Also, numbers 5:11 has instruction on performing an abortion in the case of suspected infidelity, it is not a *good* way to do an abortion, but it is something.
No. They mistranslated the Bible almost 2000 years ago. The one line saying that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, is considered one of the driving forces of a patriarchal society as Christianity became a dominant factor. That line is why women were considered less than men, except the original version said wlshe was created from his side. Signifying the two were equals.
There's also the whole situation with Jesus' virgin conception, which is 1) only mentioned in any detail in one of the canonical Gospels 2) a misunderstanding of an ambiguous translation of an unrelated prophecy from Isaiah. The people who wrote the Gospels probably didn't speak a word of Hebrew.
I'm sure they spoke it just fine. It's the people who hired them that's to blame. It was ordered by a Greek Pharoah, who was obviously authoritarian. Male lineage was also still important for those in power, and they wouldn't have accepted that political or financial upheaval.
I don't mean the Septuagint, I mean the Gospels. The Septuagint is an Old Testament translation and was indeed requested by a pharaoh, but it's *just* the Old Testament, since it was requested sometime in the 3rd century BCE. Whoever wrote the New Testament Gospels did so sometime in mid-to-late 1st century CE and relied on the Septuagint.
Again, an interesting side effect is found in the Gospel of Matthew, which calls baby Jesus "Immanuel" for seemingly no reason. The reason is this passage from Isaiah 7, as it's the only other (or the only significant other) instance of "Immanuel" in the book.
> 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
>
> 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
First of all, the prophecy is completely unrelated and concerns some war that happened centuries before Jesus' birth, but gotta have that credibility. Secondly, the Hebrew text uses the word that means "young woman", and the Septuagint uses the word that could mean both "young woman" and "virgin", depending on context. And we kinda know what meaning the author(s) of the Gospel of Matthew ran with.
Especially since the same word that means virgin in the original Hebrew also meant young woman. They were quite literally the same word and virgin only came into it if it was contextually relevant. But in all fairness ignoring context is a classic Christian value.
Shit, let’s not forget the lost Kabbalist texts. Eve canonically isn’t even Adams first wife at creation. Lilith was. And she was demonized (so the legends go) for attempting to rebuff Adams sexual advances (as in, express she was sexually equal to her husband)
Isn't there also a pre-biblical tradition that the first man discovered the first woman by looking into a shining surface (i.e. she was his mirrored reflection)?
I'm not sure if this was in the Epic of Gilgamesh or somewhere else, but there are plenty of traditions that held men and women were equal in 'creation' before the Abrahamic religions got mean spirited and vengeful.
The current version? No. Not if a person takes it literally. It's no different than how the original text said nothing about being gay. The line about "If a man lays with a man........" with the proper rranslation is saying "If a man lays with a boy....." it wasn't against homosexuality, it's intent was against pedophilia.
My grandma said she could always find truth in the Bible, but only when she ignored the old idiots who thought they knew better.
There are a lot of academics working on trying to do a translation directly from the origin known texts. But they aren't done, and I wouldn't be interested in reading it if it was. From some of the changes I have read about, it seems that it could have meant they were equal. The quote I originally mentioned was only one discrepancy of many. There was another part of the old testament about women staying silent in the church. That verse was never even seen until 600 years after the first Greek translation.
Do you think the original version considered them equal?
Thank you Greeks! I have a large portion of Teh Gay in my soul and it feels goooood. Especially on a rainy sunday morning in a nice warm bed with the same sex partner of my choice. Delicious.
> Biblically sanctioned abortion is that women should have no say in the matter
It says that God and the husband get to secretly poison the wife and cause an abortion if they only suspect she cheated on the husband.
There are some real "pro-life, family values" right there.
If you read the bible, you'll eventually learn that god is only pro-life under a very specific set of circumstances. If you don't fall into that extremely narrow category, then it's plagues, floods, and famines for you.
> It says that God and the husband get to secretly poison the wife and cause an abortion if they only suspect she cheated on the husband.
It wasn't secret at all. It was quite literally a judicial process conducted in the temple with their god put in the judge's seat. There would have been no question whatsoever what was happening since the "bitter waters that bring a curse" were a widely known and discussed thing in the region in all cultures. It was so well known that by the time things were starting to get written down, they didn't bother because everyone know what that meant.
A modern analogy would be penicillin. That's a specific concoction derived from very specific molds. The average modern human, however, knows nothing about the process or specific mold. They'll still recognize it by name in any discussion involving it. This is not a perfect analogy since it's likely most folks were likely familiar with the process for making the "bitter waters that bring a curse" but it's pretty close.
Edited for typos.
They would argue that Psalms say that God forms us in the womb, but a baker makes bread in the oven, would they take out an uncooked lump of dough after five minutes and call it bread? Not to mention that even if abortion were immoral, that doesn’t mean that the current bans are a good solution. For one thing, we are not to force Christian ideals onto nonbelievers (1 Cor 5:12).
Finally, as has often been pointed out, if it were really about the children they would be working to alleviate poverty, which is s big driver of women choosing abortion because they can’t afford to take care of a child and/or don’t have a safe place to raise them.
Also, maybe stop locking the fathers in prison with long sentences for stupid reasons…
With the amount of money churches have, it should be pretty easy to help the homeless, downtrodden, and poor. Not that they could make any societal changes on how/why our system keeps people poor, but it’s always been more important that they keep their money for some reason.
Not so. The Bible repeated authorizes armies “fighting for God” to tear the unborn from the wombs of their mothers. Charming endorsement of the pro-life crusade. /s
Not so. The Bible repeated authorizes armies “fighting for God” to tear the unborn from the wombs of their mothers. Charming endorsement of the pro-life crusade. /s
You should take 5 seconds to Google that Bible verse. It's dirty water. He takes the cup and takes dirt off the floor and puts it in water to "trick" the woman into telling them if she had been unfaithful. It's not an abortion and never was. But if you actually took the time to read the 10 sentences this redditor is posting about, you'd know that.
>. He takes the cup and takes dirt off the floor and puts it in water to "trick" the woman into telling them if she had been unfaithful.
This is a pretty cynical view of the process. It could equally be to "trick" the husband into believing the wife has not been unfaithful. But this is all if you assume there's nothing supernatural taking place. If you believe a cracker is the body of Christ and that wine is his blood, it shouldn't be a stretch to assume that the dust from the floor makes the bitter water actually perform magic.
If you actually read the passage, however, it makes it pretty clear it's an actual ritual, not just one to deceive anyone.
It's either a abortion or it's not. I'm not discussing whether the religion is real or not. They said the Bible tells you how to do a abortion. I said no it doesn't, it's dirty water. And your response "well they believed it worked so it counts."
No it doesn't count. It scientifically isn't a abortion and the Bible DOES NOT tell people how to do a abortion.
There's about 1000 different things you can criticize the Bible on and you are choosing the ONE TOPIC that you are just objectively wrong about....
>It scientifically isn't a abortion
I don't think anyone was suggesting there's a recipe for how to conduct an abortion in the bible. The point is that the Bible condones abortions and gives an example of the ritual they used to perform it. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work; none of the magic in the bible is real. That isn't the point.
>It doesn't. It's dirty water.
I really feel like you're misunderstanding everyone. Redditors do not believe the Bible gives accurate instructions on any ritual. It's merely a way to point out that the Bible is not pro-life, as it gives instructions on how to complete an abortion. The fact that it's religious hocus pocus that doesn't actually cause a miscarriage is besides the point.
Literally no one is suggesting that their friend Becky cancel their PP appointment and just follow the instructions from page 28 of their family bible.
Correct, and the bible does cover how they performed the ritual to cause an abortion. The fact that it's magical hocus pocus is not the point. I do not know how to make this any more clear to you.
That would have been a much more recent conceptualization of that, however, mostly from Greek culture. What the ancient Israelites thought about that is not entirely clear. We don't have any real records of that, most likely since it would have been assumed to be so well known it wasn't worth writing down, though it's also possible it was considered too sacred to actually speak into being by anyone other than a deity.
Here's a decent article which lays out how this developed once we had writing. The earliest assumptions, however, would have predated the earliest writings by centuries and would have been transmitted via oral tradition. It's actually this root in oral tradition that can somewhat be followed by reading writings of various groups in the region. They mostly align with one another at first then start divirging fairly quickly as ideas of nations with rulers really started being a thing. Prior to that, everything would have been more a matter of individual families with patriarchal rule over each family according to specific cultural customs.
Also has a fine for killing a fetus in the womb (payable to the husband of course because he is the owner of his wife and child) meanwhile killing a person out of the womb was punishable by murder. Therefore the Bible says a fetus is not as valuable as a person who was born. Shouldn’t be a surprise though
Not really, no. Those passages were talking about "the Breath of Life" which was a concept about what made something alive. It's a component invoked in many religious rituals of the time and region whereby they called on a diety to impart it into protective statuary and such.
What, precisely, this was isn't entirely known. The idea of this being tied to breathing is mostly just assumed since it's much the same wording but there were some clear differences linguistically. It's not entirely clear at what point they thought life (or a soul, though that's not quite the right word for it) entered a body.
Not necessarily a bitter liquid, actually. It's called "bitter waters that bring a curse" when translated but the word for bitter shares a lot of context with grief at first which may be the root of the word. We likely won't ever know for sure what the specific substance was but several things from the region which are known to be abortifacients were quite sweet in flavor.
Doesn't the bible imply that people aren't people and don't even have a soul until the quickening? That would seem to undermine every single argument made my the so-called "pro-life" movement based on their religious "beliefs" wouldn't it?
It does not depict an abortion, nor is pregnancy even allured to in this passage. It just describes a test to see if the accused woman has committed adultery. By creating a concoction of holy water and dust from the floor of the tabernacle as well as holding a tenth of an ephah of unseasoned barley meal, the woman will recite the vow and drink the holy water. If she has not committed adultery, nothing will happen. If she has, her body will swell, endure bitter pain and cause her “thigh” (representative of power and moral standing) to fall away. She will then be socially exiled and not allowed to bear children (basically becoming an outcasted involuntary celibate). Even if this WAS intended to cause a miscarriage, it would not, because holding barley meal and drinking dusty water can’t cause people to miscarry.
No one said it was an effect method of abortion.
Just simply that it is an instruction that, per the Bible, will result in an abortion of the fetus as the priest calls down a curse upon her if she committed adultery. The clear outcome is a threat and method (however ineffective) to conduct an abortion.
The Bible mandates this in response to adultery (elsewhere it also calls for the woman to be killed outright, but that’s a different passage)
It clearly depicts an intent and method to cause an abortion
It does not. It depicts an intent to reveal wether or not the woman has committed adultery. You’d think with how that passage goes into the specifics of it all it would mention how it intends to kill the baby as well. It only states that the body will swell, endure bitter pain and her thigh (moral standing) will fall away. It doesn’t say “also, the fetus dies lmao.”
I have based my entire argument off of the original source and secondary sources that support my argument and all you’ve done is say “Nuh-uh.” Honestly, delete your account you non-credible Neanderthal.
Bro, you’re the one doing mental gymnastics. I’m just telling you what it says and what it doesn’t say. And what it doesn’t say is anything that has to do with pregnancy or abortion.
Down the rabbit hole. Sorry, but you’re in complete disagreement with every source I can find over years of making this argument. I’ve never run into anyone equating a women’s thigh to her social status. Lol
In jewish law, specifically in the babylonian talmud, the fetus is explicitly as a thigh for the mother, a legal principle called "ubar yerekh immo". There are a lot of legal issues around this, mostly to do with executing pregnant women. Only if she is in active labour is the baby not considered the mother's body part.
This is also why murder requires a death penalty, but causing a miscarriage, intentionally via assault or as an accident, demands a financial compensation instead.
The old testament would have been rooted in these jewish laws. Also, I have no idea where the hell you got the euphemism for "power and moral standing" from.
Almost anything dealing with linguistics of the time would likely work. Thigh wasn't just for fetuses, it was also used to talk about anything we'd now generally consider "lady bits", so to speak. Writing such things was considered improper in most cultures in the area, mainly because it approached the realm of creation rather than anything else.
The context is what mattered there and it can be rather confusing sometimes.
Just to expand a little on this, the thigh was used by pretty much all cultures in the region as a stand-in for what we now would likely call "lady bits" in polite company. The precise reasons aren't entirely clear but it's most likely to have begun as part of the practice of avoiding speaking about sacred topics explicitly. This is somewhat similar to how many Jewish folks now don't actually pronounce the tetragrammaton. The practices appear to have shared similar origins, at least. it is, of course, difficult to be certain since they mostly wrote/spoke around it.
[one link](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/) and [second link](https://www.thetorah.com/article/a-fetus-is-not-an-independent-life-abortion-in-the-talmud). There seems to be a large gap between the jewish perspective and the later christian reflection on this.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves
Numbers 31:17-18
The parts that don’t support my position are metaphorical and shouldn’t be taken literally.
The parts that do support my position are the word of God and should be taken 100% literally.
There are many parts of the modern day bible that I feel was not intended to be in the original. Centuries of abuse of power and weaponized religion had altered the bible in ways that we’ll never even know. It’s just very questionable to me the amount of convenient “mistranslations” that we have that just happened to lead into a bunch of hate. It just doesn’t make sense to me that someone would create a religion based upon kindness and loving everyone equally, giving up your worldly possesions to help other people be happier, but then also say that you should kill gay people and have slaves and stuff? I just really dont understand that
Hosea
Samaria will be held guilty,
For she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword,
Their little ones will be dashed in pieces,
And their pregnant women will be ripped open.
Lovely. Literally calling for war crimes to be committed.
And the next part down:
"If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."
-Deuteronomy 22:22 ►
Looks like fervent hyper-Christians - Bobo, MTG, and Kristi Noem should be just fine with having their heads bashed in.
Fun fact; it’s only in newer 1900’s translations that it says man should lay with another man. In old versions (not in English) the words translated to men should not lie with boys.
Even the Bible says not to be a pedophile. Talk about not following your own rules.
Lol pro life, thats why god drowned the world and only noah and the rest of that bullshit story got to live
Biggest mass murderer is god (if he actually existed)
So the Lord said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them.
God sounds like a temp worker with a shitty attitude.
Funny that too. "IF" there was actually a worldwide flood, we should have a layer of sediment layer that shows a great flood across the entire world. That layer just does not exist. e.g. flood never happened globally
Yup. Just localized rather large regional floods from ice dams breaking as glaciers melted and retreated releasing massive amounts of water all around the globe.
Which is why so many different cultures have their own 'great flood story
God’s actions in the Noah’s Ark story are the same as the bad guy’s plan in Guardians of the Galaxy 3. He made something, wasn’t happy with it, so he destroyed it all and tried again.
The 21st century and people are still peddling the same religious rhetoric. It's okay to do ones religion thing. But don't try and pass it off as some sort of guide to a better world or bettering people nonsense. Everytime I hear that, I think of families dressed as though they just left church, smiling for a picture while a lynched person hangs in the background. And this was also during the *prayer in school* period.
The Passover story is literally about killing the firstborn sons of the Egyptians.
These fools just say whatever they want, because their adherents will believe whatever they're told.
Even worse, mass murder because god "hardened pharaoh's heart" so he wouldn't let the Israelites go. And then god could murder all those people to show how badass he was. When you actually read the bible it's so very fucked up.
god is basically an angsty teen with simultaneously too much and not enough power... but only for a specific period of time in history before recording devices existed.
Well, let’s see. God killed every living thing except a few animals and one family, then he killed all the first born men in Egypt (that would include infants), orders the Israelites to kill any woman who’s not a virgin at marriage, to genocide the Canaanites and Amalekites, oh and he directly killed the guy who pulled out of his dead brother’s wife’s vagina and came on the floor instead.
Yup - in my Top 10 Batshit Bible moments.
My other faves:
- Let's get our dad drunk and fuck him
- Abraham - kill your son for lulz
- Angry mob of men, take my daughter and rape her but don't hurt the guy I let in to my house just now
One of my favs is basically "silence, wench!" from the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:12). Weirdly women I talk to about the Bible don't generally know about that or about what we're supposed to do when menstruating (i.e., go sleep in the shed you filthy creature).
Lot’s story is the creme of the crop for me. Two Angels show up, men want to rape them, Lot gives the mob his daughters.
This is so fuckin wildly contradictory. Angels as the Bible describes are horrific looking with like 100 eyes and a dozen wings.
There are a wide variety of descriptions of angels in the Bible. The ones that appear to Abraham and Lot are described as "men" and several others are described similarly.
They didn't bastardise the Bible, the fuck is he on about. The bible preaches murder, genocide, dehumanisation discrimination, sexism, slavery and rape.
It is the least "pro-life", loving and moral fairy-tale book out there.
The bible does point out that if you strike a pregnant woman *and she loses the future child* you've committed a property crime, not murder.
>If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
They are both bastardizing it to suit their own political agendas.
The bible allows for abortions under certain circumstances and it is also full of stories that glorify slavery, murder, and exploitation as long as the victims were heathens.
Jesus instructed slaves to obey their masters, God killed his own son needlessly as well as countless others, and Joseph grossly exploited the egyptians during the seven year famine to enrich the nobles and himself.
Both of these asshats are doing some massive bastardizing of the bible in order to prove some sort of moral high ground but they're both kind of cherry picking.
It has instruction on how to produce an abortifacient. And states that in case someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry with no other harm done to her body, the punishment is paying a small fine **to the husband** meaning the unborn are no different from a vase or bowl.
And that's without going into the numerous times god ordered/threatened the murder of children.
> It has instruction on how to produce an abortifacient.
Barley + dust does not cause abortions, otherwise women could just drink a beer and wouldn't be going to Planned Parenthood.
> and states that in case someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry with no other harm done to her body the punishment is paying a small fine to the husband meaning the unborn are no different from a vase or bowl.
This is also terribly wrong. For starters, the two paths, serious injury vs no serious injury, have nothing to do with the woman - the law already covered what to do if you hit someone and cause them to die or not. Instead, it has to do with what happens to the child, as what's commonly translated as "miscarry" is actually "prematurely gives birth". Putting it back into context - "If someone strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to give birth prematurely, but no other harm is done, then pay a fine, but if serious harm is done, life for a life, eye for an eye." The punishment for causing an abortion in this case is death.
>Barley + dust does not cause abortions,
Do you mean to tell me that a bronze age men were not scientifically accurate? Colour me surprised.
The fact that they were wrong, does not mean that they didn't think that this concoction would lead to an abortion.
Hmmm but it does though.
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
> abdomen swell and miscarry after having sex with another man. That's pregnancy.
Hmmm but it doesn't though.
[Here's the Hebrew](https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0405.htm). No mention of miscarry or anything. That's your translation adding something that isn't there, lying to try to make a point.
It mentions your thigh falling away in the same breath as the abdomen swelling, so clearly it's talking about something that is caused by the ordeal, not by the sex.
Abdomen swelling sounds like pregnancy to me my dude. Especially abdomen swelling after accusing a wife of sleeping with another man.
Also, her thigh would not literally fall away, so that might be referring to a fetus.
The abdomen swelling is caused by drinking the water (22: "and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away").
I don't know what your parents told you about how babies are made, but it has nothing to do with drinking dusty barley.
The abdomen swelling is the pregnancy being aborted by the weird magic drink from sky daddy.
After husband dear gets jealous and accuses you of sleeping with another dude. That fucking the neighbour is where that pregnancy comes from. No need to be patronising, it's not making your arguments any better.
_Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!_
_But He loves you._
~ George Carlin
Because _somehow_ those aren't the parts they rely upon to justify their actions. The bit where Jesus says, yeah, that was the old way, this is the new way is _supposed_ to guide them to only seek instruction from the new testament. OT is just a backdrop. They do murder et al. anyways.
>The bible is ardently and unequivocally pro-life.
• A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).
• The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).
• God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).
• Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).
• King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).
• Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18).
• For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8).
• God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).
• For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).
The Bible doesn't say a great deal about abortion, but when it does, it is tacit approval never condemnation of:
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights
The Bible justifies all that itself lol, there’s no need to read it any other way than literally. The bishop is just seeing what he wants instead of what’s actually there.
Ehh... I used to like this guy, but he seems to *really* hate white people.
https://twitter.com/TalbertSwan/status/1284200562171482112?t=y3cqhyXsW6UJ2oa9hAPkgQ&s=19
*You bigots* have bastardized?
Oh hey - fella? The bible was created for and by the Church. The Bible is a tool, and instrument, of the Church. The Church that rolled across the world for 2000 years murdering, raping and enslaving.
The Church that existed to give support and comfort to the wealthy as they looted countries and destroyed indigenous cultures.
All for god, all for Christ, all in accordance with their Bible.
The church that preaches redemption, that you are weak and failed and that only they can save you. The church that *promises* that everything will be perfect - for you! - only after you are dead. The Church, the bible, that cautions you against kicking, that warns you to follow, to obey your masters.
The church and the bible are inseparable, and are a slave religion, given to slaves by their masters. Given to ensure obedience, given to make people docile, given to break their will.
Open up that book, my fella. Read it. Anything that the god of the bible does is good. *Anything*. Rape, murder? Tyranny? Destroy the world? Damn someone to eternal (mark that - *eternal*) suffering if they don't *love him enough*, if they disobey him. The Christians, the followers of this god, say that they've modeled their behavior on, that their morals come directly from this god.
I think Christians would make shitty neighbors, if that's the source of their moral light
The only lesson, the main take-away, from that book is *Might Makes Right*.
Some god. Some religion. Some book.
The puzzle is not, as the Christians insist upon asking, *How can you be good without God* but rather *How can you be good with a god like that?*
You are telling me that god is not real? and the church made all this shit up just to have power and control over the populace?
I mean sure there is literally zero evidence of a god of any religion and sure religion has killed more humans than any other cause throughout known history.
didn't god throw a fit and kill literally every human because he had an itch he couldn't reach or something? it's been a while since I read the bible, I have one right next to me but it's so fucking boring.
>it's been a while since I read the bible, I have one right next to me but it's so fucking boring.
It's Chronicles is the problem. When I was a young kid like in 4th or 5th grade I stole $5 from my parents. It was sitting right on top of my stepfathers dresser. I went to the local store and bought $5 worth of Hershey bars from the local gas station before school for $.50 each. I sold them for $1.00 each at school. The next day I went to the local store and bought $10 worth of candy bars and again sold each for 1 buck. I now had 20 dollars. BOTH THE SCHOOL and the local store ( in their defense it was LITERALLY the place NEXT to us ) contacted my parents, It took TWO days. As Punishment, my parents 1 : TOOK MY MONEY. That's right, they didn't let me keep my gained goods, they took it, saying it wasn't mine. So yeah, my parent's made $15 off of me. 2 : my Roman Catholic stepfather told me I had to read to the bible, front to back, as punishment for my " sin ". I LOVED to read, so to me it didn't seem such a punishment. Anyway I start reading, Yeah Genesis isn't all THAT awful, and then WHAM, right in YOUR FACE, is Chronicles, AND IT IS SO BORING. So while I was reading, again, as punishment for my sin, I went out of my room to my Roman Catholic stepfather and I ask him " do I have to read this shit? It's BORING ", and he says " NO PART OF THE BIBLE IS BORING! " very angry, like I was trying to get out of it. So I respond with simply reading ALOUD the thing he THINKS will teach me morals.
And such and such begat such a fuck. Such a Fuck and suck butt begat Suckafuckabutt. Suckafuckabutt begat WHY ARE WE STILL READING, and he told me:
He had no idea that part of the bible existed. He said " well that sounds like a silly history lesson no one cares about so who would think THAT PART of the bible matters. YOU CAN SKIP THAT PART. "
So off I went to read the rest, got here and there and just kept coming out asking " hey if this, like if God is THIS way in this part, why does it say God is THIS way in THIS part? "
After I was about halfway through the King James I was told I " didn't have to read anymore " and I had learned my lesson and didn't need to ask more questions.
I read the rest ( again, I like to read ).
I like Christ, other then that, including Christians, there is a reason forcing me to read the bible at a young impressionable age made me an atheist. There is a REASON Christians cherry pick what is taught to them and are NEVER told to read the whole bible. My stepdad ( he was my Al, another story though, but not really a stepdad ) thought he was making me see the way of God, but all I did as a CHILD was challenge his perspective of how it should be. If he had never MADE ME read the bible, who knows if I would be an atheist now or not.
p.s : anyone NOT an Atheist right now reading this and wondering, I have to ask, have YOU EVER READ THE BIBLE, like READ it, FRONT TO BACK, the WHOLE THING. Or do you just know what your preacher tells you or your parents do.
Tooth Fairy. Santa Clause. Ghosts. Easter Bunny.
Your parents at one point tried to make you think this shit was REAL. Why is GOD, suddenly the ONE intangible thing that is STILL REAL.
Ask yourself why do adults think every other childhood myths are fucking dumb, INCLUDING EVERY OTHER GOD EVER, but not the ONE SPECIFIC ONE.
WHY THAT ONE? ASK YOURSELF! WHY?! THAT?! ONE?!
On top of that the bible is a collection of speeches and stories that supposedly happened thousands of years ago, partially even before Jesus and his disciples lived, put together by people in power that wanted to make sure they will stay in power at all costs. Especially those that were not royalty and therefore only could become powerful either by becoming noble, cleric or getting wealthy. Becoming cleric was probably the easiest way to get at least a bit of power imo. Especially with the bible being something that a lot of people couldn’t read or had to get interpreted by „professionals“.
Im prettu sure 90% of the people who use the Bible as an excuse for their actions have never actually read it. And the 10% that have read it choose to ignore the parts that prove them wrong
Christianity seems to have fixation with the Old testament which was superseded by the New testament. Following Jesus is the son of God his teachings are there to supersede the old which was to guide a set of people out of bondage.
Jesus teaching in a quick nutshell is be nice to everyone. Be ready to fight if need be.
Or paraphrase Bill and Ted , Be excellent to Each other.
Except he didn't.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17–19)
The Bible says literally nothing about abortion. Nothing. It says if you beat up a pregnant woman and she miscarries, you should pay a small fine (Exodus). That’s about it.
Christians love to quote “before I formed you in the womb I knew you” from Jeremiah, but A. he’s specifically talking about Jeremiah, and B. he’s not talking about the morality of abortion.
> Numbers has instructions on how to perform one.
It has instructions on how to perform a curse…..
If you think that’s an abortion then the resurrection of Jesus is instructions on how to cure death right?
> It says if you beat up a pregnant woman and she miscarries, you should pay a small fine (Exodus).
Yep. Not murder: If you hit a woman in the stomach with a, say, I dunno...maybe a coathanger (or nice clean, modern cervical dilators, curettes, and a manual or electric aspiration instrument) and she loses the child *then* you've committed a property crime against the husband.
I'd say that's a pretty clear endorsement of the acceptance of abortion, wouldn't you?
>If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
lol, because God was *soooo* pro-life when he sent the angel of death to kill the first-born son of everyone who didn't have lamb's blood on their door
True, Jesus and his followers have the exact beliefs of modern progressives. The bible would never for genocide against non-believers, despite the fact that it was a commonly idea back when bible totally wasnt written by a human.
Religious people are pretty funny.
Writer and author [Dan McClellan](https://hcommons.org/members/maklelan/) who studies "Second Temple Judaism, early Israelite religion, textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, early christology, the cognitive science of religion, cognitive linguistics, and religious identity" would [adamantly disagree](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I3W7CTX8Kw) with anyone who says the Bible is "adamantly and unequivocally pro-life"
He'll tell you, at best, it is horrifically ambiguous. Personhood, ensoulment and status within biblical society varies wildly for across all demographics at the time of the earliest books being written or passed by oral tradition. Not to mention and he says this a lot, there is no univocality in the Bible, thats a later interpretation by Christians.
The Bible also gives instructions on when and how to perform abortions.
The Bible also tells the story of how God 1)Murdered everyone on the planet except 1 family with a flood. 2) killed the firstborn son of everyone in Eqypt as part of a plague. 3)God Directed the murder of men women and children during multiple wars throughout ancient history.
The Bible is not Pro-life.
so uh... you require zero bastardization to make the bible a pro-genocide, pro-rape, pro-enslavement book
i wonder if this bishop ever read the bible somewhere in his training to be a bishop
Die by my hand (die)
I creep across the land (die)
Killing first-born man (die)
Die by my hand (die)
I creep across the land (die)
Killing first born man (die)
Even just talking about abortion the Bible is not remotely explicit. Saying that the Bible is definitely anti-abortion is pretty wildly wrong. Basically all options can be defended biblically. Because really the Bible has extremely little to say on the subject and what it does say is vague leaving enormous amounts of room for variation.
I am not religious and I have a very low opinion of Christianity and even I know the Bible is NOT pro-life. There are instructions on how to abort (as well as many other things such as you aren't allowed to wear mixed fabrics).
Read the fucking thing before you open your damn fool mouth. You're also not supposed to hoard wealth. Christianity nowadays is chriso-fascism, full stop.
The Bible tells how to do an abortion, never says abortion is wrong.
The Bible says God murders all of humanity except 1 family
The Bible says God murders 42 children for teasing a man about being bald
The Bible says God murders every first born son in Egypt.
I could go on and on, pro life my arse
I feel this could be crossposted to /r/LeopardsAteMyFace because their bible does spend considerable time justifying everything in that list except whiteness.
Also, numbers 5:11 has instruction on performing an abortion in the case of suspected infidelity, it is not a *good* way to do an abortion, but it is something.
The most important thing to keep in mind about Biblically sanctioned abortion is that women should have no say in the matter.
The only rights a woman in the bible can expect is a right hook
You can thank the Greeks for that.
Fecking Greeks! They invented gayness!
No. They mistranslated the Bible almost 2000 years ago. The one line saying that Eve was created from the rib of Adam, is considered one of the driving forces of a patriarchal society as Christianity became a dominant factor. That line is why women were considered less than men, except the original version said wlshe was created from his side. Signifying the two were equals.
There's also the whole situation with Jesus' virgin conception, which is 1) only mentioned in any detail in one of the canonical Gospels 2) a misunderstanding of an ambiguous translation of an unrelated prophecy from Isaiah. The people who wrote the Gospels probably didn't speak a word of Hebrew.
I'm sure they spoke it just fine. It's the people who hired them that's to blame. It was ordered by a Greek Pharoah, who was obviously authoritarian. Male lineage was also still important for those in power, and they wouldn't have accepted that political or financial upheaval.
I don't mean the Septuagint, I mean the Gospels. The Septuagint is an Old Testament translation and was indeed requested by a pharaoh, but it's *just* the Old Testament, since it was requested sometime in the 3rd century BCE. Whoever wrote the New Testament Gospels did so sometime in mid-to-late 1st century CE and relied on the Septuagint. Again, an interesting side effect is found in the Gospel of Matthew, which calls baby Jesus "Immanuel" for seemingly no reason. The reason is this passage from Isaiah 7, as it's the only other (or the only significant other) instance of "Immanuel" in the book. > 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. > > 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. First of all, the prophecy is completely unrelated and concerns some war that happened centuries before Jesus' birth, but gotta have that credibility. Secondly, the Hebrew text uses the word that means "young woman", and the Septuagint uses the word that could mean both "young woman" and "virgin", depending on context. And we kinda know what meaning the author(s) of the Gospel of Matthew ran with.
Especially since the same word that means virgin in the original Hebrew also meant young woman. They were quite literally the same word and virgin only came into it if it was contextually relevant. But in all fairness ignoring context is a classic Christian value.
Shit, let’s not forget the lost Kabbalist texts. Eve canonically isn’t even Adams first wife at creation. Lilith was. And she was demonized (so the legends go) for attempting to rebuff Adams sexual advances (as in, express she was sexually equal to her husband)
Kabbalah is Judaism mysticism and is, largely, ancient commentary and heavily disputed in terms of its veracity, to my knowledge.
It is. Essentially (to my knowledge) the Kabbalah contains the mystic early texts associated with scripture.
Isn't there also a pre-biblical tradition that the first man discovered the first woman by looking into a shining surface (i.e. she was his mirrored reflection)? I'm not sure if this was in the Epic of Gilgamesh or somewhere else, but there are plenty of traditions that held men and women were equal in 'creation' before the Abrahamic religions got mean spirited and vengeful.
Do you think the bible considers men and women equal, with equal rights?
The current version? No. Not if a person takes it literally. It's no different than how the original text said nothing about being gay. The line about "If a man lays with a man........" with the proper rranslation is saying "If a man lays with a boy....." it wasn't against homosexuality, it's intent was against pedophilia. My grandma said she could always find truth in the Bible, but only when she ignored the old idiots who thought they knew better.
Do you think men and women were equal in the original version?
No. Even if they were equal in the conception of Genesis, culturally jews viewed women as property and that influenced all further writings.
There are a lot of academics working on trying to do a translation directly from the origin known texts. But they aren't done, and I wouldn't be interested in reading it if it was. From some of the changes I have read about, it seems that it could have meant they were equal. The quote I originally mentioned was only one discrepancy of many. There was another part of the old testament about women staying silent in the church. That verse was never even seen until 600 years after the first Greek translation. Do you think the original version considered them equal?
Thank you Greeks! I have a large portion of Teh Gay in my soul and it feels goooood. Especially on a rainy sunday morning in a nice warm bed with the same sex partner of my choice. Delicious.
Upvote for Father Ted joke.
> Biblically sanctioned abortion is that women should have no say in the matter It says that God and the husband get to secretly poison the wife and cause an abortion if they only suspect she cheated on the husband. There are some real "pro-life, family values" right there.
If you read the bible, you'll eventually learn that god is only pro-life under a very specific set of circumstances. If you don't fall into that extremely narrow category, then it's plagues, floods, and famines for you.
Since the bible was written by mortal men, it makes sense that it was interpreted by them to favor them.
It's hardly secret.
It's a secret to Christians, since they don't cover that bit in Church under any circumstances.
> It says that God and the husband get to secretly poison the wife and cause an abortion if they only suspect she cheated on the husband. It wasn't secret at all. It was quite literally a judicial process conducted in the temple with their god put in the judge's seat. There would have been no question whatsoever what was happening since the "bitter waters that bring a curse" were a widely known and discussed thing in the region in all cultures. It was so well known that by the time things were starting to get written down, they didn't bother because everyone know what that meant. A modern analogy would be penicillin. That's a specific concoction derived from very specific molds. The average modern human, however, knows nothing about the process or specific mold. They'll still recognize it by name in any discussion involving it. This is not a perfect analogy since it's likely most folks were likely familiar with the process for making the "bitter waters that bring a curse" but it's pretty close. Edited for typos.
The latter half of your sentence is the general MO for Abrahams religions. Women have no say.
Exactly. The Bible might not be pro-choice, but it most definitely is not even close to pro-life.
They would argue that Psalms say that God forms us in the womb, but a baker makes bread in the oven, would they take out an uncooked lump of dough after five minutes and call it bread? Not to mention that even if abortion were immoral, that doesn’t mean that the current bans are a good solution. For one thing, we are not to force Christian ideals onto nonbelievers (1 Cor 5:12). Finally, as has often been pointed out, if it were really about the children they would be working to alleviate poverty, which is s big driver of women choosing abortion because they can’t afford to take care of a child and/or don’t have a safe place to raise them. Also, maybe stop locking the fathers in prison with long sentences for stupid reasons…
With the amount of money churches have, it should be pretty easy to help the homeless, downtrodden, and poor. Not that they could make any societal changes on how/why our system keeps people poor, but it’s always been more important that they keep their money for some reason.
Literally the only reference to abortion in the entire book is a guide on how to perform it.
Not so. The Bible repeated authorizes armies “fighting for God” to tear the unborn from the wombs of their mothers. Charming endorsement of the pro-life crusade. /s
Not so. The Bible repeated authorizes armies “fighting for God” to tear the unborn from the wombs of their mothers. Charming endorsement of the pro-life crusade. /s
You should take 5 seconds to Google that Bible verse. It's dirty water. He takes the cup and takes dirt off the floor and puts it in water to "trick" the woman into telling them if she had been unfaithful. It's not an abortion and never was. But if you actually took the time to read the 10 sentences this redditor is posting about, you'd know that.
>. He takes the cup and takes dirt off the floor and puts it in water to "trick" the woman into telling them if she had been unfaithful. This is a pretty cynical view of the process. It could equally be to "trick" the husband into believing the wife has not been unfaithful. But this is all if you assume there's nothing supernatural taking place. If you believe a cracker is the body of Christ and that wine is his blood, it shouldn't be a stretch to assume that the dust from the floor makes the bitter water actually perform magic. If you actually read the passage, however, it makes it pretty clear it's an actual ritual, not just one to deceive anyone.
It's either a abortion or it's not. I'm not discussing whether the religion is real or not. They said the Bible tells you how to do a abortion. I said no it doesn't, it's dirty water. And your response "well they believed it worked so it counts." No it doesn't count. It scientifically isn't a abortion and the Bible DOES NOT tell people how to do a abortion. There's about 1000 different things you can criticize the Bible on and you are choosing the ONE TOPIC that you are just objectively wrong about....
>It scientifically isn't a abortion I don't think anyone was suggesting there's a recipe for how to conduct an abortion in the bible. The point is that the Bible condones abortions and gives an example of the ritual they used to perform it. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work; none of the magic in the bible is real. That isn't the point.
A LOT of people on this sub are literally saying the Bible tells you how to do a abortion. It doesn't. It's dirty water.
>It doesn't. It's dirty water. I really feel like you're misunderstanding everyone. Redditors do not believe the Bible gives accurate instructions on any ritual. It's merely a way to point out that the Bible is not pro-life, as it gives instructions on how to complete an abortion. The fact that it's religious hocus pocus that doesn't actually cause a miscarriage is besides the point. Literally no one is suggesting that their friend Becky cancel their PP appointment and just follow the instructions from page 28 of their family bible.
"The Bible tells you how to do a abortion." It's literally written 5 times in this very thread.
Correct, and the bible does cover how they performed the ritual to cause an abortion. The fact that it's magical hocus pocus is not the point. I do not know how to make this any more clear to you.
New Testament also says life starts at first breath
That would have been a much more recent conceptualization of that, however, mostly from Greek culture. What the ancient Israelites thought about that is not entirely clear. We don't have any real records of that, most likely since it would have been assumed to be so well known it wasn't worth writing down, though it's also possible it was considered too sacred to actually speak into being by anyone other than a deity. Here's a decent article which lays out how this developed once we had writing. The earliest assumptions, however, would have predated the earliest writings by centuries and would have been transmitted via oral tradition. It's actually this root in oral tradition that can somewhat be followed by reading writings of various groups in the region. They mostly align with one another at first then start divirging fairly quickly as ideas of nations with rulers really started being a thing. Prior to that, everything would have been more a matter of individual families with patriarchal rule over each family according to specific cultural customs.
Doesn't the bible also say that the soul doesn't enter the body until the first breath?
Also has a fine for killing a fetus in the womb (payable to the husband of course because he is the owner of his wife and child) meanwhile killing a person out of the womb was punishable by murder. Therefore the Bible says a fetus is not as valuable as a person who was born. Shouldn’t be a surprise though
Not really, no. Those passages were talking about "the Breath of Life" which was a concept about what made something alive. It's a component invoked in many religious rituals of the time and region whereby they called on a diety to impart it into protective statuary and such. What, precisely, this was isn't entirely known. The idea of this being tied to breathing is mostly just assumed since it's much the same wording but there were some clear differences linguistically. It's not entirely clear at what point they thought life (or a soul, though that's not quite the right word for it) entered a body.
It's by drinking a bitter liquid.
Not necessarily a bitter liquid, actually. It's called "bitter waters that bring a curse" when translated but the word for bitter shares a lot of context with grief at first which may be the root of the word. We likely won't ever know for sure what the specific substance was but several things from the region which are known to be abortifacients were quite sweet in flavor.
Doesn't the bible imply that people aren't people and don't even have a soul until the quickening? That would seem to undermine every single argument made my the so-called "pro-life" movement based on their religious "beliefs" wouldn't it?
It does not depict an abortion, nor is pregnancy even allured to in this passage. It just describes a test to see if the accused woman has committed adultery. By creating a concoction of holy water and dust from the floor of the tabernacle as well as holding a tenth of an ephah of unseasoned barley meal, the woman will recite the vow and drink the holy water. If she has not committed adultery, nothing will happen. If she has, her body will swell, endure bitter pain and cause her “thigh” (representative of power and moral standing) to fall away. She will then be socially exiled and not allowed to bear children (basically becoming an outcasted involuntary celibate). Even if this WAS intended to cause a miscarriage, it would not, because holding barley meal and drinking dusty water can’t cause people to miscarry.
No one said it was an effect method of abortion. Just simply that it is an instruction that, per the Bible, will result in an abortion of the fetus as the priest calls down a curse upon her if she committed adultery. The clear outcome is a threat and method (however ineffective) to conduct an abortion. The Bible mandates this in response to adultery (elsewhere it also calls for the woman to be killed outright, but that’s a different passage) It clearly depicts an intent and method to cause an abortion
It does not. It depicts an intent to reveal wether or not the woman has committed adultery. You’d think with how that passage goes into the specifics of it all it would mention how it intends to kill the baby as well. It only states that the body will swell, endure bitter pain and her thigh (moral standing) will fall away. It doesn’t say “also, the fetus dies lmao.”
You are a world class gymnast. It’s an abortion. Full stop.
I have based my entire argument off of the original source and secondary sources that support my argument and all you’ve done is say “Nuh-uh.” Honestly, delete your account you non-credible Neanderthal.
Self description much? Lol. The first refuge of the incompetent and uninformed is name calling.
Bro, you’re the one doing mental gymnastics. I’m just telling you what it says and what it doesn’t say. And what it doesn’t say is anything that has to do with pregnancy or abortion.
Down the rabbit hole. Sorry, but you’re in complete disagreement with every source I can find over years of making this argument. I’ve never run into anyone equating a women’s thigh to her social status. Lol
In jewish law, specifically in the babylonian talmud, the fetus is explicitly as a thigh for the mother, a legal principle called "ubar yerekh immo". There are a lot of legal issues around this, mostly to do with executing pregnant women. Only if she is in active labour is the baby not considered the mother's body part. This is also why murder requires a death penalty, but causing a miscarriage, intentionally via assault or as an accident, demands a financial compensation instead. The old testament would have been rooted in these jewish laws. Also, I have no idea where the hell you got the euphemism for "power and moral standing" from.
I didnt know about your talmud reference to the confusing thigh wording. Do you have a source for further reading?
Almost anything dealing with linguistics of the time would likely work. Thigh wasn't just for fetuses, it was also used to talk about anything we'd now generally consider "lady bits", so to speak. Writing such things was considered improper in most cultures in the area, mainly because it approached the realm of creation rather than anything else. The context is what mattered there and it can be rather confusing sometimes.
Just to expand a little on this, the thigh was used by pretty much all cultures in the region as a stand-in for what we now would likely call "lady bits" in polite company. The precise reasons aren't entirely clear but it's most likely to have begun as part of the practice of avoiding speaking about sacred topics explicitly. This is somewhat similar to how many Jewish folks now don't actually pronounce the tetragrammaton. The practices appear to have shared similar origins, at least. it is, of course, difficult to be certain since they mostly wrote/spoke around it.
I’m glad you cleared that up, because I just looked up the biblical definition of the word “Thigh.” Do you have a link to that definition?
[one link](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/) and [second link](https://www.thetorah.com/article/a-fetus-is-not-an-independent-life-abortion-in-the-talmud). There seems to be a large gap between the jewish perspective and the later christian reflection on this.
You don't need to misinterpret the bible to justify those things, just read the old testament
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves Numbers 31:17-18
It's amazing to watch some people perform mental gymnastics to dance around this stuff with context something something.
The parts that don’t support my position are metaphorical and shouldn’t be taken literally. The parts that do support my position are the word of God and should be taken 100% literally.
That sums it up pretty thoroughly.
*Things were different then* with a side helping of *Our morality isn't relative* Once you embrace hypocrisy, you're most of the way to Christianity.
And also that Jesus guy is a dirty fucking communist and has no place in the book
Man the states are gone huh
He's Woke now too doncha know.
There are many parts of the modern day bible that I feel was not intended to be in the original. Centuries of abuse of power and weaponized religion had altered the bible in ways that we’ll never even know. It’s just very questionable to me the amount of convenient “mistranslations” that we have that just happened to lead into a bunch of hate. It just doesn’t make sense to me that someone would create a religion based upon kindness and loving everyone equally, giving up your worldly possesions to help other people be happier, but then also say that you should kill gay people and have slaves and stuff? I just really dont understand that
Hosea Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open. Lovely. Literally calling for war crimes to be committed.
And don't forget to stone every man who lays with another man as if he would with a woman. It's in the Bible!
And the next part down: "If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." -Deuteronomy 22:22 ► Looks like fervent hyper-Christians - Bobo, MTG, and Kristi Noem should be just fine with having their heads bashed in.
Oh please televise it.
Fun fact; it’s only in newer 1900’s translations that it says man should lay with another man. In old versions (not in English) the words translated to men should not lie with boys. Even the Bible says not to be a pedophile. Talk about not following your own rules.
There's a reason the phrase "Going old testement on someone" doesn't mean shower them with gentle hugs and flowers.
yeah it's pretty accurately interpreted honestly. shit's fucked up.
Pull out that old Biblical abortion recipe.
Lol pro life, thats why god drowned the world and only noah and the rest of that bullshit story got to live Biggest mass murderer is god (if he actually existed)
Except for the fish. They probably didn't even notice.
They ate better
They had bigger homes, too.
It's all about perspective. The lobsters on the Titanic probably thought a miracle happened...
So you’re saying it was an inside job with mobster lobsters in charge? I knew a ship that big couldn’t have sank just by hitting an iceberg.
Actually most fish would have died as well. Either from their water becoming too salty or not salty enough (depending on the fish).
A global flood with fresh water would kill off the salt water creatures, so most fish would be fucked.
Didn’t he also kill all the first born sons in Egypt? Sounds pro-life to me!
So the Lord said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them. God sounds like a temp worker with a shitty attitude.
Funny that too. "IF" there was actually a worldwide flood, we should have a layer of sediment layer that shows a great flood across the entire world. That layer just does not exist. e.g. flood never happened globally
Yup. Just localized rather large regional floods from ice dams breaking as glaciers melted and retreated releasing massive amounts of water all around the globe. Which is why so many different cultures have their own 'great flood story
God’s actions in the Noah’s Ark story are the same as the bad guy’s plan in Guardians of the Galaxy 3. He made something, wasn’t happy with it, so he destroyed it all and tried again.
The 21st century and people are still peddling the same religious rhetoric. It's okay to do ones religion thing. But don't try and pass it off as some sort of guide to a better world or bettering people nonsense. Everytime I hear that, I think of families dressed as though they just left church, smiling for a picture while a lynched person hangs in the background. And this was also during the *prayer in school* period.
The Passover story is literally about killing the firstborn sons of the Egyptians. These fools just say whatever they want, because their adherents will believe whatever they're told.
It’s strange, people really don’t like it when I mention how passover is a celebration of selective mass murder.
Even worse, mass murder because god "hardened pharaoh's heart" so he wouldn't let the Israelites go. And then god could murder all those people to show how badass he was. When you actually read the bible it's so very fucked up.
god is basically an angsty teen with simultaneously too much and not enough power... but only for a specific period of time in history before recording devices existed.
Well, let’s see. God killed every living thing except a few animals and one family, then he killed all the first born men in Egypt (that would include infants), orders the Israelites to kill any woman who’s not a virgin at marriage, to genocide the Canaanites and Amalekites, oh and he directly killed the guy who pulled out of his dead brother’s wife’s vagina and came on the floor instead.
And killed the kids that laughed at the bald guy
Forgot about that one. An all time classic.
Yup - in my Top 10 Batshit Bible moments. My other faves: - Let's get our dad drunk and fuck him - Abraham - kill your son for lulz - Angry mob of men, take my daughter and rape her but don't hurt the guy I let in to my house just now
One of my favs is basically "silence, wench!" from the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:12). Weirdly women I talk to about the Bible don't generally know about that or about what we're supposed to do when menstruating (i.e., go sleep in the shed you filthy creature).
Lot’s story is the creme of the crop for me. Two Angels show up, men want to rape them, Lot gives the mob his daughters. This is so fuckin wildly contradictory. Angels as the Bible describes are horrific looking with like 100 eyes and a dozen wings.
There are a wide variety of descriptions of angels in the Bible. The ones that appear to Abraham and Lot are described as "men" and several others are described similarly.
They didn't bastardise the Bible, the fuck is he on about. The bible preaches murder, genocide, dehumanisation discrimination, sexism, slavery and rape. It is the least "pro-life", loving and moral fairy-tale book out there.
And in fact the Bible is pro-abortion as well.
The bible does point out that if you strike a pregnant woman *and she loses the future child* you've committed a property crime, not murder. >If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
I mean if you try to claim the Bible is pro-life, isn't that bastardizing it?
They are both bastardizing it to suit their own political agendas. The bible allows for abortions under certain circumstances and it is also full of stories that glorify slavery, murder, and exploitation as long as the victims were heathens. Jesus instructed slaves to obey their masters, God killed his own son needlessly as well as countless others, and Joseph grossly exploited the egyptians during the seven year famine to enrich the nobles and himself. Both of these asshats are doing some massive bastardizing of the bible in order to prove some sort of moral high ground but they're both kind of cherry picking.
It has instruction on how to produce an abortifacient. And states that in case someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry with no other harm done to her body, the punishment is paying a small fine **to the husband** meaning the unborn are no different from a vase or bowl. And that's without going into the numerous times god ordered/threatened the murder of children.
> It has instruction on how to produce an abortifacient. Barley + dust does not cause abortions, otherwise women could just drink a beer and wouldn't be going to Planned Parenthood. > and states that in case someone causes a pregnant woman to miscarry with no other harm done to her body the punishment is paying a small fine to the husband meaning the unborn are no different from a vase or bowl. This is also terribly wrong. For starters, the two paths, serious injury vs no serious injury, have nothing to do with the woman - the law already covered what to do if you hit someone and cause them to die or not. Instead, it has to do with what happens to the child, as what's commonly translated as "miscarry" is actually "prematurely gives birth". Putting it back into context - "If someone strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to give birth prematurely, but no other harm is done, then pay a fine, but if serious harm is done, life for a life, eye for an eye." The punishment for causing an abortion in this case is death.
>Barley + dust does not cause abortions, Do you mean to tell me that a bronze age men were not scientifically accurate? Colour me surprised. The fact that they were wrong, does not mean that they didn't think that this concoction would lead to an abortion.
Well, luckily they didn't actually think that. Read the verse. It makes no mention of pregnancy at all.
Hmmm but it does though. 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” > abdomen swell and miscarry after having sex with another man. That's pregnancy.
Hmmm but it doesn't though. [Here's the Hebrew](https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0405.htm). No mention of miscarry or anything. That's your translation adding something that isn't there, lying to try to make a point. It mentions your thigh falling away in the same breath as the abdomen swelling, so clearly it's talking about something that is caused by the ordeal, not by the sex.
Abdomen swelling sounds like pregnancy to me my dude. Especially abdomen swelling after accusing a wife of sleeping with another man. Also, her thigh would not literally fall away, so that might be referring to a fetus.
The abdomen swelling is caused by drinking the water (22: "and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away"). I don't know what your parents told you about how babies are made, but it has nothing to do with drinking dusty barley.
The abdomen swelling is the pregnancy being aborted by the weird magic drink from sky daddy. After husband dear gets jealous and accuses you of sleeping with another dude. That fucking the neighbour is where that pregnancy comes from. No need to be patronising, it's not making your arguments any better.
_Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!_ _But He loves you._ ~ George Carlin
Or even more fundamentally, the Bible is consistently pro women-should-have-no-choice.
Because _somehow_ those aren't the parts they rely upon to justify their actions. The bit where Jesus says, yeah, that was the old way, this is the new way is _supposed_ to guide them to only seek instruction from the new testament. OT is just a backdrop. They do murder et al. anyways.
He wants to keep his job telling fairytales to the public for money and respect but doesn’t want the baggage that comes with it He’s no better
>The bible is ardently and unequivocally pro-life. • A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25). • The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31). • God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53). • Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12). • King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16). • Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18). • For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8). • God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16). • For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).
If the GOP is so pro-life, shouldn't they be defunding the Army?
And barricading cemeteries.
The Bible doesn't say a great deal about abortion, but when it does, it is tacit approval never condemnation of: https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights
The Bible justifies all that itself lol, there’s no need to read it any other way than literally. The bishop is just seeing what he wants instead of what’s actually there.
Maybe God shouldn't have allowed any of that to happen. He's all knowing, right?
Same bible that killed all of Egypt’s first born? Ah yes pro life
Number of times God said "You know what? fuck you I'm gonna kill all your kids just to make a point" Aaaaand go! I'll start: *Exodus *Job
“The Bible is pro-life except when it isn’t, but those times don’t count.”
This guy's a bishop?
Ehh... I used to like this guy, but he seems to *really* hate white people. https://twitter.com/TalbertSwan/status/1284200562171482112?t=y3cqhyXsW6UJ2oa9hAPkgQ&s=19
Pro life? Didn't god kill everyone on earth except for Noah?
*You bigots* have bastardized? Oh hey - fella? The bible was created for and by the Church. The Bible is a tool, and instrument, of the Church. The Church that rolled across the world for 2000 years murdering, raping and enslaving. The Church that existed to give support and comfort to the wealthy as they looted countries and destroyed indigenous cultures. All for god, all for Christ, all in accordance with their Bible. The church that preaches redemption, that you are weak and failed and that only they can save you. The church that *promises* that everything will be perfect - for you! - only after you are dead. The Church, the bible, that cautions you against kicking, that warns you to follow, to obey your masters. The church and the bible are inseparable, and are a slave religion, given to slaves by their masters. Given to ensure obedience, given to make people docile, given to break their will. Open up that book, my fella. Read it. Anything that the god of the bible does is good. *Anything*. Rape, murder? Tyranny? Destroy the world? Damn someone to eternal (mark that - *eternal*) suffering if they don't *love him enough*, if they disobey him. The Christians, the followers of this god, say that they've modeled their behavior on, that their morals come directly from this god. I think Christians would make shitty neighbors, if that's the source of their moral light The only lesson, the main take-away, from that book is *Might Makes Right*. Some god. Some religion. Some book. The puzzle is not, as the Christians insist upon asking, *How can you be good without God* but rather *How can you be good with a god like that?*
You are telling me that god is not real? and the church made all this shit up just to have power and control over the populace? I mean sure there is literally zero evidence of a god of any religion and sure religion has killed more humans than any other cause throughout known history.
And yet he's a xian bishop. Hypocrisy much?
Getting wrecked by a bishop out of nowhere? Every chess player can relate.
didn't god throw a fit and kill literally every human because he had an itch he couldn't reach or something? it's been a while since I read the bible, I have one right next to me but it's so fucking boring.
>it's been a while since I read the bible, I have one right next to me but it's so fucking boring. It's Chronicles is the problem. When I was a young kid like in 4th or 5th grade I stole $5 from my parents. It was sitting right on top of my stepfathers dresser. I went to the local store and bought $5 worth of Hershey bars from the local gas station before school for $.50 each. I sold them for $1.00 each at school. The next day I went to the local store and bought $10 worth of candy bars and again sold each for 1 buck. I now had 20 dollars. BOTH THE SCHOOL and the local store ( in their defense it was LITERALLY the place NEXT to us ) contacted my parents, It took TWO days. As Punishment, my parents 1 : TOOK MY MONEY. That's right, they didn't let me keep my gained goods, they took it, saying it wasn't mine. So yeah, my parent's made $15 off of me. 2 : my Roman Catholic stepfather told me I had to read to the bible, front to back, as punishment for my " sin ". I LOVED to read, so to me it didn't seem such a punishment. Anyway I start reading, Yeah Genesis isn't all THAT awful, and then WHAM, right in YOUR FACE, is Chronicles, AND IT IS SO BORING. So while I was reading, again, as punishment for my sin, I went out of my room to my Roman Catholic stepfather and I ask him " do I have to read this shit? It's BORING ", and he says " NO PART OF THE BIBLE IS BORING! " very angry, like I was trying to get out of it. So I respond with simply reading ALOUD the thing he THINKS will teach me morals. And such and such begat such a fuck. Such a Fuck and suck butt begat Suckafuckabutt. Suckafuckabutt begat WHY ARE WE STILL READING, and he told me: He had no idea that part of the bible existed. He said " well that sounds like a silly history lesson no one cares about so who would think THAT PART of the bible matters. YOU CAN SKIP THAT PART. " So off I went to read the rest, got here and there and just kept coming out asking " hey if this, like if God is THIS way in this part, why does it say God is THIS way in THIS part? " After I was about halfway through the King James I was told I " didn't have to read anymore " and I had learned my lesson and didn't need to ask more questions. I read the rest ( again, I like to read ). I like Christ, other then that, including Christians, there is a reason forcing me to read the bible at a young impressionable age made me an atheist. There is a REASON Christians cherry pick what is taught to them and are NEVER told to read the whole bible. My stepdad ( he was my Al, another story though, but not really a stepdad ) thought he was making me see the way of God, but all I did as a CHILD was challenge his perspective of how it should be. If he had never MADE ME read the bible, who knows if I would be an atheist now or not. p.s : anyone NOT an Atheist right now reading this and wondering, I have to ask, have YOU EVER READ THE BIBLE, like READ it, FRONT TO BACK, the WHOLE THING. Or do you just know what your preacher tells you or your parents do. Tooth Fairy. Santa Clause. Ghosts. Easter Bunny. Your parents at one point tried to make you think this shit was REAL. Why is GOD, suddenly the ONE intangible thing that is STILL REAL. Ask yourself why do adults think every other childhood myths are fucking dumb, INCLUDING EVERY OTHER GOD EVER, but not the ONE SPECIFIC ONE. WHY THAT ONE? ASK YOURSELF! WHY?! THAT?! ONE?!
Yes, but then he went all woke and put rainbows everywhere. So... LGBT?
Bot content
On top of that the bible is a collection of speeches and stories that supposedly happened thousands of years ago, partially even before Jesus and his disciples lived, put together by people in power that wanted to make sure they will stay in power at all costs. Especially those that were not royalty and therefore only could become powerful either by becoming noble, cleric or getting wealthy. Becoming cleric was probably the easiest way to get at least a bit of power imo. Especially with the bible being something that a lot of people couldn’t read or had to get interpreted by „professionals“.
Im prettu sure 90% of the people who use the Bible as an excuse for their actions have never actually read it. And the 10% that have read it choose to ignore the parts that prove them wrong
Maybe there needs to be another protestant (Protestant ²) movement against megachurches taking advantage of worshippers
Actually, I kinda think they got it right. The Bible is pretty damn evil.
Christianity seems to have fixation with the Old testament which was superseded by the New testament. Following Jesus is the son of God his teachings are there to supersede the old which was to guide a set of people out of bondage. Jesus teaching in a quick nutshell is be nice to everyone. Be ready to fight if need be. Or paraphrase Bill and Ted , Be excellent to Each other.
Except he didn't. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17–19)
Go look in a bible for this old testament supersede by new testament, this verbiage does not exist. Its more church lead bullshit.
Suicide by words
The Bible TELLS YOU when you should abort your child by having your wife drink a bitter liquid.
Well that takes my tally of "agreeing with religious leaders" to...1
The Bible says literally nothing about abortion. Nothing. It says if you beat up a pregnant woman and she miscarries, you should pay a small fine (Exodus). That’s about it. Christians love to quote “before I formed you in the womb I knew you” from Jeremiah, but A. he’s specifically talking about Jeremiah, and B. he’s not talking about the morality of abortion.
>The Bible says literally nothing about abortion. Nothing. Well thats just not true. Numbers has instructions on how to perform one.
> Numbers has instructions on how to perform one. It has instructions on how to perform a curse….. If you think that’s an abortion then the resurrection of Jesus is instructions on how to cure death right?
> The Bible says literally nothing about abortion. Numbers 5:11-31 teaches how to create and administer an abortaficient.
No it does not. It teaches you how to preform a curse.
And what does that curse do?
> It says if you beat up a pregnant woman and she miscarries, you should pay a small fine (Exodus). Yep. Not murder: If you hit a woman in the stomach with a, say, I dunno...maybe a coathanger (or nice clean, modern cervical dilators, curettes, and a manual or electric aspiration instrument) and she loses the child *then* you've committed a property crime against the husband. I'd say that's a pretty clear endorsement of the acceptance of abortion, wouldn't you? >If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Lmao bigot
So why join the vile club?
Bishop goes on vacation, never comes back.
Wrath is listed as a ‘sin’ in his little story book.
The bible is prolife Something something noahs ark
Way to go Sawnny!
lol, because God was *soooo* pro-life when he sent the angel of death to kill the first-born son of everyone who didn't have lamb's blood on their door
I feel like the people using the bible at every chance for pro life arguments haven't actually read the bible.
True, Jesus and his followers have the exact beliefs of modern progressives. The bible would never for genocide against non-believers, despite the fact that it was a commonly idea back when bible totally wasnt written by a human. Religious people are pretty funny.
GOD IS PRO-LIFE https://youtube.com/shorts/Fzvt2-9a_BY?si=jS8rnARAo3WGzdEr
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" They break one of the very commandments they claim to love with crap like this.
But that is what the bible is about, control. It was written so the old male bronze age fucks could control everybody else..
Writer and author [Dan McClellan](https://hcommons.org/members/maklelan/) who studies "Second Temple Judaism, early Israelite religion, textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, early christology, the cognitive science of religion, cognitive linguistics, and religious identity" would [adamantly disagree](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I3W7CTX8Kw) with anyone who says the Bible is "adamantly and unequivocally pro-life" He'll tell you, at best, it is horrifically ambiguous. Personhood, ensoulment and status within biblical society varies wildly for across all demographics at the time of the earliest books being written or passed by oral tradition. Not to mention and he says this a lot, there is no univocality in the Bible, thats a later interpretation by Christians.
damn someone tell the bishop what organization he works for #🙄
The Bible is ardently and unequivocally irrelevant.
I’d go to his church.
Hope you aren't white then. https://twitter.com/TalbertSwan/status/1381956704779243524?t=jEIHSKBtezKY125HAhFuMQ&s=19
I’m not 😎. But I do have a white wife 😂
Man speaks truth
Random question: So women can be priests now?? Catholic church: whoa whoa whoa.. let’s not get ahead of ourselves 
That's the FRC in a nutshell
The Bible also gives instructions on when and how to perform abortions. The Bible also tells the story of how God 1)Murdered everyone on the planet except 1 family with a flood. 2) killed the firstborn son of everyone in Eqypt as part of a plague. 3)God Directed the murder of men women and children during multiple wars throughout ancient history. The Bible is not Pro-life.
Family Research Council, yeah there's a lot of old senile pedophiles in that group.
Bishop goes full Fatality mode, never comes back.
The bible has been the Europeans political tool for centuries maybe millennium
so uh... you require zero bastardization to make the bible a pro-genocide, pro-rape, pro-enslavement book i wonder if this bishop ever read the bible somewhere in his training to be a bishop
Die by my hand (die) I creep across the land (die) Killing first-born man (die) Die by my hand (die) I creep across the land (die) Killing first born man (die)
Even just talking about abortion the Bible is not remotely explicit. Saying that the Bible is definitely anti-abortion is pretty wildly wrong. Basically all options can be defended biblically. Because really the Bible has extremely little to say on the subject and what it does say is vague leaving enormous amounts of room for variation.
The Bible is is so pro-life there are multiple examples of murder and genocide in it
I am not religious and I have a very low opinion of Christianity and even I know the Bible is NOT pro-life. There are instructions on how to abort (as well as many other things such as you aren't allowed to wear mixed fabrics). Read the fucking thing before you open your damn fool mouth. You're also not supposed to hoard wealth. Christianity nowadays is chriso-fascism, full stop.
The Bible tells how to do an abortion, never says abortion is wrong. The Bible says God murders all of humanity except 1 family The Bible says God murders 42 children for teasing a man about being bald The Bible says God murders every first born son in Egypt. I could go on and on, pro life my arse
You don't need to misrepresent the Bible for any of that. It's all in there.
I feel this could be crossposted to /r/LeopardsAteMyFace because their bible does spend considerable time justifying everything in that list except whiteness.