Rev. Jim Rigby doesn’t accept your biblical interpretation.
___
I saw your comments yesterday, but did not have the time or energy to enter into a conversation that will almost certainly be two ships passing in the night. I will share what I consider faulty in your arguments, but then I want to express my central concern at the end of this post.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say, “Thou shall not have an abortion.” The biblical case against abortion is extremely weak which is why opponents are reduced to using Psalms about God knowing us in the womb, or begging the question by presuming that every reference to murder is a condemnation of abortion as well.
“Telescoping” is the practice of projecting modern concepts onto ancient texts. So the opponents of Galileo were able to “prove” the earth does not orbit the sun treating ancient poems as if they were scientific. It is the same error to take poems not directly addressing abortion and using them as “proof.”
Another exhausting technique is called “dump trucking” which means to dump a bunch of scripture passages and force your opponent to refute them all. You listed a bunch of passages, but only three remotely approach the topic at hand -Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:4-5 (saying God knows us in the womb) and Ex. 21:22-25)
You claimed that your opponents don’t care about scripture, but I have studied scripture my entire adult life in Greek and Hebrew which is why I can point out the emptiness of your argument. The idea that our souls enter the body at conception comes from Aristotle, not scripture.
|
You claimed that your opponents don’t care about scripture, but I have studied scripture my entire adult life in Greek and Hebrew which is why I can point out the emptiness of your argument. The idea that our souls enter the body at conception comes from Aristotle, not scripture. The word for “soul” or “spirit” means “breath” in Hebrew and the ancient Rabbi’s (before Greek influences) generally held that personhood begins at birth.
The two passages about God knowing us in the womb say nothing about the question of when personhood begins. God also knows the chick in the egg, but that doesn’t make it a person. We misuse the text when we twist it out of context and claim it is making a scientific claim. This was the error of Galileo’s opponents.
Finally, you quoted Exodus 21:22-25 which seems to make your case, but the text can be read in different ways. The NRSV quotes the passage in a way that sounds to say the fetus does not have personhood status. In that translation, injuring a woman should be punished by an eye for an eye, but inducing a miscarriage should be punished by a fine.
“22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
If you look at the rest of the chapter it talks about slaves and women as property. I may love scripture, but I don’t want to bring that horror back to life in modern jurisprudence. There is much in the Bible that would be abhorrent if applied today.
So my three concerns can be summarized as follows: I do not accept your biblical interpretation, I do not accept your claim to be judge of other peoples’ lives, and I don’t want to live in the theocracy for which you advocate.
This article originally appeared on Jim Rigby’s Blog.
Photo credit: George Redgrave/flickr
You might be interested in this article, which shows what many people may not realise – the Bible says nothing at all against abortion, and even sometimes endorses it!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/09/theres-nothing-about-abortion-in-the-bible/
This is a nice little article. I appreciate the mention of the synonymous wording for Soul and Breath. There is a Hindu phrase stating much the same idea: “The first breath of life is the soul entering the body.”
The idea of life, or at least consciousness, at conception defies what science has taught us. Not only that, but it seems that various faiths also consider the idea of fetal awareness a bit far out.
I have a few scriptures myself: Luke 12:4-5 – ““I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” and Luke 18:16 – “But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”” So my question… Read more »
Atheists LOVE to read Levitacus; it’s their favorite book. Of course they never seem to get to the part about New Covenant as opposed to Mosaic law.
I’d never actually read the passage about paying a fine for causing a miscarriage. I knew that was in there, but I didn’t know the particulars. Sounds like the standard is that “the judges” get to weigh in on any penalties for that. Also can’t help but notice that the passage treats the fetus like it’s the husband’s property, and it’s the husband who’s compensated for the loss. Sounds like a husband is allowed to cause his own wife to miscarry, and there’s nothing anyone is allowed to do about it. Hardly a statement of the sanctity of the unborn.… Read more »
Finally, someone who uses the phrase “begging the question” correctly.
So far everyone is assuming there is this thing called “the Bible” and that there is only one version of it. When you say “The Bible,” what you mean is the version that you prefer, the one that you just happen to like and accept as the real one, as opposed to all those other versions. Of course there are multiple interpretations of the Bible, because there are multiple versions of it. We’re talking about writings based originally on oral traditions, with about 40 different authors, compiled over the course of a several centuries, translated, retranslated, standardized, edited, added to,… Read more »
Sorry, I can’t leave this alone but as you mentioned, there are many “interpretations” of the various scripture, who is to say your interpretation is the correct one?
That’s his point. But, generally you can look at the culture of the time and the way in which various words were being used. It’s a similar problem to people who use the Bible to justify homophobia. The concept of homosexuality that we have today isn’t one that existed back in that period of time. And as a result, anybody that believes that the Bible says anything at all about what we call homosexuality is going to have a tough row to hoe as the concept that one is trying to rationalize didn’t even exist . Same goes here, at… Read more »
Not to mention all the other convenient ways modern-day Christians ignore giant chunks of scriptural rules for life:
eating cheeseburgers
eating pork
shaving your face
wearing cotton/polyester blends
men not sitting on a seat that a menstruating woman has used
working on a Sunday
not executing women who are not virgins when they get married
and so on….
Sorry, should say sitting on a seat that a menstruating woman has used. Most bibles say a man should NOT do that.
I’d post something about the New Covenant as opposed to Mosaic Law but it’s much more fun to watch atheists tell Christians about all the ways they get their faith wrong. Popcorn time for me.
That’s the same problem. None of the passages that people use to rationalize their hatred and fear of homosexuals and abortion actually say what the people quoting the text claim.
So if this guy you’re speaking to is someone you met on your facebook wall, why are you writing this here? Nothing like a little discourse to stir things up, right?
Argue all ya want and people can quote scripture chapter and verse, to those of us who are pro-life, as I am a womb to tomb pro-lifer, life begins at conceptions.
Womb to tomb pro-lifer here as well. Tom, isn’t it funny that people like you and I are constantly portrayed as the opponents to “goodness” around these parts?
“Goodness”? I find that hard to believe. More likely you’re used to being called out for opposing women’s rights to self determination, encouraging social inequities by failing to contribute to the care and feeding of these unwanted children and the way that you inflame women’s rights activists convinced that men are evil. Until men get the right to opt out of fatherhood in cases where we didn’t want it to begin with, it’s in our best interest to make sure that women have as many ways of controlling their pregnancies as possible. If you don’t like abortion, then don’t shack… Read more »
How about if you don’t want to be a dad then keep it in your pants you twit.
You probably consider that some form of a smackdown but it pretty much shows woeful ignorance of me, my beliefs and an inability to be logically consistent.
It’s not a smackdown, I’m calling you out for having values that don’t involve you doing anything at all. It’s easy to have values when other people have to live with the consequence.
You definitely have the “goodness” market cornered.
Yes you do.
Perhaps there is a facile argument for life beginning at conception,but using contraception effectively and its education to young people who start a sexual life at an early age would be a much better solution to averting (or banning) abortion. The ham-fisted, idiotic babblings of these so-called Christians and people who scream against the medical procedure, but won’t endorse better and more frank sexual discussion and sexual education in schools,in the community,, in churches, and AT HOME are avoiding a conversation with their children and the young people they want to protect that would bring all of them closer together.… Read more »