@@TheDAMShow #5 makes SO much sence. The ppl getting Abortions are those who don't care about Abrahamic Dogmas. Logically, if u let them kill eachother off, Followers of Abraham could out populate. 😂
why do I feel like these same points would have been used by pro slavery christians. like "oh you should focus on spreading the gospel instead of forcing laws on plantation owners". Human rights are for all humans!! doesnt matter their skin color whether or not their jewish, or any dehumanizing reason.
or "if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave!" Worst part is there really are people who try to this day to read modern day justification of chattel slavery into the bible, disregarding the descriptions and circumstance of the old testament in a way that appears to primarily be motivated by prior racism. It is funny that when it comes to the big topics, whether you believe or don't, god seems to just agree with you. But with all that said abortion is very intuitively wrong and if god exists (I sure hope he does) he would agree with me :3
The ancient Hebrews did not read God's prohibition against unlawfully causing the death of a person to mean that terminating a pregnancy was murder. The Hebrews read Genesis 2:7 and 7:21-22 literally to mean that a baby is not a living soul until it takes its first breath. Hebrew culture did not seen an unborn fetus as a "chay nephesh" (a living soul) until it had been born. A fetus was regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it began to emerge from the womb during parturition. Until forty days after conception, the ancients considered a fertilized egg was as “mere fluid.”
The Hebrews did not consider termination of a pregnancy to be the murder of a child. For example, according to the Mishnah, in the case of a pregnant woman who is taken by the court to be executed, the court does not wait to execute her until she gives birth. Rather, she is killed immediately. But with regard to a woman taken to be executed who sat on the travailing chair in the throes of labor, the court waits to execute her until she gives birth. In other words, unless the pregnant woman was giving birth, the unborn baby did not enjoy the right to life, because it was not a "living soul."
I share the view of God's chosen people, the ancient Hebrews, that Genesis 2:7 and 7:21-22 teach us that a baby does not become a living being until it takes its first breath.
The Book of Genesis was authored at least 2,600 years after man was supposedly created. The authors were not eyewitnesses, they merely put on paper what had been passed down orally to them. Who knows if the stories that got passed down for over 2,600 years actually occurred? God may or may not have actually formed the first man from the dust of the earth and breathed a soul into Adam, thereby creating a living being. However, the ancient Hebrews believed that is exactly what happened.
Humans after Adam weren't formed from the dust of the ground. However, the ancient Hebrews believed that humans after Adam continued to become "living beings" or "living souls" upon first breath. See Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 7:21-22 , which reads "and expire doth all flesh that is moving on the earth, among fowl, and among cattle, and among beasts, and among all the teeming things which are teeming on the earth, and all mankind; all in whose nostrils breath of a living spirit -- of all that in the dry land -- have died." The Hebrew words construed by Young to mean "breath of a living spirit" are 1) neshamah, which can mean breath, spirit or soul 2) ruach, which can mean spirit, wind or breath and 3) chay, which can mean alive, living or life. Among the ancients, life, soul, spirit and breath, were tightly associated. There was no human life without without breath. It's undisputable that the Hebrews believed ensoulment occurred when a baby took its first breath. An unborn baby didn't have a soul. Thus, it was not a living soul.
@JackMagger yes Adam was formed of dirt and clay, and we come from them through a biological process. This means we are created biologically by "living" cells.
A human body with biological processes is not the author of Genesis' concept of a "living creature." Adam's body was capable of biological processes after God formed him from the dust, however, that didn't make him a "living creature." Adam didn't become a living creature until after God had formed him and breathed into his nostrils the "breath of life." Adam did not receive the "breath of life" at conception, he received it after his body had been formed when God breathed it into his nostrils. Like Adam, babies don't receive the breath of life at conception or at any other time prior to birth, they receive it at birth when God breathes into their nostrils the "breath of life." We see birth as a baby leaving the womb. However, God sees birth as the moment a baby receives the "breath of life."
How's 'bout just using birth control devices? That by itself would prevent lot's of abortions but then a child concieved accidentally would eventually learn about it & feel unwanted the rest of it's life
In Psalm 139, the author says he was "curiously wrought in the lower part of earth." It's obviously poetry and not to taken literally. The context is God's omniscience, not when man becomes a "living creature." The author uses a Hebrew word that can mean belly, womb, body or innermost part, when he writes "thou dost cover me in my mother's belly", which I read to mean "you protected me in my mother's womb." We know God doesn't protect all babies in the womb. Otherwise, there would be no miscarriages. Question: Why would God give a baby a soul at conception and then allow a miscarriage? It seems to me that God would wait until babies are born to give them the "spirit of life" mentioned in Genesis 2:7, which is probably what we, as Platonists, who think in terms of a body-mind dichotomy, think of as the "soul." Personally, I don't think God is a Platonist. He doesn't conceive of life in terms of mind and body. For God it's just life. The idea that man has a physical life and a spiritual one comes from the Greeks, not the Bible. Here's a thought: If a baby receives its soul at conception and dies in the womb, he never sins and doesn't need the Savior. It's a free ride to eternal life that bypasses the temptations of the flesh we face in this world.
It does NOT mean in the womb, you just made that up. You're 'most high judge' is kinda pathetic, don't you think? Did you see the examples in the video where your most high judge condones abortion? You did see the part where they gave instructions on how to do it, yes? In the bible...
Ah, by the logic "If God does something, who are you to say it's wrong?", there's not going to be much considered wrong. From a moral standpoint, I am with you. But from the practical standpoint, Christianity requires that form of hypocrisy.
What would be your response to the position that is simply not possible for a Christian to embrace abortion? That it isn't an oppressive or legislative decision, but rather a statement of objective truth.
Not possible for a Christian to embrace abortion? I'd think you didn't know what the words 'not possible' meant. Christians clearly CAN believe and embrace abortion. Legislating it is forcing OTHER people to not have abortions because Christians don't like it. NOT objective truth, legislative oppression.
I understand Genesis 2:7, which reads "And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature", to mean that humans become living creatures when they take their first breath.
@@HonkyTonkGirlsI am not sure what side your going with on this but last I checked that was many years ago. After that human kind reproduce organically and not by constructing sculptures that they ask our father to breath life into.
Then if you're such a Christian, don't get an abortion. You don't have the right to deny the decision and in many cases the healthcare that women who don't share your views have a right to. Like George carlin said, you guys aren't pro life, you're ANTI WOMEN!
Hello, I understand where you are coming from. However, I think the logic here is seriously flawed at times. On point 9, just because abortion laws may cause some harm to some mothers, it doesn't follow that all abortion should be legal. We could allow medical abortions. But even if we don't, a law can't always account for very rare cases. An abortion law would protect the greatest amount of human beings. On point 5, over-population is not a good reason to justify murder. On point 4 you said that the bible doesn't condemn abortion. But it doesn't support it either. So we have to use reason to determine if abortion is murder or not. Also, you seem to contradict yourself with this reasoning on point 2. The bible doesn't say that all babies are saved. Although I also believe this is the case, you are being inconsistent. Also, just because babies are probably saved, it doesn't mean we have the right to murder them, or let other people murder them. 1) we don't 100% know that they are saved, 2) it is always wrong to murder someone, even if you will send them to heaven, 3) in allowing this we would be allowing other people to sin, and 4) why would God create us if he wanted us to die in the womb and immediately go to heaven? Finally, on your last point, it doesn't follow that we should allow something as grave as murder just because we want to "respect free will." We don't respect free will with other crimes.
yoru bible supports killing children repeatedly, so there's a fail on your part. If a fetus is a child, this god kills them constantly. If a fetus isn't a child, then abortion isn't murder. curious how christians can't agree on who is saved, how they are saved, etc and yet each of you claim that only your version is the right one. Augustine says babies are damned if they aren't baptized. then the church had to make up limbo so their cult didn't seem so pathetically vicious.
10. False dichotomy: Yes the main commandment of Jesus was to make more followers of Jesus but that's not the ONLY one. Protect the innocent comes top mind. So Christians should do both and more and will be called to various commandments more or less based on their gifts and convictions different parts of the body of Christ. And the implication that Christians want a bigger pool to commit SA upon shows you are arguing in bad faith rather than actually understanding the Christian perspective and has poor implications if extended to born children. 9. Murder still happens when it is criminalized so it shouldn't be a crime. Instead of telling women to kill their child and hanging them to dry we surround them with love and protection to help her and the child? Again your comment shows bad faith. 8. Christians are judged by God to a higher standard but all are subject to the same moral law. If you think that moral laws shouldn't be applied to others then you should get rid of murder laws as some people may not agree with them or have a different opinions. The truth is all laws are someone's beliefs and opinions legislated. The concept of human rights comes from the Bible. Are you going to stop believing it because of its Christian origin? 7. Again false dichotomy: well there's overpopulation so we have to start killing a few. You are forgetting that while God does want us to be good stewards, that does not give us permission to kill whoever in order to do so. 6. Expand that point to born children, look them in the eye and tell them you've decided it is better for them to be dead. Also abortion does not get rid of suffering as the end of a life is suffering. 5. This shows you have no concept or understanding of Christianity. It doesn't matter if the innocent you are protecting is a believer or not a believer and will later cast you aside. God calls us to not abandon his law and our convictions of loving our neighbors. Christ comings for us while were are still sinners and Hosea are examples of how Christians will live in this world. The Bible also repeatedly tell Christians that they will be out numbered and scorned so why would we betray Christ's commands and try to "get one over" on the unbelievers. Your point fosters an us vs them mentality which goes against Jesus's teaching namely the good Samaritan. 4. Adam had the breath of life put into him but no other human has been made the same way so it does not follow that it is life at first breath in fact many Bible verses treat those in the womb as people. Luke 1:41-44 show John and Jesus meeting each other in the womb. Psalm 139:13-14 and Jeremiah 1:5 show that there is a person, someone that can be known in the womb. As for Exodus you are assuming the children dies in both cases but I would read it as harm of the children and/or woman which would mean the life for life could be the child's life meaning if you hit a pregnant woman and her child dies you receive the death penalty. the idea that the Bible doesn't go against abortion is also false. The Bible vehemently commands not murder and protecting the innocent and the children. 3. Firstly you are reading abortion into the passage. It most likely means that the women will become barren and unable to get pregnant not that a child she has will become miscarried. Secondly God has the right to judge and take life as he can bring people back and is the judge and sole arbiter of the universe. Your argument would also have to apply to murder. God kills people so that means we can do it too. That is not how the Bible works. If God wants something to happen, no matter how many laws or people trying to get to stop, it will happed. You commit blasphemy by thinking Christians passing laws will stop the will of God. (This is not an insult but pointing out your misunderstanding of the power and nature of God) 2. Again we are not the judges, it is not for us to murder people to guarantee them a spot in heaven and it neglects the amount of good someone can do hear on earth. A lot of your argument boils down to abandon you moral convictions and clear commandments for the greater good. 1. Yes we have free will and have things God commands we should do certain things with that free will, such as stopping people with free will from committing a free will of evil upon the innocent. Protect the innocent. Yes there is free will and with free will comes consequences. With certain acts of moral evil there needs to be justice and prevention on a human level. This is clear in the Bible. Conclusion: You do not understand Christianity and are arguing in bad faith and just wanted a rise out of Christians and to insult Christians and the Christian God. I would suggest you stop pretending to understand the Christian position and make better cases bolstering your beliefs instead of knocking down a strawman. I decided to watch this to exercise my critical thinking and maybe help anyone who may fall for your fallacious thinking so that the Holy Spirit may use this comment to protect and comfort them. If you wish to argue in good faith and do not stoop to insults I would be glad for that. Even if you just wish to insult me I welcome that as well because "when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
Dayummm that's a great post. I appreciate the time and effort and thinking you put into it. I disagree with you, of course, but that was to be expected. Interesting how many contradictions there are in the bible. I say X, you say Y and guess what? We can both be right... or wrong. Here's a great link to some bible contradictions you should check out. www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/
This video is just filled with false dichotomies, just completely wrong morals (For Christians at least), and for certain points is just flat out wrong, and since I’m here I’ll tackle the Bible verses you present. Genesis 2:7 Not only is this God’s breath rather than human breath, but it’s also highly likely that it’s meant metaphorically rather than literally. Exodus 21:22-25 This argument is based of a flawed understanding of the different types of laws in the Bible. In this case the stated treatment is part of Civil Law alongside the entirety of the chapter. Numbers 5:11-31 The stated procedure, although it could be an abortion, could also be a procedure to render the woman infertile.
curious how christians can never agree on what parts of their bible are to be taken literally, as metaphor, as exaggeratoin, etc. They do what is convenient for what they invent. Alas, for your false claims, the procedure in Numbers 5 is an abortion, since the intent is to expell something from the womb. Now, dear, what would that be if a woman is thought to be having sex with another man? Surely you can guess the answer?
@@gomethins7738 He's mocking you and accusing you of cherry-picking since the guy either has never read the Bible (which I'm betting on) or has no sense of context to identify such things
@@TheDAMShow my bishop literally talked about paedophilia in the structures of the church yesterday. Just bc you have a view of the church doesn't mean your correct about it, and even science says life begins at conception, if you're not willing to listen to biblical teachings, so yes, abortion is murder. I will be praying for you
I would like to preface with: This is in the order the claims appear in the video, and that I hope these claims can be discussed more as I think for you to so shallowly go into them, and just overall accuse Christians, makes for very unproductive conversations, and content. With that, I hope that this can be useful in some way to someone. 10) Christianity is about saving souls: Conception is the beginning of life in the bible and in general (though not accepted) should be the case. Thus abortion cannot be allowed as it is taking the life away from someone whom God has allowed to be conceived. And I think it's interesting you said "Their histories justify such criticism", but then failed to provide an example, so I'm just confused on why you would throw out a line that they are increasing victimhood, but then fail to say how and just say, well I can say that because of arbitrary histories. 9) Increases suffering for women: I don't know where you got the idea that we would want them to suffer, doesn't make much sense to me as a Christian, but I'll just ignore that for now. As to the case of it just makes it more dangerous since they will just turn to illegal methods, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't ban it. It would reduce the amount as some people would be unwilling to do those illegal methods, AND, just because something would make certain people turn to other methods doesn't mean I shouldn't ban something that is found wrong. If, for example, we increased the risks a person would face if they committed murder, but then people still did murder, should I then make murder legal? No! Because it's still wrong. 8) An abortion does not just affect you, it affects the person inside of you. You went into your consensual relationship knowing the risks, and now you have a child in you. That is not the child's problem it is your fault, and regardless of if you like it or not, it is a life, and a life cannot be taken away from them. It's not imposing our values, it is imposing what is factual science, a baby inside you is a living baby, and as thus, has moral value in the same way that a 28 year old man does, or my 75 year old grandfather. 7) So you're saying that children, regardless of their value in the womb, should be ridden of because they "overpopulate" and "take up resources", what a horrible claim to make considering you yourself use those resources. If a person told you,"You shouldn't live anymore because you're overpopulating the earth", you would find that ridiculous since you find value in yourself. By saying this about any future born children you are taking a morally superior stance that you shouldn't, as you get to define what kind of person is valuable for the earth. 6) A difficult life, is not necessarily a life that isn't worth living. I have many good friends who have suffered so much in their lives. Even my own parents had to go through many foster homes, because of circumstances in their lives. To say,"Well you should just not let the child live then, since they'll live a hard life", is to again, take that morally superior stance, and assume that the child will not be able to make things good for themselves. Just because some people find things difficult in life, doesn't make it so that you can try to change your circumstances, but abortion takes out that choice from the child in the first place. 5) This is such a dumb argument, since you're arguing that we would want the rest of society to die so that we can have our values. Which is against the bible in so many ways, since who am I to take the life of that person. 4) That verse from Exodus is exceedingly overused and misunderstood. If you want a link to why it's wrong here's one www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-21-22-25-by-pro-choice-advocates also you cannot say it begins with breath, because God "breathing the breath of life" into Adam, if taken literally, would simply be because Adam was not conceived. Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations". Psalm 139:13-18: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb". Both of these verses clearly show that the bible does teach of conception being the beginning of life, as a Christian is shown that God has literally FORMED every being in the womb. 3) To claim the passage depicts abortion inserts concepts not even hinted at in the text. This confusion of yours stems from the 2011 edition of the NIV, which refers to miscarriage, even though pregnancy is not part of the requirement for the ritual. Pregnancy is not even mentioned anywhere in the process. The effects include some type of swelling and/or shriveling. Yet the targeted body part is vague. In fact, it’s the same Hebrew term used to describe the spot where Jacob suffered his infamous injury (Genesis 32:25), as well as the place where Ehud hid his sword (Judges 3:16). At worst, the Numbers 5 passage implies future infertility. The ritual was not a remedy for an unwanted pregnancy-it was a test for adultery. Traditional interpretations of the ritual even restricted it from being performed on pregnant women (Mishnah Sotah 4:3). 2) You might say it would jeopardize a child's salvation, but the reason we don't go around killing all of these children is because God WANTS a choice from people. You can choose to accept or reject him, and he wants to honor that choice that you make. Killing a child takes away the ability to make that decision, and to grow/mature in a relationship with God in the first place. 1) If a person were to do "bad things", to a christian girl, then yes, that is a horrible thing. Does God do something about it, yes. The bible tells us that he burns with rage, and is so upset when things like this happen to his people. This is where the idea of him being sovereign comes into play, but regardless, while horrible, I still don't think you should have an abortion. because of the fact that it is A) Not your life to take, and B) It's still God's child, no matter how horrible the way it came about. I hope this is somewhat comprehensive and that you can consider some of the points I bring up here.
Counters: 10. Nowhere in the bible does it state conception is the start of life. This is why there are denominations that are okay with- because it is not directly stated and left to "hints" (often English translations). The Psalms about knowing you in the womb is easily interpreted as "proving" g0d's omniscience, and I laugh every time the omnis are brought up because that just means he knew the "number of [their] days" would be a negative value. All according to plan! 9. There are two cases just in the past month I can point to by their names of women who suffered until they died because of an ectopic pregnancy: Neveah Crain (Heaven backwards), who went septic after 3 separate hospitals were too afraid to face the absurd 100 year prison penalty for doing an abortion, and Amber Thurmon, similar story. These are just two that I have engrained in my mind forever of numerous cases when I only need _one_ case to prove that abortion should _not be_ completely banned. 8. You presume of consensual sex, but r*pe cases exist. I can't even find the exact case I recall of a child being forced to bear another because the google and bing searches I went through were saturated with 10, 12, 13 year olds r*ped. At least some of these cases a doctor was willing to do the right thing and prevent such madness and unnecessary suffering. And don't you dare invoke "science" in this like you can wield your opponent's weaponry. Not only are the majority of scientists pro-choice, but "science," being a body of evidence or a methodology has no true stance on abortion. Tell me next about how you trusted the covid vaccine and agree with the facts that trans people are valid and deserve rights, or are you cherry picking "science" like you do the bible? You know what, I'll Steelman your point here. Jane _did_ agree to have a kid with John, both adult-aged. However, when money ran tight from a car accident, job loss, and a stock/asset crash the viability of raising a child plummeted. They'd get no monetary help from the side that would scream/threaten them to carry to term once the child was born outside of a meager tax break and perhaps the qualification for food stamps- another policy the same side wants to do away with. There is assessed risk with Jane from doctors, worried that she might incur severe trauma and that there is a non-zero risk to her life. Given the unfortunate circumstances- any number of which can be seen in common cases- the morality of the issue stops being such an easy black and white. 7. He did not claim "children" should be ridden. How extremely dishonest of you to invent this crap. I can't even rebut you on this because it's such a shit strawman you ranted against here. His point remains. 6. I've had my share of woes, most of which caused by people (like you) other than me who usually came before me and set laws against me or systems to keep me on a track I didn't nor would choose. He isn't arguing against me being made, kept, birthed, raised. Even on your presup ground of equating the unborn to the born (again, something the bible doesn't do), the claim of an unwanted child being born to a broken family- potentially even with chemical addictions- having spiraling consequence that can be _clear and evident_ , regardless of the situation surrounding the conception, isn't hand-waived away with post-facto anecdotes like "well, my friend developed depression in his twenties, so you think he should never have been born" nonsensical "arguments." In fact, these arguments (7 and 6) are _so strong_ they can be used to argue for the abolition of reproductive rights entirely, making each birth nearly a sure-thing to be a well-received and actualized life while maintaining economic and ecologic stability. Instead of this, you argue we should look at the broken and hurt people of the world and just continue with this because nothing is wrong somehow [well nothing is wrong with _me_ !] and it couldn't be done better. 5. lmfao, you can't be so dishonest in 7 and then say his logical argument is dumb- it's literally what hate groups like the KKK say to do (have lots of kids). In fact, it's what your own popular pastors say to do: Eric Hovind, Doug Wilson, Adrean Rogers, Ken Copeland, and so on. To then say "the long game" isn't in the bible when that's what the entire religion is about is laughable, you pathetic ignoramous. From life being a trial to enter heaven (hence you can't choose to end it early and go straight to heaven) to the stories of the bible where it took decades to find redemption- exodus, noah, Jesus' 1000 year return, and so on. I'll give you it doesn't explicitly say to have kids explicitly for the purposes of dominating the earth (even if it was given that all is under man's domain), but it does say "be fruitful and multiply" quoted from God himfuckingself. 4. Including the r*pe babies born addicted to crack. (It's getting tiresome to continue this.) It's always so funny when a xtian points to a source that happens to agree with what they brainwashed with growing up even though there are many denominations that take that exact source to be incorrect. Big ups to God for making the interpretation of His Word™ as clear as mud such that tens of thousands of denominations can disagree on every single verse. Your singular cafeteria link is opposed by a singular link from another xtian source, take you pick. ProGrace is a strange one to me- seems extra gymnastic for no precise reason. 3. Speaking of gymnastry... The word in hebrew roughly translates to "thigh" and is referred to as an extension of the mother's body not a separate living thing. This is what happens when you appeal to the Pentateuch (Old Testament), the Jews are not pro-life. To be able to contort that a forced miscarriage is _not_ an abortion is absolute insanity, all other interpretations of "being left infertile" are irrelevant to this. _Please_ check yourself, you seem to lack the ability to think critically about yourself and your ideas. 2. So then you are Pro-Choice and For-Spreading The Word? After all, it's her choice to go through with it, and g0d ordained her choice matters, right? We send ourselves to hell, yeah? Well, unless you're catholic, then you believe every miscarriage and abortion is burning in hell. 1. So you admit that your god is as he says he is: "the source of all light and of all evil." That he allows/plans out and _wants_ r*pe victims to suffer the physiological trauma and the to-be-born to face such a wicked (out of wedlock) existence. Your god is fucking sick and evil, thank him he doesn't exist. Mankind should and will continue to A) elucidate the universe in spite of religious dogma, and B) make rational arguments to build a moral world where such unnecessary suffering is eliminated. We've seen your points a million times- they have been argued against more than that not just by atheists. They are spam at this point. Spam that is coerced onto children because it wouldn't make any sense to a formally-operant brain.
@@damon22441 I think that's funny because in some of your arguments, all you've done is dismiss anything I've said that shows abortion as wrong in the bible by saying,"Well it's left to interpretation". There are very clearly certain translations of the bible that should be used more than others, if you actually look into the history of it. So regardless of what you think saying,"Well you can find denominations and pastors that teach it differently, so clearly it's left to interpretation", I don't entirely think that's true. As to the idea of rape, yes I think that's horrible, yet I again, will state that it is a child within you. And the bible shows this when the Lord speaks saying he "made you in the womb and formed you.". Claim all you want that,"This is just an omni showing that he knows the person's days," even though this is quite clearly showing that God values the persons life even in the womb. As to the word meaning "thigh" and being an extension of the mothers body and not a separate living thing, I'm confused on what you mean since you literally just claimed what I did. That the mother is not pregnant, as the thigh would not imply a "miscarriage". Anyways, good luck to you in life, and I hope if you argue with someone in real life and not over youtube comments lol, you can make a more productive conversation since that was the goal of my original comment.
@@lucid3563 I wish we had Facebook reactions so I instead of a thumbsup/down I could give you boomer ass a 😆. Your mental gymnastry is nearly God-like in ability, easily getting a gold medal in cosmic competition. The way you combined the arguments for some points like they were said about the same thing (forced miscarriage in Numbers being a thigh therefor not an abortion, that's actually a new level of insanity I've only now witnessed), and dismissing the valid criticism of interpretability with doubling-down that "nuh uhh, I got the interpretation right!" then acting like that was all I stated... just... beautiful sophistry. You've earned a 👍for that one.
@@damon22441 I'd like to wish that you were actually open to discussion on these sorts of issues, instead of just saying that I'm wrong when you clearly know nothing about the actual biblical and church history, as you dismiss the argument of variations in versions/ translations that I've brought up. But I suppose you can think whatever you would like and I can't stop you. I just hope you don't do this to everyone online lol, because that would be ridiculous.
yes Jesus preached the gospel but also called for everyone to love thy neighbor. it will be unloving for Christians to just be spectators to the killing of innocent souls.
Loving they neighbor does NOT include forcing your theology on them. You're taking that little nugget and turning it into a full turd. As mentioned in the video, the bible condones abortion. Who are you to oppose god?
@TheDAMShow we are called to spread God's message to help bring others to salvation. If you do not wish to believe then we respect your decision but that decision would likely mean hell(separation from god) for you. Don't mistake our concern for you as an act of hatred. after all, love isn't affirming everything someone does it is calling out when they do something wrong.
given the speaker believes in the finality of death that statement should be of no surprise. Why is he so obsessed that he just cannot leave the subject of Christianity alone and get a LIFE?
Because Christians won't leave everyone else alone. Forcing their abortion notions on everyone, forcing their 10 commandments and bibles on our children in schools. I'm DEFENDING my life from people like you.
@@TheDAMShow I notice among that reply you mention the Commandments. Do you seriously believe people should have a right to murder people, and go about being unfaithful to their wives and husbands? And what about the one that would break in to your house to steal your goods? You say you defend your life? You clearly have no idea with such dark views. At the end of your shallow existence will you be questioning why you were ever here?
@@TheDAMShow You had no answer so you deleted my reply to that. I will say it gain! As you don't like the commandments why do you think a person has a right to kill, commit adultery and even break in to your home to steal from you? Now don't be shy! And at the end of your existence will you be wondering why you were ever here?
@@TheDAMShow Thats' twice now you deleted my reply. so I'll state something else and lets see if its easier for you to cope with. You don't like Christians saying how to live your life, yet you think you have a right to tell Christians not to love the defenceless child in the womb.
@@TheDAMShow Deleted 3 times now. You just cant take it. So what makes you think you can tell Christians not to defend the fragile life that is in the womb? So man up and answer! Those who see the reply will know you are a wimp trying to be big if you delete this.
In Hosea 9, God causes miscarriages as a form of punishment, but it isn’t license for humans to do so. Unlike wars, God never commands people to abort pregnancy in the Bible.
Long story short? No. Numbers 5 is not an instruction manual for ancient abortion. The chapter contains an ancient ritual in which a grain offering is given to a priest who then mixes a concoction for a pregnant wife to drink. (This was for women suspected of adultery without any indisputable witnesses.) If the woman had no reaction and birthed a healthy baby, her name was cleared. If she was affected by the ritual, then she would be deemed an adulteress. There are two possible interpretations of this ritual though. One, more popular view, is that she would be disfigured. A second view is that the description of the effects of the ritual are not literal disfigurement but the death of her womb. In the former, more popular interpretation, this has no parallel to legalized abortions. If the latter, more figurative translation is the one to be trusted however, the miscarriage is still a result of God’s judgement, not any individual. So any Christian who thinks Numbers 5 is an excuse for abortion, even with the latter interpretation, a person would be better off praying to God to terminate a cursed pregnancy than visiting an abortion clinic.
@@Symbols_Ciphernumbers 5:11 is an abortion ritual/test. don't let other people try to trick you about disfigurement. the ritual includes gathering dust from the tabernacle, where they made burnt offerings. mixing ashes and water makes lye, on of the oldest know abortifacient. it makes her belly distend (a symptom in a miscarriage) and her "thigh" sag. "thigh" is used throughout the bible to literally mean child/womb because that is what they called it. just think about what is all happening in the passage. a man is suspicious of his wife is cheating. and why were people back then worried about cheating? because it could lead to raising a child that wasn't yours
@@Symbols_Ciphernumbers 5:11 is an abortion ritual/test. don't let other people try to trick you about disfigurement. the ritual includes gathering dust from the tabernacle, where they made burnt offerings. mixing ashes and water makes lye, on of the oldest know abortifacient. it makes her belly distend (a symptom in a miscarriage) and her "thigh" sag. "thigh" is used throughout the bible to literally mean child/womb because that is what they called it. just think about what is all happening in the passage. a man is suspicious of his wife is cheating. and why were people back then worried about cheating? because it could lead to raising a child that wasn't yours
The hill they decided to die on? This hill did not go away with the Supreme court decision. They planted a flag. Maybe your to busy trying to figure out if men really can have babies or not, to notice. Personally I do NOT practice Christianity, but fighting for human rights, the right to live, is a hill I would gladly die on. It is why we fight wars. It is why we have gun rights, to defend ourselves. It's why we protect the helpless. I would rather live in a country that protects life than one that does not. You would be at home in Hitlers Germany. Deciding who can live and who cannot.
To be clear, there is zero theology and zero logic applied to these "arguments". There is reasoning (not to be confused with reason) that is applied but that is simply another way of saying "mental gymnastics".
@ianalan4367 Which method do you suggest to validate the correct interpretation of scripture and which denomination adheres to that? And why don't the others?
@finestPlugins well in simplicity any interpretation should not contradict the scripture itself and the mere fact that one is advocating for the destruction of human life creates that contradiction. Denomination and interpretation aside, that's wrong.
Imagodeigen - It’s not only a horrible argument it isn’t even an accurate theological representation of Christianity. Just another atheist telling us what the book means to him. Fortunately he has no authority and his words are all but meaningless to those who have understanding.
@ianalan4367 It's not about what it means to a group of people. It's about the consequences if it's actually taken seriously. Luckily almost nobody does in reality.
finestPlugins - When telling people they should support or not support something based upon what they believe then yes, the accuracy of that belief (the meaning) most certainly is of utmost importance. Not that abortion is solely a religious issue. It is not. It’s a civil rights issue.
@@ianalan4367 Oh, it certainly is. Bodily autonomy is key. But people should also be aware of the conclusions and consequences of their beliefs. Especially when they lack evidence.
@@marcolorenti1745 in the .0001% of cases (yes that is a real statistic; look it up if you don't believe me, 10 in 100,000), they would usually still try to do what they can for the baby. But so what if we did just kill it in this extremely niche situation? That still doesn't account for the VAST majorities of pregnancies, and hardly helps your stance at all
@@Shmorkie13 Nah, it shows how ridiculous and inconsistent "pro lifers" are. It's not a simple black and white issue, as their naive, simple brains believe it to be.
You did know that god commanded 'Thou shall not murder' then literally told them to go murder whole tribes of people. Murdered the old men guarding the temples, etc. Countless examples. It does on and on. You should be disgusted by your religion.
Thanks for your reply. I have a daughter who fell pregnant out of wedlock. My wife and I supported her to have the child which was her wish also. We now have a teenage grandson who we all love dearly. When I commented once to my daughter that she had made a mistake, she replied; "Dad, God doesn't make mistakes." Saint Paul said: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18
Have you ever been into the dying room that the little ones are taken too after the butchering. Or the dumbster in some places where the innocent are still squirming around ,even having been denied the right to scream from the horror. Such cowardness you'd fit right in with those you criticise thousands of years ago.
@@velkyn1 God is a God of Justice and so brings to Justice those that repeatedly sin wickedly and refuse opportunities for repentance. You are like one who complains that a murdering, stealing rapist is brought to Justice. You too need to repent.
@@marcolorenti1745 You think sacrificing children, and committing bestiality is not wicked??? Something seriously wrong with you. You must be as wicked as those who sacrificed children and did those things, and were consequently judged for it.
He fails to recognize that the baby at conception receives an immortal soul. They await their mothers into heaven if mothers repent. A child in the womb should be the safest place for them. They think they're exterminating weeds.
Because if you say too many words like kill, death, etc, youtube will limit the video's reach. Same reason you'll hear people say SA instead of sexual assault or grape instead of rape.
Most Americans are aware there are strong arguments against abortion. Et voila! Fait accompli. You've done your job. Godescorts Abortees to bask in the Presence of the Lord. We are under no divine obligation to halt any abortion.
@TheDAMShow If I'm there, it's bad news for me financially because it means I don't have work. But if I'm not working, then I enjoy hangin out. Construction usually takes a nose dive around holidays. I got a good bid confirmed for half way thru December. Tryna find smaller projects in the mean time.
@@TheDAMShow sleeping in my car in 20 degrees.... I'm used to it. It's the price I pay for having.... 18 dogs. A house will never love u.... dogs do nothin but love u. Honestly, I'm livin the life I wanted as a kid. Was raised up in hoods (as u can hear when I talk)... all I wanted was to move to the woods w my dogs.... & here I am. Weird as$, don't fit in no where, do what dafaq I want Daen. (Pronounced as "Dane") we only got 1 life. I'm living for ME. there's that 75% narcissism kickin in. 😂
Well, you gave it your best shot. Don't be ashamed. Not everyone has the facilities to comprehend such deep concepts. Maybe if you have someone explain it to you?
Yes, God did breath life into Adam but you must take into account that Adam was created directly by God from inanimate matter. We are different because we come from Adam and Eve through a biological process not from clay and dirt. At conception we are given a soul. You go to talk about saving children by killing them but then respecting others' free will. Did you respect the childs free will by killing them? What if they had been glad to live life despite the troubles they experience? You have to let them choose god to respect their free will, not force them onto him.
uh no. Jesus was a religious jew who followed the Torah (The Books of Moses). He would know them because he wrote them. The nation of Israel and the Torah was for the nation as well as the individual. Abortion is murder and no different than the sin of child sacrifice that the ancient world, including Israel, practiced. And for the record, abortion was taught to mankind by fallen angels. You can read this in the Book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was directly quoted by Jude in his epistle. Jude was the brother of James the leader of the church in Jerusalem and both were brothers of Jesus. They did not believe in him until after the resurrection.
Oh, yeah, it's that simple. Just blame the potential victims of circumstance and don't think past that, makes it _reeaaall_ easy to sleep at night that way. R*pe exists. Ectopic pregnancies are a thing. "Protection" isn't 100%. Foster care is a disaster and you suggesting it means you haven't looked into it. Arguing to deny the strongest urge evolved by millions of years of evolution to recently-formed frontal lobes does not work [most Repeat Teen Pregnancies occur in the bible belt where abstinence is preached instead of sex ed being taught], demonstrably. Suggesting masturbation when it's still taboo amongst the Right (lmao) when they outlaw abortion, the only toy these people will invest in is a coat hanger. Ignorant child, spew your thoughtlessness no more.
You open your video by shaming Christians for “imposing their beliefs on others” and then proceed to misinterpret their scripture and claim it belongs to your worldview? Just remember, when evangelists are imposing their beliefs, they mean to save others from damnation. When you post this, it’s to rationalize an evil deed.
It doesn't supply instructions. The only ingredient described is the grain offering of oil given to the priest in charge of judging whether or not the baby was conceived in marriage. Since the results of being found guilty by the concoction are up for debate--some take it as a literal disfigurement, others... fewer translations... understand it as a metaphor for miscarriage--we cannot be sure what the endgame is, but this this trial was practiced in a society that established the Levite priests experienced communication with God, something Israel claimed to lose. Long story short, any negative reaction to the potion was meant to be understood as divine punishment.... So yes, if you suspect an unborn baby of being an abomination, then there wouldn't be anything sinful about praying to God to rid the world of it, even if he doesn't destroy the baby...but having an abortion of your own volition would be sinful.
What do you think? Should Christians EMBRACE abortion?
@@TheDAMShow #5 makes SO much sence. The ppl getting Abortions are those who don't care about Abrahamic Dogmas. Logically, if u let them kill eachother off, Followers of Abraham could out populate. 😂
Their god did command them to bash babies against walls, you cant be any more pro-abortion then that
No
@@TheDAMShow it's in their bible
@@TheDAMShow I think.... Yahweh obviously loves mur ering babies.... so... to be closer to Yahwehs love.... you must necessarily mur er babies.... (😂)
why do I feel like these same points would have been used by pro slavery christians. like "oh you should focus on spreading the gospel instead of forcing laws on plantation owners". Human rights are for all humans!! doesnt matter their skin color whether or not their jewish, or any dehumanizing reason.
joshyeliezondo3299 - Exactly!!!
or "if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave!"
Worst part is there really are people who try to this day to read modern day justification of chattel slavery into the bible, disregarding the descriptions and circumstance of the old testament in a way that appears to primarily be motivated by prior racism.
It is funny that when it comes to the big topics, whether you believe or don't, god seems to just agree with you.
But with all that said abortion is very intuitively wrong and if god exists (I sure hope he does) he would agree with me :3
The ancient Hebrews did not read God's prohibition against unlawfully causing the death of a person to mean that terminating a pregnancy was murder. The Hebrews read Genesis 2:7 and 7:21-22 literally to mean that a baby is not a living soul until it takes its first breath. Hebrew culture did not seen an unborn fetus as a "chay nephesh" (a living soul) until it had been born. A fetus was regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it began to emerge from the womb during parturition. Until forty days after conception, the ancients considered a fertilized egg was as “mere fluid.”
The Hebrews did not consider termination of a pregnancy to be the murder of a child. For example, according to the Mishnah, in the case of a pregnant woman who is taken by the court to be executed, the court does not wait to execute her until she gives birth. Rather, she is killed immediately. But with regard to a woman taken to be executed who sat on the travailing chair in the throes of labor, the court waits to execute her until she gives birth. In other words, unless the pregnant woman was giving birth, the unborn baby did not enjoy the right to life, because it was not a "living soul."
I share the view of God's chosen people, the ancient Hebrews, that Genesis 2:7 and 7:21-22 teach us that a baby does not become a living being until it takes its first breath.
The Book of Genesis was authored at least 2,600 years after man was supposedly created. The authors were not eyewitnesses, they merely put on paper what had been passed down orally to them. Who knows if the stories that got passed down for over 2,600 years actually occurred? God may or may not have actually formed the first man from the dust of the earth and breathed a soul into Adam, thereby creating a living being. However, the ancient Hebrews believed that is exactly what happened.
Humans after Adam weren't formed from the dust of the ground. However, the ancient Hebrews believed that humans after Adam continued to become "living beings" or "living souls" upon first breath. See Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 7:21-22 , which reads "and expire doth all flesh that is moving on the earth, among fowl, and among cattle, and among beasts, and among all the teeming things which are teeming on the earth, and all mankind; all in whose nostrils breath of a living spirit -- of all that in the dry land -- have died." The Hebrew words construed by Young to mean "breath of a living spirit" are 1) neshamah, which can mean breath, spirit or soul 2) ruach, which can mean spirit, wind or breath and 3) chay, which can mean alive, living or life. Among the ancients, life, soul, spirit and breath, were tightly associated. There was no human life without without breath. It's undisputable that the Hebrews believed ensoulment occurred when a baby took its first breath. An unborn baby didn't have a soul. Thus, it was not a living soul.
@JackMagger yes Adam was formed of dirt and clay, and we come from them through a biological process. This means we are created biologically by "living" cells.
A human body with biological processes is not the author of Genesis' concept of a "living creature." Adam's body was capable of biological processes after God formed him from the dust, however, that didn't make him a "living creature." Adam didn't become a living creature until after God had formed him and breathed into his nostrils the "breath of life." Adam did not receive the "breath of life" at conception, he received it after his body had been formed when God breathed it into his nostrils. Like Adam, babies don't receive the breath of life at conception or at any other time prior to birth, they receive it at birth when God breathes into their nostrils the "breath of life." We see birth as a baby leaving the womb. However, God sees birth as the moment a baby receives the "breath of life."
How's 'bout just using birth control devices? That by itself would prevent lot's of abortions but then a child concieved accidentally would eventually learn about it & feel unwanted the rest of it's life
I completely agree
In Psalm 139, the author says he was "curiously wrought in the lower part of earth." It's obviously poetry and not to taken literally. The context is God's omniscience, not when man becomes a "living creature." The author uses a Hebrew word that can mean belly, womb, body or innermost part, when he writes "thou dost cover me in my mother's belly", which I read to mean "you protected me in my mother's womb." We know God doesn't protect all babies in the womb. Otherwise, there would be no miscarriages.
Question: Why would God give a baby a soul at conception and then allow a miscarriage? It seems to me that God would wait until babies are born to give them the "spirit of life" mentioned in Genesis 2:7, which is probably what we, as Platonists, who think in terms of a body-mind dichotomy, think of as the "soul." Personally, I don't think God is a Platonist. He doesn't conceive of life in terms of mind and body. For God it's just life. The idea that man has a physical life and a spiritual one comes from the Greeks, not the Bible.
Here's a thought: If a baby receives its soul at conception and dies in the womb, he never sins and doesn't need the Savior. It's a free ride to eternal life that bypasses the temptations of the flesh we face in this world.
Jesus said,do not hurt my little ones.That means in the womb also.You will all be held guilty of murder before the most high judge.
It does NOT mean in the womb, you just made that up.
You're 'most high judge' is kinda pathetic, don't you think? Did you see the examples in the video where your most high judge condones abortion? You did see the part where they gave instructions on how to do it, yes? In the bible...
Ah, by the logic "If God does something, who are you to say it's wrong?", there's not going to be much considered wrong.
From a moral standpoint, I am with you. But from the practical standpoint, Christianity requires that form of hypocrisy.
What would be your response to the position that is simply not possible for a Christian to embrace abortion? That it isn't an oppressive or legislative decision, but rather a statement of objective truth.
Not possible for a Christian to embrace abortion? I'd think you didn't know what the words 'not possible' meant. Christians clearly CAN believe and embrace abortion.
Legislating it is forcing OTHER people to not have abortions because Christians don't like it. NOT objective truth, legislative oppression.
@@TheDAMShow I had a feeling you'd say something like that. Okay.
I understand Genesis 2:7, which reads "And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature", to mean that humans become living creatures when they take their first breath.
@@HonkyTonkGirlsI am not sure what side your going with on this but last I checked that was many years ago. After that human kind reproduce organically and not by constructing sculptures that they ask our father to breath life into.
Then if you're such a Christian, don't get an abortion. You don't have the right to deny the decision and in many cases the healthcare that women who don't share your views have a right to. Like George carlin said, you guys aren't pro life, you're ANTI WOMEN!
Hello, I understand where you are coming from. However, I think the logic here is seriously flawed at times.
On point 9, just because abortion laws may cause some harm to some mothers, it doesn't follow that all abortion should be legal. We could allow medical abortions. But even if we don't, a law can't always account for very rare cases. An abortion law would protect the greatest amount of human beings.
On point 5, over-population is not a good reason to justify murder.
On point 4 you said that the bible doesn't condemn abortion. But it doesn't support it either. So we have to use reason to determine if abortion is murder or not. Also, you seem to contradict yourself with this reasoning on point 2. The bible doesn't say that all babies are saved. Although I also believe this is the case, you are being inconsistent. Also, just because babies are probably saved, it doesn't mean we have the right to murder them, or let other people murder them. 1) we don't 100% know that they are saved, 2) it is always wrong to murder someone, even if you will send them to heaven, 3) in allowing this we would be allowing other people to sin, and 4) why would God create us if he wanted us to die in the womb and immediately go to heaven?
Finally, on your last point, it doesn't follow that we should allow something as grave as murder just because we want to "respect free will." We don't respect free will with other crimes.
yoru bible supports killing children repeatedly, so there's a fail on your part. If a fetus is a child, this god kills them constantly. If a fetus isn't a child, then abortion isn't murder.
curious how christians can't agree on who is saved, how they are saved, etc and yet each of you claim that only your version is the right one. Augustine says babies are damned if they aren't baptized. then the church had to make up limbo so their cult didn't seem so pathetically vicious.
10. False dichotomy: Yes the main commandment of Jesus was to make more followers of Jesus but that's not the ONLY one. Protect the innocent comes top mind. So Christians should do both and more and will be called to various commandments more or less based on their gifts and convictions different parts of the body of Christ. And the implication that Christians want a bigger pool to commit SA upon shows you are arguing in bad faith rather than actually understanding the Christian perspective and has poor implications if extended to born children.
9. Murder still happens when it is criminalized so it shouldn't be a crime. Instead of telling women to kill their child and hanging them to dry we surround them with love and protection to help her and the child? Again your comment shows bad faith.
8. Christians are judged by God to a higher standard but all are subject to the same moral law. If you think that moral laws shouldn't be applied to others then you should get rid of murder laws as some people may not agree with them or have a different opinions. The truth is all laws are someone's beliefs and opinions legislated. The concept of human rights comes from the Bible. Are you going to stop believing it because of its Christian origin?
7. Again false dichotomy: well there's overpopulation so we have to start killing a few. You are forgetting that while God does want us to be good stewards, that does not give us permission to kill whoever in order to do so.
6. Expand that point to born children, look them in the eye and tell them you've decided it is better for them to be dead. Also abortion does not get rid of suffering as the end of a life is suffering.
5. This shows you have no concept or understanding of Christianity. It doesn't matter if the innocent you are protecting is a believer or not a believer and will later cast you aside. God calls us to not abandon his law and our convictions of loving our neighbors. Christ comings for us while were are still sinners and Hosea are examples of how Christians will live in this world. The Bible also repeatedly tell Christians that they will be out numbered and scorned so why would we betray Christ's commands and try to "get one over" on the unbelievers. Your point fosters an us vs them mentality which goes against Jesus's teaching namely the good Samaritan.
4. Adam had the breath of life put into him but no other human has been made the same way so it does not follow that it is life at first breath in fact many Bible verses treat those in the womb as people. Luke 1:41-44 show John and Jesus meeting each other in the womb. Psalm 139:13-14 and Jeremiah 1:5 show that there is a person, someone that can be known in the womb. As for Exodus you are assuming the children dies in both cases but I would read it as harm of the children and/or woman which would mean the life for life could be the child's life meaning if you hit a pregnant woman and her child dies you receive the death penalty. the idea that the Bible doesn't go against abortion is also false. The Bible vehemently commands not murder and protecting the innocent and the children.
3. Firstly you are reading abortion into the passage. It most likely means that the women will become barren and unable to get pregnant not that a child she has will become miscarried. Secondly God has the right to judge and take life as he can bring people back and is the judge and sole arbiter of the universe. Your argument would also have to apply to murder. God kills people so that means we can do it too. That is not how the Bible works. If God wants something to happen, no matter how many laws or people trying to get to stop, it will happed. You commit blasphemy by thinking Christians passing laws will stop the will of God. (This is not an insult but pointing out your misunderstanding of the power and nature of God)
2. Again we are not the judges, it is not for us to murder people to guarantee them a spot in heaven and it neglects the amount of good someone can do hear on earth. A lot of your argument boils down to abandon you moral convictions and clear commandments for the greater good.
1. Yes we have free will and have things God commands we should do certain things with that free will, such as stopping people with free will from committing a free will of evil upon the innocent. Protect the innocent. Yes there is free will and with free will comes consequences. With certain acts of moral evil there needs to be justice and prevention on a human level. This is clear in the Bible.
Conclusion: You do not understand Christianity and are arguing in bad faith and just wanted a rise out of Christians and to insult Christians and the Christian God. I would suggest you stop pretending to understand the Christian position and make better cases bolstering your beliefs instead of knocking down a strawman.
I decided to watch this to exercise my critical thinking and maybe help anyone who may fall for your fallacious thinking so that the Holy Spirit may use this comment to protect and comfort them. If you wish to argue in good faith and do not stoop to insults I would be glad for that. Even if you just wish to insult me I welcome that as well because "when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
Dayummm that's a great post. I appreciate the time and effort and thinking you put into it. I disagree with you, of course, but that was to be expected. Interesting how many contradictions there are in the bible. I say X, you say Y and guess what? We can both be right... or wrong.
Here's a great link to some bible contradictions you should check out.
www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/
@@hansdykstra3869 you're spewing more moronic nonsense you ignorant self righteous fool
@@hansdykstra3869 the Bible condones abortion, killing children that are born, and multiple types of slavery.
This video is just filled with false dichotomies, just completely wrong morals (For Christians at least), and for certain points is just flat out wrong, and since I’m here I’ll tackle the Bible verses you present.
Genesis 2:7 Not only is this God’s breath rather than human breath, but it’s also highly likely that it’s meant metaphorically rather than literally.
Exodus 21:22-25 This argument is based of a flawed understanding of the different types of laws in the Bible. In this case the stated treatment is part of Civil Law alongside the entirety of the chapter.
Numbers 5:11-31 The stated procedure, although it could be an abortion, could also be a procedure to render the woman infertile.
"Everything good is literal, all the rest is metaphor" - religious people.
I’ll be honest I have no idea what kind of point you’re trying to make.
@@gomethins7738 It was pretty straightforward. I hope for your sake you're just being deliberately obtuse.
curious how christians can never agree on what parts of their bible are to be taken literally, as metaphor, as exaggeratoin, etc. They do what is convenient for what they invent.
Alas, for your false claims, the procedure in Numbers 5 is an abortion, since the intent is to expell something from the womb. Now, dear, what would that be if a woman is thought to be having sex with another man? Surely you can guess the answer?
@@gomethins7738 He's mocking you and accusing you of cherry-picking since the guy either has never read the Bible (which I'm betting on) or has no sense of context to identify such things
This is rich. An athiest who does not believe in the bible tells us what it says.
Don't blame him for the consequences of your theology.
Somebody has to give you the unfiltered truth. Your pastor won't do it.
@@TheDAMShow my bishop literally talked about paedophilia in the structures of the church yesterday. Just bc you have a view of the church doesn't mean your correct about it, and even science says life begins at conception, if you're not willing to listen to biblical teachings, so yes, abortion is murder. I will be praying for you
@@martsien9627 Life began at abiogenesis. According to science.
@@martsien9627”science says” exactly what I need it to say to make my point. I’d love to know the source of your scientific claim.
I would like to preface with: This is in the order the claims appear in the video, and that I hope these claims can be discussed more as I think for you to so shallowly go into them, and just overall accuse Christians, makes for very unproductive conversations, and content. With that, I hope that this can be useful in some way to someone.
10) Christianity is about saving souls: Conception is the beginning of life in the bible and in general (though not accepted) should be the case. Thus abortion cannot be allowed as it is taking the life away from someone whom God has allowed to be conceived. And I think it's interesting you said "Their histories justify such criticism", but then failed to provide an example, so I'm just confused on why you would throw out a line that they are increasing victimhood, but then fail to say how and just say, well I can say that because of arbitrary histories.
9) Increases suffering for women: I don't know where you got the idea that we would want them to suffer, doesn't make much sense to me as a Christian, but I'll just ignore that for now. As to the case of it just makes it more dangerous since they will just turn to illegal methods, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't ban it. It would reduce the amount as some people would be unwilling to do those illegal methods, AND, just because something would make certain people turn to other methods doesn't mean I shouldn't ban something that is found wrong. If, for example, we increased the risks a person would face if they committed murder, but then people still did murder, should I then make murder legal? No! Because it's still wrong.
8) An abortion does not just affect you, it affects the person inside of you. You went into your consensual relationship knowing the risks, and now you have a child in you. That is not the child's problem it is your fault, and regardless of if you like it or not, it is a life, and a life cannot be taken away from them. It's not imposing our values, it is imposing what is factual science, a baby inside you is a living baby, and as thus, has moral value in the same way that a 28 year old man does, or my 75 year old grandfather.
7) So you're saying that children, regardless of their value in the womb, should be ridden of because they "overpopulate" and "take up resources", what a horrible claim to make considering you yourself use those resources. If a person told you,"You shouldn't live anymore because you're overpopulating the earth", you would find that ridiculous since you find value in yourself. By saying this about any future born children you are taking a morally superior stance that you shouldn't, as you get to define what kind of person is valuable for the earth.
6) A difficult life, is not necessarily a life that isn't worth living. I have many good friends who have suffered so much in their lives. Even my own parents had to go through many foster homes, because of circumstances in their lives. To say,"Well you should just not let the child live then, since they'll live a hard life", is to again, take that morally superior stance, and assume that the child will not be able to make things good for themselves. Just because some people find things difficult in life, doesn't make it so that you can try to change your circumstances, but abortion takes out that choice from the child in the first place.
5) This is such a dumb argument, since you're arguing that we would want the rest of society to die so that we can have our values. Which is against the bible in so many ways, since who am I to take the life of that person.
4) That verse from Exodus is exceedingly overused and misunderstood. If you want a link to why it's wrong here's one www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-21-22-25-by-pro-choice-advocates also you cannot say it begins with breath, because God "breathing the breath of life" into Adam, if taken literally, would simply be because Adam was not conceived. Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations". Psalm 139:13-18: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb". Both of these verses clearly show that the bible does teach of conception being the beginning of life, as a Christian is shown that God has literally FORMED every being in the womb.
3) To claim the passage depicts abortion inserts concepts not even hinted at in the text. This confusion of yours stems from the 2011 edition of the NIV, which refers to miscarriage, even though pregnancy is not part of the requirement for the ritual. Pregnancy is not even mentioned anywhere in the process. The effects include some type of swelling and/or shriveling. Yet the targeted body part is vague. In fact, it’s the same Hebrew term used to describe the spot where Jacob suffered his infamous injury (Genesis 32:25), as well as the place where Ehud hid his sword (Judges 3:16). At worst, the Numbers 5 passage implies future infertility. The ritual was not a remedy for an unwanted pregnancy-it was a test for adultery. Traditional interpretations of the ritual even restricted it from being performed on pregnant women (Mishnah Sotah 4:3).
2) You might say it would jeopardize a child's salvation, but the reason we don't go around killing all of these children is because God WANTS a choice from people. You can choose to accept or reject him, and he wants to honor that choice that you make. Killing a child takes away the ability to make that decision, and to grow/mature in a relationship with God in the first place.
1) If a person were to do "bad things", to a christian girl, then yes, that is a horrible thing. Does God do something about it, yes. The bible tells us that he burns with rage, and is so upset when things like this happen to his people. This is where the idea of him being sovereign comes into play, but regardless, while horrible, I still don't think you should have an abortion. because of the fact that it is A) Not your life to take, and B) It's still God's child, no matter how horrible the way it came about.
I hope this is somewhat comprehensive and that you can consider some of the points I bring up here.
Counters:
10. Nowhere in the bible does it state conception is the start of life. This is why there are denominations that are okay with- because it is not directly stated and left to "hints" (often English translations). The Psalms about knowing you in the womb is easily interpreted as "proving" g0d's omniscience, and I laugh every time the omnis are brought up because that just means he knew the "number of [their] days" would be a negative value. All according to plan!
9. There are two cases just in the past month I can point to by their names of women who suffered until they died because of an ectopic pregnancy: Neveah Crain (Heaven backwards), who went septic after 3 separate hospitals were too afraid to face the absurd 100 year prison penalty for doing an abortion, and Amber Thurmon, similar story. These are just two that I have engrained in my mind forever of numerous cases when I only need _one_ case to prove that abortion should _not be_ completely banned.
8. You presume of consensual sex, but r*pe cases exist. I can't even find the exact case I recall of a child being forced to bear another because the google and bing searches I went through were saturated with 10, 12, 13 year olds r*ped. At least some of these cases a doctor was willing to do the right thing and prevent such madness and unnecessary suffering.
And don't you dare invoke "science" in this like you can wield your opponent's weaponry. Not only are the majority of scientists pro-choice, but "science," being a body of evidence or a methodology has no true stance on abortion. Tell me next about how you trusted the covid vaccine and agree with the facts that trans people are valid and deserve rights, or are you cherry picking "science" like you do the bible?
You know what, I'll Steelman your point here.
Jane _did_ agree to have a kid with John, both adult-aged. However, when money ran tight from a car accident, job loss, and a stock/asset crash the viability of raising a child plummeted. They'd get no monetary help from the side that would scream/threaten them to carry to term once the child was born outside of a meager tax break and perhaps the qualification for food stamps- another policy the same side wants to do away with. There is assessed risk with Jane from doctors, worried that she might incur severe trauma and that there is a non-zero risk to her life. Given the unfortunate circumstances- any number of which can be seen in common cases- the morality of the issue stops being such an easy black and white.
7. He did not claim "children" should be ridden. How extremely dishonest of you to invent this crap. I can't even rebut you on this because it's such a shit strawman you ranted against here. His point remains.
6. I've had my share of woes, most of which caused by people (like you) other than me who usually came before me and set laws against me or systems to keep me on a track I didn't nor would choose. He isn't arguing against me being made, kept, birthed, raised.
Even on your presup ground of equating the unborn to the born (again, something the bible doesn't do), the claim of an unwanted child being born to a broken family- potentially even with chemical addictions- having spiraling consequence that can be _clear and evident_ , regardless of the situation surrounding the conception, isn't hand-waived away with post-facto anecdotes like "well, my friend developed depression in his twenties, so you think he should never have been born" nonsensical "arguments." In fact, these arguments (7 and 6) are _so strong_ they can be used to argue for the abolition of reproductive rights entirely, making each birth nearly a sure-thing to be a well-received and actualized life while maintaining economic and ecologic stability. Instead of this, you argue we should look at the broken and hurt people of the world and just continue with this because nothing is wrong somehow [well nothing is wrong with _me_ !] and it couldn't be done better.
5. lmfao, you can't be so dishonest in 7 and then say his logical argument is dumb- it's literally what hate groups like the KKK say to do (have lots of kids). In fact, it's what your own popular pastors say to do: Eric Hovind, Doug Wilson, Adrean Rogers, Ken Copeland, and so on. To then say "the long game" isn't in the bible when that's what the entire religion is about is laughable, you pathetic ignoramous. From life being a trial to enter heaven (hence you can't choose to end it early and go straight to heaven) to the stories of the bible where it took decades to find redemption- exodus, noah, Jesus' 1000 year return, and so on. I'll give you it doesn't explicitly say to have kids explicitly for the purposes of dominating the earth (even if it was given that all is under man's domain), but it does say "be fruitful and multiply" quoted from God himfuckingself.
4. Including the r*pe babies born addicted to crack. (It's getting tiresome to continue this.)
It's always so funny when a xtian points to a source that happens to agree with what they brainwashed with growing up even though there are many denominations that take that exact source to be incorrect. Big ups to God for making the interpretation of His Word™ as clear as mud such that tens of thousands of denominations can disagree on every single verse.
Your singular cafeteria link is opposed by a singular link from another xtian source, take you pick. ProGrace is a strange one to me- seems extra gymnastic for no precise reason.
3. Speaking of gymnastry...
The word in hebrew roughly translates to "thigh" and is referred to as an extension of the mother's body not a separate living thing. This is what happens when you appeal to the Pentateuch (Old Testament), the Jews are not pro-life.
To be able to contort that a forced miscarriage is _not_ an abortion is absolute insanity, all other interpretations of "being left infertile" are irrelevant to this. _Please_ check yourself, you seem to lack the ability to think critically about yourself and your ideas.
2. So then you are Pro-Choice and For-Spreading The Word? After all, it's her choice to go through with it, and g0d ordained her choice matters, right? We send ourselves to hell, yeah? Well, unless you're catholic, then you believe every miscarriage and abortion is burning in hell.
1. So you admit that your god is as he says he is: "the source of all light and of all evil." That he allows/plans out and _wants_ r*pe victims to suffer the physiological trauma and the to-be-born to face such a wicked (out of wedlock) existence.
Your god is fucking sick and evil, thank him he doesn't exist.
Mankind should and will continue to A) elucidate the universe in spite of religious dogma, and B) make rational arguments to build a moral world where such unnecessary suffering is eliminated.
We've seen your points a million times- they have been argued against more than that not just by atheists. They are spam at this point. Spam that is coerced onto children because it wouldn't make any sense to a formally-operant brain.
That's fantastic! Thank you for your post Damon22441! You're my hero. :)
@@damon22441
I think that's funny because in some of your arguments, all you've done is dismiss anything I've said that shows abortion as wrong in the bible by saying,"Well it's left to interpretation". There are very clearly certain translations of the bible that should be used more than others, if you actually look into the history of it. So regardless of what you think saying,"Well you can find denominations and pastors that teach it differently, so clearly it's left to interpretation", I don't entirely think that's true. As to the idea of rape, yes I think that's horrible, yet I again, will state that it is a child within you. And the bible shows this when the Lord speaks saying he "made you in the womb and formed you.". Claim all you want that,"This is just an omni showing that he knows the person's days," even though this is quite clearly showing that God values the persons life even in the womb. As to the word meaning "thigh" and being an extension of the mothers body and not a separate living thing, I'm confused on what you mean since you literally just claimed what I did. That the mother is not pregnant, as the thigh would not imply a "miscarriage". Anyways, good luck to you in life, and I hope if you argue with someone in real life and not over youtube comments lol, you can make a more productive conversation since that was the goal of my original comment.
@@lucid3563 I wish we had Facebook reactions so I instead of a thumbsup/down I could give you boomer ass a 😆.
Your mental gymnastry is nearly God-like in ability, easily getting a gold medal in cosmic competition. The way you combined the arguments for some points like they were said about the same thing (forced miscarriage in Numbers being a thigh therefor not an abortion, that's actually a new level of insanity I've only now witnessed), and dismissing the valid criticism of interpretability with doubling-down that "nuh uhh, I got the interpretation right!" then acting like that was all I stated... just... beautiful sophistry. You've earned a 👍for that one.
@@damon22441 I'd like to wish that you were actually open to discussion on these sorts of issues, instead of just saying that I'm wrong when you clearly know nothing about the actual biblical and church history, as you dismiss the argument of variations in versions/ translations that I've brought up. But I suppose you can think whatever you would like and I can't stop you. I just hope you don't do this to everyone online lol, because that would be ridiculous.
yes Jesus preached the gospel but also called for everyone to love thy neighbor. it will be unloving for Christians to just be spectators to the killing of innocent souls.
Not killing, saving!
@@finestPlugins so killing is saving?
Loving they neighbor does NOT include forcing your theology on them. You're taking that little nugget and turning it into a full turd. As mentioned in the video, the bible condones abortion. Who are you to oppose god?
@TheDAMShow we are called to spread God's message to help bring others to salvation. If you do not wish to believe then we respect your decision but that decision would likely mean hell(separation from god) for you. Don't mistake our concern for you as an act of hatred. after all, love isn't affirming everything someone does it is calling out when they do something wrong.
@@TheDAMShow So its ok to force your opinion on the helpless? Theology or not. Speaking of turd.
given the speaker believes in the finality of death that statement should be of no surprise. Why is he so obsessed that he just cannot leave the subject of Christianity alone and get a LIFE?
Because Christians won't leave everyone else alone. Forcing their abortion notions on everyone, forcing their 10 commandments and bibles on our children in schools. I'm DEFENDING my life from people like you.
@@TheDAMShow I notice among that reply you mention the Commandments. Do you seriously believe people should have a right to murder people, and go about being unfaithful to their wives and husbands? And what about the one that would break in to your house to steal your goods? You say you defend your life? You clearly have no idea with such dark views. At the end of your shallow existence will you be questioning why you were ever here?
@@TheDAMShow You had no answer so you deleted my reply to that. I will say it gain! As you don't like the commandments why do you think a person has a right to kill, commit adultery and even break in to your home to steal from you? Now don't be shy! And at the end of your existence will you be wondering why you were ever here?
@@TheDAMShow Thats' twice now you deleted my reply. so I'll state something else and lets see if its easier for you to cope with. You don't like Christians saying how to live your life, yet you think you have a right to tell Christians not to love the defenceless child in the womb.
@@TheDAMShow Deleted 3 times now. You just cant take it. So what makes you think you can tell Christians not to defend the fragile life that is in the womb? So man up and answer! Those who see the reply will know you are a wimp trying to be big if you delete this.
The bible condones abortion. Numbers, Hoseah. Read it.
@@Longtack55 what number then?
In Hosea 9, God causes miscarriages as a form of punishment, but it isn’t license for humans to do so. Unlike wars, God never commands people to abort pregnancy in the Bible.
Long story short? No. Numbers 5 is not an instruction manual for ancient abortion.
The chapter contains an ancient ritual in which a grain offering is given to a priest who then mixes a concoction for a pregnant wife to drink. (This was for women suspected of adultery without any indisputable witnesses.) If the woman had no reaction and birthed a healthy baby, her name was cleared.
If she was affected by the ritual, then she would be deemed an adulteress. There are two possible interpretations of this ritual though. One, more popular view, is that she would be disfigured. A second view is that the description of the effects of the ritual are not literal disfigurement but the death of her womb. In the former, more popular interpretation, this has no parallel to legalized abortions.
If the latter, more figurative translation is the one to be trusted however, the miscarriage is still a result of God’s judgement, not any individual.
So any Christian who thinks Numbers 5 is an excuse for abortion, even with the latter interpretation, a person would be better off praying to God to terminate a cursed pregnancy than visiting an abortion clinic.
@@Symbols_Ciphernumbers 5:11 is an abortion ritual/test. don't let other people try to trick you about disfigurement. the ritual includes gathering dust from the tabernacle, where they made burnt offerings. mixing ashes and water makes lye, on of the oldest know abortifacient. it makes her belly distend (a symptom in a miscarriage) and her "thigh" sag. "thigh" is used throughout the bible to literally mean child/womb because that is what they called it. just think about what is all happening in the passage. a man is suspicious of his wife is cheating. and why were people back then worried about cheating? because it could lead to raising a child that wasn't yours
@@Symbols_Ciphernumbers 5:11 is an abortion ritual/test. don't let other people try to trick you about disfigurement. the ritual includes gathering dust from the tabernacle, where they made burnt offerings. mixing ashes and water makes lye, on of the oldest know abortifacient. it makes her belly distend (a symptom in a miscarriage) and her "thigh" sag. "thigh" is used throughout the bible to literally mean child/womb because that is what they called it. just think about what is all happening in the passage. a man is suspicious of his wife is cheating. and why were people back then worried about cheating? because it could lead to raising a child that wasn't yours
The hill they decided to die on? This hill did not go away with the Supreme court decision. They planted a flag. Maybe your to busy
trying to figure out if men really can have babies or not, to notice. Personally I do NOT practice Christianity, but fighting for human rights, the right to live,
is a hill I would gladly die on. It is why we fight wars. It is why we have gun rights, to defend ourselves. It's why we protect the helpless.
I would rather live in a country that protects life than one that does not. You would be at home in Hitlers Germany. Deciding who can live and who cannot.
To be clear, there is zero theology and zero logic applied to these "arguments". There is reasoning (not to be confused with reason) that is applied but that is simply another way of saying "mental gymnastics".
@@natebuehler9324 You mean the believers trying to counter the arguments? Agreed.
@finestPlugins yeah... thats clearly what I meant, good call out there
natebuehler9324 - Your correct. It’s a gross misinterpretation of Scripture.
@ianalan4367 Which method do you suggest to validate the correct interpretation of scripture and which denomination adheres to that? And why don't the others?
@finestPlugins well in simplicity any interpretation should not contradict the scripture itself and the mere fact that one is advocating for the destruction of human life creates that contradiction. Denomination and interpretation aside, that's wrong.
This is a horrible argument for abortion
@@Imagodeigen No surprise, given how terrible the belief is.
Imagodeigen - It’s not only a horrible argument it isn’t even an accurate theological representation of Christianity. Just another atheist telling us what the book means to him. Fortunately he has no authority and his words are all but meaningless to those who have understanding.
@ianalan4367 It's not about what it means to a group of people. It's about the consequences if it's actually taken seriously.
Luckily almost nobody does in reality.
finestPlugins - When telling people they should support or not support something based upon what they believe then yes, the accuracy of that belief (the meaning) most certainly is of utmost importance.
Not that abortion is solely a religious issue. It is not. It’s a civil rights issue.
@@ianalan4367 Oh, it certainly is. Bodily autonomy is key. But people should also be aware of the conclusions and consequences of their beliefs. Especially when they lack evidence.
Nobody should be pro abortion.
So, in a hypothetical medical scenario in which the mother is in danger, you would save a 2 week old embryo, instead of the mother?
@@marcolorenti1745 in the .0001% of cases (yes that is a real statistic; look it up if you don't believe me, 10 in 100,000), they would usually still try to do what they can for the baby. But so what if we did just kill it in this extremely niche situation? That still doesn't account for the VAST majorities of pregnancies, and hardly helps your stance at all
@@Shmorkie13 Nah, it shows how ridiculous and inconsistent "pro lifers" are. It's not a simple black and white issue, as their naive, simple brains believe it to be.
@@Shmorkie13 0.0001% what? My super specific hypothetical? LOL who cares? What about the other infinite hypotheticals available?
@@marcolorenti9637 This is the one pro-choice people ALWAYS default to. Without fail. Sure, name another one that is NOT hyperspecific
"Thou shalt not murder." This video is disgusting.
Murder is a legal definition.
You did know that god commanded 'Thou shall not murder' then literally told them to go murder whole tribes of people. Murdered the old men guarding the temples, etc. Countless examples. It does on and on.
You should be disgusted by your religion.
Thanks for your reply. I have a daughter who fell pregnant out of wedlock. My wife and I supported her to have the child which was her wish also. We now have a teenage grandson who we all love dearly. When I commented once to my daughter that she had made a mistake, she replied; "Dad, God doesn't make mistakes."
Saint Paul said: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18
Have you ever been into the dying room that the little ones are taken too after the butchering. Or the dumbster in some places where the innocent are still squirming around ,even having been denied the right to scream from the horror. Such cowardness you'd fit right in with those you criticise thousands of years ago.
@@stevolanddownunder3549 Do you realise that in 30%-40% of all pregnancies, this god you believe in kills the unborn?
Talking of top ten, one of them says, Thou shalt not kill.
And of course Jesus Himself said, Thou shalt do no murder
and yet this god kills repeatedly, so poof goes any "objective" morality.
@@velkyn1
God is a God of Justice and so brings to Justice those that repeatedly sin wickedly and refuse opportunities for repentance.
You are like one who complains that a murdering, stealing rapist is brought to Justice.
You too need to repent.
@@Must_not_say_that Nah, babies and animals are not "wicked", that's just a lame excuse for a laughable book.
@@marcolorenti1745
You think sacrificing children, and committing bestiality is not wicked???
Something seriously wrong with you.
You must be as wicked as those who sacrificed children and did those things, and were consequently judged for it.
@@Must_not_say_that Who sacrificed children? The babies and animals? You just can't admit your god is a monster. Luckily he also doesn't exist.
You don't get to say when God installs the soul. This isn't a software release and a big part of being human is to do no harm.
Well, they did. In the Bible. A couple of different times. Even in the original Hebrew, so it isn't a thrice-transliterated thing.
Souls have nothing to do with it. Empathy is an emergent property of our evolution.
no soul found so you have quite a problem
He fails to recognize that the baby at conception receives an immortal soul. They await their mothers into heaven if mothers repent. A child in the womb should be the safest place for them. They think they're exterminating weeds.
Sure, you can win any argument if you place magic in it.
Atheists always have to get in the act, just go on with anything goes.
Why do you say "unaliving" instead of "kill"?
Because if you say too many words like kill, death, etc, youtube will limit the video's reach. Same reason you'll hear people say SA instead of sexual assault or grape instead of rape.
Most Americans are aware there are strong arguments against abortion. Et voila! Fait accompli. You've done your job.
Godescorts Abortees to bask in the Presence of the Lord.
We are under no divine obligation to halt any abortion.
Dam Good Show!
Thank you Daen! Glad you enjoyed it. Hope to see you tomorrow in the chat!
@TheDAMShow If I'm there, it's bad news for me financially because it means I don't have work. But if I'm not working, then I enjoy hangin out. Construction usually takes a nose dive around holidays. I got a good bid confirmed for half way thru December. Tryna find smaller projects in the mean time.
@@Dark-Light_Ascendin Good luck! And happy holidays. Stay warm out there.
@@TheDAMShow sleeping in my car in 20 degrees.... I'm used to it. It's the price I pay for having.... 18 dogs. A house will never love u.... dogs do nothin but love u.
Honestly, I'm livin the life I wanted as a kid. Was raised up in hoods (as u can hear when I talk)... all I wanted was to move to the woods w my dogs.... & here I am. Weird as$, don't fit in no where, do what dafaq I want Daen. (Pronounced as "Dane") we only got 1 life. I'm living for ME. there's that 75% narcissism kickin in. 😂
Watched with an open mind, but this was nonsensical.
Well, you gave it your best shot. Don't be ashamed. Not everyone has the facilities to comprehend such deep concepts. Maybe if you have someone explain it to you?
Unlike believing in resurrecting people and talking snakes because death is scary, right?
Yes, God did breath life into Adam but you must take into account that Adam was created directly by God from inanimate matter. We are different because we come from Adam and Eve through a biological process not from clay and dirt. At conception we are given a soul. You go to talk about saving children by killing them but then respecting others' free will. Did you respect the childs free will by killing them? What if they had been glad to live life despite the troubles they experience? You have to let them choose god to respect their free will, not force them onto him.
Not only that, but the interpretation that life begins when a baby takes their first breath is completely out of context, since Adam wasn't "born."
@cman04 Yeah, he was sculpted.
uh no. Jesus was a religious jew who followed the Torah (The Books of Moses). He would know them because he wrote them. The nation of Israel and the Torah was for the nation as well as the individual.
Abortion is murder and no different than the sin of child sacrifice that the ancient world, including Israel, practiced. And for the record, abortion was taught to mankind by fallen angels. You can read this in the Book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was directly quoted by Jude in his epistle. Jude was the brother of James the leader of the church in Jerusalem and both were brothers of Jesus. They did not believe in him until after the resurrection.
Sinning to save a child is thus the ultimate sacrifice and virtuos.
Did you just say killing is saving?
@Pospolite-Ruszenie It is indeed. Or are you saying the souls of the unborn aren't saved?
@@finestPlugins So I’m assuming you’re a big fan of Hitler
@@finestPlugins So you’re a big fan of Hitler? Stalin?
Foster care, use protection, or how about don't do the deed, get yourself a toy if you don't want children.
Oh, yeah, it's that simple. Just blame the potential victims of circumstance and don't think past that, makes it _reeaaall_ easy to sleep at night that way.
R*pe exists. Ectopic pregnancies are a thing. "Protection" isn't 100%. Foster care is a disaster and you suggesting it means you haven't looked into it.
Arguing to deny the strongest urge evolved by millions of years of evolution to recently-formed frontal lobes does not work [most Repeat Teen Pregnancies occur in the bible belt where abstinence is preached instead of sex ed being taught], demonstrably.
Suggesting masturbation when it's still taboo amongst the Right (lmao) when they outlaw abortion, the only toy these people will invest in is a coat hanger.
Ignorant child, spew your thoughtlessness no more.
exactly
Who is the audience for this video?
Christians! Well, and non-Christians I guess. Anyone, I suppose.
I think this is satire.
You open your video by shaming Christians for “imposing their beliefs on others” and then proceed to misinterpret their scripture and claim it belongs to your worldview?
Just remember, when evangelists are imposing their beliefs, they mean to save others from damnation. When you post this, it’s to rationalize an evil deed.
"save others from damnation" That's the kind of ridiculous nonsense atheists are trying to educate people from. Why you do that to yourself?
no damnation dear, your sadistic fantasies will never come true.
You say, God performs abortions as if that gives humans license to do so. God does many things in the Bible that men are not allowed to.
But... but... but... there's actually instructions on how MEN can do it in the bible. You did watch the whole video, right?
That makes this god a monster.
It doesn't supply instructions. The only ingredient described is the grain offering of oil given to the priest in charge of judging whether or not the baby was conceived in marriage. Since the results of being found guilty by the concoction are up for debate--some take it as a literal disfigurement, others... fewer translations... understand it as a metaphor for miscarriage--we cannot be sure what the endgame is, but this this trial was practiced in a society that established the Levite priests experienced communication with God, something Israel claimed to lose.
Long story short, any negative reaction to the potion was meant to be understood as divine punishment.... So yes, if you suspect an unborn baby of being an abomination, then there wouldn't be anything sinful about praying to God to rid the world of it, even if he doesn't destroy the baby...but having an abortion of your own volition would be sinful.
This makes me want to live stream myself watching these kind of videos and debunking them on the spot
If you feel froggy, leap.
@@TheDAMShow Technically, I am doggy
(～￣▽￣)～
This guy is funny