Using God/The Bible as a Basis for Banning Abortion Is Dark Irony
I am an atheist who maintains that abortion is wrong. I clearly see it as killing a human being. The DNA is human. There are only four differences between a fertilized zygote, and a human outside the womb. The differences are size, stage of development, environment, and viability outside the womb. None of these differences mean that the fetus (latin meaning 'little baby') is any less human. I believe the best way for pro-lifers to rid abortion from society is by basing their arguments on science (a fertilized zygote is a human: 100%) and the already instilled societal values in their country (USA has implemented that every person has fundamental rights to live, and that murder is wrong). Now, onto why I believe using the Christian God specifically to get rid of abortion is ironic and foolish. There are several verses where God clearly accepts and even advocates for the murder of babies. For example, "You shall acknowledge no God but me. . . . You are destroyed, Israel. . . . The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 New International Version). Yikes. God commands for the murder of children, and very violent abortions. Here is another instance advocating for the murder of children, "See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9–16 NIV). More baby killing with a dash of rape. Yikes. Finally, here is another verse commanding for the death of babies, "This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3). Perfect. Let's just kill everybody, even the... animals? It doesn't make sense to me. Regardless, all of these verses give allowance and even commandments to carry out the murder of babies and infants. As an atheist, I do not see the God of the bible as any sort of moral basis to end abortion. However, if you bring a logical, and understandable argument to the table in regard to science and societal values, then I think you have a shot at winning over others to your side. (Disclaimer: apologies for any formatting errors or grammatical mistakes. I am on mobile. (: )
Board index ‹ Abortion
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Using God as a Basis for Banning Abortion Is Dark
by Dark Master » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:39 pm
- Dark Master
Re: Using God as a Basis for Banning Abortion Is Dark
by jimwalton » Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:18 am
> I am an atheist who maintains that abortion is wrong.
Glad to hear it. I am a Christian who maintains that abortion is wrong.
> I believe the best way for pro-lifers to rid abortion from society is by basing their arguments on science (a fertilized zygote is a human: 100%) and the already instilled societal values in their country (USA has implemented that every person has fundamental rights to live, and that murder is wrong).
I agree. Science makes a great anti-abortion argument, as does the American value system where people have rights. In addition I think the Bible makes a good argument that humans have intrinsic value because they are in the image of God. As an atheist, I wouldn't expect you to subscribe to that part of the argument.
> There are several verses where God clearly accepts and even advocates for the murder of babies. For example, "You shall acknowledge no God but me. . . . You are destroyed, Israel. . . . The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 New International Version).
If you're like most atheists with whom I've spoken, you've gotten this text from somewhere else with little clue what it's about. Your comment leads me to that conclusion.
Hosea is using a literary technique called metonymy. In verses 12-13 it is clear that Hosea is using the image of a pregnant women and the fetus inside as a metonym for discipline (judgment). God’s disciplinary judgment is "growing in the womb," and it is about to be born. While God has been patiently waiting, the time of delivery is upon the rebellious and the evil. Its onset is imminent, just like a woman in labor. So when the time of judgment comes, it will not just be a calm and normal birth, delivering the child gently by candlelight, but it will be as if the child were ripped from its mother’s womb and dashed to the ground, their evil has been so great and their judgment so deserved.
In addition, Hosea is using a rhetorical technique. Common ancient Near Eastern warfare rhetoric included wiping out populations (though that was rarely done), burning young children (though that was even more rare), and even tearing open pregnant woman (almost nonexistent). But it was the way they spoke when they were expressing their intent to devastate the enemy.
In other words, none of this is literal. It is metonymy and rhetoric to express the depth of God’s wrath and the completeness of the judgment. Your comment is a distortion and shows a complete misunderstanding of the text.
> Isaiah 13:9–16
Again, God is not commanding that this is what should happen. He is saying that barbarians will come and act barbarically. The inhuman conduct is on the part of godless brutes. God is as abhorred by the behavior as we are.
> 1 Samuel 15:3
You could benefit in all of these cases from some real research. The "kill 'em all including women and children" was ancient warfare rhetoric. It was neither meant that way or executed that way. It was their way of saying, "Let's win a decisive victory." The city of Amalek was the target, not the whole of the Amalek people. The Amalekites were a nomadic group spread over hundreds of square miles of territory. Waiting in a ravine (15.5) is the strategy to conquer a single city, not to genocide a people group. The cities were fortresses. The occupants of the city were governmental officials (the king and his court) and soldiers. There were no babies being killed here.
> It doesn't make sense to me.
That's apparently because you've read the text superficially and arrived at a conclusion before you did any study. No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.
> Regardless, all of these verses give allowance and even commandments to carry out the murder of babies and infants.
Therefore this conclusion is totally misguided and false. I'm glad we've had a chance to clarify this for you.
> As an atheist, I do not see the God of the bible as any sort of moral basis to end abortion.
It seems that you've created a case on false information, which makes this a false conclusion. I'm assuming we need to talk more.
Glad to hear it. I am a Christian who maintains that abortion is wrong.
> I believe the best way for pro-lifers to rid abortion from society is by basing their arguments on science (a fertilized zygote is a human: 100%) and the already instilled societal values in their country (USA has implemented that every person has fundamental rights to live, and that murder is wrong).
I agree. Science makes a great anti-abortion argument, as does the American value system where people have rights. In addition I think the Bible makes a good argument that humans have intrinsic value because they are in the image of God. As an atheist, I wouldn't expect you to subscribe to that part of the argument.
> There are several verses where God clearly accepts and even advocates for the murder of babies. For example, "You shall acknowledge no God but me. . . . You are destroyed, Israel. . . . The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 New International Version).
If you're like most atheists with whom I've spoken, you've gotten this text from somewhere else with little clue what it's about. Your comment leads me to that conclusion.
Hosea is using a literary technique called metonymy. In verses 12-13 it is clear that Hosea is using the image of a pregnant women and the fetus inside as a metonym for discipline (judgment). God’s disciplinary judgment is "growing in the womb," and it is about to be born. While God has been patiently waiting, the time of delivery is upon the rebellious and the evil. Its onset is imminent, just like a woman in labor. So when the time of judgment comes, it will not just be a calm and normal birth, delivering the child gently by candlelight, but it will be as if the child were ripped from its mother’s womb and dashed to the ground, their evil has been so great and their judgment so deserved.
In addition, Hosea is using a rhetorical technique. Common ancient Near Eastern warfare rhetoric included wiping out populations (though that was rarely done), burning young children (though that was even more rare), and even tearing open pregnant woman (almost nonexistent). But it was the way they spoke when they were expressing their intent to devastate the enemy.
In other words, none of this is literal. It is metonymy and rhetoric to express the depth of God’s wrath and the completeness of the judgment. Your comment is a distortion and shows a complete misunderstanding of the text.
> Isaiah 13:9–16
Again, God is not commanding that this is what should happen. He is saying that barbarians will come and act barbarically. The inhuman conduct is on the part of godless brutes. God is as abhorred by the behavior as we are.
> 1 Samuel 15:3
You could benefit in all of these cases from some real research. The "kill 'em all including women and children" was ancient warfare rhetoric. It was neither meant that way or executed that way. It was their way of saying, "Let's win a decisive victory." The city of Amalek was the target, not the whole of the Amalek people. The Amalekites were a nomadic group spread over hundreds of square miles of territory. Waiting in a ravine (15.5) is the strategy to conquer a single city, not to genocide a people group. The cities were fortresses. The occupants of the city were governmental officials (the king and his court) and soldiers. There were no babies being killed here.
> It doesn't make sense to me.
That's apparently because you've read the text superficially and arrived at a conclusion before you did any study. No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.
> Regardless, all of these verses give allowance and even commandments to carry out the murder of babies and infants.
Therefore this conclusion is totally misguided and false. I'm glad we've had a chance to clarify this for you.
> As an atheist, I do not see the God of the bible as any sort of moral basis to end abortion.
It seems that you've created a case on false information, which makes this a false conclusion. I'm assuming we need to talk more.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Using God as a Basis for Banning Abortion Is Dark
by Bits & Bytes » Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:22 am
https://youtu.be/PK7P7uZFf5o
"out of context!"
congratulations, you've just made the bible dismissable as figurative language in its entirety, and anyone can make it mean anything they want. for example I believe that God's throwing Adam and Eve out of heaven is a metaphor that means that you should never steal fruit. when Moses guided his people out of Egypt and for lost 40 years in the desert when walking straight they'd reached their destination quickly, that was a parable meant to say that if you go for a long distance travel without a map and leaving breadcrumbs you're a fool. when God commanded to slay them all and rip children out of their womb, he actually meant that eating peas by taking them out of the pods with your own hand is a tasty and righteous thing. When God forbid murder in the ten commandments, he actually meant that you shall not "murder" figuratively anyone in a debate.
"out of context!"
congratulations, you've just made the bible dismissable as figurative language in its entirety, and anyone can make it mean anything they want. for example I believe that God's throwing Adam and Eve out of heaven is a metaphor that means that you should never steal fruit. when Moses guided his people out of Egypt and for lost 40 years in the desert when walking straight they'd reached their destination quickly, that was a parable meant to say that if you go for a long distance travel without a map and leaving breadcrumbs you're a fool. when God commanded to slay them all and rip children out of their womb, he actually meant that eating peas by taking them out of the pods with your own hand is a tasty and righteous thing. When God forbid murder in the ten commandments, he actually meant that you shall not "murder" figuratively anyone in a debate.
- Bits & Bytes
Re: Using God as a Basis for Banning Abortion Is Dark
by jimwalton » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:37 pm
> congratulations, you've just made the bible dismissable as figurative language in its entirety, and anyone can make it mean anything they want.
I haven't done that at all. The Bible must be taken as it was intended by the author. It is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. Because I take one sentence as metaphor does mean I must take every sentence as metaphor. To take some language as figurative doesn't mean we are able to dismiss it all ("in its entirety") as figurative, nor that we can make it anything we want. It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author.
There are rules of Bible interpretation, just as there are in literature and jurisprudence. Despite that you are free to distort any text as you wish, that doesn't make anyone's distortion just as valid as legitimate interpretation. For instance, these examples of yours (for example I believe that God's throwing Adam and Eve out of heaven is a metaphor that means that you should never steal fruit. when Moses guided his people out of Egypt and for lost 40 years in the desert when walking straight they'd reached their destination quickly, that was a parable meant to say that if you go for a long distance travel without a map and leaving breadcrumbs you're a fool) are illegitimate. It's irresponsible scholarship and hermeneutics to do this with a text. I'm assuming you just tossed these into the conversation as ridiculous interpretive examples, not as the way one would really take the text. But see, the scholarship of biblical interpretation easily recognizes these as invalid. They are readily perceived as ridiculous interpretive examples. That doesn't make my legitimate interpretations on the same plane as ridiculous examples. There are rules about such things, just as there are in science, history, law and literature.
* Interpret words in harmony with their meaning in the times of the author
* Interpret a word in relation to its sentence and context
* Interpret a section in harmony with its larger context
* When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, we can understand that to be figurative, not literal. ("I am the door of the sheep," John 10.7).
* When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement may be considered to be figurative. (Jesus called Herod a "fox"; John called Jesus the "lamb"; God is spoken of in anthropomorphic terms like having hands, eyes, and a face.)
There are many more, showing us that interpretation is a science, carefully structured and executed. It's simply not true that that anyone can legitimately make it mean anything they want.
> when God commanded to slay them all and rip children out of their womb, he actually meant that eating peas by taking them out of the pods with your own hand is a tasty and righteous thing.
This illustration shows the problem. Hosea is using metonymy and rhetoric to make a point, both common biblical literary devices. The context shows us what Hosea is talking about, and it's certainly not God commanding them to rip children out of wombs. (By the way, that YouTube video was ridiculous.)
> When God forbid murder in the ten commandments, he actually meant that you shall not "murder" figuratively anyone in a debate.
See, all of this is illegitimate. If I interpreted your writings the same way, I could just as well say that your opening "congratulations" really means that you will be taking a trip soon, and by "you've made the bible dismissible" you mean to say that, parabolically speaking, people in power get to decide truth. If we are free to define words as we wish, distort common meanings, ignore context, discount the author's intent, and make everything figurative in whatever way we wish, we have abolished any meaning in communication. It's not fair for me to do this with what you have written, nor is it fair to interpret Shakespeare this way, and it's an illegitimate approach to biblical hermeneutics.
I haven't done that at all. The Bible must be taken as it was intended by the author. It is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. Because I take one sentence as metaphor does mean I must take every sentence as metaphor. To take some language as figurative doesn't mean we are able to dismiss it all ("in its entirety") as figurative, nor that we can make it anything we want. It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author.
There are rules of Bible interpretation, just as there are in literature and jurisprudence. Despite that you are free to distort any text as you wish, that doesn't make anyone's distortion just as valid as legitimate interpretation. For instance, these examples of yours (for example I believe that God's throwing Adam and Eve out of heaven is a metaphor that means that you should never steal fruit. when Moses guided his people out of Egypt and for lost 40 years in the desert when walking straight they'd reached their destination quickly, that was a parable meant to say that if you go for a long distance travel without a map and leaving breadcrumbs you're a fool) are illegitimate. It's irresponsible scholarship and hermeneutics to do this with a text. I'm assuming you just tossed these into the conversation as ridiculous interpretive examples, not as the way one would really take the text. But see, the scholarship of biblical interpretation easily recognizes these as invalid. They are readily perceived as ridiculous interpretive examples. That doesn't make my legitimate interpretations on the same plane as ridiculous examples. There are rules about such things, just as there are in science, history, law and literature.
* Interpret words in harmony with their meaning in the times of the author
* Interpret a word in relation to its sentence and context
* Interpret a section in harmony with its larger context
* When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, we can understand that to be figurative, not literal. ("I am the door of the sheep," John 10.7).
* When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement may be considered to be figurative. (Jesus called Herod a "fox"; John called Jesus the "lamb"; God is spoken of in anthropomorphic terms like having hands, eyes, and a face.)
There are many more, showing us that interpretation is a science, carefully structured and executed. It's simply not true that that anyone can legitimately make it mean anything they want.
> when God commanded to slay them all and rip children out of their womb, he actually meant that eating peas by taking them out of the pods with your own hand is a tasty and righteous thing.
This illustration shows the problem. Hosea is using metonymy and rhetoric to make a point, both common biblical literary devices. The context shows us what Hosea is talking about, and it's certainly not God commanding them to rip children out of wombs. (By the way, that YouTube video was ridiculous.)
> When God forbid murder in the ten commandments, he actually meant that you shall not "murder" figuratively anyone in a debate.
See, all of this is illegitimate. If I interpreted your writings the same way, I could just as well say that your opening "congratulations" really means that you will be taking a trip soon, and by "you've made the bible dismissible" you mean to say that, parabolically speaking, people in power get to decide truth. If we are free to define words as we wish, distort common meanings, ignore context, discount the author's intent, and make everything figurative in whatever way we wish, we have abolished any meaning in communication. It's not fair for me to do this with what you have written, nor is it fair to interpret Shakespeare this way, and it's an illegitimate approach to biblical hermeneutics.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Using God as a Basis for Banning Abortion Is Dark
by Scape211 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:04 am
I watched that youtube video and read this line in the description:
And why is it that it only ever seems to be the ugly bits of the bible that are ever taken out of context?
I understand the point, but Christians often misunderstand or misuse the 'good' bits of the bible too. A classic example of this is Jeremiah 29:11:
For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
This sounds like such a comforting, inspiring, and generally feel good verse. In fact the prosperity style gospel (which I don't agree with) was built on this verse. However its taken way out of context and thats easy to see when you read the verses around it. Without getting too far into it, this was after Jerusalem was taken over by the Babylonians. The Israelites where defeated; many killed or imprisoned by Babylon. Those that survived were scattered. After this had happened a prophet by the name of Hananiah sent word out the the scattered people. Basically the message was ' Good news! Within 2 years God will bring you back to Jerusalem." This was good news since that was a quick timeline in those days. However, Jeremiah (the prophet who the book is named after) then REALLY heard from the Lord. And the Lord basically said, " Jeremiah, you need to tell Hananaiah and all the others this real truth - settle in. stay scattered where you are, grow your crops, marry your sons and daughters for you wont return to Jerusalem for 70 years (huge difference from 2 years). THEN after saying all this, he says verse 29.:11.
So after knowing the bad news Jeremiah is giving does this verse sound hopeful? Does it sound like the prosperity gospel? Not really. God says he wont leave them in this verse, but it aint gonna be easy. I dont know how verses like this or the others get so thrown out of context, but they do. Heck people read about Jesus giving the disciples the bread and wine and saying its his body and people think Christianity is all about cannibalism.
Either way, I see multiple instances where the bad parts get taken as good parts too. It all gets messed up. The bible is a messy book. If a marketing team got ahold of it back then before it was spread, they would have trimmed down all the ugly parts to make it seem really nicely packaged and presentable. But the bible keeps all the parts that dont appear so great because its truth. God wanted us to get all the important parts to paint the whole picture. That said, we have to study it properly; read the verses around it and check the original meaning of the words or what the author meant at the time of writing it. Thats hugely important to understanding what was meant and most dont do this homework; Christians included.
And why is it that it only ever seems to be the ugly bits of the bible that are ever taken out of context?
I understand the point, but Christians often misunderstand or misuse the 'good' bits of the bible too. A classic example of this is Jeremiah 29:11:
For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
This sounds like such a comforting, inspiring, and generally feel good verse. In fact the prosperity style gospel (which I don't agree with) was built on this verse. However its taken way out of context and thats easy to see when you read the verses around it. Without getting too far into it, this was after Jerusalem was taken over by the Babylonians. The Israelites where defeated; many killed or imprisoned by Babylon. Those that survived were scattered. After this had happened a prophet by the name of Hananiah sent word out the the scattered people. Basically the message was ' Good news! Within 2 years God will bring you back to Jerusalem." This was good news since that was a quick timeline in those days. However, Jeremiah (the prophet who the book is named after) then REALLY heard from the Lord. And the Lord basically said, " Jeremiah, you need to tell Hananaiah and all the others this real truth - settle in. stay scattered where you are, grow your crops, marry your sons and daughters for you wont return to Jerusalem for 70 years (huge difference from 2 years). THEN after saying all this, he says verse 29.:11.
So after knowing the bad news Jeremiah is giving does this verse sound hopeful? Does it sound like the prosperity gospel? Not really. God says he wont leave them in this verse, but it aint gonna be easy. I dont know how verses like this or the others get so thrown out of context, but they do. Heck people read about Jesus giving the disciples the bread and wine and saying its his body and people think Christianity is all about cannibalism.
Either way, I see multiple instances where the bad parts get taken as good parts too. It all gets messed up. The bible is a messy book. If a marketing team got ahold of it back then before it was spread, they would have trimmed down all the ugly parts to make it seem really nicely packaged and presentable. But the bible keeps all the parts that dont appear so great because its truth. God wanted us to get all the important parts to paint the whole picture. That said, we have to study it properly; read the verses around it and check the original meaning of the words or what the author meant at the time of writing it. Thats hugely important to understanding what was meant and most dont do this homework; Christians included.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:04 am.
- Scape211
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:18 pm
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests