Senate Understanding Christianity

With all due respect, just redefining something is kind of dumb. This is literally just the "maybe the real X is the friends we made along the way" meme.

 

The real God is all the prayers we said along the way

 

Technically we are gods under the Triune God:

“Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken.” -John 10:34-35

 

Written: 17 August 2023


To be presented on 24 September at FCC Eugene


In 2022, the preceding incarnation of the Supreme Court (meaning prior to Justice Jackson’s investiture into that branch of government) issued a devastating ruling against cisgender women and all other birthing persons. They were led by Clarence Thomas, a man I knew to be repugnant since I initially read about him during 2000, and the opinion was authored by Samuel Alito, about whom I had always had a bad feeling after Bush appointed him in 2006. His anti-birth control ruling in 2014 cemented my view that he was both anti-democratic and anti-humanitarian, although I’m glad I began marching with friends afterward in support of bodily autonomy.

As to the present dilemma, however, there’s an argument to be made that abortion bans do not prevent all abortions. I concur with this. Moreover, bans only endanger cis women and other birthing persons. Pro-choice activists can explain the need for bodily autonomy, and such activists may further elaborate as to why a fetus is nowhere near close to a fully realized human and debunk all the myths about pain and vitality. Yet pro-life activists will scoff. For the so-called pro-life movement, all other considerations pale in comparison to their belief that a fetus has a soul. One cannot prove whether or not a fetus has a soul because one cannot prove that a soul exists at all. It’s a matter of faith, not something observable. If pro-lifers believe in this ensoulment because they hold that the Bible forbids abortion, then they might want to read it again. The Bible does not condemn abortion. Rather, it endorses it in one place and is neutral about it in another.

Christians within the pro-life movement often comb through the Bible to find supposedly anti-abortion verses. For example, they will utilize the opening verses of Jeremiah in which God says they knew him before he was born, but that refers to a deity claiming to be psychic, or sufficiently beyond the concept of time to foresee this person. This is one of many illustrations of fundamentalists reversing the evidentiary process to find conclusions based on very faulty evidence. After all, the Bible has a multitude of contradictions, including but not limited to the following: 1) humans being created at the beginning of the week in one Genesis story and at the end of another; 2) God being presented as henotheistic at the beginning of the Old Testament before being portrayed as monotheistic later in the Old Testament and into the New; 3) Satan being one of God’s permanent employees early in the Old Testament before the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism influenced the biblical authors recast him as God’s enemy late in the Old Testament and throughout the New; 4) Jesus’ pro-LGBTQIA statement in Matthew 19:12 contrasts with the ignorant, heteronormative verses of Leviticus 18:22 and those from the undoubtedly misogynistic and possibly self-loathing St. Paul; the list goes on. The Bible is filled with contradictions and peculiar stories. While the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often used to justify homophobia, the Hebrew of that story actually says that every single human being of that city, not only its men, came to attack Lot’s guests. Furthermore, the whole disturbing episode is essentially an origin myth of two of Israel’s enemies, Moab and Ammon, who are supposedly the descendants of Lot’s daughters and Lot himself. Many biblical stories like that are horrible. The Hebrew Bible, the Protestant Bible, the Roman Catholic Bible, and the Orthodox Bible are all flawed collections of documents. As such, some might assume that the Bible would be inconsistent vis-à-vis abortion.

Yet we can utilize the Bible to destroy the arguments of pro-lifers and fundamentalists. After all, abortion is one of the occasional topics about which there is no contradiction in the scriptures. Take Exodus 21:22-25 for example. It reads as follows: “If two men are fighting, and in the process unintentionally hurt a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage, but if she lives, then the man who injured her shall be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband shall demand, and as the judges approve. But if there is a serious injury [to the woman], then you are to take a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” As such, if an unintentional abortion transpires, then the man responsible was to be fined, not executed, but if he accidentally kills the mother, he was to be put to death. Pro-life fundamentalists tend to misinterpret this on purpose by leaving out that the Hebrew people only considered unplanned abortions (a la these miscarriages) to be fineable offenses. But the Bible explicitly endorses intentional abortion in Numbers 5:11-31. You may read the entire section in your own Bible, but each version will tell you the same thing. It’s about women who are unfaithful to their husbands. They are to go before the priests to drink bitter waters for the sole purpose of producing a miscarriage. In other words, the Old Testament Law (a.k.a. the Pentateuch or Torah) commands priests to perform abortions. Ironically, nowhere in the Ten Commandments does God forbid child abuse, torture, or domestic violence. As per usual, only Jesus preaches about human equality within the scriptures. From how Jesus of Nazareth is portrayed, he never treats women like property, and he also enraged the Pharisees and Sadducees by showing kindness not only to women, but also to special needs people, poor people, immigrants, Gentiles, and outcasts like the tax collectors and prostitutes. While this is just speculation, it seems fair to assume that a person like Jesus would not only prevent the Pharisees from stoning a prostitute, but such an individual would also prevent them from stoning a woman who got an abortion or took birth control.

Pro-life fundamentalists are obviously comparable to the Pharisees, not Jesus. They will cite Exodus 20:13, which reads, “You shall not murder.” However, Jewish law distinguishes murder from other sorts of killing. A passage in Numbers says that warfare is a type of killing that is not murder. The Hebrew word for killing is retzach. Warfare is retzach that has been endorsed by the government. Given what we laid out in the aforementioned analysis, the death of a fetus would not be considered either murder or killing under Jewish law. As such, the notion of abortion being the same as murder is a false foundation created by fundamentalists. Now, of course, I personally believe in evolution and have since early elementary school. But even if one does not believe in evolution and prefers a literal interpretation of Genesis, that book reads in 2:7 the following, “The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and then the man became a living being.” Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, humans only gain souls when they first breathe. While a fetus is living, by this biblical standard, a fetus is not ensouled until it breathes. This is why many Jews today openly support abortion. Not only are there no verses that explicitly condemn abortion, but none claim that fetuses have souls, nor is there any that claim that they have the same moral or legal status as a fully realized human being. But the Bible is filled with rules that many people, including fundamentalists, do not know. For example, Exodus 22:2-3 says that a homeowner can be blameless if one kills a burglar at night, but that same homeowner will be guilty of “bloodshed” if he kills a burglar during the day. Leviticus is filled with bizarre rules. For example, Leviticus 11:13-19 forbade people to eat bats, hawks, eagles, ravens, herons, vultures, varying sorts of owls, etc. At the end of the day, the authors of the Bible knew about abortion. If they wanted to prohibit it, they would have done so outright. But they didn’t.

The recent condemnation of abortion began during late nineteenth century Christianity. Who introduced this anti-abortion sentiment? The Catholics, of course. The Roman Catholic Church most likely declared abortion murder in order to prevent their numbers from dwindling compared to those of Protestant Christians. In the meanwhile, Protestant denominations remain split on the abortion issue. The United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church of the United States are all pro-choice. Many Orthodox Christians support abortion, while others amongst their number do not. While most Catholic priests preach against abortion and contraception, many American Catholics quietly are pro-choice, though they are probably a significant minority or perhaps a plurality, not a majority. Polls don’t always agree. What is beyond any doubt is that substantial numbers of Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims support abortion than Christians as a whole. And, of course, the vast majority of atheists, agnostics, and other secularists support abortion and contraceptives.

Sadly, the fundamentalists and other pro-life fanatics who oppose abortion also all too often tend to be the folks who do not feed starving children. In their minds, sperm entering women is life. They don’t care about the people who are shot by mass murderers. They cut food programs for starving kids and adults on the street. Similarly, they don’t care about the children who are risking their lives across the world, nor do they care about the victims of human trafficking who are not white. Instead, these anti-abortion nuts not only want to order women and other birthing persons around, but they are, as George Carlin basically said, not the type of people you want to get to know in the first place. Leading fundamentalist politicians pretend to care about zygotes in birthing persons’ bodies in order to tell them what to do. And that is not acceptable. “My Body, My Choice,” as my friends and I say in Women’s Marches. This is why I helped a friend and her boyfriend pay for that friend’s abortion back in mid-2007, and I’m glad I drove a friend to get an abortion at Planned Parenthood in early 2022 after the latter escaped her abusive ex. As journalist Emma Vigeland says, rape and incest aren’t the only reasons to get an abortion. As my grandfather-figure, Lamar Edward Smith, said, abortion should be available to all regardless of circumstance.

 

Ecclesiastes 11: 5 God’s ways are as mysterious as the pathway of the wind and as the manner in which a human spirit is infused into the little body of a baby while it is yet in its mother’s womb.

From Luke Chapter 1
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

 

While we may stand corrected with regard to the Ecclesiastic statement, this is from a book, one of many, that one clearly was written by more than one author in different time periods. The NIV, which translates the Hebrew and Greek of the varying books of the Bible more accurately than others (according Timothy K. Bruster and others), has a different translation. For example, the original Hebrew says "leader of assembly" where you wrote "baby." I've seen this in other NIVs. The passage in question (and its surrounding context) is about saying that preachers were predestined to be preachers.

As for the passages from Luke, these are clearly examples of mythology that require one to believe in figures like John the Baptizer and Jesus Christ to have been real. As Marcus Borg and others have said, regardless of one believes in the inspired (nonliteral) divinity of biblical statements or purely symbolic nature of them as examples for others, there is no historical evidence that Mary was a virgin. It is also offensive to suggest that people have to be virgins before marriage, or that people have to get married at all. There is no evidence for the historicity of Mary or Jesus. It's not possible for a virgin to conceive without a semen donor. The Catholics later came up the notion of immaculate conception. Also, one has to take into consideration the age gap between Mary and Joseph. As Dr. Ana Psychology says, not all age gap relationships go wrong, but statistics show that many do. There is consent to consider.

Fetuses can get excited or anxious, but they don't really know what's transpiring outside the womb, and they are dependent on the birthing person to exist prior to exiting the womb. A fully realized human is a baby who can breathe outside the womb, and, well, any other further stage of development. Anything beforehand is dependent on the birthing person to exist.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to Sarge, who is one of the most empathetic guys out there, but many moderate or right-leaning scholars tend to interpret things for white, straight, cis men. This leaves out many other humans.

I think the more interesting debate is Matthew 19:12, which reads as follows: For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Here, Jesus clearly states there is nothing wrong with eunuchs who chose to live that way (literally or not), those who were rendered eunuchs by others (by choice or not), and those who choose to live like that for religious religions. While this obviously supports asexual people, many have interpreted it to be the ancient way of the author supporting people who are gay, transgender, intersex, bisexual, pansexual, nonbinary, etc., albeit I'll grant that that is an interpretation that right-leaning moderates and fundamentalists would never accept. Why? Because the white cis-male heteropatriarchy clouds their linking. After all, that line of thinking clouds people's judgment with regard to economics. So, it can encourage people to ignore others in different disciplines, as well.

At any rate, I find it interesting that Hitler, Himmler, and the Nazis banned abortion for German citizens, but they encouraged abortions for those they deemed to be non-Aryans. Tucker Carlson and likeminded Republicans have a very similar position in that they want to ban abortion for white people but require it for those they don't consider white.

 

That might be the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me here. Thank you.

 

Np. We can agree to disagree on some issues, but like IronLord and others, you're clearly a good leader and encourager.

 

Stop, you're making me blush!

 

I have nothing to add other than that I've really been enjoying the discourse on these past few pages. Carry on.

 

It is interesting. I'm basically a member of cultural Christianity per se. I'm a little confusing to some because my status as a transtheist means that I'm neither an atheist nor a monotheist. I think humans don't need to be either of those things. I do think the teachings of Jesus, however, laid an important foundation for morality. The unfortunate thing is that Jesus is considered too liberal for the fundamentalists. Ironic.

 

Couldn’t agree more. Sarge is the best.

 

The Good News Bible, the NIV, and the New Revised Standard Bible are great reads. Especially the first two. I like how the Good News one has verses in Malachi like, "God refuses to listen." It's not an accurate, as tranquility and the Great Divine is everywhere. But doubt can lead to better faith.

And now...there's Enoch. We're discussing the seldom seen Enoch in the Bible, but he also has a few "deleted scenes" documents that weren't accepted into the Bible. So, yeah, even when one is liberal like Marcus Borg and folks like me, we like the Bible...for analytical reasons (what got in and what was left out) or even spiritual reasons.

 

I don't have a problem with saying that fetuses have souls. Quite clearly, at some point before delivery, babies are meaningfully alive and independent life forms. I think the real question is "when."

On that front, I believe the anti-abortion movement has done a huge amount of damage by claiming that this point is necessarily at the moment of conception. We have no way of knowing that. To simply insert ideas into a divine text is deeply egregious, and is behind some of the very worst excesses we have ever seen in history. No argument is worth winning that way.

 

Yo, Sarge. We had the presentation on the Bible's pro-choice verses. And we agreed that the Ecclesiastes verse you shared when read in the full context of its chapter was about planting, being patient, and being focused on the present, not the future or past. We're not sure why one thought that it was an anti-abortion verse, but I respect your opinion. I said an internet acquaintance had mentioned those. If you want to interpret that verse and those two Gospel verses as being pro-life, I can respect that, and you're definitely one of our best leaders on here. So, I'm good with it.

What we agreed was that the scriptural verses did not forbid abortion. Much like the Jeremiah verse is about God seeing into the future to affirm the prophet's purpose for him, the Gospel verses refer to God's predestined purpose for John the Baptizer and Jesus of Nazareth. Biblical scholars have critiqued the Gospels' attempts to link Jesus with Old Testament verses/prophecies because the Gospels will often take a verse and re-interpret in a new light. This is similar to how Elisha the prophet is depicted feeding a large group of people, and scholars believe that that story was re-told with Jesus doing the same thing, albeit for a different purpose. Ya know? Christianity comes out of the Jewish tradition. I mean no disrespect in saying this, but the religion has been bastardized by fundamentalism, dominionism, fanaticism, and pre-millennialism. While I have met some fundamentalist who are not racist, sexist, or prejudiced in other ways, I gotta admit that it is an uncommon treat.

My primary concern with regard to anti-abortion ideology has been stated in other threads, particularly due to its link to domestic violence and narcissistic control. Having dealt with narcissistic people (not you, Sarge, you're great) on these threads, ya know, it's whatever. But I understand and respect your position because it was once my position when I was fourteen. Thus, I know where you're coming from, and I'm fairly used to my views in the realm of Higher Criticism being critiqued. But I also believe in Preterism. I believe many biblical prophecies have already been fulfilled. And my personal view is that fundamentalist Christianity is its own antichrist and its own satanism. I think that the antichrist of Rome was defeated long ago when the empire was Christianized, which is in line with amillennialism. But nowadays, if anyone has the power to destroy the world or persecute others, it is far-right Christians. I'm not saying that Hindus, Muslims, or other religions have done bad things. But religion is meant to do something positive, to be compassionate. That's what Jesus said in his way. That's what Buddha said in a different way. I go to a church that relishes Jesus' teachings on peace and harmony. I don't like the verses in which Jesus says he came to bring a sword, that unbelievers were like leaves that were burnt, or whatever. That doesn't sound like Jesus to me. Sounds like traumatized authors writing about dealing with persecution. So, in that regard, who can blame them? But that's historical context. Jews and Christians were persecuted by empires. That's one thing that makes the Bible interesting. One of many things at that.

 

The issue at hand is that the anti-abortionist does nothing for the kids when they are born. If you know of any who do, then I am genuinely happy. We are talking about the Republican Christians who do some pretty terrible things. I do agree the second part of what you said tho. If a fetus has a soul, it then follows that we must ask why those who claim that treat the people so horribly after they are born. The opposition to aid for starving children and families is another thing. It's the opposite of what Jesus's mission was. It then follows that one must have a moral discussion. If a fetus is destined for these things, then why does the right endorse child labor? That's all we are asking. Was Jesus too liberal for the right-wing?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 23&version=NIV

Jesus had an earful to say on this. Judging by this, he doesn't seem like he likes the Pharisees none. It sounds like he would not get along with Christians who hurt the people he said to help. The anti-abortion movement is intrinsically linked to the alt-right and its white power movement now. If it had stayed true to its original mission, then we would be in a better place.

 

Right on, hun. But, yeah. Jabba-wocky, I'm glad some people believe that fetuses have souls. I was just wondering why that doesn't entail respect after birth? What ThereseAn'ya said.

Philosophers have debated whether souls can exist before birth or after death. As such, some like Gautama Buddha proposed that even souls were temporary constructs. Aside from the debate, I only care about how such soul are treated in life. Despite not believing in the notion of a fully formed soul prior to birth, my argument is that we should look at this rationally. A pro-lifer and a pro-choicer should, in theory, concur on certain things for whoever is born. The issue at hand is that taking away the birthing person's choice leads to a whole host of problems for the decision-maker and society. Of course, I've heard pro-lifers who believe that the woman or birthing person should still make the choice. And even they are not against abortion in cases of incest, r[that], and for the health of the parent. So, I don't really understand how that qualifies as being pro-life when it's partially pro-choice? Lastly, if one wants to look to the Bible, I think it's more constructive to read the passages of Jesus helping women out. He didn't talk down to them. Even Joseph's brothers helped their sister after she had been assaulted. It's a good foreshadowing of their redemption when they met Joseph again. I like that stuff. What I don't like is the stories of King Manasseh of Judah assaulting women. Now that I think about it, that is definitely an anti-abortion message I can get behind because the women aren't choosing it and it is a tyrant forcing miscarriages of women en masse. Now, that makes sense. That king was repugnant. Of course, the problem with the Bible is that there is a lot of misogyny in it. Jesus is one of the few people who understands human equality, since he's God. If I recall correctly, the Gospel of John depicts him not getting along with his family, but he asked the Beloved Disciple to help his mother. So, that's interesting, and any nuance is appreciated.

 

Oh, absolutely.

Jesus loved children; I doubt anyone would argue against that. He rebuked his own disciples for trying to keep children away from Him, and He said that anyone who hurts children would be better off cast into the sea with a millstone around his neck. He wants us to come to him with the innocence of a child's soul.

The verses I posted above show why I believe the unborn also have souls, the most innocent and helpless souls of all, and I believe they are deserving of the same protection and love we should give to those who have been born.

 

I think that's a nice sentiment to have. But...for the practical purpose of our day-to-day Earthly lives, it's not possible for us to care about a week-old embryo as if it's an already-born baby. We don't mourn the loss of fetuses that die simply because they weren't viable. Or how about the soul of a child that was never conceived of in the first place because a couple had sex on Tuesday instead of Wednesday? If they have souls then that's something for God to worry about and not us. For that reason, I think abortion ought to be legal so long as the fetus doesn't feel pain, which to my knowledge is before the third trimester.

 

It is possible, if we choose to care. Some families who lose unborn children choose to name them and have funerals for them as part of their grieving process.
God wants us to grow to be more like Him, to have the same concerns and compassion for all souls, just as He does.

 

When, though, do they have souls? And how do you know? Why is a blanket assumption that this happens at the earliest possible moment warranted?

 

Elizabeth's baby (John the Baptist) had a soul at 6 months, and he was responding to the soul of Jesus, who had just been conceived.

 

Sure. But I am pretty certain it's already quite widely held that:

A. Babies have independent thought and souls by the end of the second trimester

B. Jesus was not "conceived" in the traditional sense, so I don't know that this makes sense to use as a model. More to the point, I don't know that John was reacting to Jesus in particular, as to the presence of Mary herself, and the implications that had for God's larger plan of salvation. As a last point here--and not one I hold as firmly as the others--it doesn't even necessarily sound like Jesus was conceived when Elizabeth visited. The angel has told Mary it will happen, but Mary is also speaking in future tense about those things that are going to occur.

 

One thing I've always thought was crazy was that Jesus was born on Christmas day! Dude must have been so bummed that every freakin' year his birthday presents and Christmas presents were all mixed together!

 

^: Well, each of us has our own cross to bear.