"If you want to paint pictures like this, you have to use some dark colors." ▪︎ Original poetry ▪︎ Spirituality ▪︎ Religion ▪︎ Psychology ▪︎ Philosophy ▪︎ Love ▪︎ Soulmates ▪︎ Relationships ▪︎ Humor ▪︎ Politics ▪︎ Art ▪︎ Music ▪︎ Prince ▪︎ Christianity ▪︎ Judaism ▪︎ Jesus the Messiah ▪︎ and everything else you're not supposed to discuss in polite company. Deeply Christian; deeply Human. Many, many posts shadowbanned - it's happened before, it'll happen again ESPECIALLY DURING AN ELECTION SEASON; just watch. There may be no algorithm, but 'It's not paranoia if they're actually out to get you.' Numerous other blogs deleted and/or shadowbanned by cowardly, toxic Leftist staff children concertedly unaware of how seriously NO one takes their points of view. See also electronicosmosis-deuce, electronicosmoséis, elec7ronicosmosis, electronicosmosis-xi, electronicosmosis-xiv, and other currently active blogs made "mysteriously" unable to message or comment. Back for Round 15 of 1,000,000. "They hide from the light because their deeds are evil." 🇺🇸 "I can do this all day" 🇺🇸
The Simple Reason My Posts Keep Getting Shadowbanned
God-haters simply can't allow themselves to consider the implications of Christianity being true. They can't conceive of a God that would forgive them for what they've actually done if it is. And they can't stand the thought that the only thing that can save them is a free gift that they can't earn and can't take credit for.
Reject the Worldviews that have made you sick physically, spiritually, and mentally.
Hilton renounced his British dual citizenship in November 2025. The real victim of this crooked election is Sheriff Chad Bianco, a 33 year Law Enforcement officer, because Steve Hilton is no Republican, from his own words, actions, and his donors. The globalists are stealing California for Agenda 2030.
I mean has everyone forgotten, just forgotten, that prior to COVID (which was only a few years ago), no election regularly took longer than a day to count?
They started the mail-in ballot phenomenon not to "keep people safe" during Extra Scary Flu Season, but so they could 'find' as many ballots as they needed to win any 'election.' Are we all gonna pretend like we don't see that?
Internet socialists always talk about the things they think they should get for free, they never talk about the labor they themselves will provide for free.
On the rare occasion they do, it's always hobby-related, like "yoga teacher" or "artist." Which implies a lot of confidence in the belief that someone else's passion job will be "lithium miner" or "sewage plant worker."
I think many nowadays would counter that they believe automation will become so widespread that it will take care of the most undesirable and dangerous jobs, leaving people free to run their cafes and hair salons and distilleries and bookstores and flower shops and to make soap and candles and dog clothes and to be tour guides and photographers and poets and to prowl through museum archives and study subjects like astronomy and archaeology and art history out of pure love of knowledge and learning, etc.
I say this not because socialists deserve fair and nuanced debate, but because it's important to understand that this is how many of them think if you're going to argue against them.
I get the impression that a large portion - perhaps most - of poor Third World nations operate under similar ideas, although they may not be expressed as concretely.
Gangs run on similar principles: you've got to protect your rep, you've got your crew that you're loyal to and if anyone disrespects them it's war and they've got to know not to fuck with us, and anything done to benefit yourself is good even if it's at the expense of society as a whole ("don't hate the player, hate the game").
Christ really is the answer to this, and not just in a vague Christian religious "you just need Jeeezus!" response to everyone's woes.
The ideas of loving your neighbor as yourself (and when someone asked who counts as "your neighbor" Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan, showing that "your neighbor" is anyone, including members of rival ethnic or religious groups), "turn the other cheek", "go the extra mile", "everything you do, do as unto the Lord", etc., is completely antithetical to the "grab everything you can at anyone else's expense" mindset.
This is exactly what the concept of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" in Deuteronomy 19:21 and Exodus 21:24 is meant to address. God Almighty is not unjust, nor is He advocating that we take vengeance. He is once again domesticating the natural religious tendencies of the world, which have some basis in truth, but will always tend to accelerate out of control due to the unbalancing influence of sin.
In these passages, the phrase is part of the legal principle known as lex talionis (the law of retaliation), which mandates proportional justice. This principle ensured that punishments were equivalent to the harm inflicted, reining in excessive retribution. Appropriate application of justice involves a proportional response from Authority, such that it will (1) serve as a deterrent to future potential criminals, and (2) for those that are capable of such thought, cause them to put themselves in others' shoes and perhaps comprehend the feeling of injustice they themselves would feel if such a thing were done to them, allowing their very own innate sense of Justice to speak to their conscience. The very reason the concept of Government exists is to rein in humanity's sin and encourage peace on earth, but "Do not say, 'I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done.'" (Proverbs 24:29) Vengeance belongs to the LORD (Deuteronomy 32:35), because only He can execute perfect justice perfectly. We must not bear it in vain, but we must nevertheless bear the sword when necessary.
The natural, sinful, state of humanity is exactly the type of behavior you see in cultures like India and Muslim Arabia, and has been throughout the entire history of humanity. They do in fact "need Jesus;" not only for the sake of their individual immortal souls upon the Final Judgment, but because Christianity has been that domesticating influence upon every culture it takes root in throughout the entire world. It is not merely the divinely superior moral system in theory... it is also that in practice.
Praise therefore be to the Most High, the God of Israel, the hyperpersonal Father, Son, and Spirit, the Eternal One, forever and ever, for He alone is Worthy.
Democrats genuinely think they can throw up some random white guy, slap a "Christian" label on him, and we won't know the difference. That's how little they think of us because that's how they think. They produce insulting and racist stereotypes because they are the ones who actually think in insulting and racist stereotypes. They always have been.
They can't stop thinking that way either, because the moment they do, the floodgates to Independent Thought open up and they are already on their way out of the Left.
She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.
She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.
81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.
The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.
Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.
Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.
The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.
She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.
Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.
When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.
The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.
When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.
The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.
You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.
God Resists The Proud, but Gives Grace To The Humble
Being imperfect, flawed, or "only human" doesn't excuse adultery, murder, pride, or any other kind of sin. And it is therefore only the blood of Jesus that gives human beings a way to deal with it. You can't "good boy" your way out of real, legitimate guilt - not shame, not the "feeling" of guilt, but the actual state of Guilt created when you've Done Something Wrong. All of humanity knows instinctively that an Injustice, or a sin, creates a Debt. If you get two different bills in the mail, paying one bill doesn't eliminate your debt to the other.
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." That may be the most honest statement in the Scriptures regarding Forgiveness and Why We Need It and How We Get It. That's why animal, and even human, sacrifice began appearing in human history. Everyone, everywhere somehow Knew it was necessary. That's why the Real God, the God YHVH Who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, took that practice and didn't eliminate it as 'unnecessary' or 'barbaric,' but rather domesticated it, regulated it, and imbued it with proper Meaning.
Every other Religious Tradition enslaves us by telling us "A = B." That paying one debt eliminates another. Every other religion is at best a legal fiction, on average a denial of the nature of Reality, and at worst an outright diabolical Lie intended to lead as many astray from YHVH as possible. Christianity is the only story in which God Makes The Payment Necessary. THEN (and only then) our good behavior actually has value and actually reflects a repentant, changed, and humble heart. We fall back into the slavery of "A = B" SO easily. The fact that we all do so should bear witness to the fact that this Gospel, this Good News, is in fact True. It is the only Story that is different; the only one that actually addresses and solves the problem of genuine Guilt.
Pride is the root of all sins, because it is the one thing that will keep you from coming to the one True God, and admitting He Was Right.
tl;dr: all "algorithmically" pushed stuff on a newsfeed is mostly ads. nothing that's really surprising form this vulture article, but it is dismal and makes me grateful for one website where you only see things from people you follow WITHOUT horrible short-form video content
most frustrating thing I’ve learned recently as i continue to read the bible
yeah so the bible literally never, at any point condemns abortion. Jesus never condemned abortion. In fact :) the bible actually provides instructions on how to properly have one. seriously. Look into it. Christianity takes its ethical base from Judaism, and Judaism says that you're not a person with a soul until you draw your first breath.
so :)
hahaha :) there’s literally no reason :) why Christians want to deny women and afab people healthcare :) besides the obvious, to control our bodies.
like :) there’s literally no reason :))
guys 🙏 absolutely NO scripture. :) condemning abortion even once. :)))))))
So what’s happened here is that you’re reading without understanding.
The Bible is not merely a list of things that are ok to do and bad to do and the absence of the sentence “though shalt not get an abortion” does not mean abortion is ok.
I would argue that God does condemn abortion because he condemns murder and that’s what abortion is whether you will admit it or not.
And the Bible does not provide instructions on how to properly have an abortion. You have severely misunderstood Numbers 5.
I would encourage you, as you read the Bible (which is a great thing to do and I am so happy you are doing it!) to speak with someone who knows it better than you and can you help you understand it so that you don’t keep spreading inaccurate information.
The Bible does not outwardly condemn abortion itself, which is significant considering how common place the practice would have been at the time. Abortion is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible, nor by Jesus Christ, therefore most protestants were never against abortion. Catholics were the most outspoken opponents during the Roe v Wade era because the Church's doctrine of ensoulment. Protestants adopted this position later.
The bible has specific laws about the act of murder and is very clear that murder applies to fully individual human beings. It at no point ever refers to an unborn fetus as a person or says that a woman will be punished for terminating a pregnancy.
Numbers 5 reflects a situation in which, if a woman was pregnant, and her husband suspected that she'd been unfaithful to him, and that the seed growing within her womb wasn't of his 'planting', she could be required to be taken before the elders for intensive questioning. Typically, the woman would first be humiliated. Her head covering would be removed, and her braided hair loosened. Sometimes, the bodice of her tunic might be ripped to expose her breasts. If the elders weren't satisfied with her answer, she would be required to submit to that Test of the Bitter Waters. The drink she was required to consume consisted not only water and dust from the floor of the temple sanctuary, it derived it's bitterness from herbs which had abortifacient properties. The gist of the test was that if she was innocent of the thing her husband had accused her of doing, God would intervene and render the brew neutral, and neither she nor the fetus would suffer harm. The belief was that if she was guilty of that thing her husband had accused her of, God would not intervene, and the woman would suffer violent spontaneous miscarriage, sometimes causing the woman to hemorrhage to death as well. If this happened, her husband would be justified in his accusation, and was now free to marry another wife. If she survived the process, he was justified in divorcing her, and still free to marry another wife. If she didn't suffer abortion and/or death, she was vindicated, and her husband faced likely penalties for having borne false witness against her. It was unusual for the penalty to be death, and usually consisted of paying a fine.
The bible does not explicitly say “here’s how to have an abortion” because it never mentions abortion in general, and I will admit that I misspoke in calling them “instructions on how to have an abortion” because in reality its more so how to tell if your wife is cheating. But it does explicitly establish that intentional miscarriages should and will happen if a woman is unfaithful. God is very okay with pregnancy termination in this context. This is further expanded on in the Talmud which states that if a fetus poses a threat to the mother, it's to be ripped out of her.
“The Bible clearly states murder is wrong", true. However, murder is defined as the killing of another human. Based on the passages below, the Bible does not reference a fetus in the same regard as a developed human. There are multiple stages of becoming a human, this process is not completed in the womb.
* In the Old Testament, the punishment for murder is death. Meanwhile, the punishment for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry is a fine, (Exodus 21:22-25).
* Passages about God knowing one from the womb are typically used to support life beginning at conception. In these same passages, fetuses are stated to be developing, yet to become a human. A few examples are "you knit me together in my mother’s womb" and "Your eyes saw my unformed body", (Psalm 139). Is taking a seed out of the soil the same thing as chopping down a tree?
The Roman Catholic Church didn't oppose abortion until 1869, and that was not due to anything the Bible said about it, it was because of the logical implications of a Papal pronouncement from 1854. Most protestant Churches didn't oppose abortion until the early 1980's, and again that wasn't about the Bible, it was about major Protestant leaders like Jerry Falwell partnering with Republican operatives for mutual gain. The GOP would gain voters they lost by opposing the Civil Rights Movement, while conservative Protestant leaders would gain political influence.
Historically, going back to the Early Church, there has been no consensus on the issue of abortion and there's been theological debates about its morality going on since as far back as we have records, with no consensus.
And to be clear, terminating pregnancies was a VERY well known and common practice around this time. The Bible goes as far as to create hyper specific rules about a hundred other things, but never outwardly speaks about pregnancy termination at any point. None of this is to say that abortion should be viewed without extreme care. It's not something that should be taken lightly. But nothing in the Bible says it should be banned, especially for medical reasons, where it's viewed as required.
If you’re anti abortion for whatever reason, live your life. Just know that there is absolutely no biblical basis for that belief.
“The Bible does not outwardly condemn abortion itself, which is significant considering how common place the practice would have been at the time. Abortion is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible, nor by Jesus Christ, therefore most protestants were never against abortion.”
The Bible doesn’t outwardly condemn a lot of things that we know to be wrong. Like the Bible doesn’t outwardly condemn shooting a two year old in the head or drowning children in a bathtub but because I know children are people and that murder is condemned by God, I know that shooting a two year old and drowning kids in a bathtub is condemned by God.
God says murder is wrong. Period. If you are the kind of person that needs God to explicitly say that each and every form of murder is wrong then that doesn’t mean it’s not condemned in the Bible, that means you’re trying to find a loophole.
“God says murder is wrong but since he didn’t explicitly say this form of murder is wrong that must mean it’s ok!” Is one of the worst logical fallacies I have ever come across.
And also, the absence of a no is not a yes. Even if we don’t have an explicit “abortion is wrong” sentence in the Bible, as you read it, it is clear from contextual clues that God absolutely condemns the idea of abortion in the Bible.
And I don’t really care which religious group opposed abortion first. That’s irrelevant to whether or not abortion is condemned in the Bible. Any religious group or person who says abortion is not condemned in the Bible is incorrect.
“The bible has specific laws about the act of murder and is very clear that murder applies to fully individual human beings. It at no point ever refers to an unborn fetus as a person or says that a woman will be punished for terminating a pregnancy.”
I’m going to assume you haven’t read the whole Bible yet or that you’ve missed a lot in your readings. You say the Bible at no point ever refers to an unborn fetus as a person or says that a woman will be punished for terminating a pregnancy. Ok. So since you are implying that the words must be explicitly present for you to understand what God is saying in the Bible, please share where you saw it explicitly state that an unborn fetus is not a person. You are assuming they are not considered people in the Bible unless otherwise stated but where’s your evidence for that foundation? It’s just as easy for someone to claim that they are considered people in the Bible because it doesn’t explicitly state they are not? Do you see why that logic doesn’t work?
Besides that, however, I think the Bible makes it very clear that the unborn are people and that God values them as such.
Here are some verses that go directly against your claim that Bible doesn’t refer to a fetus as a person.
“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5.
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” - Psalm 139:13
The Bible clearly considers the time in the womb as a precious, important time of a person’s life. It considers the beginning of a person’s life to be when they were formed in the womb. And you kind of failed at explaining how they don’t. This isn’t the Bible referring to them as seeds of something bigger, this is the Bible personifying them and speaking of them as that entire person that came into existence in the womb.
But wait there’s more!
“When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.” - Luke 39:41
These verses clearly personify babies in the womb and for you to read these verses and go well I don’t see it state the a fetus is a person would be intentionally dishonest and would look like you’re not trying to find out what the Bible really says, you’re just trying to twist scripture to make it sound like it backs you up when it doesn’t.
Exodus 21 gives the same penalty for killing or harming an unborn child as it does for someone who commits murder. It says if the woman gives birth prematurely but there is no harm then a fine must be paid. But right after that it says if there is harm then a life for a life. to say the Bible doesn’t consider the fetus as a person and that murder doesn’t apply to children in the womb is objectively incorrect.
Giving birth prematurely doesn’t mean the woman miscarried. And I’m not sure how you missed the very next sentence because that one kind of debunks your entire theory.
By the way, the Bible never refers to a one year old as a person so I’m assuming you think the Bible doesn’t condemn murdering them, either? Does the Bible have to explicitly tell you who is a person and who is not for you to understand who people are when the Bible talks about how people should and shouldn’t be treated? Or you just needing that information specifically for abortion for some reason?
“Numbers 5 reflects a situation in which, if a woman was pregnant, and her husband suspected that she'd been unfaithful to him, and that the seed growing within her womb wasn't of his 'planting', she could be required to be taken before the elders for intensive questioning….”
I’m familiar with Numbers 5 because one, I’ve read the entire Bible cover to cover and pro-aborts try to use the verse a lot to claim it is God describing when and how to perform an abortion. But they are wrong about Numbers 5 and so are you. It is not describing a method designed to make a woman miscarry. In fact, the NIV is pretty much the only translation that uses the word “miscarry” in this passage. Most others use the verbiage that it would make her “womb swell and her thigh fall away” which means it would make her barren and unable to have children, not kill a child she was currently carrying. Which actually makes much more sense in context.
Also, even if you were right and this was describing a procedure that would make the woman miscarry that would not mean abortion would then be permitted in any situation at any time and for any reason. If that was an abortion procedure, you would still need to explain how that be a case of the Bible condoning abortion.
But it does explicitly establish that intentional miscarriages should and will happen if a woman is unfaithful. God is very okay with pregnancy termination in this context. This is further expanded on in the Talmud which states that if a fetus poses a threat to the mother, it's to be ripped out of her.
It doesn’t explicitly establish that because the procedure wasn’t describing a miscarriage. When the NIV is the only translation that uses that term it can be assumed it’s probably the least correct word.
Again, even if you were correct about what the passage says it would be a stretch to infer that means God’s just across the board ok with abortion in cases of infidelity. Those instructions were given at that specific time to those specific people. They were not intended to be used by all people forever. The happenings in the New Testament make those practices no longer necessary.
But again, this was a process that would make a woman barren, not miscarry.
And I don’t care what the Talmud says. This discussion is about what the Bible says.
There is absolutely biblical basis for being anti-abortion. You are objectively incorrect about numbers 5 and you are objectively incorrect about the ways the Bible refers to babies in the womb. It definitely personifies them and it condemns murder. All forms of murder. Abortion kills a living, growing human being and if you need the Bible to specifically tell you “abortion is wrong” that’s not a case of the Bible not condemning it, that’s a case of you ignoring what is clearly implied by what it does say to push a completely false narrative.
Okay. Lots to unpack here. I’m gonna hit them all one by one because I’ve already explained most of this.
1. Abortion as a concept is different than murder as it is regarded in the law. To say “God didn’t HAVE to address it” is ridiculous because abortion was incredibly common place. God specifically outlines laws for kidnapping, but he already has laws about “treat others how you would like to be treated” doesn’t that automatically imply no kidnapping? Yes, but…. it was significant enough of a thing for God to make specific laws about it. God doesn’t say “thow shall not drown your kids or shoot them in the head”, but a living breathing independent child is established as a person, and so to kill them would be murder. A fetus is not a person independent of its mother. If the mother dies, the fetus dies. Murder is applied to individual people, not parasites, cancer cells, sperm cells, eggs, or fetuses. A murder is the unlawful killing of a person, fetuses have not even begun to be people.
2. “Before you were formed in the womb, before you were born, I sanctified you”
God also knew the sons of Egypt before they were formed in the womb. God knows every single soul before they are even conceived, this doesn’t speak anything to whether or not a fetus is a person. God is simply saying he knows all things and all people before people were even a thing. God knew every stillborn baby and every person who was never born. This literally proves nothing and speaks nothing about reproductive rights. It’s a reference to a special plan for one man rather than a general approach to biology and reproduction, a reference to the vision of God and the importance of Jeremiah and his mission. It’s also biblical hyperbole, written in a language that constantly uses rhetoric and poetry to make a particular point. You yourself say “just because it’s said in one context doesn’t mean it’s true for all people”. Take your own advice. Again, twisting the text. Bearing false witness
in Psalm 139. “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.”
Again, what is being said? This passage is surely about God’s power, but it doesn’t say anything that is at all specific or exclusive to the fetus. The Christian belief is that God knows all, knows us, knows who and what we are.
When it describes movement in the womb of Elizabeth and second because this is a reference to people who are not ordinary, not usual, not as the rest of us. This is a poetic illustration of the link between Jesus and John, a scriptural ballad telling of what is of the eternal, the humanizing of salvation. It’s not a guide to female reproduction.
3. God makes the distinction between people, completed humans, and fetus’ when he says that the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry is a fine. That’s also something you blatantly misrepresented. “Further harm” was in reference to the woman, the mother who is a person. An eye for an eye, a life for a life, if the mother suffers harm, if the woman is to miscarry the punishment is a fine. This is stated very clearly and yet you’ve somehow found a way to twist it around lmao. If a woman is hurt in a struggle and then has a miscarriage, the penalty is a fine, a mere financial payment. But, if there is further harm, likely meaning the woman has long-term and serious injuries or even dies, then the culprit could be killed. In other words, the life and well-being of the woman, the mother, is of much greater significance than those of her unborn child.
“Here is Exodus 21:22-24 from the New JPS Tanakh:
22When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. 23 But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot...
And here is Jeffrey H. Tigay's annotation in The Jewish Study Bible:
22: Other damage to the woman. Based on reckoning: perhaps reckoning the age of the fetus, but both this translation and the alternative "as the judges determine" are questionable. Halakhic exegesis infers that, since the punishment is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder (d. 12-14 n.); hence, abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother (Rashi and Yad Ramah to b. Sanh. 72b; see also Gen. 9.5--6 n.).
Also, please note that laws in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 4:41-43,19:1-7) allowed for "cities of refuge" to which someone who committed an accidental killing could flee to escape an "avenger of blood" seeking revenge for a death. No such allowance is made for accidentally causing a miscarriage, which is further evidence that a fetus was not considered a person.
The LXX of Exodus gives a different translation, which centers solely on the fetus:
22 Now if two men fight and strike a pregnant woman and her child comes forth not fully formed, he shall be punished with a fine. According as the husband of the woman might impose, he shall pay with judicial assessment. 23 But if it is fully formed, he shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot...
The LXX seems to recognize that a fetus that is not "fully formed" is not a person, but one that is "fully formed," i.e. at a stage of development such that the fetus looks like a baby, should have its death adjudicated as if it were a living person. However, even the LXX's interpretation is incompatible with the common fundamentalist view that a fertilized egg is a person.
And this makes sense. Obviously these laws cannot and do not apply to every situation. Abortion is a nuanced topic that is vastly different for different people. Late term abortions are unethical in some situations. We cannot use a couple lines of text written and translated thousands of years ago to dictate the lives of every vagina having person on the planet. It doesn’t make sense.
4. “even if you were correct about what the passage says it would be a stretch to infer that means God's just across the board ok with abortion in cases of infidelity. Those instructions were given at that specific time to those specific people. They were not intended to be used by all people forever. The happenings in the New Testament make those practices no longer necessary.”
😃
you’re so close. You’re so close to getting it. The irony is killing me.
5. I agree that the bible does not outwardly support abortion. But it also NEVER at any point condemns it. There were many opportunities to do so, the women of Egypt and Canaan were regularly practicing abortion, Hebrew women themselves were practicing abortion. It’s not mentioned or condemned likely because it was considered a necessary medical procedure at the time in certain contexts. It simply would not make sense to draw a firm line either way.
Tldr: Even with all these examples we’ve spoken of, the bible never directly addresses abortion in general. Talks a ton about literally all other aspects of pregnancy, menstruation, sex and marriage, never anything about the ethics of fetal life. If you think abortion is murder, cool, you do not understand the basic definition of murder, and would be condemning all women who lose their fetuses through medically necessary procedures. You’re super free to have that opinion. But that is only your opinion, not a law sent by God or Jesus Christ.
"Abortion as a concept is different than murder as it is regarded in the law. To say “God didn’t HAVE to address it” is ridiculous because abortion was incredibly common place..."
Abortion as a concept is not different than murder as it's regarded in the Bible, and that's what we're discussing here. And you haven't given any real explanation about why you think it's so different. You're the one claiming God didn't address it. I'm claiming he did address it by making it clear he values the unborn as people and explicitly commands us not to murder. That addresses abortion. You are saying "no he has to make a special announcement about abortion or I'm going to assume this specific kind of murder isn't included in that law" and that is a problem with the way you are reading the bible.
You need to do a better job at explaining why abortion isn't included in that rule. Do unto others as you would have them to do to you does apply to kidnapping, but do unto others as you would have them do unto you isn't a law established by God.
God saw some acts towards others as bad enough to need severe consequences on earth. And actions that directly cause harm to other people fall into this category. So yes kidnapping is included in the concept of treating others how you want to be treated and it's a severe enough violation of God's code of conduct that it needed a punishment. Just like murder, which is what abortion is. To claim God's law about not murdering people doesn't apply to abortion you have to make a solid argument that that would show God doesn't consider unborn babies people and you haven't done that. You've tried but have failed so in making a convincing argument because most of your points have a foundation in complete misunderstanding of biblical texts.
God doesn’t say “thow shall not drown your kids or shoot them in the head”, but a living breathing independent child is established as a person, and so to kill them would be murder.
Show me in the bible where God says a two year old is a living, breathing independent child. You believe that to be true, but show me where it states it in the bible.
Because it kind of seems like you're using your own beliefs about personhood to determine what the Bible is saying and not what the Bible itself says.
A fetus is not a person independent of its mother. If the mother dies, the fetus dies. Murder is applied to individual people, not parasites, cancer cells, sperm cells, eggs, or fetuses. A murder is the unlawful killing of a person, fetuses have not even begun to be people."
Ahhhh and now we see what your claims are really founded in. You made a claim about what the Bible says about abortion and the unborn but you are not paying attention to what the bible says about the unborn because you have decided, not based on the bible, that the unborn aren't people. You have gone into the discussion with that belief already and because you didn't see the Bible say "you're wrong the unborn are people" you are just holding onto that scientifically illiterate idea even though the bible clearly personifies the unborn more than once.
Show me where the Bible says the law against murdering people only applies to "individual" people because I think you made that part up.
I agree murder doesn't apply to beings that aren't people but fetuses are people. They are acknowledged as such in the bible and we know that from a scientific standpoint so really, what's going on here is you don't need the Bible to tell you abortion is bad, you need to understand the biology of fetal development so that you can understand the unborn are living people from the moment of conception. Then you would understand abortion, which is the intentional killing of that person, is murder and would further understand that when God commanded us not to commit murder he was even talking about pre-born babies.
When exactly, do you think fetuses begin to be people and thus no longer ok to murder?
"God also knew the sons of Egypt before they were formed in the womb. God knows every single soul before they are even conceived, this doesn’t speak anything to whether or not a fetus is a person. God is simply saying he knows all things and all people before people were even a thing. God knew every stillborn baby and every person who was never born...."
You....you kinda missed the point here. Yes, this is an example of god knowing all things and knowing all people before they come into existence but if we put on our thinking caps here, what are the implications of this verse? Why is God using the verbiage here that he is using? Why did he say "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you"? He didn't use that terminology by accident. It was very intentional. God is saying he knew that person before they even existed but what did he choose to use as the beginning point of that person's existence to make that statement? The formation in the womb. He doesn't say, "before you born, I knew you" or "before you became a person, I knew you" he says "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." He is referring to the being that was in the womb as the person he is speaking to at that moment. God is conflating this person and the fetus he was in the womb as one and the same and to ignore that and act like it's irrelevant and really means nothing is a flaw with you and your reading of scripture.
"Again, what is being said? This passage is surely about God’s power, but it doesn’t say anything that is at all specific or exclusive to the fetus. The Christian belief is that God knows all, knows us, knows who and what we are."
Again, I refer you to the my response in the paragraph above. I am not using these to say God says fetuses are in the Bible, but these are clear cases of personifying them. Speaking of children in the womb in the same way he speaks of people outside the womb. That's not an irrelevant trend and again, ignoring it doesn't make it irrelevant. Even though this is not explicitly stating "fetuses are people" it does more to show that God sees them as people than it does to show he doesn't.
"When it describes movement in the womb of Elizabeth and second because this is a reference to people who are not ordinary, not usual, not as the rest of us. This is a poetic illustration of the link between Jesus and John, a scriptural ballad telling of what is of the eternal, the humanizing of salvation. It’s not a guide to female reproduction."
Can you back up that speculation in any way whatsoever as to show that's actually what the scripture was doing and not a literal interpretation as implied by the context?
Also, no one is claiming it's a guide to female reproduction. The bible is not a guide to female reproduction, it is the story of who God is. What this is though, is an illustration of the humanity of the child in the womb and that God views them as people, which is what we are discussing. To brush it off as "not a guide to female reproduction" is you strawmanning the reason it was brought up.
"God makes the distinction between people, completed humans, and fetus’ when he says that the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry is a fine. That’s also something you blatantly misrepresented. “Further harm” was in reference to the woman, the mother who is a person. An eye for an eye, a life for a life, if the mother suffers harm, if the woman is to miscarry the punishment is a fine...."
I blatantly misrepresenting nothing. That's what the text says. You say further harm was in reference to the woman but that's how you interpreted the text, that's not what it says.
The verse says if any harm follows, it doesn't specify who that harm must happen to so you saying it's just in reference to the woman isn't true. It's logical to assume that it's reference harm to the woman and her child.
Also, again, the bible says if the woman gives birth prematurely and you are saying it says if you cause a woman to miscarry it's just a fine. But miscarrying and premature birth are not the same. That is blatant misrepresentation.
You keep using the word miscarry and that is not the word used here so be careful of accusing me of twisting it around while you yourself are guilty of doing exactly that at this very moment.
You are just assuming it's all in reference to the woman and I understand that's what you want it to be in reference to but your assumptions are unsupported by the text.
But also, why do you keep using Jewish religious texts when talking about the Christian Bible? The christian bible is translated differently than those texts so it is a severe logically fallacy for you to make a claim about what you think it makes sense for Christians to believe based on what you think the Bible says and then use Jewish religious texts, that differ from the Christian bible and aren't the texts christians adhere to, in attempts to back that claim up. I'm not arguing Jewish texts with you here. I was under the impression we were discussing the christian bible.
I'm not going to argue this anymore because really we could go back and forth forever and we're really just going in circles with the same arguments but I will respond to the addition you added to this reblog.
While I think all of that information interesting I find it completely irrelevant to the topic at hand which is does the bible condemn abortion, meaning, to my understanding, does God condemn abortion?
So what the people of the time believed or all the different ideas of the beginning of life don't really matter in answer to that question.
Your idea that the bible doesn't condemn abortion only works if you will not acknowlodge the reality that abortion is murder and that the bible doesn't need to make that specification for it to be true. God clearly spoke of children in the womb in the same way he spoke about people outside the womb and obviously considers that the point when a whole, unique human being comes into existence and I strongly reject your attempts at refuting that and found them all utterly unconvincing.
The bible does condemn abortion because it condemns murder and those are the same thing whether you admit it or not. Abortion is the intentional, unjustified killing of one human being by another. The bible never said murder only applied to human beings at a certain point of independence. That's an extra qualifier you made up.
So you can reject the claim that abortion is murder and you can say the bible doesn't say abortion is wrong because you're right, it doesn't specifically address abortion so on a semantic level, you are right, but just on a semantic level. If you understand the Bible as a whole book, and you understand the verbiage used by God and the reasons he used the words he did, and you understand the teachings of God and you acknowledge that God clearly values the lives of the unborn then it is clearly understood that abortion is an act condemned by God. You failed to debunk the idea that God doesn't see the unborn as people and doesn't consider killing them to be murder.
The only way you can win the debate is by keeping it strictly on a semantic level, which explains why you are working hard to keep it on that level.
So you can reject the fact that abortion is seen as murder by God, but to claim there is no biblical basis for that belief is absurd.
This whole debate is amazing but I wanna ask: If God made us and knows how we come into being (sex, fertilization, gestation... by His design) then its kind of silly to assume He doesn't understand or care that the smallest form of us eventually becomes a child that cries and walks and talks. Like, just seems weird He'd be all "ah yep, making a soul for this one. Oh, nevermind, twas never a person meant to join the kingdom of heaven, merely a strange fleshy shape in the womb. And nothing of value was lost." Like, really? What a borderline atheistic view of God as some uncaring absent father.
"A fetus is not a person independent of its mother. If the mother dies, the fetus dies. Murder is applied to individual people, not parasites, cancer cells, sperm cells, eggs, or fetuses. A murder is the unlawful killing of a person, fetuses have not even begun to be people."
has got to be the wildest take in this whole post because it means this person 100% believes that conjoined twins aren't people because they are interdependent.
I wonder if the reason that modern people hate the interdependence of babies on their mothers is that it (intentionally by design) mirrors the dependence that humans have on their creator God.
Come on guys, I'm sure Tumblr user cultkinkcoven has excellent theology and biblical hermaneutics, and has no other reason whatsoever to want to approve abortion.
A Hard Conversation About the San Diego Mosque Shooting
When 9 out of 10 acts of violence worldwide (and these are accurate statistics) involve Muslim aggressors, one wrong received does nothing to negate ten wrongs perpetrated. Useful idiots will not deceive anyone whose IQ is above room temperature (the lack of which is another sad condition in Islamic countries due to religiously-sanctioned first-cousin marriages).
Odds are 9 out of 10 that the perpetrator was in fact a Muslim himself. Muslim or not, it will most likely be someone (1) seeking to create a victim narrative for Muslims in the West, or (2) conducting an honor-killing over a religious dispute within Islam, as is extraordinarily common outside of the West.
Never forget that Taquiyya allows Muslims to lie to non-Muslims even about the nature of Taquiyya itself.
There is nothing trustworthy nor praiseworthy within the Mohammedan cult.
*EDIT assuming they actually have the right people and it's not just another psyop (God there are so many), I suppose it should've gone without saying that any LGBTQAAIP++XYZ Leftist was always on the table.
You remove someone's ability to orgasm, the closest they're going to get is violence upon themselves or others. Think about that twisted little truth for a while.
All I want to know is, how much has the SPLC been paying him?
I mean, really? "Chud" the Builder? It's a little too on the nose. But that's exactly like the Left. They think life is like Hollywood, and they cannot help but tell on themselves.
Nobody thinks that racism doesn't exist, just like murder or lying or theft isn't completely extinct anywhere in the world. Sin bubbles within the human heart anywhere on earth there is a man, woman, or child and it will find an expression. But this overhyped view of the severity of racism in the Western World is nothing but a Marxist manipulation tactic for the useful idiots. Who ended chattel slavery for the first time in human history? The West. Specifically, Christians because they valued all human beings as having been made in the image of God. So the whole "this guy's a Christian" thing is also immediately suspect.
There's "Free Speech," and then there's "Come on now."
