Child Sacrifice And a Very Nasty God...Very Nasty!

We’ve been discussing child sacrifice here, and at the risk of being accused that I’m changing topics, let me show exactly what kind of God Christians are trying to defend.

We left off discussing Micah 6:6-8, where the divinely inspired prophet wrote these words:
With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow down before God on high. Should I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Does the Lord want a thousand rams, with myriads of rivers of fat? Should I give by oldest son as a sin offering, the fruit of my belly as a sin offering for my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
What Micah was doing is trying to find the very best ways to please God, so he mentioned what he considered the best things. And it says he considered sacrificing a child along with the other sacrifices God demanded in order to please him. The fact that God tells Micah he only wants justice and mercy does not undercut that Micah believed child sacrifice was acceptable to God, for it’s listed among other types of sacrifices that ARE pleasing to God. Nor does it undercut that God demanded child sacrifices (Exodus 22:29; Ezekiel 20: 25-26). God certainly didn’t condemn Jepthah, and he even requested it of Abraham with no condemnation against the practice. God didn't even chastise Micah for suggesting such a thing, which is what any perfectly good God would do. I would say so to Micah, and I’m not a perfectly good God!

It just appears to me that many Christians take a caviler approach to the extremely nasty God they claim to worship, when he's supposed to be perfected love itself.

Christian, how do you reconcile that view you have of your perfectly loving and reasonable God with the following passage, where it only seems to condemn child sacrifice to "other" gods:

From Jeremiah 19:

"You shall say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon this place that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle. 4 Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by burning incense in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, 5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; 6 therefore, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter. 7 And in this place I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem, and will cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth. 8 And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at; every one who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its disasters. 9 And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and every one shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.’
Christian, how do you reconcile the God of reason, the God of perfect love, with the ways he dealt with people who worship other gods? This is some very nasty stuff here. He will make them eat the flesh of their children and neighbors! And how do you reconcile the number of lives lost as a result of God's actions with the number of children sacrificed? Let's see, a few children are being killed, so I'll slaughter them all!?!? As a result of God’s actions many more children will die and/or be fatherless, and/or be eaten. It does not make any sense at all. What difference does it make to God whether people sacrifice their children or they eat them? In either case innocent children are still being killed!

Besides, there are much better ways to handle such things, out of love. Merely send them a prophet who can do great miracles in their midst and let him tell them this is plainly forbidden. Better yet, why not just make one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not sacrifice or kill any man woman or child to me," and say it as often as needed without also allowing the conflicting messages and lack of condemnation for such practices elsewhere in the Bible, like asking Abraham to do it and not also condemn such a practice, or like letting Jepthah do it without sending a prophet to him to tell him it’s forbidden?

The God we're talking about is based upon the reflections and musings of an ancient superstitious barbaric people, plain and simple.

This is the best and simplest explanation for what we find in the Bible.

48 comments:

Michael Ejercito said...

God's absolute sovereignty over matters of right and wrong is His defense.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I agree with you Jennifer. God never commanded sacrifice because God doesn't exist! ;-)

I'll see ya tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

You turkey. :)

Joe said...

John,

I do not have an educated answer to your question so I will not try to make one up. You raise a good question that requires study and much thought.

However I do have a question for you.

Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Seems to me we have lots of gods (with a little "g" running around who feel the right to end life as well.

Are you critical of their choice as well? Would you use the term "nasty" to describe the act of ending life prematurely?

Just a thought for any Pro-Choice Atheists out there who feel justified in your own choice to abort life.

Evan said...

Joe,

Are you pro-life yourself?

RockLobster said...

@Joe

Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. That's a common misconception and I would like to try to clear it up. Pro-choice simply means that abortion should not be illegal. It should be safe, legal, and RARE. The ultimate goal of pro-choice supporters, such as Planned Parenthood, is not to make abortions easy to get, but to make abortions RARE via better sex education and use of other educational tools to help reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Jim Holman said...

First, full disclosure -- I'm not a Christian, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

I just don't see that there's any evidence at all that the god of the Old Testament was understood by the people of that time as advocating child sacrifice. Where is the archeological evidence? Where is the evidence from Jewish history? Ever read that in the Talmud? Ever read any scholars of ancient Judaism say that? No? Really? You mean this is just your own personal spin on various texts as a way of "sticking it" to the Christians?

As my teenage stepdaughter used to say to me -- "yeah, like whatever."

Anonymous said...

Good questions Joe. I was poking around the web for abook or two on these things but they were either too expensive or not directly about the topic I was interesting in. I'm sure it's in the journals somewhere, but I haven't looked too hard.

Be sure you've read our discussion up until this point before you say there is no evidence, okay, for I think it's in the Bible itself. And it's certainly not a part of the Jerusalem cult since the first temple days. Solomon instead built separate places for he and his wives to sacrifice to Molech, and you know what he demanded, don't you?

In the one work I do have, Roland de Vaux talks about archeological evidence for "high places," various "altars" and cultic "sanctuaries" in many different towns throughout Israel in Ancient Israel, Vol 1, pp. 284-285, 289-294, 406-408, and there is evidence of them all, he says, until the end of the monarchy in Judah. He also talks about the various deities that were worshipped in those place. He also dicusses the origin and history of Israelite sacrifice as well as human sacrifice on pages 424-456, which I am planning on reading shortly.

The Talmud would be interesting to see what was said about it, but keep in mind that just like the Christian commentaries they want to gloss over such an ugly past. Still there is much to study about this topic, and I'm interested in learning.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer, you'll notice that Micah didn't say, "Should I cast a spell," or "should I conjure up the dead?" or "should I become a priest" (assuming he was not a Levite)? No. Because those things were clearly not acceptable to God, and he couldn't become a priest.

And if you want to quote I Samuel and other passages to me then you might try explaining why the Jews sacrificed at all. They sacrificed because that's what they understood God to require.

The difficulty of Jeremiah 7:22-23 is however, a very interesting one, where God purportedly said (KJV): “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you."

Turkey :-)

Anonymous said...

To the first Joe, I had a small debate with another skeptic about abortion introduced here.

oli said...

Human sacrifice is a part of christianity and always has been.

Caine killed abel as a sacrifice, but god rejected it.

God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac but then stopped him.

Jesus was murdered to save the world.

Whats clear is that really, christian is a very low bodycount religion when it comes to human sacrifice. God in general seems to be against it.

The old proto-jewish god, like many of his chums at the time was probably a bit more into human sacrifice.

What christianity does have however is self sacrifice, martyrdom, built into it. This desire to emulate Jesus and get killed off for your faith is profoundly unhealthy.

Added to the Christ example is the reward of eternal paradise, its a wonder christians aren't getting themselves killed for their faith all the time.

This unhealthly martyrdom complex also manifests itself in a persecution complex, Christianity is to be seen as bravely manning the guns against a sea of evil and ungodliness. The united states has this worse it would seem. Church leaders and prominate christians always seem to be harping on about taking back America/Government/society/whatever back from ungodliness, clearly ignoring that in a nation of over 80% christian identity, its more likely whatever they "take back" they are most likely taking it back from other christians.

Anyway, if god were real (which he manifestly isn't) the surely if we really wanted to sacrifice to him, we should be sacrificing something really valuable. What better than our beloved children. Thats true devotion for ya. None of this $5 in the collection plate nonsense.
Sacrifices aren't sacrifices unless you'll miss what you gave.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

One more point...
I am not interested in defending the historic Christian faith, but I am interested in the message of God through the Bible. That said, I don't throw out the historic Christian faith as handed down through the early Church, but have many questions about it so am exploring theology differently than in the past.

From what I can see, religion in any form takes a truth and distorts it by trying too hard to define it instead of letting it "speak". That may be heretical, but so far I haven't read anywhere that Jesus called seekers heretics.

Pvblivs said...

Rocklobster:

 : : : : :The abortion-rights movement wants abortions to be rare about as much as tobacco companies want people to stop smoking. It's only a claim made to ward off stigma. I support birth-control. I do not support abortion.

lee said...

Whether God clearly demanded child sacrifice or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that omnipotent, sovereign, creators have the ability to write his their wishes in the clouds if they so desire. If God wanted the practice stopped it would be not problem to make his desires known. I hear preachers today saying, "God wants to save you today if you'll let him. Won't you let him?" And when I hear such nonsense I wonder; at what point in history did this omnipotent, omniscient, being cease to be able to accomplish what he wanted? When did he go from being omnipotent to impotent?

Evan said...

And when I hear such nonsense I wonder; at what point in history did this omnipotent, omniscient, being cease to be able to accomplish what he wanted? When did he go from being omnipotent to impotent?

The day he started needing cash?

Anonymous said...

The book I'd like to read published by what seems to be a prominent German publishing house is King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities by Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

The description of it:

The Hebrew Bible portrays King Manasseh and child sacrifice as the most reprehensible person and the most objectionable practice within the story of ‚Israel’. This monograph suggests that historically, neither were as deviant as the Hebrew Bible appears to insist. Through careful historical reconstruction, it is argued that Manasseh was one of Judah’s most successful monarchs, and child sacrifice played a central role in ancient Judahite religious practice. The biblical writers, motivated by ideological concerns, have thus deliberately distorted the truth about Manasseh and child sacrifice.

One student reviewer said that, "His most interesting claim is that child sacrifice was an accepted part of the Yahweh cult and that the practice was condemned only after the exile."

That makes for an interesting read I think.

Alas, do you see the price?

Joe said...

Lee said...

"I hear preachers today saying, "God wants to save you today if

you'll let him. Won't you let him?" And when I hear such nonsense I

wonder; at what point in history did this omnipotent, omniscient,

being cease to be able to accomplish what he wanted? When did he go

from being omnipotent to impotent?"



Lee: Come on! Really? Are you serious? Unless I missed your point.... are you really saying God is "impotent" because he does not force people to believe in the sacrifice of Jesus and be saved. You can't be saying that, can you....????

I am sorry, but I must say how foolish if you are.

Would you also advocate arranged marriage? Or forced love between a mother and child. When there is no choice, there is no love, no meaning in it.

All you single men out there.... Take the approach of Lee an go get you a wife by force and see how happy your marriage is.

Honestly Lee, I hope I missed your point....

Anonymous said...

I found that book, large sections of it here.

lee said...

Joe said: When there is no choice, there is no love, no meaning in it.

But Joe is there really love when it is coerced by the threat of infinite punishment in hell for finite sins? I love you sooo much; now if you don't bow down and worship me you will be tormented in hell for all eternity!?! Is that your definition of Love?

Joe said: Lee: Come on! Really? Are you serious? Unless I missed your point.... are you really saying God is "impotent" because he does not force people to believe in the sacrifice of Jesus and be saved. You can't be saying that, can you....????

Joe said: All you single men out there.... Take the approach of Lee an go get you a wife by force and see how happy your marriage is.

No Joe I would use God's approach and threaten them with Hell?

Scripture is replete with examples of God violating the free will of his creatures. Saul for example on the road to Damascus; Pretty effective alter call Joe, "With every head bowed, and with every eye blinded, no one in the room will being looking around.... cause you can't!!!! There are examples in scripture where some people are the recipients of a measure of grace that others are not.

Look God could have chosen several ways to deal with fallen man.

#1 He could have chosen to provide and OPPORTUNITY for everyone to be saved. This is the one most Arminian Christians THINK that they believe. However millions of people never hear the gospel, and therefore do not have an opportunity. In this schema God provides an opportunity for SOME to be saved.

#2 God could have worked in the world in such a way as to provide an OPPORTUNITY for everyone to be saved. Was this schema a possibility? Does God have the ability to do this? YES, the god revealed in scripture certainly does. HOWEVER, he does not. Many extra-biblical theories exist in an attempt to lessen the appearance of injustice. They are however, extra-biblical theories.

#3 God could have chosen to so work in the hearts of men as to thereby guarantee that all people would come to faith. Universalism; and there are Christians who believe in universalism.

#4. God could have chosen to guarantee that some would be saved. (Calvinist / Augustinian Theology)


My problem is with the preacher who stands in the pulpit and conveys God as an impotent benevolent deity, wringing his hands, hoping against hope, that we will come forward or raise our hands so that he can do something in our lives. Because he is powerless to act unless WE do something. If you don't believe in evolution by natural selection, then by all means do not do a historical reconnaissance of the evolution of the god of scripture, or for that matter the evolution of the church. I digress.

My point is that I have been in the church for fifty years. The ambiguity is deafening!!! You can be a christian and still go to hell in accordance with other christians. 33,000 denominations to date in the christian church, many of which hold in compatible views. Who holds the correct view? You Joe? Maybe your denomination? With 33,000 different views you don't think God might have been a little ambiguous. Evidence would certainly suggest that.
If God exist he could certainly have made his existence much clearer than he has. And please don't give me the standard presuppositionalist, "The universe declares his glory so that there are none without excuse."

Scott said...

Lee: Come on! Really? Are you serious? Unless I missed your point.... are you really saying God is "impotent" because he does not force people to believe in the sacrifice of Jesus and be saved. You can't be saying that, can you....????

Whoa. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Supposedly God wants us to get from not being saved (point A) to being saved (point b). Since he is supposedly omnipotent, God could save every human being without any action on our part because, ultimately, it is God's omnipotence saves us in the end.

Therefore, it appears that God doesn't want us to be saved enough to change his requirements, or he is bound by requirements which are beyond his control, which means he is not omnipotent.

Which is it?

RockLobster said...

Pvblivs said...

Rocklobster:

: : : :The abortion-rights movement wants abortions to be rare about as much as tobacco companies want people to stop smoking. It's only a claim made to ward off stigma. I support birth-control. I do not support abortion.


Comparing the abortion-rights movement to a notoriously "evil" industry such as tobacco is a little bit disingenuous. How do non-profit entities gain from keeping abortion legal? Where's the profit, the stockholders, etc?

The goal of abortion-rights groups is really simple. Keep abortion legal; educate people; provide abortions, when necessary, through medical clinics so they are safe. Can you show me one study that proves that abortion-rights groups are in it for the money like tobacco companies are?

Studies have shown that criminalizing abortion does NOT reduce abortions; education does. I'm not "pro-abortion" myself, and I don't know anybody who is. But it makes sense to keep it legal so it can be done WHEN NECESSARY. Education is part of that; and counseling and education are provided to the women who go to Planned Parenthood PRIOR to them providing abortion services.

Evan said...

The deeper question to me and one Joe seems unwilling to tackle is if "pro-lifers" are actually in favor of life.

Joe goes on and on about other things now, but if he's actually pro life, he should really stop and think about what that means.

We know that Christians do not believe that life can come from non-life.

So if they believe that all sperm and all eggs are alive (which they undoubtedly do), then their focus on the moment of conception is absurd.

ALL Sperm are a potential life now (using facilitated reproduction techniques) and most certainly ALL ova are a potential new life.

A woman's menstrual period can actually abort a live zygote as well.

What a true pro-life position would be is the natalist position held by Andrea Yates.

This would suggest that all eggs that a woman creates should be fertilized if at all possible, beginning at the time she has her menarche. More importantly, when the tragedy of menstruation occurs, the menses should be screened aggressively for live baby tissue in the residua so that it may be reimplanted (forcibly if necessary) in the woman whose body is trying to murder it.

The time of marriage would need to be around 11 or 12 years of age depending on the onset of menarche in the girl, and it would need to be arranged very rapidly and to men of known potency.

To say that the loss of a zygote is the loss of a life is really ridiculous, it is the loss of sperm and eggs that are the real problem, and this will happen regardless of the legal status of abortion.

I call on all pro-life individuals to harangue against legal statutes against child marriage, to work to make menstruation illegal, unsafe, and rare, to cease the practice of Onanism, and to ensure that all ova of all women of all ages be allowed to develop into live children. Failure to do this will be seen as a simple extension of the pro-choice position, and thus objectively pro-death.

Joe said...

Lee,

A few insights into where I am in my search of faith that might help close the gap between you and myself..... a weeee bit....

1. I do not believe in Denominations. They are not biblical.

2. With much sadness I believe the state of the mainstream "Christian Church" is getting farther and farther from the truth of the Bible. That is why in Revelation we read that Jesus was on the outside of the door (the church) and was knocking to be let in. That is why Revelation states that the churches of the 7th church age would be naked, blind and poor and NOT EVEN KNOW IT. Can you image the state of a person who was naked and didn't even know it.

We baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when the desciples did no such thing in Acts. They baptized in "The name of the Lord Jesus Christ".

We have a trinitarian God. Again, not in the Bible.

3. There will be people in Heaven who are "surprised" to be there.

Matthew 25 34:40

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'


I believe this accounts for those who legitatmetly didn't have a chance to hear the Gospel. Paul also speaks of a certain group who had the laws of God written on their heart and therefore were a law unto themselves.

Romans 2:14

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"


As you can see.... I break tradition with "mainstream" Christian church in almost all views / doctrines they hold dear. And this breaks my heart. Sadly this is the view that people have of the Christian faith and it is entirely inaccurate.



Lee Said:

"But Joe is there really love when it is coerced by the threat of infinite punishment in hell for finite sins? "

Response:

I have no problem with Hell. Where or what would be a better solution for those who have decided to transgress the laws set forth by the King. That is why we have prisons here on earth. Should we just let all the criminals mingle with those of us who have decided to walk the straight and narrow.

Sidebar: Hell is NOT eternal as the mainstream church would hold. In order to have existance in Hell for Eternity, one would have to possess eternal life. There is only one source of eternal life, and that life certainly won't have any part of hell. "The wages of sin is Death, (not eternal life in hell)



Lee Said:

You gave (4) options of how God could provide salvation to all men. I won't pretent to know the answer. God is God and assuming he is creator of all, he can do as he pleases. He does leave us clues:

The bible said he wishes all men to be saved. The sacrifice of Jesus is open to all who accept it.

I agree with you. There are people, like Pharoah, who seemed doomed from the beggining. And that may be. What we don't know is if God will grant salvation to Pharoah because he was "doomed". That is up to God.




In Conclusion:

If you seek, you will find. Atheist are seeking for support of their view and therefore as the Bible says, they will find that support. If one seeks for understanding and wisdom from the Bible, it plainly states they will find that.

I am powerless to change anyone's heart.

Either there is a God or there isn't.
Either the Bible is correct or it isn't.
Either Jesus walked the earth and died for man or he didn't.
Either John 3:16 is true, or it isn't.

In the words of Apostle Paul, if all of this is a lie then we (christians) are to be the pitty of all men!

The responsibility is given to all men and women to seek for their answer and therefore I salute those on this blog who are at least searching and being diligent to come to their own conclusion about Life and the origins thereof. ... which is more than I can say for many who walk into churches each and every Sunday.

Joe said...

Evan,

You have a point. Therefore I will take a position of:

Pro-Life After Conception

and for the other side, we will have the position of:

Pro-I-Have-a-Choice-if-you-will-live-or-die

I am sure there is some sarcasm in your comment however. I am sure you aren't suggesting that losing some sperm is in the same category as partial birth abortion. If so, I would be forced to question your reasoning ability. Your ability to be completely literal and logical, would not be questioned however.

Since you have thrown down a challenge, I will throw down one of my own:

I am calling on all Pro-Choice supporters to list the appropriate reasons why the movement deems it necessary to fight for legislation that would allow a very young girl to undergo an abortion without the knowledge of her parents.

Or

Please defend the practice of aborting a baby who is further along in the process than some premie baby's who are born and live. I can't think of anything worse than partial birth abortion.

Evan said...

Joe,

I'll be happy to talk to you about this on some other forum.

It's clear this is a sidelight to this topic.

However, you at least agree that the pro-life after conception theory is fundamentally hypocritical. I'm glad you are happy to be a hypocrite.

Email me at YaxPac--at--aol dot com

if you want to talk about the pro/life anti/choice topic.

lee said...

WOW! Thanks Joe for setting me straight. My Hat's off to ya. 2000 years of the brightest minds of the church who, by the way were considered to be teachers of the church, as in "to some he gave apostles, to some prophets, teachers...ect;" all or most of them got it wrong...but you have got it fiqured out.

You have made my point brilliantly about the abiguity of Christianity. If the greatest theological minds in 2000 years can't come to any consensus on the major doctrines of the church, even if you are a christian how do you know you are worshipping the way you should worship or the God that you should. God seems to be pretty strict about worship just ask Nadab and Abihu who did not give god what he asked for.
This post is about child sacrifice and you have made the point very clear, God was ambiguous on the matter, and only a very few people were the fortunate ones who were given the lucky lottery ticket to heaven. Only they had the intellect or the favor of god to understand, and you are the modern day gnostic with the secret.

You're just playing darts with religion. Which is exactly what everyone else is doing.

Anyway consider Proverbs 14:7 as my way of saying good evening to you.

Bruce said...

I am sure you aren't suggesting that losing some sperm is in the same category as partial birth abortion.

There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion". It ranks right up there with the "Death Tax" as mere propaganda. If you want to be taken seriously in the abortion debate, you will at least have to agree to stop making stuff up.

I am calling on all Pro-Choice supporters to list the appropriate reasons why the movement deems it necessary to fight for legislation that would allow a very young girl to undergo an abortion without the knowledge of her parents.

Ever worked in a women's shelter? I haven't but my wife did for years, so I think I have a good understanding of how these things work. But I guess you have just been blessed by God so much that you have never ever had to witness the pure hell of sexual abuse. For those of us who unfortunately live in reality, we know that even parents can be complete assholes and father's or uncles or family friends can knock up young girls and then threaten them with violence if they go to anyone. Do you really want that girl to be forced to carry that baby to term? Do you really want her to risk her life by going to the authorities? In a perfect world this sort of crap wouldn't happen, but I'm sure you can agree that this isn't a perfect world.

Please defend the practice of aborting a baby who is further along in the process than some premie baby's who are born and live.

What if the mother's life is at stake? What if the baby is obviously not going to make it? This actually happened to a friend of mine last year. The baby was beyond hope but was going to come to term and be delivered if they didn't abort. Yes, the abortion was a hard choice, but actually giving birth to such a baby is at least as hard, if not harder.

And a lot of pro-choicers have no problem with limiting abortions after a certain point in time, but that doesn't mean you don't leave in exceptions as well for the later months.

I can't think of anything worse than partial birth abortion.

You, my friend, obviously need to get out a lot more. You seem to be living a sheltered life.

Joe said...

Lee,

I gather you are very familiar with the Bible from your intelligent posts. I am not being sarcastic here. Honest.

By the way.. Proverbs 14:7 had me roaring when I looked it up. Very funny I have to say. Even tho the joke was on me, it was brilliant.


Sorry to have strayed from the original question in this post so much. I will try and tie it to your point of ambiguity.


Lee, you are very bible literate. When has God ever chosen super smart people to be his messengers? In general, did God use the scholars of the day to bring his message, or the simple and lowly. A brief look at the record book, the bible, reveals usually not the high and mighty or "brightest minds" as you stated in your comment. Sure Paul was very well educated in the ways of Judiasm. And what was his conclusion of that knowledge. Rubbish in so many words.

Don't take my word for it however....

1 Corinthians 1:27

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Therefore your premise that the "brightest minds" of the last 2000 years would get it all right is not necessarily in line with the bible and Gods chosen method.

What does God do when his people stray from his word. He sends a prophet, does he not? He sends a prophet to set the record straight.

Oh I just realized my comment is highjacking this post again... I have to stop that.

If you are interested, check out this site for an interesting ministry God sent to the 7th Church age.

www.believethesign.com

Thank you all for a good, vigorous debate. I wish you all well.

richdurrant said...

Bruce:
There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion". It ranks right up there with the "Death Tax" as mere propaganda. If you want to be taken seriously in the abortion debate, you will at least have to agree to stop making stuff up.
Are You Sure

I don't think it is propaganda nor made up as you say.

Joe said...

Bruce,

Do you deny the existence of Partial Birth Abortion because it is the 800lb gorilla for Pro-Choice folks?

Since it does not exist, then there should be no problem in passing legislation outlawing the practice that isn't ever performed.

Will Pro-Choice'ers get in the way of such legislation?

Or is it because there might be someone, at some point who will need to have the procedure performed that we need to keep it an option.

Funny thing about the liberal viewpoint. They are all for what is the best choice for the majority of people, until it impedes on their life.

Case in point is Abortion. They want to keep it legal for the few cases when it appears to be the only choice. Incest, sexual abuse cases, rape, mother is at risk... I would be hard pressed to believe this is the majority of abortions.

So if the above extreme circumstances doesn't make up the majority of abortions performed in the US, why would the liberal stand up and vote to sacrifice the many for the few. I thought liberals were for the little guy?


Before we ridicule and wave our fist at God for child sacrifice in the bible, we ought to look in the mirror at our own human nature and policy that says it is ok to bring death to a collection of matter that has the potential for life. (intentionally not stated as a baby)

After all, the definition of death is: "Death is the cessation of life in a biological organism."

If a conception has occurred, it is reasonable to assume that conception will result in life. To remove that chance is to cause death.

Enough of this debate about when the zygote is life. It is the removal of the chance at life, which in all likelihood will occur if left to the nature process of pregnancy and birth, that is so grievous.


Call me thick headed, but I will never understand why the same person would call for the end of a war in Iraq (I am not for the war myself) yet continue to support the practice of ending life in its most innocent form.

Michael Ejercito said...

For those of us who unfortunately live in reality, we know that even parents can be complete assholes and father's or uncles or family friends can knock up young girls and then threaten them with violence if they go to anyone. Do you really want that girl to be forced to carry that baby to term? Do you really want her to risk her life by going to the authorities?
Can you name one case where a sexually abused girl was forced by the abuser to have the baby?

In all cases where pregnancy is known to the abuser, the abuser forces the girl to have an abortion .

A.A. said...

sorry...this thought made me chuckle, so I thought I'd share:

"""Since it does not exist, then there should be no problem in passing legislation outlawing the practice that isn't ever performed."""


Since unicorn hunters do not exist, then there should be no problem in passing legislation outlawing the hunting of unicorns that isn't ever done.

Partial birth abortions do exist, they are very rare, very safe, and generally used only in medical emergencies where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

The real problem with bible thumpers is that they literally FEEL justified in declaring that their OPINIONS are LAW even when they have absolutely zero ground in this heathen reality, zero facts to back up their BELIEFS.

Not that I'm implying that god can literally scramble your ability to reason or anything like that.

A.A. said...

damn...i'm back:

"Can you name one case where a sexually abused girl was forced by the abuser to have the baby?

In all cases where pregnancy is known to the abuser, the abuser forces the girl to have an abortion ."

-this is utter bullsht, especially the use of the word "ALL." I couldn't give you exact numbers by any means, but would bet anything that MANY fundies in all three abrahamic religions emotionally manipulate their daughters into avoiding abortion in ANY case, even in incestual abuse relationships. Fact is actaully that, to this day, whole families will gather around a promiscuous daughter and brutally murder here to the sound of cheers and clapping- they're defending their family's honor, as far as they see it- it was the woman's fault for allowing her self to be defiled, so she must die- THAT is reality, not bullshit rhetoric- it doesn't happen everywhere; but, it's the extreme end of the spectrum and rare, meaning that we have every right to conclude that emotional manipulation in order to coerce a daughter into birthing a biologically retarded being as a product of incestuous sexual abuse, well, meaning we have EVERY right to conclude that THAT practice is much more common that HONOR-KILLINGS.

Get yer facts straight.

Harry McCall said...

John, away from the abortion issue, I hope to have a main posted for discussion (in the next several weeks) a study of two Hebrew words (one a noun and the other a verb) and their context within the Deuternonomic History to show that Israel’s God not only accepted, but demanded human sacrifice including from the unborn, to babies, to children and adults to appease his drive for blood and flesh. In my post I will show that apart from the early tabernacle traditions and, latter, the Jerusalem cult, Yahweh was little different from his Canaanite brother, Molech.

Bruce said...

Bruce,

Do you deny the existence of Partial Birth Abortion because it is the 800lb gorilla for Pro-Choice folks?


I think you know what I meant and are purposely trying to twist my words. Just like there is no such thing as the "Death Tax" because it is an Inheritance Tax, there is no such thing as "Partial Birth Abortion" because it is a propaganda term created by anti-choicers instead of using the correct term, which I believe is something like Dilation and Extraction. I was talking about the words you were using, not the actual techniques themselves.

They want to keep it legal for the few cases when it appears to be the only choice. Incest, sexual abuse cases, rape, mother is at risk... I would be hard pressed to believe this is the majority of abortions.

You need to go back and reread your previous posts. I was responding to this:

"Please defend the practice of aborting a baby who is further along in the process than some premie baby's who are born and live."

Hence, I was giving examples of times when it is justifiable to have an abortion after viability. I never said that these were the majority of abortions because in fact they are not. I was only responding to your question because you seem not be able to realize these things yourself.

Enough of this debate about when the zygote is life. It is the removal of the chance at life, which in all likelihood will occur if left to the nature process of pregnancy and birth, that is so grievous.

So a woman has no say whatsoever about whether she wants to give that zygote a chance at life. I guess she has to pray for a miscarriage and if God answers her prayers then he is now the abortionist.

Just a little reminder, there are two lives involved in this process, the fetus and the woman. You seem to keep forgetting about the latter. Oh, that's right, you're a man, so as far as you're concerned, a woman should just shut up and bear it and carry the baby to term. Besides, she can just put it up for adoption if she doesn't want to keep it. Yes, that has been working so well for us lately, hasn't it?

Anonymous said...

Harry McCall, I'm so glad to hear you weigh in on this. Take your time, but I'll await this with much eagerness.

Cheers.

richdurrant said...

Oli' just a small disagreement here

Caine killed abel as a sacrifice, but god rejected it.

Cain killed Abel because his sacrifice wasn't accepted but Abel's was, Abel was not the sacrifice of Cain. Besides Cain wasn't a "real" Christian anyway.

Joe said...

Bruce,

Do you think you just might of stated the TRUE underlying motivation
of the Pro-Choice movement when you stated:


"So a woman has no say whatsoever about whether she wants to give
that zygote a chance at life."

and

"Just a little reminder, there are two lives involved in this
process, the fetus and the woman. You seem to keep forgetting about
the latter. Oh, that's right, you're a man, so as far as you're
concerned, a woman should just shut up and bear it and carry the baby
to term. Besides, she can just put it up for adoption if she doesn't
want to keep it. Yes, that has been working so well for us lately,
hasn't it?"

Particularly

"a woman should just shut up and bear it and carry the baby to term."

This to me is very revealing that the true issue / motivation behind
the Pro-Choice movement is women who don't want to give up their
right to end life because it might be an inconvenience to them.

How selfish!

And I am NOT addressing the cases of pregnancy against a women's will
like abuse. To me, a different debate.


And Bruce, you are correct again when you state:


"Just a little reminder, there are two lives involved in this
process, the fetus and the woman."


Unfortunately for the fetus, one life of the two now has the power to
end the other without just cause. Oh I forgot, according the Bruce,
the just cause is so she doesn't have to "shut up and bear it and
carry the baby to term."

I wonder if that same women who can't bear to carry the baby to term
walks out of the clinic and heads for the protest line with sign in
hand: "Stop the War in Iraq" or "Save the Whales" or whatever
movement seems more important than saving innocent life.

Just a thought....

lee said...

Joe:

Lee, you are very bible literate. When has God ever chosen super smart people to be his messengers?


The apostle Paul. The only recorded person ever evangelized by Jesus personally after the resurrection.

Scott said...

After trying to figure out how the discussion drifted into abortion, I found this...

Joe: Just a thought for any Pro-Choice Atheists out there who feel justified in your own choice to abort life.

Red Herring.

You're comparing human beings with limited knowledge to an omnipotent, omniscient being. Clearly, God should be exponentially more moral than us. Yet, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

To All The Baby Killers

I assume that some of you had kids...What made you NOT kill them in the crib? I mean if they were good enough to KILL in the womb, what constrained you?

ANSWER- Your sense of RIGHT AND WRONG...Where did that come from?

God NEVER endorsed any type of child sacrifice in ANY FORM. The Abraham story shows proves as such by the outcome. Egypt brought a cure upon ITSELF by it own words and refusal to turn according to the Biblical account. Much if not everything you site in your article John is a result of MAN’S refusal to turn and do righteously. Not of God just scooping down and making people perform certain acts. It’s a RESULT and outcome of the choice of SIN.

Further HELL was NOT created for men…MEN choose HELL and therefore HELL enlarged herself…God created NOONE to go to HELL. Again, another misrepresentation found commonly on this site.

You sensationalists and anti-Christ advocates are more confused than a giraffe in a midget contest.

You don't have to be in church or know God’s word to have a sense of RIGHT and WRONG...As far as I can remember I KNEW when I did wrong although I did it many times anyway…NO I didn’t grow up in church and never read the Bible until AFTER I went to church. This is a common experience to many individuals, so as much as you may not want to hear it...The HEAVENS DECLARE HIS GLORY and GOD HAS SPOKEN TO HUMANITY through CONCIENCE...The Earth and the fullness thereof is HIS.

Man is not as helpless as you suppose and presuppose. Neither you nor I are. That's partially why we are more than BIOLOGY and lumps of flesh. We cannot escape accountability for the light that has been revealed to us.

Thanks.

RockLobster said...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

"To All The Baby Killers...etc."

I read your post and my reaction was "wow....just, wow". I feel sorry for the constituents in your city, Mr. District Superintendent. Your attitude needs some adjusting and your level of ignorance is astounding. NOBODY who is pro-choice approves of abortions. How DARE you call anyone a baby killer? You don't know us! Abortion is ALWAYS a last resort. Pro-choice means keeping the option of abortion available as a last resort; AFTER all other options have been considered and ruled out. THAT is the purpose of services like Planned Parenthood.

It's the religious Right that twists things around and makes people out to be "baby killers" simply because they DO NOT understand what the movement is truly about. Did you know that statistically there are LOWER abortion rates in countries/states where people receive proper sex-ed and contraception than in countries/states where they don't?

Now...wouldn't you rather live in a society that takes the time to educate its citizens about safe sex and birth control rather than abstinence (which doesn't work by the way)? I hope so, because education reduces abortions; that's a proven fact. If you think otherwise, then you haven't done your research.

lee said...

Dear Harvey,
I had stop for a moment because I thought your blog was a parody, then I realized you were serious.

I started to respond. NAH! I offer for your consideration Proverbs 14:7 but for you I'll paraphrase it. "Do not waste your time arguing with an idiot."

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Then Mr. Lee IDIOT~ I certainly won't waste my time arguing with YOU!

Please!

lee said...

Harvey,

O.K.