Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

Good luck finding it unless you know exactly what you're looking for: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water

Gee, what exactly IS bitter water that a woman accused of Adultery drinks that "causes the Curse to overcome her"?

It's a fucking morning after pill, at a minimum.

The Bible supports Abortion. Make 'em read it and watch them squirm.

Sorry gotta respond to this one.  That passage is not in any way shape or form "support" for abortion.  That passage is prescribing abortion as a punishment.  In that culture, having children was a sign of blessing and success.  So denying children there was basically an economic and social punishment for people doing something they knew they shouldn't be doing.

The takeaway from that passage should unequivocally NOT be "oh if you don't want a kid, or having a kid is dangerous, have an abortion". It's also not even "oh, if people sin you can force them to have an abortion."  The takeaway from that passage is "sin is terrible, and has consequences not just for the individual, but on the entire society."  Many church leaders - US ones in particular - have sadly insufficient education on scholarly interpretation of both OT an NT scriptures - the most basic of which is "understand the type of literature and its context."

So yes, some of us do know our Bibles.

[Frumple]

Like. Prescribing abortion as a punishment is still explicitly prescribing abortion, and even meting out a specific circumstance when it should be attempted, and not only should be attempted but should be attempted with the full power and authority of literally God behind it.

That is 110% (the extra 10% is the explicit and literal divine mandate, here) support for abortion -- that it's support for it as an act of cruelty doesn't change that it is, in fact, support.

[dragdeler]

The bronze age short story collection enables us to only know one thing with certitude: who's a mark.

[Strongpoint]

Good luck finding it unless you know exactly what you're looking for: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water

Gee, what exactly IS bitter water that a woman accused of Adultery drinks that "causes the Curse to overcome her"?

It's a fucking morning after pill, at a minimum.

The Bible supports Abortion. Make 'em read it and watch them squirm.

Sorry gotta respond to this one.  That passage is not in any way shape or form "support" for abortion.  That passage is prescribing abortion as a punishment.  In that culture, having children was a sign of blessing and success.  So denying children there was basically an economic and social punishment for people doing something they knew they shouldn't be doing.

The takeaway from that passage should unequivocally NOT be "oh if you don't want a kid, or having a kid is dangerous, have an abortion". It's also not even "oh, if people sin you can force them to have an abortion."  The takeaway from that passage is "sin is terrible, and has consequences not just for the individual, but on the entire society."  Many church leaders - US ones in particular - have sadly insufficient education on scholarly interpretation of both OT an NT scriptures - the most basic of which is "understand the type of literature and its context."

So yes, some of us do know our Bibles.

The main idea of the "pro-life" crowd is that abortion is murder. Reading Numbers 5, you need to either give up that abortion is murder OR admit that it advocates for murdering a child for the wrongdoing of the mother.

[McTraveller]

Like. Prescribing abortion as a punishment is still explicitly prescribing abortion, and even meting out a specific circumstance when it should be attempted, and not only should be attempted but should be attempted with the full power and authority of literally God behind it.

That is 110% (the extra 10% is the explicit and literal divine mandate, here) support for abortion -- that it's support for it as an act of cruelty doesn't change that it is, in fact, support.

This is borderline on the type of discussion which indicate we don't even have a common agreement on what the word "support" means.  This isn't "support", this is use of a terrible thing in one very particular circumstance.

I think this is a particularly common logical error in modern (e.g., post-internet) discourse: over-generalization.  People will take one instance of something and assume that it therefore is making a universal statement, which is often not the case.

I mean if you go that route, you might as well say that the Bible supports biosphere destruction because God flooded the earth (maybe that's why some people don't care about climate change? I wish that was sarcastic...).

[Lidku]

What the Bible supports or does not support shouldn't be influencing policy of a supposedly "secular" nation.

[dragdeler]

This is borderline on the type of discussion which indicate we don't even have a common agreement on what the word "support" means.  This isn't "support", this is use of a terrible thing in one very particular circumstance.

I think this is a particularly common logical error in modern (e.g., post-internet) discourse: over-generalization.  People will take one instance of something and assume that it therefore is making a universal statement, which is often not the case.

I mean if you go that route, you might as well say that the Bible supports biosphere destruction because God flooded the earth (maybe that's why some people don't care about climate change? I wish that was sarcastic...).

Denied parts strikenthrough.

On the deluge: I think it's fair to say the bible supports god's actions, for the very least according to the bible god sure seems to be full of himself and not the self doubting kind... And evenso one could theoretically describe the inevitability of something  without expressing support.

[Frumple]

This is borderline on the type of discussion which indicate we don't even have a common agreement on what the word "support" means.  This isn't "support", this is use of a terrible thing in one very particular circumstance.

I think this is a particularly common logical error in modern (e.g., post-internet) discourse: over-generalization.  People will take one instance of something and assume that it therefore is making a universal statement, which is often not the case.

I mean if you go that route, you might as well say that the Bible supports biosphere destruction because God flooded the earth (maybe that's why some people don't care about climate change? I wish that was sarcastic...).

I've seen the flood brought up in conversations about why god doesn't care if we destroy the environment, yes, though there's other arguments on that front that come up much more often. All the divinely mandated murder and destruction and rape and whatnot have pretty regularly come up as arguments for why that kind of horseshit is okay when the right people do it, too, and as far as I'm aware it's shit that predates modern discourse by centuries, so trying to blame it on something recent is just... not accurate. It's an old sickness, not a new one.

But yes, when you use some terrible thing in a specific circumstance (note though that your "specific circumstance" here is "adultery", which stateside currently has the rates at about 1 in 5 for men and around 1 in 7 for women, which is to say it's extremely not specific and would entail very widespread usage), you are, in fact, supporting its use. Limited support is still support.

Pointedly, it would put scriptural support for abortion at a significantly higher rate than we're seeing from people claiming to be christian and in a circumstance they're not even remotely thinking about or trying to legislate on. Or in other words, the shit we're seeing from american religious extremists (you can note that down as anyone happy the activist judges on the SCOTUS just pissed all over every disagreeing religion in the country) have very, very little to do with what religion they're claiming.

What the Bible supports or does not support shouldn't be influencing policy of a supposedly "secular" nation.

I mean, it shouldn't, but this entire pile of horseshit is substantively (though not nearly entirely, it being more the manufactured excuse than the actual reason) due to american church propaganda trying (and in this case, succeeding to some degree) to dictate secular policy.

[Dunamisdeos]

I'm sure religious beliefs have a strong influence on that too.  I can easily see how many Christian women would oppose it despite it stripping them of an option they'd otherwise have.

... or in other words, church supported views are absolutely involved, but calling it a religious thing is more questionable. It's a 110% an issue with the secular side of american religious organization and its overall political inclinations, but the scriptural side of it hella' more shaky. If you wanted to separate the that shit out, you absolutely could.

Basically this. The closest it comes are the verses about how God knew you before you were born, or had a destiny in mind for various individuals, which is a statement more about the divine omniscience of God than anything relating to birth in context.
 
For myself, I still believe that human life has value before it is born, but that doesn't mean I support the repeal. We need real federal laws that regulate abortion as a medical procedure, not no laws.

[MaxTheFox]

The Bible actually says nothing about life beginning at conception, that's a red herring spread by the right-wing. I have flipped almost fully pro-choice in light of recent events and I do not feel that inherently contradicts my faith.

[MorleyDev]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only difference between the extremists of any of the Abrahamic religions is dress sense.

[Lord Shonus]

You know what would have done plenty to prevent this from happening? Not going "Both parties are the same, don't bother voting!".

We. Would. Not. Be. Here. If. Hillary. Won.

Probably true, but we certainly wouldn't be in this position if the Dems hadn't posted up their establishment choice over Sanders. Twice.

Both Hillary and Biden lost votes - a lot of them - for being "too far left". Sanders is significantly further left than either.

Trump would have obliterated Sanders in both elections.

[Strongpoint]

What the Bible supports or does not support shouldn't be influencing policy of a supposedly "secular" nation.

A secular nation is an illusion. As long as organized religions exist they will be involved in politics. And if you don't bother them... They'll grow stronger, bolder and will attack your beloved secularism.

[Vector]

As I mentioned earlier, that passage being in the concurrence rather than the main decision means that even the conservative wing doesn't back him on that. Otherwise it would be in the main ruling.

I don't think this is accurate. In my experience they often float this kind of thing in order to do the following:

1. Energize the fascist wing of the party by promising them more red meat

2. Make a vibe check. "How 'bout some more extremism America? You're not too mad about those homos getting their comeup? OK!! Let's go! Moar dakka boiz!"

And if people hate it, then they can be like "LOL that was just Justice Clare-bear." But so far, people aren't that pissed, because gays are icky and nasty, uwu!

[Micro102]

The Bible actually says nothing about life beginning at conception, that's a red herring spread by the right-wing. I have flipped almost fully pro-choice in light of recent events and I do not feel that inherently contradicts my faith.

Not only that, but it specifically instructs that the lives of fetuses are worth less than the lives of the mother. beat a pregnant woman and the fetus dies? Pay money. Beat a pregnant woman and she dies? Death sentence.

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

You know what would have done plenty to prevent this from happening? Not going "Both parties are the same, don't bother voting!".

We. Would. Not. Be. Here. If. Hillary. Won.

Probably true, but we certainly wouldn't be in this position if the Dems hadn't posted up their establishment choice over Sanders. Twice.

Both Hillary and Biden lost votes - a lot of them - for being "too far left". Sanders is significantly further left than either.

Trump would have obliterated Sanders in both elections.

I've rarely heard that. Anyone I've heard say they wouldn't vote for Bernie because he is left, also said he is a communist, and they also called Biden a communist. I have however heard a lot of people like both Bernie and Trump because they weren't the establishment. I think Bernie would have won