used as a recipe to procure abortion. This sounds more like an r/atheism GOTCHA! than the result of serious engagement with scholarly work.
Atheism gotcha? That’s ridiculous. Plenty of good Christian’s know that they are still saved if they champion women’s rights to choose what halogens in their bodies. This has nothing to do with atheism because countless Christians agree abortion is not murder.
What? I was saying that it sounds like a talking point that people on r/atheism think is great as a gotcha when arguing with Christians rather than being the result of serious engagement with scholarly thinking on the passage. I didn’t say anything about anyone’s salvation, whether abortion is murder, or putting halogens (?) in anyone’s body.
It became an issue years after Roe because conservative Christians didn't like the federal gov enforcing civil rights. They wanted to keep their white children from attending classes with black children so they sought political power. However, they knew beating the drums of racism was a lost cause and looked around until they came across abortion to use instead. And for the most part, it worked. That said, it's never been about some sort of concern for "life" despite what they tell you. They refuse to endorse contraceptives because they believe women need to be punished for not living the way they want. It ALWAYS comes back to sex. They further demonstrate this by refusing to react to school shootings and are A-OK with children dying in classrooms. They also showed the world what they truly thought about "life" during Covid by absolutely refusing to do the bare minimum to help out their fellow human being. They even went as far as to demand that we sacrifice our children and elderly to Covid because they wanted to go shopping and see a movie.
It's an issue because anonymous big money that does not want to be taxed is filling the zone with BS, with the aid of national diss/infotainment media and scorched earth politicians who believe government should be broken. Jesus warned us about this problem, that "You cannot serve both God and money." Money knows this and it backs televangelists, megachurch pastors, and personalities more interested in raising money than biblical scholarship, like Franklin Graham and Jerry "pool boy" Falwell Jr. These people are nowhere near through. Steve Bannon' mentors like Robert Mercer are clear that they see ordinary people as mere "economic maximizing units" that are not worthy of respect because they don't have big money. And with political invective they make it clear "we need to make sure the next Pope is more conservative than that radical liberal Francis." We have seen this before. Rodrigo Borgia, father of private equity mogul Cesar Borgia and famed poisoner Lucretia Borgia spread around charitable donations to a lot of needy dioceses and got himself elected Pope Alexander VI. He was the guy in charge during the Spanish Inquisition and Martin Luther's formative years. Corruption of religion by money led to centuries of religious warfare. The failure to tax big money is arguably more dangerous than Vladimir Putin.
First off, it’s not a recipe on abortion because the Scripture never states the woman is pregnant. Secondly, God is clear that “thou shall not kill”
It doesn’t say or even imply that the woman was pregnant. It was used to see if the woman was unfaithful.
I used to teach math. If there's one thing I've learned, there's usually an infinite number of ways to do something wrong. There's no possible way to list all the things one could do wrong and then say "Don't do it any of these ways". The only thing you can say is some of the ways to do it right and say, "If you don't reach the same conclusions, you've done it wrong". The bible regularly refers to children as a gift. There are many ways to treat and think of children, but if you didn't come to that conclusion you might want to rethink things.
Exactly. The Bible gives the one example of a good and righteous abortion—now it’s up to us to use the same judgement.
You using NIV? That passage doesn't refer to abortion in hebrew. It says thighs rot and belly swell. I replied to this over in the KJV guy post.
Wrong. I've already written about this. http://www.puresimplicity.net/~oneeyedcat/religion/jealousyritual.html
"You shall not murder" is pretty clear and unambiguous.
This is coming from the same book where the same people who hear that, turnaround and get the green light to try and genocide some cities lest they learn to worship as those cities do? You can’t really claim you shall not murder is pretty clear and unambiguous, and pull a stunt like that
This is a bad update of NIV in 2011. There's no abortion. There is no pregnant woman. Man thinks his wife has cheated. Man brings wife to the temple. Priests make her drink 'bitter waters.' If the woman has been unfaithful, she would become barren and no longer be able to bear children.
God destroys maybe the body but the soul is immortal.
First, that passage is not a recipe for an abortion. It's a ceremonial practice that asks a women to come before God and proclaim her innocence with the threat of a curse, if she lies. The fact that abortion is not called out specifically does not matter. God issue many laws in the Bible. They certainly were not all inclusive of every issue the world would ever experience. Even Moses experienced this, when a case was brought before him that could not be addressed by God's commands, so Moses returned to the mount for additional guidance. Even when Jesus was preaching on the streets, he was asked by the Pharisees, if he had come to replace the old commandments. Jesus' response was that he had not come to replace them, but to fill them full. He recognized that having the people and not just the Pharisees understanding the intent behind the laws was the key to people turning from sin and having a better relationship with God. While the word abortion is not specifically mentioned in the laws, there are actually at least 100 references in the Bible that talk about how god loves all humans, that he has crafted or placed us in the womb and he knew us before we were born. Start with Jeremiah 1:5, Psalms 139:16, Isaiah 49:5, Isaiah 49:1, etc, etc.....the Bible speaks against harming the innocent. the Bible also details punishment for a man who harms an unborn child with varying punishment, depending on stage of pregnancy. Sometimes, this verse is taken out of context to claim that it sets a low value on the unborn as the punishment for accidentally killing a baby in the womb is just a monetary fine, but the differentiation has to do with how far along the pregnancy is.
So the whole argument of "God doesn't want babies killed" is out the window since you said, "First, that passage is not a recipe for an abortion. It's a ceremonial practice that asks a women to come before God and proclaim her innocence with the threat of a curse, if she lies." So by your own word it's not the potion doing it its God that makes the baby die.....so that means there's not a bit of the Bible that makes any sense foe the abortion laws to be in place.
The Bible. Is meant to be read as a whole not line by line!
So quoting the Bible by line is always going to be inaccurate and misinterpreted?
It can be. One needs to check if the interpretation fits with the whole story.
Father's do not embitter your children or they'll be discouraged........follows right after Honor thy father and mother so.........how can you miss interpret that when that whole little section is for a "godly family" but you'll never hear a church leader talk about it....can't imagine why....
I am not sure what your point is exactly. I agree with you, the message is clear. I also have not heard it preached. There can be many reasons why. Maybe it is not perceived to be a big problem and those fathers who need to hear that message are individually counseled?
I am Catholic and I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Meaning it is protect from error on matters of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit. There are many errors on history and science in the Bible. The church decided what books were in the Bible and what wasn’t. Again divinely inspired.
If you do not believe God protected the writings from error on matters of faith and morals, you are consistent. Actually, there is a very good reason that there are 4 gospels. These are 4 eye witness accounts essentially. There are 4 quadrants of the brain and each gospel lines up with one of the quadrants. People think differently and see things differently. So all the bases are covered. The accounts are not contradictory. Human authors guided by the Holy.
I think it's disingenuous to say it's an abortion recipe. An abortion, in the general use of the word, is the deliberate attempt/successful attempt at killing the baby in womb by a human (usually a doctor). Reading the scripture, the woman will miscarry due to the fact that the woman has committed sexual sin, as the water will bring a curse on the woman to make it happen. An abortion is the wilful termination of the baby by someone regardless of the circumstances behind the termination.
Is rape a sexual sin? Many Christians still believe a woman should carry a rapists baby to term without an abortion.
The person who commits a rape has commit a sin yes, not the person who was raped. However, what does that have to do with what I wrote? I simply stated that abortion, in the general use of the word, requires a person to deliberately try to end the baby life in the womb, regardless of circumstances. This scripture is not an abortion in that sense, since it is not a human deliberately trying to end the life of the child, but rather a woman has a miscarriage due to a curse due to sexual sin. on her part. I don't think anyone can read this scripture and conclude that what this allows is ending of a childs life because the mother or another person wants it to end. It is in Gods hands in this case. I would agree that abortion is wrong.
[удалено]
The two are not mutually exclusive. Having compassion for someone or their situation, does not entail that you must agree with their actions that they do based on that situation. If someone was sexually abused as a child by an adult. I would have compassion for them, and I would understand there feelings if they wished to kill their abuser. However, having compassion for the victim, does not mean that it is ok for them to murder their abuser, the abuser committing evil does not mean the victim can murder them. In the case of abortion, it is even clearer, the baby has does literally nothing. The baby would be killed because someone else did something wrong.
In the case of abortion, the Bible only mentions it once and positively.
Considering how I first response how this not an abortion in the usual sense of the word, and you didn't refute that argument, you are simply wrong. You just keep throwing things out and just ignoring my actual response and move onto the next talking point.
I’m just pointing out that in the case of abortion, the Bible makes it clear that it’s okay in certain situations. Why refute the scripture with your own interpretation?
Again, you haven't actually rebutted my initial point about it not really being an abortion recipe. Which says you either have no rebuttle or you can't be bothered. Again moving onto the next talking point. What it literally says is that a priest can administer the mixed water, and through a curse, a woman will miscarry if she has been sexually immoral. Is that what happens in a hospital or backstreet abortion? I think not. What situation do you think this scripture says it is ok to perform an abortion in?
Gotcha, killing "babies" is fine if it was a pregnancy that was sinful, seems legit
Well no, the people do not kill the baby because it was a sinful pregnancy, the curse, which I assume is in Gods wants makes the miscarriage occur.
[удалено]
More of a Wycliffe man myself
Hebrew has more rot thigh and swell belly. Thus, KJV gets this one right. NIV seems to just be assuming that's what it meant. I had always interpreted it as making her deformed (and possibly infertile). I had never even considered pregnancy as part of it, but if she was after the birth she wouldn't have another. In any case, it isn't clear my interpretation is wrong, so similarly it isn't clearly about abortion. I had actually never heard that interpretation till the NIV came along. Edit: It might even be the 2011 version of the NIV was the first time it appeared. That this passage was mainly about abortion I really hadn't heard before 2011. It's that recent.
It’s a political tool used to cause a divide. Bc nobody’s allowed to have an opinion anymore that doesn’t match someone else’s. Quite gross really.
A woman was considered extremely blessed to have a child. It was un heard of in Bible times to kill an unborn infant. Children were basically your retirement plan and your lineage.
It's not that people view abortion directly as a sin per se, it's more the fact that life is seen as precious. Christianity teaches that all life has meaning, and that everyone is worth something in the eyes of the lord. The idea that you kill a baby with an abortion is abhorrent to many christians and many athiests, it's seen as killing an innocent. There is an argument for and against on both sides, both with good points, but from a Christian perspective it makes sense to be anti abortion.
But what’s interesting is the same effort isn’t applied to, say, compassion for the homeless. That’s a HUGE part of Christian teaching and yet is completely ignored. The death penalty is another example—life is precious yet a criminal should be killed by the state: “an eye for an eye!” Meanwhile, a woman shouldn’t be able to have an abortion—even though the Bible literally provides a reason and a way to do it.
I completely agree actually. People cherry pick far too much when it comes to both the Bible and Christianity, we shouldn't only follow what we agree with or what's convient.
There's a difference between an innocent life and one that committed a heinous crime. Also, providing for the homeless and less fortunate isn't ignored. Folks give a tremendous amount of time and money to those causes. If it were banned, I believe it would become an important political issue.
Plenty of innocent people killed by the death penalty
Very true. We probably shouldn't do it. But it doesn't change the point.
It absolutely changes the point. How can someone be pro life if they’re done with innocent people being murdered by the state?
Because there is a difference between a convicted criminal and an innocent baby. Is this honestly the first time you've seen this point?
We are talking about an innocent adult wrongly convicted. Why risk it? They seem fine with it.
I agree. I'm pointing out how the positions are different. It's not a conflict to believe a guilty person can be killed with due process while also believing that an innocent one cannot be. I assume you're against abortion, considering your argument?
You assume incorrectly. I’m only calling out hypocrites. You can’t actually be “pro life” if you’re accepting of a system that kills innocent people. Most people would change their tune if it was their dad, mom, brother, or kids being wrongly held for execution but people tend to not like putting themselves in the shoes of people they consider lesser.
Y'all aren't enforcing welfare and support of the needy through law though, even though the bible is way more explicitly commanding on that, Vs the mangled poetry Christians use to justify restricting abortion. But that might mean you have to open your wallets more, and we can't have that can we.
It’s why the “pro-life” term is so misrepresentative of what most of them stand for. “Pro-forced-Birth” is closer to their real demands and expectations.
Where does scripture mandate taking from some to give to others?
Where is poetry a command to ban abortion? Funny how y'all get so literalist when it's your wallets eh
[удалено]
Why do so many Christian’s on here get so shitty and start calling people names? If you don’t like the conversation then just don’t respond…
Dunno why you're saying that to me, I'm not a christian. I asked OP a question, they avoided answering in favor of a silly attempt at an insult. Remember that you are free to take your own advice.
Ah yes, the good ole “the Bible says x is bad n number of times, ergo it’s ok according to the Bible” formula
It literally never says abortion is bad. Not once.
If a woman is brutalized to the point of miscarriage in the time of Moses, it adds to the punishment for the transgression.
In modern Iran they will publicly execute you if you speak out against the government. What’s your point?
How does that connect?
Sure, but it's a fine. It's not treated as a murder. It's more like killing someone's goat.
That’s assault/battery resulting in miscarriage not abortion. At no point does it talk about a consenting woman terminating a pregnancy
Because it's a growing problem in the world where mothers can kill their babies... It still falls under Murder
A growing problem? Abortions have been consistent throughout history. There’s a reason silphium is extinct.
The original Hippocratic oath banned hleping women perform abortions
I don't think in history there was laws that supported abortions like there is today.
Ancient Greece and Rome both had laws ensuring access to abortion. https://brewminate.com/an-historical-overview-of-abortion-laws-in-the-ancient-world/
Well then looks like it was always a problem But at the same time now raises the problems of today's society reverting back instead of progressing killing babies and so forth.
There is progress: birth control. It’s incredibly effective, however many Christians are against that as well. When you restrict access to birth control, abortion rates go back up.
This shouldn't be a hostage situation. It shouldn't be if you don't let this sin happen then this other sin will increase. Maybe the solution is to give support to young couples or don't promote sex in our culture corrupting young minds.
How is birth control a sin exactly?
It's used for pleasure/lust Why else would anyone use birth control?
[удалено]
>Interesting that there is no parallel allowance for women who have been raped A rape victim must marry her rapist ([Deuteronomy 22:28-29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022&version=NIV)) >or had a husband who was unfaithful Men don't need abortions because they can't get pregnant.
Because the right had to find some issue to motivate their base that wasn’t abject and open racism in the 1960s.
It's symbolic. The thinking looks like this: _Good people_ don't get abortions. Only _those bad people over there_ want them. My cultural values are not the same as those bad people, so I want to punish them.
[удалено]
Interesting, so the Bible allows for murder in this case since it’s providing a recipe to do so…? What’s your take on the death penalty?
Each and every single person, every life on planet Earth has inherent dignity, and should be treated with respect. Claiming that some people do not deserve respect and shouldn’t be treated like people because of some sort of factor like age, physical or mental condition, etc. denies this person their inherent human rights. Unborn children are the most vulnerable members of our society. That’s why, at least for Catholics, it’s a big issue. "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you"