I appreciate how you talk about what’s present in the Bible without using euphemisms. What you’re describing is absolutely horrible, but it’s what’s present in the text, and mustn’t be changed whatsoever when presenting it. This is why I love scholarship so much more than dumb apologetics, it’s unfiltered and pure.
Thank God I don't need the Old Testament to be able to form an opinion on how and when abortion is morally acceptablel or not, but I appreciate your honest and objective, academic analysis on this matter as th OT actually says it.
LOL 😂 since there was no ability to save the baby in those days: totally different with our Healthcare system today so your ignorance like Dan's is just based on your biases and not Logic. God makes laws according to the time period and technology of the culture. Property compensation was the only Justice at that time period. But obviously they were NOT willfully aborting babies at that time because they valued human life: which you seem to NOT.
But you support assaulting the baby and killing it : how your morals have progressd: LOL 😂 There wasn't medical help available then for any termination of pregnancy. Financial compensation was the only alternative. BTW they weren't doing thousands of abortions either then : they valued life and their population was vital due to the wars that happened each spring. Grow up !!! Child.
Assaulting the baby is murder as we have the technology to save the babies life: something they didn't have in the ancient world. Financial compensation was their only choice!!!
Actually read the exodus account it is more vague then Dan purports...it was debated even early rabbinic texts that it was the baby considered and not only the pregnant woman...Babbar qamma 48b. Dan does tend to ignore some things to make his point...just like the ox scenario and the shekels actually being a labour loss and not a life subsidiary, not sure why it has to be said but here it is....the ox is not a human...going to have different rules and reasons for a death caused by an animal. The slave would be avenged if killed this then goes to the avenger rules...it's pretty obvious that its not about money here with the verse right after being that the master paid out of his pocket...and it could be said that if verse 12 is also in view here that some judicial practices would be taken for major issues.
American Christian tradition likes to say it is the same as that of the 1st century and the 16th century reformers (even tho those two traditions were also very different from each other) but really the 19th century is where the vast majority of Evangelical and American theology was founded
Perhaps the most interesting thing in this discussion is that for people who plant their flag in the "Bible Only" camp, they would have to hold to a position closer to the rabbinic teachings prior to the influence of "pagan" ideologies", otherwise known as Greek philosophy. Which means the fetus is not a person prior to birth. I don't think that is the proposition they want to hold. 🤔😶🌫
Surely that would be Jewish philosophy. Why would a Christian base their opinion on Greek philosophy? Greeks were pagans who had their own host of Gods.
You do realize that abortion is MEDICAL understanding right? Why do you think that a biblical scholar would understand the human body rather than a licensed physician or doctor? 🤦♂️
@@benclark4823This isn’t about abortion in a vacuum, it’s about how abortion was understood by people writing the Bible. Dan is well within his purview here.
@@benclark4823 I'm sorry, how does this in any way interact with my comment or the video? It's literally a Bible scholar - a real one, not a theologian - analyzing the text and context of the Bible regarding abortion. It has no relationship with a medical context wherein my understanding is that it is the ending of a pregnancy.
@@benclark4823 it’s not solely a medical question. It’s a moral/ethical question. As such, a person taking a position can call on scientific understanding or theological sources or the arguments of philosophers. A person making a theological argument based on the Bible better know their stuff or have their argument dismantled by the likes of Dan.
I guess I'd ask Cliff if suffocating to death most life on this planet with the waters from the great flood would be considered murder on a planet wide scale?
The Flood wasn't Global and it was designed to Terminate the Nephilim of Genesis 6: 1-4. And purge their contamination of mankind around the Mount Herman area that is in Israel. Dan won't tell you this because it doesn't fit his Dogma of Data.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I'm gonna believe the biblical scholar over some random want to be a apologist. Either way, whether it was global or local no eight hundred year old non boat makers ever built a boat to lug around two of every kind of animal In an effort to escape the wrath of a character from a book of myths
@@brianlamptey4823 What am I supposed to do with this irrelevant information? Every culture in the region Having a flood myth does not prove a global flood happened
In regards to Exodus 21:20-21, the masoretic text says the master is punished. But the samaritan hebrew text of this passage says the master is executed
@@alekhinesgun9997 the reason is he is a Christian apologist. They all engage in lies and deception because they value their faith above the truth, as Cliffe does in the being responded to
Good evening, i'm responding to your responses to cliffe's statements. I would argue that, firstly, although some topics are not well addressed in the bible, we still can figure out there is a difference between murder and killing, because the bible make good points, such as: “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.” (Exodus 22:2) You said that, within the bible, the question is "when does a person begin". So i don't think we are anywhere in the bible when it comes to the issue that we are addressing, but, still, the bible make great points and one of the cliffe's most used lines is: "The human life has value, only because there's a god". So It's not a relevant question in the bible, but simply because we are dealing with a fairly recent issue, we are not talking about a topic that's recorded in the bible. It does not matter wether a person is legal or not, the context brought up might clearly show otherwise, but it obviously was not the right way to go. And the point the bible make is all humans have equal value, because they're all created in the image of god, regardless of what the bible record about those civilizations back then, there is such a thing as context. It does not matter whether someone is more of a "person" than the other, because that is measuring the value of human based on a certain degree and not by kind, and what i insist: a baby is not more value than the mother and neither the other way around. And to put up the question of whether the hebrew bible would take abortion as murder or as killing is not a fairly put question, given that the time the hebrew bible was written, there was probably so little to know about biology and technology, and also there is the cultural factor. I believe you did not even show his respond to the question. The people in the comment section can correct me if i'm wrong, i would love to read it.
Lol the Bible didn't just record the history. These are people that apparently had direct access to God and talked to him. So if they had rules that were terrible you can't just wave it away as that's how it was back then. If all humans had equal value why wasn't there a commandment for that? No slaves, women aren't property, etc. Ignorance can't be an excuse when God can tell you the information directly. If God was silent on this then while you can say he didn't endorse it well at the very least he enabled it though non action.
@Alexander-the-Mediocre I think it would have been obvious to them. A human is a human before birth, therefore killing it is murder. The Bibke does say He (meaning God) knit me together in my mother's womb. Ie: not in the monent of birth.
@@peterwallis4288 killing is not always murder. Watch the video. Killing someone's slave for example is 30 shekels. So a killing a slave is not murder but property damage. Killing a fetus in a mother's womb is also a fine in the Bible so once again not murder. And since it's decided bybthe husband he gets to set the price of the fine for damaging property. If human equality was so obvious then there would be no slaves and women wouldn't be treated as less then men. No through most of Christianity a fetus was only a person when ensoulment happened. And that was not thought to happen at conception.
I appreciate both your use of facts to arrive at an answer regarding the topic itself, and your conclusions at the end which contextualize and explain the rationalization of the content creator.
I spent a long time looking at exodus 21:22 tonight, and there's an argument out there that the hebrew "yasa" is almost always used elsewhere in the bible to mean "to come out", and is always used in regards to a living being. To me, this feels like a pretty compelling argument that what's in view in this passage is not a woman having a miscarriage, but a woman who is assault and (somehow) gives live birth to an uninjured baby. I'm not sure if anyone will still be in this youtube comment section at this point, but I'm wondering if anyone has a compelling counterargument to this thought.
@@funkatron101 Yeah I’ve noticed some versions use the word “knee” instead of “womb”. Of course, saying the dirty water shall “cause her knee to rot” doesn’t make sense to me nor do I see how that replaces “cause her womb to miscarry.”
@@jdnlaw1974 I've never seen "knee." It's usually "thigh" which is a euphemism for reproductive parts. There are a number of instances that refer to this. Sometimes touching "under the thigh" to pledge allegiance. (Literally touching their genitals). It's weird.
So in the original Hebrew there are a number of different ways it can be read, and the problem with the abortion reading is that the passage doesn't comment on whether the woman is pregnant or not. It's pretty explicit actually that the ritual is for when the husband _suspects_ but has no proof of her unfaithfulness and is overcome with jealousy. So pregnant or not, it says the ritual should still be applied in that case. But additionally, it also doesn't necessarily talk about miscarriage either. Although in the NIV it uses the word "miscarries", it could also mean to be rendered sterile. Or worse, verse 27 can be read to suggest that she experiences a false pregnancy and sterility... and finally it has been suggested that verse 27 could be read to mean a very gory death involving inside parts not staying inside. There's a bunch of different things it could mean. English translations have opted to imply it's an abortion because most of the alternative readings are worse.
A Majority of US Citizens think/say that abotion should be allowed up to SIX months of pregnancy Modern Medical Techniques can save an infant that is THREE months premature ( 6 +3 = 9 months, length of normal human pregnancy ) So instead of philosophy, moderns are practical and go by viability ( allegedly )
Yeah that about lines up with the Quickening as well. It also lines up with the decision-making parts of the brain coming into action, which is the earliest we can safely assume any kind of "free will" is present.
What's your source on this? Polling by Gallup last year had much lower support for abortion in the 2nd trimester- "about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters."
@@kathy1154 I love it when there's a discussion with two or more sides, and then someone comes in and proclaims their support or opposition - without any hint towards which side they mean that. And these days, RUclips makes it extra easy to indicate that. I have to assume that those people intentionally edited out the reference. Real model citizens, there!
Before anyone can take a position on abortion they must first answer the question of when life begins (“When does life begin?”). And that's an easy one. The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms when life begins. In Genesis, chapter one, God answers that question himself. He forms a figure from the Earth, but it does not become Adam ("person" in Hebrew) until God "breathes into him the breath of life, and he became man.” Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. Your soul enters your body with your first breath and it leaves with your last. The body is just a vessel - your being, your humanity, is your immortal soul. That's what the Bible says, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people, especially supposedly religious people, get this wrong. There is no question, no moral ambiguity. Abortion destroys an empty vessel, it does not kill a human being. That is not to say that a fetus isn't alive, because it clearly is. So is a cow, or an earthworm, or a tree. However, simply being alive does not make something a human being. Having a soul is what sets us apart from other living things. Otherwise, every farmer and every lumberjack would be a murderer. And so would all of the rest of us who eat living things. Even the hardcore vegans would be murderers since they eat plants and plants are alive too. So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between killing a person and cutting down a tree. And that sounds like a pretty stupid position to be arguing. But if you follow your religious beliefs, the answer to the abortion question is crystal clear to anyone who can read. Abortion is not murder, as it does not take the life of another human being.
Abortion is forbidden by the Didache. The Didache was written at the same time as the latest books of the bible. So the earliest Christians believed it to be a prohibited practice.
I just listened to Bart Ehrman explain how the earliest Christian writings that are interpreted as "pro-life" are actually defences to allegations that they ate children during their "love feasts". As in, "No, we don't eat babies. We don't even kill fetuses." It seems that accusations of baby-eating was a common trope used against outsiders much like Christians accusing atheists of the same in modern times.
CANNIBALISM Deuteronomy 28:53 thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters. Ezekiel 39:18 ye shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and ye shall drink the blood of Princes 39:19 drink the blood, til ye be drunken I Baruch 2:2-3 YHWH would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses: that a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter John 6:53 Jesus said... except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day 6:55 for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed 1 Corinthians 10:16 the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
A possible pro-life take: Cannot the Septuagint translation simply mean that, if the aborted fetus was imperfectly formed, that's judicial proof that the woman probably didn't look pregnant (since it was so early in the pregnancy), and thus, the man couldn't have known she was pregnant when he was goofing around? And so he gets a light penalty even though he took a human life?
Is there not an instruction on how to perform an abortion in the old testament Numbers 5:11-31 ? If I remember right there is also a suggestion to use a date seed in the manner of a copper coil for contraception. The later may be from other ancient sources though. (For some reason they taught us this in school).
There is a method that would not appear to kill a baby that can be used. I have heard that before, but it's to drink a mixture of dust and water. I don't think that would result in the death of the fetus, naturally anyway. I would think it's a method of saying, we're leaving it for God to decide. No idea about the other thing, but I don't know the Bible as well as I should, so it could be there.
Good video. I don’t disagree with your points. However, what do we do with the early Christian position opposing abortion, as we see in the Didache? It seems that they reached this position rather quickly, even if it was post-biblical. Thanks!
It says something about modern pro-life that the ancients had more respect for women's legal status than they do. That pro-life is regressive isn't even totally accurate.
It says something about atheist when they criticize god’s killing of children in the Bible but show no empathy for the thousands of children killed by abortion. It’s like they condemn and complain about god being “immoral” when he does that kind of stuff but not when THEY do the exact same thing. Total hypocrisy. 😒
@@benclark4823 No, the criticism of God is to show that Christian morals are arbitrary. There are no children killed during abortion. Removing non-sentient embryonic tissue before it develops into a child is not killing a person.
Amazing how you can dehumanize innocent children because they where FORCED by their parents to be in a situation that they didn’t even consent too. It’s amazing all the mental gymnastics you have to go through to classify someone as not a “person” with human rights because they are FORCED to be in a inside of a women body because of their selfish actions of simply not having sex. What I find most interesting is how atheists will complain about the evils racism and bigotry and slavery but also don’t see the exact same bigotry in believing that a fetus isn’t a human being with rights. 😠
@@benclark4823 I don't need to dehumanize embryos. They lack the characteristics associated with human beings, mainly consciousness and individuality. Pro-lifers work really hard to humanize embryos. That's why you insist on calling them children and babies. No normal person thinks an embryo is a baby. Unwanted pregnancy is a real condition. No one forces an unwanted embryo to come into existence, unless you believe in God of course. You should ask him why he does that.
My personal opinion.... A living flesh inside a woman fetus is a person. When your wife gets pregnant aren't you happy about it? Aren't you going to rub her belly and say hi to the baby inside? Most certainly yes. So in my opinion, god that love will not want a flesh from you to be ripped apart.
Doesn't the Bible consider children to be chattel of their fathers, to do with as he wishes? Like, if he wanted to beat to death his eight-year old, that was allowed? Why do we need to question the Biblical status of a fetus?
Because fundamentalists misconstrue and cherry pick the Bible enough to influence the votes of other fundamentalists which leads to fundamentalists in office leading to laws the fundies think are based on the Bible leading to everybody else needing to listen to bible scholars in order to get a rational perspective to straighten it all out
This guy believes homosexual marriage and abortion isn’t a sin and doesn’t believe Jesus is God. This is the most unbiblical and heretical Bible ‘scholar’ I ever heard.
@@yelrahkcorb Why do you lie? Is it because you're a Christian? Dan literally learned Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek just to be able to read it. You are probably barely literate in English, in which not a single word of the Bible was written.
I'd really like to hear a good secular argument against abortion... that can't also be used to justify extending personhood to all animals. Or that can't be used to justify forcing people to get pregnant. Either: 1. Killing a fetus is wrong because the fetus is an organism capable of suffering, and killing it will hurt it, in which case it's also wrong to kill any animals, ever. 2. Killing a fetus is wrong because it takes away a potential person's life, in which case the logical conclusion is that we should maximize the number of humans capable of having life... so we should make as many people have as many children as possible, always. Please correct me if I'm missing anything.
This "whole legal person" thing lasted well into the early years of our own country, as seen in the Constitution's Article I Section II, where an enslaved person is equivalent to three-fifths of a Free person, for taxing purposes. Some poor choices last far longer than they should have, but of course, we don't have to concern ourselves with stuff like that THESE days...
The 3/5ths Clause wasn't about taxation, it was about representation. It was the slave states putting their thumb on the scale to increase their political power and keep slavery legal. Because of the 3/5ths Clause, slave states got more representatives in the House of Representatives, and more electors for president in the Electoral College. The irony is although slaves couldn't vote, their numbers were used to keep slavery legal.
We're both right. The opening words that follow were nullified by the 24th Amendment: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) [The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.]
Cliffe's video reminds me of lyrics from the song "Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in My Hand" by Primitive Radio Gods: We sit outside and argue all night long About a god we've never seen But never fails to side with me
Excellent scholarship, as always, but it's so infuriating it's needed at all. Also, seeing Logan Paul, who infamously clowned around in Japan's suicide forest, sit around with a group of men (and only men, of course) to chat about the complexities of life and female bodily autonomy is such a joke. If they're all so concerned about it, I welcome them getting vasectomies for the good of all.
God is the creator. He gives life and he takes life. And he is not human; by definition he can't committ a homicide. You are making a big category error in your comparison.
The translation of "miscarriage" in Exodus 21 isn't the most literal one, though...that one seems to be based more on tradition. The more literal translation there just says if her unborn comes out or is born prematurely. It's not as clear cut as you're making it and it can't be utilized as some kind of proof text that a fetus is somehow less valuable without assuming that the interpretive rendering of "miscarriage" is the only way to translate that part (which it isn't). That's why you have so many literal translations who disagree with each other on that passage and even different editions of the same translation who do the same.
It is to be noted that Knechtle's definition of reasons for murder also misses many causes such as money (whether paid to murder or to achieve a benefit from it), jealousy, madness, and many other motivations.
I wish Dan would remember to point out the hugely different life expediencies of the present day compared to Biblical times in his videos on abortion. That's had a massive influence on opinions. Infant mortality was crazy high for most of recorded history. Just over two centuries ago the child mortality rate (under five years old) for the United States was estimated to be 46%, that's getting close to a 1 in 2 chance your child wouldn't live past 5.
to be fair, i'm not sure how you arrive at the last statement, and make the jump from broad-based ethical & moral claims, to identity politics. if there was a fine, or a punishment, wouldnt that likely indicate something wrong had been done? and if indeed wrong, isnt it reasonable to adjust our attitude toward that wrong over time, to include data they didnt have at the time, and integrate that data into our value system?
2:39 Same thing with Islam and Judaism has taken many places not only in murder but in many decisions dictating how the individuality of a the person operates and most of the time Free men are different from slaves,women,children of certain tribes,people with a range of illnesses and finally classes of people from the Main operator to the end of social hierarchy.
The skills required to do well in a live debate are different from just being knowledgeable and being able to put your position together well when you have time. I don't think Dan has ever done any debates. And a conversation with Cliffe Knechtle would no doubt become a debate.
Na. It may not do him Justice. He might even lose something he had worked on with a definitive conclusion. Reminds me of Ali Ataie; the Muslim scholar.
Americans favor abortion. There's some variance in what abortion entails in there, but on the whole most people are for it. The only people opposing it are a minority of highly motivated theocratic wannabes.
So that means that abortion is allowed under situations of self defence, right? So, if a woman is fearing for her health from labour, or if she couldn't financially support a child, then an abortion should be perfectly permissible.
Scholarship over apologists. I’ve noticed a lot of apologists try fill in the blanks of the bible and skew the story to their liking rather than exam the text for what it is
Wait, what? The Christian "pro-life" position is based on identity politics? (@6:13) Gotta admit, that's a new one for me. Did I misunderstand something?
Right-wing authoritarian identity politics is still identity politics. Conservatives like to pretend that liberals are the only people who do this, but make no mistake, conservatives are being packaged and sold an identity, too. Before the 1970s, evangelicals didn't care about abortion. They were too busy arguing against integration and bussing and were actively organizing to maintain white supremacy. Jerry Falwell didn't even give his first speech against abortion for five years after Roe and you will have trouble finding any evangelical leader speaking about it before then. But in the 1970s, racism stopped having a broad appeal, so they needed something else. They came up with abortion and they've been running with it ever since. In the 70s and 80s, you could be a pro-choice Republican or pro-life Democrat. Not anymore, because your position on it is now part of the identity being sold to you and no exceptions are allowed.
Amazing how people like you can criticize apologists for believing in something with no evidence, but you will HAPPILY believe in left-wing conspiracy theorists with no evidence in order to justify your bias and bigotry against right-wing conservatives. 😒
Did you think identity politics was something invented by minorities? Identity politics was invented by those who defined the in_group identity and set about excluding everyone else from power, relegating them to second class citizens, or even categorizing them as subhuman. White dominated society invented identity politics and now they clutch their pearls when minority groups find their own uses for identity politics. Now here’s the funniest part of all. This issue isn’t right-left. It isn’t rich-poor. It’s a thing unto itself.
Opposing abortion is used as a marker of in-group/out-group standing. "If you are part of the in-group, you believe X. You behave in Y way. The out-group are evil/demonic/foolish and must be opposed/destroyed."
He's talking about how either side uses their publicly stated views about it to mark themselves as belonging to their ideological tribe. The right does it just as much as the left. Dan is completely right in this aspect.
Modern science says exactly the opposite of that. The ovum and sperm were both alive before they ever met. If either was not alive, fertilization could not occur. That's how spermicide prevents pregnancy. -cide means kill, as in homicide (a person), insecticide (an insect), fratricide (your brother). Spermicide kills sperm. Modern science shows that a woman is born containing all of the ova she will have during her lifetime. So, your "life" as a single cell began a few months before your mother's birth, not at conception. Modern science also shows that about half of all conceptions never result in a pregnancy. The ovum is fertilized, but expelled during the woman's period. As to when personhood begins, science shows that your life ends as a person when your brain dies. Your ability to think and feel and perceive and experience is entirely due to your brain. Until a fetus develops a brain capable of thought, feelings, perception, and able to experience, there is no person.
Modern science shows life began 4 billion years ago and has diversified ever since. Nothing "Alive" today has ever been dead for those past 4 billion years. It's just one continuous process. There are no definite distinctions between species, or between when one organism becomes a different organism. These are categories we as humans have to make up in order to be able to talk about different organisms, but that doesn't make these categories or stages "Real". We draw distinctions between ourselves and bacteria. One is okay to kill, the other isn't. Despite the fact that we are both "Alive", and both descended from the same "Parent" billions of years ago. Because "Life" doesn't matter when killing or not killing. Personhood does. And personhood is not even a scientific category, like "Life," or "Species", it's a social one. It's one we make up for the good of society, not for science. If you can argue a collection of human cells in a womb is a person, then I can make a better argument that a cat or a dog is a person. A cat or a dog is smarter than a fetus, for one. It is more similar in behavior and mannerisms to an adult or child human than a fetus is. It has a better understanding of the world than a fetus does. And it can be happy and suffer in ways a fetus can't. Should we therefore extend personhood to dogs and cats? How about cows, pigs, and goats?
Humans each have a precious and incalculable value that is independent of any particular attribute one might possess (including one’s stage developmentally, which continues for years after birth). This principle can be arrived at from extrapolation of general (emphasis placed on the word general here, not proof-texting) biblical principles or from alternative (ultimately at least partly religious) starting points. Our understanding of developmental biology has made it clear that humans are independent organisms from the moment gamete nuclei fuse. This is not a point of discussion in the field. Note that I am intentionally avoiding terms like “person” or “soul,” which are religious in nature. “Human” is a far more definable (scientifically) and objective term. The former assumption (human value) and latter observation (instant independence of human life at conception) lead to an obvious position on this issue. Discussions of Old Testament/ANE understanding of personhood or pre-modern assumptions about development are distractions that serve to miss the point entirely and help justify something that is increasingly unjustifiable. Dan rightfully points out that working backwards from a desired conclusion is an improper methodology for arriving at accurate theoretical models from the best available data. I suspect that he unfortunately is doing just that here (and elsewhere). The starting point (scientifically) for human life is not debatable. Now, the starting assumption that all humans have the same value is something that I hope most of us maintain when prompted to address. Considering some humans non-persons or lesser persons is not a good philosophical bedrock to build arguments on and can lead to horrifying endpoints. I know that most in the comments section on this channel are not happy to hear this, but I encourage you to take a moment to sit on these points and see if this line of argumentation is at least worth considering. Changing your mind’s current theoretical model on something to better fit available data is something the human mind is innately reluctant to do. But I encourage you to do that here and elsewhere. Note that I’m not here to argue/debate (this is a mostly fruitless endeavor on the internet these days)… I just am providing a necessary oppositional perspective to stimulate thought amidst an algorithm that does its best to stifle it. Hopefully this at least more effectively communicates my side of this issue better than it is put forward elsewhere on the internet. My bias is that I’m a Christian and I can’t pretend my exposure to Christian culture in the West has not affected the lense through which I see this issue. However, I sincerely believe I have arrived at this conclusion independently of those influences and do my best to do so on other topics via exposure to alternative hypotheses (hence, I watch things like Dan’s videos).
I appreciate the thoughtful articulation of your position and agree that such comments are rare in forums such as RUclips. In defence of pro-choice I take issue with your assumptions about the meaning of "value" and "independence" as they relate to abortion and I can't help but note the complete absence of any consideration of a woman's value and independence.
@@DannySmith862 Thanks for the non-hostile response... and good follow-up points. "Value" is an intentionally vague term that encompasses what I hope is a nearly universally recognized high regard for individual human beings. I am not sure of another word or description that better communicates this. As for independence, the unborn human is independent regarding he or she being an independent organism. Again, the goal for my premises is to be as objective and scientifically precise as possible, which I think is critical for reaching a consensus among humans who share little in common religiously. Considering independence of the organism seeks to achieve this. A fetus is spatially located within the mother and dependent upon her for nutrition, but these dependencies extend until the moment of birth, and nutritional dependence continues for months afterward. Therefore, if these dependencies disqualify a human from being a person (again, disqualifying humans from personhood is not a philosophical route that should ever be considered, but for the sake of argument), then abortion until birth is the logical conclusion, which the majority of pro-choicers do no support. As for your last point, if my premises are true and the conclusion logically follows, then we are at a position where we must determine whether suspension of bodily autonomy or the killing of an innocent human is worse.
@@SFT49 If you assert value as a deliberately vague term to mean a basic high regard, your position fails upon being confronted with the reality of unwanted pregnancy because your definition ceases to apply. If you rely on a scientific definition of organism in a legal arena where a fully autonomous conscious organism asserts their independence against a biological organism whose very existence depends on hostile parasitical sustenance from the host organism, then biology offers little support to the pro-life position. Kindly refrain from expressing offence at my use of biological framing when you're the one insisting on it. It's equivocation to treat a baby's dependance on care, which can be provided by any competent individual, with the biological dependance of an embryo on the mother's specific body and organs. To reduce these two substantively distinct physical conditions to mere difference of location is absurd to the point of dishonesty. It would be like saying someone's offence from having a phallic object placed on the table next to them is the same as their offence from having that object placed inside of them. Not all locations are equal. I am specifically limiting the argument to embryos because about 95% of abortions are performed by the end of the 12th week of pregnancy so discussion about the ethics of viable fetuses after 22 weeks gestation is a red herring which must be addressed using different arguments relating to exceptional cases. Let's establish the principle before we look at the exceptions. I reject your premises and your conclusion but even if I did accept them, I would continue to argue that the evil of slavery entailed in pro-life policies requiring forced gestation and birth outweighs the specially pleaded "harm' experienced by aborting unwanted embryos.
@@DannySmith862 Well, "value" is deliberately vague because of an intention to be all-encompassing. You had an issue with the term, and again I am not sure of a better word to communicate holding human beings in especially high regard. Getting stuck on this word is not fruitful for the conversation. Humans should be held in high regard and should not be viewed as lesser because of any particular characteristic. If you disagree with that premise, then you are free to dismiss my conclusion. The phrase "hostile parasitical sustenance" is problematic and unfortunately typical. "Hostile" indicates an antagonistic intention, which fetuses do not have. Pregnancy is also not classically parasitic, but more mutualistic, because of the advantages associated with producing offspring. But typically even mutualism (along with parasitism) is interspecific (between two species). Pregnancy is also a normal part of a female organism's life cycle, so does not really qualify for any of these terms. Regardless, let's momentarily ignore these problems and consider your term parasite at face value. While having a negative connotation, this term implies little more than I already said: the fetus is relying upon his or her mother for nutrition at the cost of the mother's resources. From your understanding of parasitism, you would have to necessarily extrapolate that breastfeeding or childrearing in general are forms of parasitism. This is why being precise with terminology is important. The arguments too easily become lost in the rhetoric unless you are careful. The simplification to location and nutritional dependence is not intended to minimize the difficulties of pregnancy. It is intended to identify which characteristics are being considered to disqualify personhood. I do not think that the parasitic (as you put it) or internal natures of fetal development disqualify human fetuses from the value that we humans all share equally. And again, those who are positioned against late-stage abortions are choosing to NOT disqualify fetuses as "persons" despite their continued "internal parasitic" role. This is a problem for those who use these characteristics to exclusively justify early abortions. Consistency is important. As a side note, in your table analogy, the object on the table is the same object as the object inside of the individual. That is the point of the discussion. The location of the fetus does not alter his or her status as a human. Substitute "harm" in your last sentence with "death" to be more direct and honest here. Euphemisms should be unnecessary in an argument made by someone confident in his or her position. Also, I am not sure why being unwanted (another characteristic of a fetus used to justify killing him or her) disqualifies a human from having value (or personhood, if you prefer that term). I have found that employment of these terms and phrases also usually marks the end of any kind of meaningful interaction. Your last point indicates that we are at the end of the road in this conversation. My entire line of argumentation is weightless to someone who holds the position that killing an innocent human is justified to enhance bodily autonomy. This is an impasse because we are evidently placing priorities on entirely different things. As long as my line of reasoning is clear, I am satisfied. I am fully aware that differing presuppositions and priorities lie at the foundation of disagreement here. I am seeking to isolate those from the rest of the conversation so that we as a society begin to discuss THOSE differences. I hope you at least somewhat enjoyed the back-and-forth but I don't think there is much more to say on this.
“For Any guilty of this crime the penalty of death is inexorable, whether he violates a virgin betrothed to another or seduces a married woman.-'' The Law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the foetus ; a woman convicted of this is regarded as an infanticide, because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race.” Josephus, Against Apion, II 202-205, 375 (loeb classical library)
In regard to the pregnant woman being struck, the text says nothing of a miscarriage. It simple says "if the child comes out and no harm is done" then there is to be a fine. Then the following verse says if there is harm then to institute the talionic justice.
But taking away an innocent baby's life doesn't have to be illegal. "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother 's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it 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 saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:13-16. Do you want to take away that baby's life? God knows them, and has a plan for their life. Are you going to go against God?
Hummm... This position is based on identity politics? After going through such an exhaustive recitation from the Bible, don't you think that is an oversimplification there, Dan?
It is definitely. The Bible clearly treats the fetus as property as mentioned above. Furthermore, at least 1/3 fertilized eggs result in spontaneous abortion that is often not even noticed, making it almost impossible to reconcile a classical theism with early ensoulment. Finally, up until the 80s, anti-abortion lobbying was often considered a “catholic” issue and the southern baptist council actually took out a full page ad praising Roe v Wade…you can look it up and read it! The point is, treating it as obviously biblical is in fact a late twentieth century dog whistle for fundamentalist christians, if you connect the dots carefully.
Your position is based on conservative politics. You can interpret it however you choose. Baptists used to believe in the right to abortion just a few decades ago. It's all politics.
@@centaur7607 This is a bigoted comment from Dan. It's a problem with Dan when he ventures into moral issues. First, It is implying that abortion is ONLY a political issue, which it is not. Second it is implying that if someone is taking a position against abortion it is because they have a political agenda, which is not true. Abortion is a moral, spiritual, medical and psychological issue that politics has tried to work out. Certainly, an individual can take a position on abortion solely based on identity politics, and many people do. Those people are intellectually dishonest and they do more harm to themselves and others, than good. Politics is an extension of an individual's personal belief structure, their moral and ethical compass in life. If someone takes a political stance, it's not rooted in their political identity, but an expression politically of their personal belief system. The reason we have a hard time separating this is because we have used politics to dehumanize people thanks to our dishonest media and spin outlets. If you support abortion it's because you have deeply rooted reasons, which are valid. I should be interested in why you support it, not ramrod you into a political identity to justify treating you horribly and attempt to make you you look shallow and stupid. This is what Dan just did here.
It's like you didn't watch the video. He clearly explains how Augustine and early Christians interpreted this issue in the second half of the video. Try watching the whole thing.
@@centaur7607 Where he is wrong, Pesonen&Valkama (2010) clearly claims that the abortion was deemed wrong earlier than in times of St. Augustine. Like I told earlier, Dan is just strawmanning and misrepresenting Kliffs position.
@@JiiV3eSo you're just cherry picking. St. Augustine was an extremely authoritative voice for Christianity for a long time. Someone saying something before Augustine doesn't make their position more valid.
Old Testament slavery was not race based forced servitude, it was a voluntary means of working off debt. Jacob for example worked seven years as a willing servant to marry Leah. Slave trading is condemned in the Bible (Exodus 21:16;1st Timothy 1:10) punishable by death in the Old Testament.
It was debt-slavery only for Israelites. Others could be chattel slaves, and their children were chattel slaves. Don't quote only a couple verses given to you by your favorite lying apologist.
You can lie all day. Fortunately, the truth is well documented in your "holy" Scriptures. CHILD TR_FFICKING Joel 3:8 And I will sell your sons and daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, a people far off: for YHWH hath spoken it. CHILD S_X SLAVES Deuteronomy 20:13-15 When YHWH, your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male with the edge of the sword. But the women, the LITTLE ONES... you shall plunder for yourself. Thus you shall do to all the cities... Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. SLAVES Leviticus 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them, you may buy slaves 25:46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession, they shall be your permanent slaves. Numbers 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones. Exodus 21:7 If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free, as male servants do. JESUS S(L)AVES I Peter 2:18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh I Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name, and our teaching may not be slandered. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything... Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart... Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them. GENOCIDE Deuteronomy 3:6 Utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city 2:34 Utterly destroyed the men, women and the little ones of every city, we left none to remain. Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women Numbers 33:55-56 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you. It shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN Revelations 2:18 These things saith the son of God 2:23 AND I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH 8:9 the third part of the creatures, which were in the sea, and had life, died 11:6 power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues (bioweapons), as often as they will. WOW, him and his crew are going to murder children, fish, and spread bioweapons. CANNIBALISM Deuteronomy 28:53 thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters. Ezekiel 39:18 ye shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and ye shall drink the blood of Princes 39:19 drink the blood, til ye be drunken I Baruch 2:2-3 YHWH would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses: that a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter John 6:53 Jesus said... except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day 6:55 for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed 1 Corinthians 10:16 the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? CHILD SACRIFICE John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Romans 3:25 (NIV) God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of the blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness... Micah 6:7 shall I give my FIRSTBORN for my transgressions, the fruit of my body, for the sin of my soul? Exodus 22:29 you shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. THE FIRSTBORN OF YOUR SONS YOU SHALL GIVE TO ME. 22:30 Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with it's mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to me Nehemiah 10:35 and we made ordinances to bring the FIRSTFRUITS... to the house of YHWH 10:36 to bring the FIRSTBORN OF OUR SONS and our cattle, AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW HOW TO COOK YOUR CHILD Leviticus 2:13 and every oblation of thy MEAT OFFERING, thou shalt season with salt 2:14 a MEAT OFFERING of thy FIRSTFRUITS, unto YHWH thou shalt offer 6:21 in a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it's baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the MEAT OFFERING shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto YHWH 1:9 a food offering with a pleasing aroma to YHWH IN HIS OWN WORDS Ezekiel 20:25 Moreover I gave them laws, that were not good, and rules by which they could not live: 20:26 when they set aside their FIRST ISSUE OF THE WOMB, I defiled them by their gifts- that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am YHWH
@@schen7913 Those are straight from the Bible and other peoples were living wickedly. The fact remains that owning or selling humans as slaves is unrighteousness with God and punishable by death in the OT.
@@schen7913 Actually it's even more specific than that - debt slavery was only for _male_ Israelites. Israelites could sell their daughters off for cash, and it would not be debt slavery. Plus Israelite debt slaves could become chattel slaves if they chose to continue in their servitude after the period of the debt was worked off, which they were likely to do if they were unmarried when they became slaves as their masters would supply them with female slaves to take as wives and the female slave would _not_ be freed when that period was up because again, female slaves were not debt slaves. Also any offspring they had would be chattel slaves like their mother. The debt slavery was basically a tiny part of the overall slavery picture.
You're retrofitting modern moral values into ancient beliefs and practices. You're engaging in begging the question because what the Bible - and history - clearly expresses does not match with what contemporary Christians believe about God.
Cliffe is annoying. He’s all over the place on TikTok preaching his usual BS, acting like he knows wtf he’s talking about. Not sure who’s worse him or Ken Ham.
Cliffe does know what he’s talking about though. Just because you disagree with what he’s saying doesn’t mean he’s wrong. What he says is biblical. Ken Ham on the other hand. I disagree with what he thinks being a Young Earth Creationist, but what he believes isn’t unbiblical from what I’ve seen.
Bible verses against abortion: Exodus 21:22-23, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,” Psalm 139:13-16, “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Isaiah 44:2-“Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.” Jeremiah 1:5-“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Ecclesiastes 11:5-“As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.” Luke 1:41,44-“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” Also, here is Christ Himself on murder, Matthew 19:18-“He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,”
@@tchristianphoto the phrase “so that her fruit depart from her” is the killing of the baby in the womb. The other verses prove it is a human being in the womb so therefore any killing of it is abortion. Any killing of it willingly therefore is murder.
Also Jesus... JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN Revelations 2:18 These things saith the son of God 2:23 AND I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH 8:9 the third part of the creatures, which were in the sea, and had life, died 11:6 power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues (bioweapons), as often as they will. WOW, him and his crew are going to murder children, fish, and spread bioweapons. CANNIBALISM Deuteronomy 28:53 thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters. Ezekiel 39:18 ye shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and ye shall drink the blood of Princes 39:19 drink the blood, til ye be drunken I Baruch 2:2-3 YHWH would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses: that a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter John 6:53 Jesus said... except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day 6:55 for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed 1 Corinthians 10:16 the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
@@brandoncloud300 Seeing how the Bible clearly establishes a human being growing in the womb we should quickly realize killing that human being is at best manslaughter and at worst murder.
That's not biblical reality, either. The Biblical God performs many deeds out of anger, jealousy, dissatisfaction, etc. And the laws of the Bible certainly don't reflect "Only love", seeing as there are numerous laws justifying slavery and numerous "Crimes" with no victims that are punishable by death. If you choose to believe in a God who ONLY loves, then you have to throw away the vast majority of the Bible, and probably the vast majority of other beliefs you currently hold.
@@avishevin3353 that's the god's grace. If you believe in him and do good works you don't use people as slaves. Sexual objects, personal gains. It is simple. And that goes and for abortion.
Great way to hide the truth. A simple 30 second search shows one example say "gore's to death" and the other example just states "gores" Two completely different scenarios. Way to prove your misleading people. Just another example on how you hide the actual truth.
I'm not sure what you searched, and if auto-correct did you dirty here, but "gore's" is not a real word. Exodus mentions two examples. One where an ox gores(meaning killed) someone, and another situation where the ox is known to have this type of violent behavior and how the owner is punished accordingly. There's no misleading here
@@brandoncloud300 So out of the two examples, one where the ox kills someone and the other example where it doesn't, you picked out "gore's" because it's misspelled. But disregard that he is trying to claim both examples mean death. Got it
@centaur7607 You need me to explain how "gored to death" is completely different than being "gored"? Because if you're unable to see the difference, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will work
JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN Revelations 2:18 These things saith the son of God 2:23 AND I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH 8:9 the third part of the creatures, which were in the sea, and had life, died 11:6 power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues (bioweapons), as often as they will. WOW, him and his crew are going to murder children, fish, and spread bioweapons. CANNIBALISM Deuteronomy 28:53 thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters. Ezekiel 39:18 ye shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and ye shall drink the blood of Princes 39:19 drink the blood, til ye be drunken I Baruch 2:2-3 YHWH would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses: that a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter John 6:53 Jesus said... except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day 6:55 for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed 1 Corinthians 10:16 the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
I appreciate how you talk about what’s present in the Bible without using euphemisms. What you’re describing is absolutely horrible, but it’s what’s present in the text, and mustn’t be changed whatsoever when presenting it. This is why I love scholarship so much more than dumb apologetics, it’s unfiltered and pure.
Anyone who truly respects the bible and honours its words wouldn't dare subvert or euphemise or cherry-pick it. That's soo disrespectful to the text
Thank God I don't need the Old Testament to be able to form an opinion on how and when abortion is morally acceptablel or not, but I appreciate your honest and objective, academic analysis on this matter as th OT actually says it.
All stuff I've been long aware of but I REALLY appreciate having it all laid out distinctly and succinctly in one, short video. Thank you, Doc!! ❤️
An assaulted woman who loses her pregnancy - the penalty is for PROPERTY, not murder. Case closed.
LOL 😂 since there was no ability to save the baby in those days: totally different with our Healthcare system today so your ignorance like Dan's is just based on your biases and not Logic.
God makes laws according to the time period and technology of the culture.
Property compensation was the only Justice at that time period.
But obviously they were NOT willfully aborting babies at that time because they valued human life: which you seem to NOT.
But you support assaulting the baby and killing it : how your morals have progressd: LOL 😂
There wasn't medical help available then for any termination of pregnancy.
Financial compensation was the only alternative.
BTW they weren't doing thousands of abortions either then : they valued life and their population was vital due to the wars that happened each spring.
Grow up !!! Child.
Assaulting the baby is murder as we have the technology to save the babies life: something they didn't have in the ancient world.
Financial compensation was their only choice!!!
Actually read the exodus account it is more vague then Dan purports...it was debated even early rabbinic texts that it was the baby considered and not only the pregnant woman...Babbar qamma 48b.
Dan does tend to ignore some things to make his point...just like the ox scenario and the shekels actually being a labour loss and not a life subsidiary, not sure why it has to be said but here it is....the ox is not a human...going to have different rules and reasons for a death caused by an animal.
The slave would be avenged if killed this then goes to the avenger rules...it's pretty obvious that its not about money here with the verse right after being that the master paid out of his pocket...and it could be said that if verse 12 is also in view here that some judicial practices would be taken for major issues.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 alright, let's see it
American Christian tradition likes to say it is the same as that of the 1st century and the 16th century reformers (even tho those two traditions were also very different from each other) but really the 19th century is where the vast majority of Evangelical and American theology was founded
If God didn’t want abortions to occur then they would’ve made pregnancy and childbirth in a way that would be far more easier for women to handle!
@@MarshalMarrs-eu9yh But Eve ate an apple, so all women must suffer.
Also, in Numbers 5, there is a method to give a cheating wife an abortion.
Christianity today would be unrecognizable to the 1sr century Apsostles.
@@emptyhand777 I couldn’t agree more! The Roman Empire ruined Christianity and Christianity’s reputation has never recovered because of Rome!
Christians have always been against abortion. There are several Church Fathers who teach it’s evil and not allowed.
Oh it's Cliffe "I'm going to make things up that the bible says and pretend it says them" Knechtle.
Perhaps the most interesting thing in this discussion is that for people who plant their flag in the "Bible Only" camp, they would have to hold to a position closer to the rabbinic teachings prior to the influence of "pagan" ideologies", otherwise known as Greek philosophy. Which means the fetus is not a person prior to birth. I don't think that is the proposition they want to hold. 🤔😶🌫
It's a tension the fundies completely deny.
they hold to the "Bible Only" position wherein the Bible says whatever they want it to say
Surely that would be Jewish philosophy. Why would a Christian base their opinion on Greek philosophy? Greeks were pagans who had their own host of Gods.
Excellent analysis, thank you for sharing an academic understanding instead of a theological one.
You do realize that abortion is MEDICAL understanding right? Why do you think that a biblical scholar would understand the human body rather than a licensed physician or doctor? 🤦♂️
@@benclark4823This isn’t about abortion in a vacuum, it’s about how abortion was understood by people writing the Bible. Dan is well within his purview here.
@@benclark4823 I'm sorry, how does this in any way interact with my comment or the video? It's literally a Bible scholar - a real one, not a theologian - analyzing the text and context of the Bible regarding abortion.
It has no relationship with a medical context wherein my understanding is that it is the ending of a pregnancy.
Then WHY did you consider Dave a “expert” on abortion? What “authority” does a biblical scholar have to say about a medical operation? 🤦♂️
@@benclark4823 it’s not solely a medical question. It’s a moral/ethical question. As such, a person taking a position can call on scientific understanding or theological sources or the arguments of philosophers.
A person making a theological argument based on the Bible better know their stuff or have their argument dismantled by the likes of Dan.
I guess I'd ask Cliff if suffocating to death most life on this planet with the waters from the great flood would be considered murder on a planet wide scale?
No, that's God working in mysterious ways. So A-OK.
The Flood wasn't Global and it was designed to Terminate the Nephilim of Genesis 6: 1-4.
And purge their contamination of mankind around the Mount Herman area that is in Israel.
Dan won't tell you this because it doesn't fit his Dogma of Data.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I'm gonna believe the biblical scholar over some random want to be a apologist.
Either way, whether it was global or local no eight hundred year old non boat makers ever built a boat to lug around two of every kind of animal In an effort to escape the wrath of a character from a book of myths
@@RobertSmith-gx3miand yet almost every culture from that region has records of a flood?
@@brianlamptey4823 What am I supposed to do with this irrelevant information? Every culture in the region Having a flood myth does not prove a global flood happened
That summation in the last minute should be heard by everyone defending women's rights.
David says in psalm’s something like “surely i was sinful from the moment my mother conceived me”
You guys, this video needs to go viral...
Use the share button…you know what to do. :)
Spreading more death and hate I see ?
In regards to Exodus 21:20-21, the masoretic text says the master is punished. But the samaritan hebrew text of this passage says the master is executed
Cliffe is as disingenuous as they come.
reason?
@@alekhinesgun9997 the reason is he is a Christian apologist. They all engage in lies and deception because they value their faith above the truth, as Cliffe does in the being responded to
@@alekhinesgun9997 - a good example is his argument pointed out here.
@@johnpetry5321 Do you know what the meaning of disingenuous is?
@@alekhinesgun9997 yes, do you?
Good evening, i'm responding to your responses to cliffe's statements. I would argue that, firstly, although some topics are not well addressed in the bible, we still can figure out there is a difference between murder and killing, because the bible make good points, such as:
“If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.” (Exodus 22:2)
You said that, within the bible, the question is "when does a person begin". So i don't think we are anywhere in the bible when it comes to the issue that we are addressing, but, still, the bible make great points and one of the cliffe's most used lines is: "The human life has value, only because there's a god".
So It's not a relevant question in the bible, but simply because we are dealing with a fairly recent issue, we are not talking about a topic that's recorded in the bible. It does not matter wether a person is legal or not, the context brought up might clearly show otherwise, but it obviously was not the right way to go.
And the point the bible make is all humans have equal value, because they're all created in the image of god, regardless of what the bible record about those civilizations back then, there is such a thing as context.
It does not matter whether someone is more of a "person" than the other, because that is measuring the value of human based on a certain degree and not by kind, and what i insist: a baby is not more value than the mother and neither the other way around.
And to put up the question of whether the hebrew bible would take abortion as murder or as killing is not a fairly put question, given that the time the hebrew bible was written, there was probably so little to know about biology and technology, and also there is the cultural factor.
I believe you did not even show his respond to the question.
The people in the comment section can correct me if i'm wrong, i would love to read it.
Lol the Bible didn't just record the history. These are people that apparently had direct access to God and talked to him. So if they had rules that were terrible you can't just wave it away as that's how it was back then. If all humans had equal value why wasn't there a commandment for that? No slaves, women aren't property, etc. Ignorance can't be an excuse when God can tell you the information directly. If God was silent on this then while you can say he didn't endorse it well at the very least he enabled it though non action.
@Alexander-the-Mediocre I think it would have been obvious to them. A human is a human before birth, therefore killing it is murder. The Bibke does say He (meaning God) knit me together in my mother's womb. Ie: not in the monent of birth.
@@peterwallis4288 killing is not always murder. Watch the video. Killing someone's slave for example is 30 shekels. So a killing a slave is not murder but property damage. Killing a fetus in a mother's womb is also a fine in the Bible so once again not murder. And since it's decided bybthe husband he gets to set the price of the fine for damaging property. If human equality was so obvious then there would be no slaves and women wouldn't be treated as less then men. No through most of Christianity a fetus was only a person when ensoulment happened. And that was not thought to happen at conception.
"Stop, he's already dead" is a fitting meme for this one
Can you cite where 1st-century Israelite Law says so?
I appreciate both your use of facts to arrive at an answer regarding the topic itself, and your conclusions at the end which contextualize and explain the rationalization of the content creator.
Brilliant as always Dan. Thank you
I spent a long time looking at exodus 21:22 tonight, and there's an argument out there that the hebrew "yasa" is almost always used elsewhere in the bible to mean "to come out", and is always used in regards to a living being. To me, this feels like a pretty compelling argument that what's in view in this passage is not a woman having a miscarriage, but a woman who is assault and (somehow) gives live birth to an uninjured baby.
I'm not sure if anyone will still be in this youtube comment section at this point, but I'm wondering if anyone has a compelling counterargument to this thought.
Doesn’t God COMMAND a woman undergo an abortion if her husband even as much as suspects her of bearing a child out of infidelity in Numbers 5:11-31?
The NIV explicitly states this, while other versions have enough wiggle room for Apologists to try and deny that is what it means.
@@funkatron101 Yeah I’ve noticed some versions use the word “knee” instead of “womb”. Of course, saying the dirty water shall “cause her knee to rot” doesn’t make sense to me nor do I see how that replaces “cause her womb to miscarry.”
@@jdnlaw1974 I've never seen "knee." It's usually "thigh" which is a euphemism for reproductive parts. There are a number of instances that refer to this. Sometimes touching "under the thigh" to pledge allegiance. (Literally touching their genitals). It's weird.
@@funkatron101 You’re right, it’s thigh, not knee. Forgive me, it’s been a long day. Lol.
So in the original Hebrew there are a number of different ways it can be read, and the problem with the abortion reading is that the passage doesn't comment on whether the woman is pregnant or not. It's pretty explicit actually that the ritual is for when the husband _suspects_ but has no proof of her unfaithfulness and is overcome with jealousy. So pregnant or not, it says the ritual should still be applied in that case.
But additionally, it also doesn't necessarily talk about miscarriage either. Although in the NIV it uses the word "miscarries", it could also mean to be rendered sterile. Or worse, verse 27 can be read to suggest that she experiences a false pregnancy and sterility... and finally it has been suggested that verse 27 could be read to mean a very gory death involving inside parts not staying inside.
There's a bunch of different things it could mean. English translations have opted to imply it's an abortion because most of the alternative readings are worse.
A Majority of US Citizens think/say that abotion should be allowed up to SIX months of pregnancy
Modern Medical Techniques can save an infant that is THREE months premature
( 6 +3 = 9 months, length of normal human pregnancy )
So instead of philosophy, moderns are practical and go by viability ( allegedly )
Yeah that about lines up with the Quickening as well. It also lines up with the decision-making parts of the brain coming into action, which is the earliest we can safely assume any kind of "free will" is present.
What's your source on this? Polling by Gallup last year had much lower support for abortion in the 2nd trimester- "about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters."
"Majority" is bullshit you pulled out of your ass.
You lie
@@kathy1154 I love it when there's a discussion with two or more sides, and then someone comes in and proclaims their support or opposition - without any hint towards which side they mean that.
And these days, RUclips makes it extra easy to indicate that. I have to assume that those people intentionally edited out the reference. Real model citizens, there!
Also relevant to when the bible considers human life to matter, we need to take into account 2 Samuel 12 and Psalm 137
Before anyone can take a position on abortion they must first answer the question of when life begins (“When does life begin?”). And that's an easy one. The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms when life begins. In Genesis, chapter one, God answers that question himself. He forms a figure from the Earth, but it does not become Adam ("person" in Hebrew) until God "breathes into him the breath of life, and he became man.”
Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. Your soul enters your body with your first breath and it leaves with your last. The body is just a vessel - your being, your humanity, is your immortal soul. That's what the Bible says, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people, especially supposedly religious people, get this wrong. There is no question, no moral ambiguity. Abortion destroys an empty vessel, it does not kill a human being.
That is not to say that a fetus isn't alive, because it clearly is. So is a cow, or an earthworm, or a tree. However, simply being alive does not make something a human being. Having a soul is what sets us apart from other living things. Otherwise, every farmer and every lumberjack would be a murderer. And so would all of the rest of us who eat living things. Even the hardcore vegans would be murderers since they eat plants and plants are alive too.
So really, without some sort of religious or moral framework, there isn't any difference between killing a person and cutting down a tree. And that sounds like a pretty stupid position to be arguing. But if you follow your religious beliefs, the answer to the abortion question is crystal clear to anyone who can read. Abortion is not murder, as it does not take the life of another human being.
Abortion is forbidden by the Didache. The Didache was written at the same time as the latest books of the bible. So the earliest Christians believed it to be a prohibited practice.
I just listened to Bart Ehrman explain how the earliest Christian writings that are interpreted as "pro-life" are actually defences to allegations that they ate children during their "love feasts". As in, "No, we don't eat babies. We don't even kill fetuses." It seems that accusations of baby-eating was a common trope used against outsiders much like Christians accusing atheists of the same in modern times.
Yeah bollocks mate.
CANNIBALISM
Deuteronomy
28:53 thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters.
Ezekiel
39:18 ye shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and ye shall drink the blood of Princes
39:19 drink the blood, til ye be drunken
I Baruch
2:2-3 YHWH would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses: that a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter
John
6:53 Jesus said... except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day
6:55 for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed
1 Corinthians
10:16 the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
A possible pro-life take: Cannot the Septuagint translation simply mean that, if the aborted fetus was imperfectly formed, that's judicial proof that the woman probably didn't look pregnant (since it was so early in the pregnancy), and thus, the man couldn't have known she was pregnant when he was goofing around? And so he gets a light penalty even though he took a human life?
Is there not an instruction on how to perform an abortion in the old testament Numbers 5:11-31 ? If I remember right there is also a suggestion to use a date seed in the manner of a copper coil for contraception. The later may be from other ancient sources though. (For some reason they taught us this in school).
There is a method that would not appear to kill a baby that can be used. I have heard that before, but it's to drink a mixture of dust and water. I don't think that would result in the death of the fetus, naturally anyway. I would think it's a method of saying, we're leaving it for God to decide.
No idea about the other thing, but I don't know the Bible as well as I should, so it could be there.
Need to differentiate old vs new testament
2:49 I read it and it was talking about causing premature birth.
Good video. I don’t disagree with your points.
However, what do we do with the early Christian position opposing abortion, as we see in the Didache? It seems that they reached this position rather quickly, even if it was post-biblical. Thanks!
Good question.
@@GeoffBosco
Yeah, really
Abortion before quickening was considered wrong (not murder) because it was considered to be a cover-up for vice i.e. sexual licence.
@@michaelnewsham1412
What do you mean by “before quickening”?
@@michaelnewsham1412 can you say more about this, please? Do you have evidence to support this conclusion?
It says something about modern pro-life that the ancients had more respect for women's legal status than they do. That pro-life is regressive isn't even totally accurate.
It says something about atheist when they criticize god’s killing of children in the Bible but show no empathy for the thousands of children killed by abortion. It’s like they condemn and complain about god being “immoral” when he does that kind of stuff but not when THEY do the exact same thing. Total hypocrisy. 😒
@@benclark4823 No, the criticism of God is to show that Christian morals are arbitrary. There are no children killed during abortion. Removing non-sentient embryonic tissue before it develops into a child is not killing a person.
Amazing how you can dehumanize innocent children because they where FORCED by their parents to be in a situation that they didn’t even consent too. It’s amazing all the mental gymnastics you have to go through to classify someone as not a “person” with human rights because they are FORCED to be in a inside of a women body because of their selfish actions of simply not having sex. What I find most interesting is how atheists will complain about the evils racism and bigotry and slavery but also don’t see the exact same bigotry in believing that a fetus isn’t a human being with rights. 😠
@@benclark4823 I don't need to dehumanize embryos. They lack the characteristics associated with human beings, mainly consciousness and individuality. Pro-lifers work really hard to humanize embryos. That's why you insist on calling them children and babies. No normal person thinks an embryo is a baby. Unwanted pregnancy is a real condition. No one forces an unwanted embryo to come into existence, unless you believe in God of course. You should ask him why he does that.
You mean their legal status as property? I think you might be getting the wrong message here.
Does Cliff need to be reminded of Numbers 31?
Ok , what if mary was influenced by these heathens and decided to abort Jesus before he was born . What do you think Gods wrath would be ?
I would pay to see a debate between you and Cliffe! 😁
Note that the Hebrew term for murder is also used for a lion killing it prey. I don't know if there is a law that governs killings by big cats.
It is? I don't think I've ever seen that. And as a group name, it's crows.
My personal opinion.... A living flesh inside a woman fetus is a person. When your wife gets pregnant aren't you happy about it? Aren't you going to rub her belly and say hi to the baby inside? Most certainly yes. So in my opinion, god that love will not want a flesh from you to be ripped apart.
Doesn't the Bible consider children to be chattel of their fathers, to do with as he wishes? Like, if he wanted to beat to death his eight-year old, that was allowed? Why do we need to question the Biblical status of a fetus?
Because fundamentalists misconstrue and cherry pick the Bible enough to influence the votes of other fundamentalists which leads to fundamentalists in office leading to laws the fundies think are based on the Bible leading to everybody else needing to listen to bible scholars in order to get a rational perspective to straighten it all out
Idc tearing apart children bc u don’t wanna take care of them (for most cases) isn’t cool
This guy believes homosexual marriage and abortion isn’t a sin and doesn’t believe Jesus is God.
This is the most unbiblical and heretical Bible ‘scholar’ I ever heard.
aw are you gonna cry because the mean man interprets your favourite book wrong?
@@SpittingVillage No, he doesn’t read the Bible.
@@yelrahkcorb
Why do you lie? Is it because you're a Christian? Dan literally learned Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek just to be able to read it. You are probably barely literate in English, in which not a single word of the Bible was written.
It really does not take the Bible to get us to think abortion may be a morally dubious action.
I'd really like to hear a good secular argument against abortion... that can't also be used to justify extending personhood to all animals.
Or that can't be used to justify forcing people to get pregnant.
Either:
1. Killing a fetus is wrong because the fetus is an organism capable of suffering, and killing it will hurt it, in which case it's also wrong to kill any animals, ever.
2. Killing a fetus is wrong because it takes away a potential person's life, in which case the logical conclusion is that we should maximize the number of humans capable of having life... so we should make as many people have as many children as possible, always.
Please correct me if I'm missing anything.
Yeah maybe or maybe not. Are you secular or from a non-Christian religion Cinnamondan?
@@jamesmccomb4790 LDS
This "whole legal person" thing lasted well into the early years of our own country, as seen in the Constitution's Article I Section II, where an enslaved person is equivalent to three-fifths of a Free person, for taxing purposes. Some poor choices last far longer than they should have, but of course, we don't have to concern ourselves with stuff like that THESE days...
The 3/5ths Clause wasn't about taxation, it was about representation. It was the slave states putting their thumb on the scale to increase their political power and keep slavery legal.
Because of the 3/5ths Clause, slave states got more representatives in the House of Representatives, and more electors for president in the Electoral College.
The irony is although slaves couldn't vote, their numbers were used to keep slavery legal.
We're both right. The opening words that follow were nullified by the 24th Amendment: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) [The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.]
And of course Biblical theology on the issue is going to be different from natural law theory... different from... and different from etc.
Cliffe's video reminds me of lyrics from the song "Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in My Hand" by Primitive Radio Gods:
We sit outside and argue all night long
About a god we've never seen
But never fails to side with me
Excellent scholarship, as always, but it's so infuriating it's needed at all. Also, seeing Logan Paul, who infamously clowned around in Japan's suicide forest, sit around with a group of men (and only men, of course) to chat about the complexities of life and female bodily autonomy is such a joke. If they're all so concerned about it, I welcome them getting vasectomies for the good of all.
Dan for President 2028
Why do you hate Dan that much?
Dan was involved in some more local level politics several years ago.
Thou shalt not murder!!
I can tho, obvs. I'm god.
God is the creator. He gives life and he takes life. And he is not human; by definition he can't committ a homicide. You are making a big category error in your comparison.
@@user-pm3mw8xw8d I'm sorry, who gave you the authority to define God?
@@user-pm3mw8xw8dYou don’t have to be human to be a killer… at least, by definition.
@@user-pm3mw8xw8d citation needed.
@@DadamWrites
Which part do you think I got wrong?
The translation of "miscarriage" in Exodus 21 isn't the most literal one, though...that one seems to be based more on tradition. The more literal translation there just says if her unborn comes out or is born prematurely. It's not as clear cut as you're making it and it can't be utilized as some kind of proof text that a fetus is somehow less valuable without assuming that the interpretive rendering of "miscarriage" is the only way to translate that part (which it isn't). That's why you have so many literal translations who disagree with each other on that passage and even different editions of the same translation who do the same.
Logan Paul just sitting around in this video 😂
It is to be noted that Knechtle's definition of reasons for murder also misses many causes such as money (whether paid to murder or to achieve a benefit from it), jealousy, madness, and many other motivations.
Selfishness he said
Are there citations anywhere for the various laws/customs you mentioned? Or early church traditions you referenced?
Ohhh boy he went after cliffe lol
Thank you.
I wish Dan would remember to point out the hugely different life expediencies of the present day compared to Biblical times in his videos on abortion. That's had a massive influence on opinions. Infant mortality was crazy high for most of recorded history. Just over two centuries ago the child mortality rate (under five years old) for the United States was estimated to be 46%, that's getting close to a 1 in 2 chance your child wouldn't live past 5.
But that has nothing to do with the principle of the thing.
It almost sounds like you are attempting to deflect away from the facts.
to be fair, i'm not sure how you arrive at the last statement, and make the jump from broad-based ethical & moral claims, to identity politics.
if there was a fine, or a punishment, wouldnt that likely indicate something wrong had been done? and if indeed wrong, isnt it reasonable to adjust our attitude toward that wrong over time, to include data they didnt have at the time, and integrate that data into our value system?
2:39
Same thing with Islam and Judaism has taken many places not only in murder but in many decisions dictating how the individuality of a the person operates and most of the time Free men are different from slaves,women,children of certain tribes,people with a range of illnesses and finally classes of people from the Main operator to the end of social hierarchy.
It's crazy that Cliffe is held in high regards by people. The internet isn't known to be the smartest place though.
You should do a One on One with him. It would highly interesting to see how it unfolds.
The skills required to do well in a live debate are different from just being knowledgeable and being able to put your position together well when you have time. I don't think Dan has ever done any debates. And a conversation with Cliffe Knechtle would no doubt become a debate.
@@justasklimas9572 Yeh I can definitely see it as a possibility.
Na. It may not do him Justice. He might even lose something he had worked on with a definitive conclusion.
Reminds me of Ali Ataie; the Muslim scholar.
@@Jaymastia
Hm, good point
Excellent video. Sadly too subtle for about 50% of Americans.
Americans favor abortion.
There's some variance in what abortion entails in there, but on the whole most people are for it.
The only people opposing it are a minority of highly motivated theocratic wannabes.
what side do you count yourself on? 🤣
So that means that abortion is allowed under situations of self defence, right?
So, if a woman is fearing for her health from labour, or if she couldn't financially support a child, then an abortion should be perfectly permissible.
Scholarship over apologists. I’ve noticed a lot of apologists try fill in the blanks of the bible and skew the story to their liking rather than exam the text for what it is
Wait, what? The Christian "pro-life" position is based on identity politics? (@6:13) Gotta admit, that's a new one for me. Did I misunderstand something?
Right-wing authoritarian identity politics is still identity politics. Conservatives like to pretend that liberals are the only people who do this, but make no mistake, conservatives are being packaged and sold an identity, too. Before the 1970s, evangelicals didn't care about abortion. They were too busy arguing against integration and bussing and were actively organizing to maintain white supremacy. Jerry Falwell didn't even give his first speech against abortion for five years after Roe and you will have trouble finding any evangelical leader speaking about it before then. But in the 1970s, racism stopped having a broad appeal, so they needed something else. They came up with abortion and they've been running with it ever since. In the 70s and 80s, you could be a pro-choice Republican or pro-life Democrat. Not anymore, because your position on it is now part of the identity being sold to you and no exceptions are allowed.
Amazing how people like you can criticize apologists for believing in something with no evidence, but you will HAPPILY believe in left-wing conspiracy theorists with no evidence in order to justify your bias and bigotry against right-wing conservatives. 😒
@@VulcanLogic 100% this.
100% a conspiracy theory. 🤡
Did you think identity politics was something invented by minorities?
Identity politics was invented by those who defined the in_group identity and set about excluding everyone else from power, relegating them to second class citizens, or even categorizing them as subhuman.
White dominated society invented identity politics and now they clutch their pearls when minority groups find their own uses for identity politics.
Now here’s the funniest part of all. This issue isn’t right-left. It isn’t rich-poor. It’s a thing unto itself.
Bro using the slavery argument to try to discredit a biblical pro-life ethic is on brand for folks trying to justify injustice.
That’s a guy I would love to see you actually debate
How is abortion identity politics?
Opposing abortion is used as a marker of in-group/out-group standing.
"If you are part of the in-group, you believe X. You behave in Y way. The out-group are evil/demonic/foolish and must be opposed/destroyed."
So politics in general. 😒🤦♂️😵💫
He's talking about how either side uses their publicly stated views about it to mark themselves as belonging to their ideological tribe. The right does it just as much as the left. Dan is completely right in this aspect.
Liberals and conservatives. Pick a side.
That's identity politics.
Well done!
If you're talking about Augustine of Hippo, it's "Aw-GUS-tin".
Now with the aid of modern science we know that life begins at conception.
Modern science says exactly the opposite of that. The ovum and sperm were both alive before they ever met. If either was not alive, fertilization could not occur. That's how spermicide prevents pregnancy. -cide means kill, as in homicide (a person), insecticide (an insect), fratricide (your brother). Spermicide kills sperm.
Modern science shows that a woman is born containing all of the ova she will have during her lifetime. So, your "life" as a single cell began a few months before your mother's birth, not at conception.
Modern science also shows that about half of all conceptions never result in a pregnancy. The ovum is fertilized, but expelled during the woman's period.
As to when personhood begins, science shows that your life ends as a person when your brain dies. Your ability to think and feel and perceive and experience is entirely due to your brain. Until a fetus develops a brain capable of thought, feelings, perception, and able to experience, there is no person.
Modern science shows life began 4 billion years ago and has diversified ever since.
Nothing "Alive" today has ever been dead for those past 4 billion years. It's just one continuous process.
There are no definite distinctions between species, or between when one organism becomes a different organism. These are categories we as humans have to make up in order to be able to talk about different organisms, but that doesn't make these categories or stages "Real".
We draw distinctions between ourselves and bacteria. One is okay to kill, the other isn't. Despite the fact that we are both "Alive", and both descended from the same "Parent" billions of years ago.
Because "Life" doesn't matter when killing or not killing. Personhood does. And personhood is not even a scientific category, like "Life," or "Species", it's a social one. It's one we make up for the good of society, not for science.
If you can argue a collection of human cells in a womb is a person, then I can make a better argument that a cat or a dog is a person. A cat or a dog is smarter than a fetus, for one. It is more similar in behavior and mannerisms to an adult or child human than a fetus is. It has a better understanding of the world than a fetus does. And it can be happy and suffer in ways a fetus can't.
Should we therefore extend personhood to dogs and cats? How about cows, pigs, and goats?
Knechtle would be selling Caribbean timeshares in a call center if not for the apologist grift.
He goes off the rails within the first three sentences, the Bible doesn’t say this, the Bible does say this. And here’s what I think it means.
Humans each have a precious and incalculable value that is independent of any particular attribute one might possess (including one’s stage developmentally, which continues for years after birth). This principle can be arrived at from extrapolation of general (emphasis placed on the word general here, not proof-texting) biblical principles or from alternative (ultimately at least partly religious) starting points.
Our understanding of developmental biology has made it clear that humans are independent organisms from the moment gamete nuclei fuse. This is not a point of discussion in the field. Note that I am intentionally avoiding terms like “person” or “soul,” which are religious in nature. “Human” is a far more definable (scientifically) and objective term.
The former assumption (human value) and latter observation (instant independence of human life at conception) lead to an obvious position on this issue.
Discussions of Old Testament/ANE understanding of personhood or pre-modern assumptions about development are distractions that serve to miss the point entirely and help justify something that is increasingly unjustifiable.
Dan rightfully points out that working backwards from a desired conclusion is an improper methodology for arriving at accurate theoretical models from the best available data. I suspect that he unfortunately is doing just that here (and elsewhere).
The starting point (scientifically) for human life is not debatable. Now, the starting assumption that all humans have the same value is something that I hope most of us maintain when prompted to address. Considering some humans non-persons or lesser persons is not a good philosophical bedrock to build arguments on and can lead to horrifying endpoints.
I know that most in the comments section on this channel are not happy to hear this, but I encourage you to take a moment to sit on these points and see if this line of argumentation is at least worth considering. Changing your mind’s current theoretical model on something to better fit available data is something the human mind is innately reluctant to do. But I encourage you to do that here and elsewhere.
Note that I’m not here to argue/debate (this is a mostly fruitless endeavor on the internet these days)… I just am providing a necessary oppositional perspective to stimulate thought amidst an algorithm that does its best to stifle it. Hopefully this at least more effectively communicates my side of this issue better than it is put forward elsewhere on the internet.
My bias is that I’m a Christian and I can’t pretend my exposure to Christian culture in the West has not affected the lense through which I see this issue. However, I sincerely believe I have arrived at this conclusion independently of those influences and do my best to do so on other topics via exposure to alternative hypotheses (hence, I watch things like Dan’s videos).
I appreciate the thoughtful articulation of your position and agree that such comments are rare in forums such as RUclips. In defence of pro-choice I take issue with your assumptions about the meaning of "value" and "independence" as they relate to abortion and I can't help but note the complete absence of any consideration of a woman's value and independence.
@@DannySmith862 Thanks for the non-hostile response... and good follow-up points. "Value" is an intentionally vague term that encompasses what I hope is a nearly universally recognized high regard for individual human beings. I am not sure of another word or description that better communicates this.
As for independence, the unborn human is independent regarding he or she being an independent organism. Again, the goal for my premises is to be as objective and scientifically precise as possible, which I think is critical for reaching a consensus among humans who share little in common religiously. Considering independence of the organism seeks to achieve this.
A fetus is spatially located within the mother and dependent upon her for nutrition, but these dependencies extend until the moment of birth, and nutritional dependence continues for months afterward. Therefore, if these dependencies disqualify a human from being a person (again, disqualifying humans from personhood is not a philosophical route that should ever be considered, but for the sake of argument), then abortion until birth is the logical conclusion, which the majority of pro-choicers do no support.
As for your last point, if my premises are true and the conclusion logically follows, then we are at a position where we must determine whether suspension of bodily autonomy or the killing of an innocent human is worse.
@@SFT49 If you assert value as a deliberately vague term to mean a basic high regard, your position fails upon being confronted with the reality of unwanted pregnancy because your definition ceases to apply.
If you rely on a scientific definition of organism in a legal arena where a fully autonomous conscious organism asserts their independence against a biological organism whose very existence depends on hostile parasitical sustenance from the host organism, then biology offers little support to the pro-life position. Kindly refrain from expressing offence at my use of biological framing when you're the one insisting on it.
It's equivocation to treat a baby's dependance on care, which can be provided by any competent individual, with the biological dependance of an embryo on the mother's specific body and organs. To reduce these two substantively distinct physical conditions to mere difference of location is absurd to the point of dishonesty. It would be like saying someone's offence from having a phallic object placed on the table next to them is the same as their offence from having that object placed inside of them. Not all locations are equal. I am specifically limiting the argument to embryos because about 95% of abortions are performed by the end of the 12th week of pregnancy so discussion about the ethics of viable fetuses after 22 weeks gestation is a red herring which must be addressed using different arguments relating to exceptional cases. Let's establish the principle before we look at the exceptions.
I reject your premises and your conclusion but even if I did accept them, I would continue to argue that the evil of slavery entailed in pro-life policies requiring forced gestation and birth outweighs the specially pleaded "harm' experienced by aborting unwanted embryos.
@SFT49 Your comment is amazing. Such a breath of fresh air! Can we be friends? 😄
@@DannySmith862 Well, "value" is deliberately vague because of an intention to be all-encompassing. You had an issue with the term, and again I am not sure of a better word to communicate holding human beings in especially high regard. Getting stuck on this word is not fruitful for the conversation. Humans should be held in high regard and should not be viewed as lesser because of any particular characteristic. If you disagree with that premise, then you are free to dismiss my conclusion.
The phrase "hostile parasitical sustenance" is problematic and unfortunately typical. "Hostile" indicates an antagonistic intention, which fetuses do not have. Pregnancy is also not classically parasitic, but more mutualistic, because of the advantages associated with producing offspring. But typically even mutualism (along with parasitism) is interspecific (between two species). Pregnancy is also a normal part of a female organism's life cycle, so does not really qualify for any of these terms.
Regardless, let's momentarily ignore these problems and consider your term parasite at face value. While having a negative connotation, this term implies little more than I already said: the fetus is relying upon his or her mother for nutrition at the cost of the mother's resources. From your understanding of parasitism, you would have to necessarily extrapolate that breastfeeding or childrearing in general are forms of parasitism. This is why being precise with terminology is important. The arguments too easily become lost in the rhetoric unless you are careful.
The simplification to location and nutritional dependence is not intended to minimize the difficulties of pregnancy. It is intended to identify which characteristics are being considered to disqualify personhood. I do not think that the parasitic (as you put it) or internal natures of fetal development disqualify human fetuses from the value that we humans all share equally. And again, those who are positioned against late-stage abortions are choosing to NOT disqualify fetuses as "persons" despite their continued "internal parasitic" role. This is a problem for those who use these characteristics to exclusively justify early abortions. Consistency is important.
As a side note, in your table analogy, the object on the table is the same object as the object inside of the individual. That is the point of the discussion. The location of the fetus does not alter his or her status as a human.
Substitute "harm" in your last sentence with "death" to be more direct and honest here. Euphemisms should be unnecessary in an argument made by someone confident in his or her position. Also, I am not sure why being unwanted (another characteristic of a fetus used to justify killing him or her) disqualifies a human from having value (or personhood, if you prefer that term). I have found that employment of these terms and phrases also usually marks the end of any kind of meaningful interaction.
Your last point indicates that we are at the end of the road in this conversation. My entire line of argumentation is weightless to someone who holds the position that killing an innocent human is justified to enhance bodily autonomy. This is an impasse because we are evidently placing priorities on entirely different things. As long as my line of reasoning is clear, I am satisfied. I am fully aware that differing presuppositions and priorities lie at the foundation of disagreement here. I am seeking to isolate those from the rest of the conversation so that we as a society begin to discuss THOSE differences.
I hope you at least somewhat enjoyed the back-and-forth but I don't think there is much more to say on this.
“For Any guilty of this crime the penalty of death is inexorable, whether he violates a virgin betrothed to another or seduces a married woman.-'' The Law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the foetus ; a woman convicted of this is regarded as an infanticide, because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race.”
Josephus, Against Apion, II 202-205, 375 (loeb classical library)
In regard to the pregnant woman being struck, the text says nothing of a miscarriage. It simple says "if the child comes out and no harm is done" then there is to be a fine. Then the following verse says if there is harm then to institute the talionic justice.
Thanks Dan.
I blame Luther.
Yep, the churches in Rome during middle ages were full of political power and twisting of scriptures. Praise the Lord for the Reformation
But taking away an innocent baby's life doesn't have to be illegal. "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother 's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it 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 saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:13-16. Do you want to take away that baby's life? God knows them, and has a plan for their life. Are you going to go against God?
Hummm... This position is based on identity politics? After going through such an exhaustive recitation from the Bible, don't you think that is an oversimplification there, Dan?
It is definitely. The Bible clearly treats the fetus as property as mentioned above. Furthermore, at least 1/3 fertilized eggs result in spontaneous abortion that is often not even noticed, making it almost impossible to reconcile a classical theism with early ensoulment. Finally, up until the 80s, anti-abortion lobbying was often considered a “catholic” issue and the southern baptist council actually took out a full page ad praising Roe v Wade…you can look it up and read it! The point is, treating it as obviously biblical is in fact a late twentieth century dog whistle for fundamentalist christians, if you connect the dots carefully.
Your position is based on conservative politics. You can interpret it however you choose. Baptists used to believe in the right to abortion just a few decades ago. It's all politics.
@@centaur7607 do you know what my position is on abortion? I don't see that I put that in my comment.
@@sotl97 Then I will say the position opposite the one you are criticizing.
@@centaur7607 This is a bigoted comment from Dan. It's a problem with Dan when he ventures into moral issues.
First, It is implying that abortion is ONLY a political issue, which it is not. Second it is implying that if someone is taking a position against abortion it is because they have a political agenda, which is not true.
Abortion is a moral, spiritual, medical and psychological issue that politics has tried to work out.
Certainly, an individual can take a position on abortion solely based on identity politics, and many people do. Those people are intellectually dishonest and they do more harm to themselves and others, than good.
Politics is an extension of an individual's personal belief structure, their moral and ethical compass in life. If someone takes a political stance, it's not rooted in their political identity, but an expression politically of their personal belief system.
The reason we have a hard time separating this is because we have used politics to dehumanize people thanks to our dishonest media and spin outlets.
If you support abortion it's because you have deeply rooted reasons, which are valid. I should be interested in why you support it, not ramrod you into a political identity to justify treating you horribly and attempt to make you you look shallow and stupid. This is what Dan just did here.
Cliffe is just blasphemous
Dan, I usually like your videos, but you are strawmanning Kliff here. Kliff is clearly not talking only about OT.
Atleast you had a good shirt in this video.
It's like you didn't watch the video. He clearly explains how Augustine and early Christians interpreted this issue in the second half of the video. Try watching the whole thing.
@@centaur7607 Where he is wrong, Pesonen&Valkama (2010) clearly claims that the abortion was deemed wrong earlier than in times of St. Augustine.
Like I told earlier, Dan is just strawmanning and misrepresenting Kliffs position.
@@JiiV3eSo you're just cherry picking. St. Augustine was an extremely authoritative voice for Christianity for a long time. Someone saying something before Augustine doesn't make their position more valid.
And you're the one strawmanning, since as I pointed out, this video is not just about the OT, which you failed to acknowledge.
Isn’t it funny we only just realised the Bible is pro choice as soon as the culture decided pro choice was correct.
It's almost as if the text of the book never really mattered, and people have always read it in a way that confirms their own biases and beliefs.
And vice versa. Many Evangelicals, Baptists for example, used to be pro choice too right up until a few decades ago. It's all political.
ATOMIC ELBOW FROM THE SKY!!!!
Wait, so are you trying to say abortion is alright or something?
Did he say that?
As Cliffe suggest the key is when does life begin.
Why? Gametes are alive.
It begins at conception.
@@user-pm3mw8xw8d Gametes are alive.
@@user-pm3mw8xw8d Cool. So Child support begins at conception too.
personhood*
Killing a fetus is done for selfishness only lmao he just refuted his point
Old Testament slavery was not race based forced servitude, it was a voluntary means of working off debt. Jacob for example worked seven years as a willing servant to marry Leah. Slave trading is condemned in the Bible (Exodus 21:16;1st Timothy 1:10) punishable by death in the Old Testament.
It was debt-slavery only for Israelites. Others could be chattel slaves, and their children were chattel slaves. Don't quote only a couple verses given to you by your favorite lying apologist.
You can lie all day. Fortunately, the truth is well documented in your "holy" Scriptures.
CHILD TR_FFICKING
Joel 3:8
And I will sell your sons and daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, a people far off: for YHWH hath spoken it.
CHILD S_X SLAVES
Deuteronomy 20:13-15
When YHWH, your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male with the edge of the sword. But the women, the LITTLE ONES... you shall plunder for yourself. Thus you shall do to all the cities...
Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
SLAVES
Leviticus 25:44
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them, you may buy slaves
25:46
And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession, they shall be your permanent slaves.
Numbers 31:9
And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones.
Exodus 21:7
If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free, as male servants do.
JESUS S(L)AVES
I Peter 2:18
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh
I Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name, and our teaching may not be slandered.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything...
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart...
Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them.
GENOCIDE
Deuteronomy 3:6
Utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city
2:34
Utterly destroyed the men, women and the little ones of every city, we left none to remain.
Ezekiel 9:6
Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women
Numbers 33:55-56
But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you.
It shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them
JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN
Revelations
2:18 These things saith the son of God
2:23 AND I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH
8:9 the third part of the creatures, which were in the sea, and had life, died
11:6 power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues (bioweapons), as often as they will.
WOW, him and his crew are going to murder children, fish, and spread bioweapons.
CANNIBALISM
Deuteronomy
28:53 thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters.
Ezekiel
39:18 ye shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and ye shall drink the blood of Princes
39:19 drink the blood, til ye be drunken
I Baruch
2:2-3 YHWH would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses: that a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter
John
6:53 Jesus said... except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day
6:55 for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed
1 Corinthians
10:16 the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
CHILD SACRIFICE
John
3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
Romans
3:25 (NIV) God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of the blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness...
Micah
6:7 shall I give my FIRSTBORN for my transgressions, the fruit of my body, for the sin of my soul?
Exodus
22:29 you shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. THE FIRSTBORN OF YOUR SONS YOU SHALL GIVE TO ME.
22:30 Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with it's mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to me
Nehemiah
10:35 and we made ordinances to bring the FIRSTFRUITS... to the house of YHWH
10:36 to bring the FIRSTBORN OF OUR SONS and our cattle, AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW
HOW TO COOK YOUR CHILD
Leviticus
2:13 and every oblation of thy MEAT OFFERING, thou shalt season with salt
2:14 a MEAT OFFERING of thy FIRSTFRUITS, unto YHWH thou shalt offer
6:21 in a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it's baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the MEAT OFFERING shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto YHWH
1:9 a food offering with a pleasing aroma to YHWH
IN HIS OWN WORDS
Ezekiel
20:25 Moreover I gave them laws, that were not good, and rules by which they could not live:
20:26 when they set aside their FIRST ISSUE OF THE WOMB, I defiled them by their gifts- that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am YHWH
@@schen7913 Those are straight from the Bible and other peoples were living wickedly. The fact remains that owning or selling humans as slaves is unrighteousness with God and punishable by death in the OT.
@@schen7913 Actually it's even more specific than that - debt slavery was only for _male_ Israelites. Israelites could sell their daughters off for cash, and it would not be debt slavery.
Plus Israelite debt slaves could become chattel slaves if they chose to continue in their servitude after the period of the debt was worked off, which they were likely to do if they were unmarried when they became slaves as their masters would supply them with female slaves to take as wives and the female slave would _not_ be freed when that period was up because again, female slaves were not debt slaves. Also any offspring they had would be chattel slaves like their mother.
The debt slavery was basically a tiny part of the overall slavery picture.
You're retrofitting modern moral values into ancient beliefs and practices. You're engaging in begging the question because what the Bible - and history - clearly expresses does not match with what contemporary Christians believe about God.
Cliffe is annoying. He’s all over the place on TikTok preaching his usual BS, acting like he knows wtf he’s talking about. Not sure who’s worse him or Ken Ham.
Cliffe does know what he’s talking about though. Just because you disagree with what he’s saying doesn’t mean he’s wrong. What he says is biblical.
Ken Ham on the other hand. I disagree with what he thinks being a Young Earth Creationist, but what he believes isn’t unbiblical from what I’ve seen.
Bible verses against abortion:
Exodus 21:22-23, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”
Psalm 139:13-16, “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”
Isaiah 44:2-“Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.”
Jeremiah 1:5-“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
Ecclesiastes 11:5-“As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”
Luke 1:41,44-“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.”
Also, here is Christ Himself on murder, Matthew 19:18-“He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,”
These are related to pregnancy, yes, but not one of them even remotely mentions abortion.
@@tchristianphoto the phrase “so that her fruit depart from her” is the killing of the baby in the womb. The other verses prove it is a human being in the womb so therefore any killing of it is abortion. Any killing of it willingly therefore is murder.
Also Jesus...
JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN
Revelations
2:18 These things saith the son of God
2:23 AND I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH
8:9 the third part of the creatures, which were in the sea, and had life, died
11:6 power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues (bioweapons), as often as they will.
WOW, him and his crew are going to murder children, fish, and spread bioweapons.
CANNIBALISM
Deuteronomy
28:53 thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters.
Ezekiel
39:18 ye shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and ye shall drink the blood of Princes
39:19 drink the blood, til ye be drunken
I Baruch
2:2-3 YHWH would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses: that a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter
John
6:53 Jesus said... except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day
6:55 for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed
1 Corinthians
10:16 the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
All of these are related to pregnancy, and none mention anything remotely adjacent to abortion. It's concerning how out of context these are
@@brandoncloud300 Seeing how the Bible clearly establishes a human being growing in the womb we should quickly realize killing that human being is at best manslaughter and at worst murder.
god's will is any action of love. abortion is not love. is act of fear .
That's not biblical reality, either. The Biblical God performs many deeds out of anger, jealousy, dissatisfaction, etc. And the laws of the Bible certainly don't reflect "Only love", seeing as there are numerous laws justifying slavery and numerous "Crimes" with no victims that are punishable by death.
If you choose to believe in a God who ONLY loves, then you have to throw away the vast majority of the Bible, and probably the vast majority of other beliefs you currently hold.
@@isaiahfisher2337 . I am not talking about God. I am talking about what God want from us. Is a completely other story.
@@nikkr3584
There is no indication anywhere that god wants slavery to end, or for rape to be considered anything other than a crime of vandalism.
@@avishevin3353 that's the god's grace. If you believe in him and do good works you don't use people as slaves. Sexual objects, personal gains. It is simple. And that goes and for abortion.
@@nikkr3584
That has nothing to do with what the Bible says and is entirely your unfounded personal belief.
Great way to hide the truth. A simple 30 second search shows one example say "gore's to death" and the other example just states "gores" Two completely different scenarios. Way to prove your misleading people. Just another example on how you hide the actual truth.
I'm not sure what you searched, and if auto-correct did you dirty here, but "gore's" is not a real word. Exodus mentions two examples. One where an ox gores(meaning killed) someone, and another situation where the ox is known to have this type of violent behavior and how the owner is punished accordingly. There's no misleading here
@@brandoncloud300 So out of the two examples, one where the ox kills someone and the other example where it doesn't, you picked out "gore's" because it's misspelled. But disregard that he is trying to claim both examples mean death. Got it
I think you're the one trying to hide the truth. You haven't explained how these are "totally different." Nice try.
@centaur7607 You need me to explain how "gored to death" is completely different than being "gored"? Because if you're unable to see the difference, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will work
This world is horrible, bad idea to enlist the 👿 devil to do his bidding
I wish Dan could put up 10 videos a day. Every video is just so informative and interesting.
You can always check older videos. He has hundreds in his catalog. I doubt you watched them all.
@@pansepot1490I’m getting close though!
Cliffe is such a dummy. He sickens me.
JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN
Revelations
2:18 These things saith the son of God
2:23 AND I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH
8:9 the third part of the creatures, which were in the sea, and had life, died
11:6 power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues (bioweapons), as often as they will.
WOW, him and his crew are going to murder children, fish, and spread bioweapons.
CANNIBALISM
Deuteronomy
28:53 thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy daughters.
Ezekiel
39:18 ye shall eat the flesh of mighty men, and ye shall drink the blood of Princes
39:19 drink the blood, til ye be drunken
I Baruch
2:2-3 YHWH would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are WRITTEN IN THE LAW of Moses: that a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter
John
6:53 Jesus said... except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day
6:55 for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed
1 Corinthians
10:16 the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?