I wouldn’t consider myself a religious person. At least not in the traditional sense. But I do have a pretty good understanding of what the Lord accepts and doesn’t accept. We all have our interpretations of ‘The Good Book’. Some seem pretty straight and narrow, some a little confusing or lenient, and others… yikes.
Recently I got wrapped up in a discussion by an individual after reading comments on a Youtube video from TYT (The Young Turks). The video was an ‘on the streets’ question type clip where the interviewer asked Trump supporters their view on abortion. Some had pretty decent takes, some had outlandish ideas.
I read a comment then after the video that claimed God condones abortions. I of course knew this was false and had to comment. I wasn’t gonna let this slide. I don’t really care what your view on abortion is. After all, that is your take on the issue itself. But when you make a claim that the Bible provides instructions on an abortion, you just gotta take it with a grain of salt. Perhaps a whole container.
(I will be commenting on the discussion in the italicized font bringing up mistakes both parties made including myself and other thoughts I have. Also, I will be posting the usernames of these individuals which wouldn’t be wrong because, first off, you need to reference them if you choose to do so and Youtube is a public platform so fair-use is in play. I don’t support harassment.)
Here’s the video link so you know I’m not spewing garbage and can reference my writing.
And this is where it begins.
Does God support abortion?
The Bible is not anti abortion. It in fact gives directions on how to perform one if the wife is unfaithful. It also clearly takes the position that a fetus is considered property worth five pence and owned by the father. It makes a distinction between killing a person and ending a pregnancy. These people need to read their bibles and stop adding stuff that doesn’t exist.
Obviously that is a false statement. Anyone can come to the conclusion that the Bible does not support abortion, otherwise why would the following faith not support abortion then? Makes no sense.
And the claim of a “fetus is considered property worth five pence and owned by the father.” is just a dandy of a claim because that is also half-true. A fetus isn’t and was never considered “property worth five pence''. The only passages that I could find that uses the apparent idea of a child’s “worth” is that they/we are created in the image of God and are a reward of him. These passages can be found in the books of Mark, Matthew, Psalms and Proverbs. But in their defense there is an instance in which the bible does make a claim when a pregnant woman is attacked and the child dies the attacker will pay a fine by the wishes of the father which honestly could be just 5 pence, but I highly doubt such an occurrence took place.
Numbers 5: 11-31.
This would be the passage that the original poster was commenting on. Numbers 5: 11-31 is talking about the test for suspected adultery (that would be corresponding to a wife cheating). Basically to sum up the story in short, if a husband suspects his wife to be cheating he shall be obliged to bring her to a priest and have a test performed by God. The test consists of the wife to intake a bitter concoction of holy water, barley and dust that shall bring a curse by God upon her with a swollen belly and a uterine prolapse (falling uterus in layman terms) if she is found guilty of cheating. If she is not found guilty she’ll be immune.
It actually didn't matter if she was unfaithful or not. If he felt she was which mean he could also be aborting his own child. It's was completely based on the man jealousy, no facts mattered in that case either
Actually it does matter if the wife was unfaithful or not. Let’s take the word “abortion” out of Chasity’s comment because, well, it’s not in the story (you see later on). If the wife was guilty of adultery, the curse would be placed. If not, then the curse has no effect. The husband’s feeling of jealousy has no role in the outcome of the test and only would the curse take place if the wife did cheat. God makes the determination of that.
@Kurt L You haven't read the Bible, have you. I'm guessing your referring to Numbers 5: 11-31 which is just a procedure done to see if the wife has committed adultery, not to perform an abortion.
And the other portion of your comment being the cost of 5 for two sparrows- which is Matthew 29:5 I believe- is not what it means. It is simply, in what I understand of the passage, the Father (God) knows every life and knows when a life has fallen. That explanation and passage follows along with Mathew 5: 3-12.
This is my first mistake. You’ll see later on in the discussion.
@AaronTheRocker you got the numbers part right but you left out the part where if she had cheated the fetus would be aborted. You can’t honestly say that god is against abortion in this scenario when god directs actions that would cause an abortion under specific circumstances. The rest you got wrong. I don’t remember the passage (although I could track it down). I’m referencing a passage where the punishment for attacking a pregnant woman is outlined. If the fetus dies in the attack the attacker must pay the father five shackles but if the mother dies the attacker is put to death. A clear declaration about how god views a fetus vs how god views a born person. Looks like you need to read the Bible and without turning yourself into a pretzel to make it say what you want.
Again, nowhere in the story does it mention abortion. Certainly not in the book of Numbers.
I got the wrong passage for his second portion of the comment. I thought he was talking about Matthew with the sparrows costing 2 pennies, but turns out Kurt was referencing Exodus 22. That scripture tells about the punishment of a man fighting and hurting a pregnant woman with intention. Although in Kurt’s explanation I see nowhere in Exodus 22 or anywhere in the Bible matter of fact the worth of a child/fetus is worth 5 “shackles” (I’m pretty sure Kurt meant ‘sheckles’).
@Chasity Cooper yes, you are correct. How anyone could read this and not conclude that the god of the Bible condones abortion in at least one scenario is beyond me.
No, Chasity is not correct. To conclude the Lord supports intentional selfish abortion is beyond me and the Bible.
@Kurt L. Yep, that is in there too but conveniently those parts always seem to get overlooked... Strange right? *emoji of side smirk*
Again, to conclude the Lord supports intentional selfish abortion is beyond me and the Bible. Also, which "parts" are being "overlooked"? They don't seem to have the passage or quote on hand.
@Kurt L. alright, for the Numbers passage nowhere does it mention abortion in of itself and makes a distinction between who makes the miscarriage. The death of the unborn is not in the hands of man, but in the hands of God. It is a test of adultery- as we already know- but not the advocation of intentional abortion (I should have clarified that part- the intentional act). As we know of the Bible, God has authority over the universe including life. If the woman's stomach swells from the concoction given she is guilty of cheating and is punished with a curse of not bearing children by God.
Numbers 5: 21 NASB "so shall the priest adjure the woman with this imprecation- "may the Lord make you a curse and maldiction among your people by causing your uterus to fall and your belly swell!".
God takes control. Not man.
The other portion (the one I made the wrong connection with) is in Exodus 22 being a fight between man, it implied that injury to a pregnant woman that causes miscarriage shall pay a fine by the wishes of the husband and if the death of the woman occurs the attacker pays his life.
So there is a difference in view of life between the unborn and born, but still it does not advocate for abortion let alone speak of abortion.
This is where my second mistake takes place. First sentence just destory’s my own reasoning because of one word..
“alright, for the Numbers passage nowhere does it mention abortion in of itself and makes a distinction between who makes the miscarriage.”
“And” is the wrong word to use because the story has no mentioning of an abortion OR the distinction between who makes the miscarriage.
A grammatical error that could have and would have ended my argument.
Yes, you did read that last sentence right from my post. There is a difference in the immediate value of an unborn child and a birthed child, but it does not say in the Bible that murder of a child in the womb is an okay action.
@Kurt L. I understand what you mean by the idea that God is [edited in quotation] "not 'anti-abortion". The thing though is that God punishes sinners and the punishment shall be whatever God wishes.
Like in Proverbs, we must fear the Lord. That means the good and the bad.
In all honesty I did see where Kurt was coming from along with other people who may believe in such. First time I read it I saw the portion of a swollen belly and fallen uterus and came to the conclusion that the wife was pregnant. But after reading it a second time I saw yet another mistake I made glaring at me which will be mentioned later on in the conversation.
@AaronTheRocker demonstrate that your god even exists and then we’ll talk. Frankly the god of the Bible is such an immoral monster I would never worship it but the fact that you have no rational justification to believe it exists is a bigger issue. And trying to take away other people’s free will is even bigger. If you truly believe your god is all knowing and has a plan why would you try and stop it? This makes no sense. From your perspective god gave us free will and here you are trying to take it away. The word hubris comes to mind.
@AaronTheRocker miscarriage: the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. When you intentionally cause a miscarriage it is called an abortion. Also the mixture given to the woman would be the cause of the abortion in this story but either way god is condoning the entire procedure. I have now found a second passage where causing the death of a fetus is punished by paying the father money and it stipulates that if the mother is injured or killed the punishment will be eye for eye, life for life. Why can’t you just be honest?
See that subject change and trap in the first statement? The “prove your god exists”. I fell for that. I recognized it, but still like a fish who was released from the hook I was baited back by the worm. I made a short spiel for the case of God existing.
For the rest of his comment and second post I referred to all of it as you will see in the next passage and I have to say, it is a long response.
@Kurt L. “Demonstrate that your god even exists and then we’ll talk.”
Ah yes, the classic ‘prove your god exists’ counter. How about this, prove God doesn’t exist and then we’ll talk. Golly would you look at that. Seems to be parallel statements, but I guess mine is a bad take because I believe in something you don’t.
When you say that last statement I quoted you on with “...but the fact that you have no rational justification to believe it exists is a bigger issue.” is worse because you’re assuming I have no justification, let alone a probable case for their being a God. I didn’t even have a chance to make a reasoning.
I may not be able to change your view on God existing, but my thought process is that there was and is an ultimate creator. A being that crafted all there is to be. And I believe that being is a single God- one who created the boundaries of reality. One that designed existence and it’s purpose.
“And trying to take away other people’s free will…”. When did I say or want to take away free will? I’ll answer that for you. Never. You don’t even know my take on abortion in a political sense or free will. My take on free will is that an individual may do whatever they desire, but be ready to face and understand the consequences. I believe in free will that follows rules. Such as stealing is wrong and there is punishment. Surely you’ll agree with me on such stance.
“If you truly believe your god is all knowing and has a plan why would you try and stop it? This makes no sense.”
Hate to break it to ya, but that statement makes no sense and is a lie. When did I try to stop God’s plan? I don’t even know what’s in store for me for the next hour.
“From your perspective god gave us free will-” I do agree with that, yes, “-and here you are trying to take it away.” now you’ve gone off the deep end.
I’m not taking anything away. Do as you please. I don’t set standards for society. Society sets standards for society (which I believe should be aligned by the rules of the Lord, but letting it be up to the people of each state seems like a good compromise for each side).
Riddle me this. If God is all for free will as you said, why were the ten commandments created by God?
“The word hubris comes to mind.”
Better take a look in the mirror, Kurt.
You defined ‘miscarriage’ somewhat correct. It is a spontaneous loss of a woman’s pregnancy usually because the child isn't developing normally. You then go on to add “When you intentionally cause a miscarriage it is called an abortion.” Yeah, because it was done “intentionally”, just as you said.
The concoction doesn’t perform an abortion. Okay, let’s clear something up. Are we gonna take the words of the Bible itself or are we gonna change the meaning of words and add stuff? Because it doesn’t say abortion or miscarriage anywhere. Not even pregnancy. If you’re referring to the idea of the uterus falling out, that doesn’t necessarily mean there is a child. For the 'belly swelling' part, yeah it seems like she would be having a child, BUT doesn't mention that there is a child. Most likely just a representation of pregnancy as an indicator of guilt. It is simply if the wife has cheated her belly will swell, will have a uterine prolapse and not bear a child.
“...god is condoning the procedure [of abortion].” No, God is not. The Lord is placing punishment on the adulter for her actions as already stated above.
“...causing the death of a fetus is punished by paying the father money…if the mother is injured or killed the punishment will be eye for eye, life for life. Why can’t you just be honest?”
Honest with what? I wrote what you wrote in a previous statement. Even said that there is a difference between the value of an unborn and born. Why can’t you be honest? Why do you twist the words of others?
You can believe what you want to believe just as I can believe what I want to believe. Who is right in the grand scheme of things? I don't know, but you are free to stay on your side of the fence just as I am to stay on my side.
Yeah, long comment, I know. It had to be said though. I didn’t want the allegation of “word twisting” to be charged against me so I quoted his statements that way there is no confusion between “mixing words” and such.
And it doesn’t matter in this context if God is real or not. If we’re debating the word of the Bible then there must be an inclusion of God in the discussion because God is in the Bible, God is the Bible.
At this point it seemed like just repetition of words and statements and proof that got nowhere, so I tried to end the discussion with a nuetral path basically being 'you do you, I'll do me, let's go our separate ways'.
That didn't happen.
@AaronTheRocker I’m not wasting my time reading your entire rant but I’ll respond to two things you said. You asked me to provide proof that god doesn’t exist but I’m not making a claim. You have the burden of proof because you are making a claim. I’m simply rejecting your claim because you have provided no evidence for it. This is logic 101. Also I’m fairly certain you don’t have a rational justification for your belief because if you did you’d be the first person in history to have it and you’d provide it. Do you have testable evidence? Can you provide a model that makes testable predictions? What methodology are you using to justify your position? You have a lot of claims but you don’t have sufficient evidence to justify your them. If I’m wrong go ahead and present it.
“I’m not wasting my time reading your entire rant…” it’s not really a rant if it objects to your “evidence” (if you can even call it that at this point) let alone you asking me to provide evidence or reason for something you ask of me in which I did.
I’m pretty sure that’s what people call ‘poor debating skills’, but luckily he responded to two things I said.
“I’m simply rejecting your claim [of God existing] because you have provided no evidence for it. This is logic 101-”
Didn’t ‘Logic 101’ mention that you should read another person’s argument when in a debate? Well, to be fair Kurt did bring up two of my points. So that would be my third and final mistake sort-of, not really in this debate. It’s not really a mistake- more so an “extra” of an idea to the topic because Kurt wanted me to prove God exists, but that has nothing to do with the scripture and topic at hand.
“-Also, I’m fairly certain you don’t have a rational justification for your belief because if you did you’d be the first person in history to have it and you’d provide it.” I would be, but I am not. That’s because some things require faith and perspective. This will be clarified in my next post.
@AaronTheRocker I’ll clarify why I accused you of being dishonest. You said that the passage in numbers never mentions abortion but as I pointed out a purposely induced miscarriage is an abortion. Denying this is dishonest. Why is it that when you read the same passage I do you end up doing everything you can to make it say something different than it is actually says? You also argue that this passage does not condone or endorse abortion. If I say to you, vote for so and so, that is an endorsement. If I say, buy your slaves from the heathens that surround you, that is an endorsement. If I say, give your wife this abortion causing potion, that is an endorsement. The amount of mental gymnastics required to deny these things is dishonest.
“I’ll clarify why I accused you of being dishonest.-”
Wait for it…
“-You said that the passage in numbers never mentions abortion but as I pointed out a purposely induced miscarriage is an abortion.”
There it is. Oh what a hypocritical moment. Someone accusing me of being dishonest just made a dishonest statement.
Again, nowhere in Numbers 5 does it mention the word “abortion” or “pregnancy” let alone this person actually providing text for where it claims an abortion took place or the concotion created causes an abortion.
There is a jumble between two separate stories- Exodus 22 and Numbers 5. Exodus 22 mentions the punishment of causing an intentional miscarriage by man. Numbers 5 is a test by the Lord of whether adultery was committed. Those two stories have no relation to each other in the Bible.
“Why is it that when you read the same passage I do you end up doing everything you can to make it say something different than it is actually says?”
Maybe because someone wasn’t reading the right passage and is making stuff up like a fourth grader bullshitting on a book presentation because they didn’t really read the book (true story of myself by the way. Still got a passing grade.)
As for the rest of the comment, just refer back to the ‘hypocritical moment’.
And to the conclusion of the discussion at this point, I decided to comment my “evidence” of God’s existence and (hopefully) end the “God is condoning abortion” once and for all. A sure fire way to stop the garbage argument from spewing out.
I’d write the whole story. Numbers 5: Ordeal for Suspected Adultery
@Kurt L. A case for God existing would be that non-physical realities exist such as consciousness and math and they all hold true unto themselves (especially math) because it defines everything that is. So it’s not so much “physical” as it is more “spiritual” and “perception”- abstract ideas- because God reveals self through thought and desire which are, again, abstract.
Nope. No mental gymnastics involved. Just taking the words as they are. Not trying to connect dots that don’t exist. I’ll even send the same passage- No, better yet, the whole story.
Numbers 5: Ordeal for Suspected Adultery
--The Lord said to Moses: Speak to the Israelites and tell them: If a man’s wife goes astray and becomes unfaithful to him by virtue of a man having intercourse with her in secret from her husband and she is able to conceal the fact that she has defiled herself for lack of a witness who might have caught her in the act; or if a man is overcome by a feeling of jealousy that makes him suspect his wife, and she has defiled herself; or if a man is overcome by a feeling of jealousy that makes him suspect his wife and she has not defiled herself- then the man shall bring his wife to the priest as well as an offering on her behalf, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal. However, he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense over it, since it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing.
The priest shall first have the woman come forward and stand before the Lord. In an earthen vessel he shall take holy water, as well as some dust from the floor of the tabernacle and put it in the water. Making the woman stand before the Lord, the priest shall uncover her head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, that is, the grain offering of jealousy, while he himself shall hold the water of bitterness that brings a curse. Then the priest shall adjure the woman, saying to her, “If no other man has had intercourse with you, and you have not gone astray by defiling yourself while under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray while under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”- so shall the priest aduce the woman with this imprecation- “may the Lord make you a curse and malediction among your people by causing your uterus to fall and your belly to swell” May this water, then, that brings a curse, enter your bowels to make your belly swell and your uterus fall?” And the woman shall say, “Amen, amen?”
The priest shall put these curses in writing and shall then wash them off into the water of bitterness, and he will have the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water that brings a curse may enter into her to her bitter hurt. But first the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and having elevated the grain offering before the Lord, shall bring it to the altar, where he shall take a handful of the grain offering as a token offering and burn it on the altar. Only then shall he have the woman drink the water. Once he has had her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings a curse will enter into her to her bitter hurt, and her belly will swell and her uterus will fall, so that she will become a curse among her people. If, however, the woman has not defiled herself, but is still pure, she will be immune and will be fertile.
This, then, is the ritual for jealousy when a woman goes astray while under the authority of her husband and defiles herself, or when such a feeling of jealousy comes over a man that he becomes suspicious of his wife; he shall have her stand before the Lord, and the priest shall perform this entire ritual for her. The man shall be free from punishment, but the woman shall bear her punishment.--
No mention of a pregnancy as you claim there to be. No mention of an abortion or intentional miscarriage as you claim there to be. No mention of the offering mixture to place death unto an unborn child as you claim to be. Not even a mention of a woman bearing a child at the moment.
The only person playing mental gymnastics is you.
The evidence is right there. The story itself and the words that are the story.
I decided to add one more comment. Sort of thought-provoking or say ‘enlightening’ moment. Though religious in its phrasing, it holds true in any type of situation- especially debating.
@Kurt L. Seems to me we are set in our ways though and no breaking point will occur, but I will end my argument by quoting Deut. 4:2.
“In your observance of the commandments of the Lord, your God, which I am commanding you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it.”
Don’t lie. Whether it’d be to another person, to yourself, or simply a perspective you have, don’t lie.
That would be the end of the chain then. Got no feedback so far and maybe this is the finale of it.
There is nothing in the Bible that can convince me that the Lord supports an intentional selfish abortion. For the word of God has been set and shall be held true by God. Whether religious or not, what God has said and done is what has been said and done and should be only claimed as said and done.
Author Notes: I do not support the act of harassment of individuals. Don't contact or engage with these individuals. Just wanted to post this because it brings up important and serious details I believe should be mentioned and commented on.
I do recognize the thread says it has 18 replies, but I only have 15 that are shown. So if you could make a note of that and if I made a mistake put it in a review or message me of what those comments are- I'll update the writing so there is full context.