Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   They all now believe that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception. That's what they believed 10 years ago, and that's what they believed 20 years ago. But it wasn't what they believed 30 years ago   (patheos.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Evangelicalism, evangelical institution, newest book, conservative evangelical seminary professor, Dallas Theological Seminary, Jonathan Dudley quotes, popular evangelical community, Christianity Today  
•       •       •

2541 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2022 at 12:35 PM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



68 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-05-09 11:45:17 AM  
Yes, christians lie. Christians lie even harder if they believe they can gain more political power by lying.
Basically Christianity lies.
 
2022-05-09 12:03:19 PM  

Weaver95: Yes, christians lie. Christians lie even harder if they believe they can gain more political power by lying.
Basically Christianity lies.


And the rest KNOW they're being lied to and just nod along. Or some really are that dumb and don't know, which is somehow the best situation; being too stupid to know you're being fleeced vs. just willing being fleeced.
 
2022-05-09 12:09:04 PM  
The Bible teaches that God told me to skin you alive too.
 
2022-05-09 12:11:04 PM  
This is why you don't let someone LARP your material.  Anyone who knows the first part of the book could easily tell you that life begins when the umbilical cord is cut.
 
2022-05-09 12:12:39 PM  
Bruce Waltke updated his view on this issue in 1975, 7 years after his original writing in 1968:

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/19/19-1/19-1-pp003-014_JETS.pdf
 
2022-05-09 12:16:31 PM  
1. Just because American Evangelicals changed their position on the topic doesn't mean they don't actually believe their current position. Saying they're insincere is the wrong takeaway; it's that their sincerity can be lead around by the nose. Which may be worse.

2. Fred Clark (the blogger in TFA)'s essay is interesting, his point is well-taken, and he cites some good sources. (He's written about this a few times.) And the beliefs of American evangelicals do matter inasmuch as politicians who answer to them are responsible for making the destruction of Roe a political priority.

--- HOWEVER ---

I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to the point of view we had a thread about a few days ago: When we're talking about law and real consequences for real people, fark what the Bible says. Arguing "well, actually, the Bible says this about abortion...." or "see, Evangelicals are being hypocrites because they disregard my liberal Twitter ideal of Christianity" tacitly accepts that religion matters to American law. Which it shouldn't. First Amendment.

Freedom of religion means you're allowed to have the religious beliefs you want, and you're even allowed to let them inform your politics, but I'm increasingly longing for a world when "the Bible says" used as a political argument results in a firm "NO" and a swift bop to the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.
 
2022-05-09 12:19:18 PM  
But it wasn't what they believed 30 years ago. Thirty years ago they all believed quite the opposite.

Again, that's interesting.

Not really.

30 years ago, they were more interested in actually being christians (not that much, but still more).

Now they are christo-facists.
 
2022-05-09 12:39:38 PM  
We shouldn't be creating legislation based on the Bible or any other religious text.

Full stop.
 
2022-05-09 12:41:28 PM  
and not one of them knows how to maek paper
 
2022-05-09 12:42:27 PM  

Fart_Machine: We shouldn't be creating legislation based on the Bible or any other religious text.

Full stop.


bUt oUr CoMMoN LaW iS DeRiVEd fROm tHe BibLE


/cries in Hammurabi
 
2022-05-09 12:43:20 PM  
Maybe we should consult the Aztec religious writings to see what their gods said about abortion. Or the Icelandic pantheon? Maybe the ancient Chinese have some thoughts...

Religious 'thought' is based on current political necessity, always.
 
2022-05-09 12:44:43 PM  
Genesis 2:7

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Adam wasn't a living being until he drew his first breath.

Numbers 5:11-31 specifically outline a fidelity test that will induce a miscarriage if a woman was unfaithful.

It's almost like evangelicals can't be bothered to read the fairy tales they want to use to justify legislation.
 
2022-05-09 12:44:47 PM  
Martian_Astronomer: 1. Just because American Evangelicals changed their position on the topic doesn't mean they don't actually believe their current position. Saying they're insincere is the wrong takeaway; it's that their sincerity can be lead around by the nose. Which may be worse.

2. Fred Clark (the blogger in TFA)'s essay is interesting, his point is well-taken, and he cites some good sources. (He's written about this a few times.) And the beliefs of American evangelicals do matter inasmuch as politicians who answer to them are responsible for making the destruction of Roe a political priority.

--- HOWEVER ---

I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to the point of view we had a thread about a few days ago: When we're talking about law and real consequences for real people, fark what the Bible says. Arguing "well, actually, the Bible says this about abortion...." or "see, Evangelicals are being hypocrites because they disregard my liberal Twitter ideal of Christianity" tacitly accepts that religion matters to American law. Which it shouldn't. First Amendment.

Freedom of religion means you're allowed to have the religious beliefs you want, and you're even allowed to let them inform your politics, but I'm increasingly longing for a world when "the Bible says" used as a political argument results in a firm "NO" and a swift bop to the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

In god We Trust is in the Pludge.
 
2022-05-09 12:45:08 PM  
One of the books of the Old Testament puts a value on men, women, and children.  Pretty sure it was either Leviticus or Numbers, and a child had to be at least 30 days old to be worth anything.  That doesn't mean 30 days from fertilization; it means 30 days after being born.
 
2022-05-09 12:46:32 PM  
If more christians read the bible there would be less christians.
 
2022-05-09 12:47:02 PM  
The "word of god" changes on the whims of the day.
 
2022-05-09 12:47:14 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-09 12:48:13 PM  
Their Bible clearly states that life begins at first breath and has a recipe to induce abortions written in to it.

At this point they're not even following their own stated religion. I don't know what they're following but even this atheist knows it isn't Christianity
 
2022-05-09 12:49:58 PM  

HerptheDerp: Their Bible clearly states that life begins at first breath and has a recipe to induce abortions written in to it.

At this point they're not even following their own stated religion. I don't know what they're following but even this atheist knows it isn't Christianity


I'd call it Leviticism, but they aren't even consistent about following that

/prayer dinner at Red Lobster on Thursday
 
2022-05-09 12:50:18 PM  
Can pregnant women claim it on their taxes? When the stimulus payments were issued, were pregnant women allowed to count the fetus to get a larger check?
 
2022-05-09 12:50:46 PM  

Lost_in_Korea: One of the books of the Old Testament puts a value on men, women, and children.  Pretty sure it was either Leviticus or Numbers, and a child had to be at least 30 days old to be worth anything.  That doesn't mean 30 days from fertilization; it means 30 days after being born.


The infant mortality rate used to be high enough that several cultures waited almost as long before even naming a baby.

And yeah, it's stated or implied multiple times in the Bible that life begins at the first breath. They weren't exactly scientists back then. And neither are modern American Christians.
 
2022-05-09 12:52:13 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: 1. Just because American Evangelicals changed their position on the topic doesn't mean they don't actually believe their current position. Saying they're insincere is the wrong takeaway; it's that their sincerity can be lead around by the nose. Which may be worse.

2. Fred Clark (the blogger in TFA)'s essay is interesting, his point is well-taken, and he cites some good sources. (He's written about this a few times.) And the beliefs of American evangelicals do matter inasmuch as politicians who answer to them are responsible for making the destruction of Roe a political priority.

--- HOWEVER ---

I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to the point of view we had a thread about a few days ago: When we're talking about law and real consequences for real people, fark what the Bible says. Arguing "well, actually, the Bible says this about abortion...." or "see, Evangelicals are being hypocrites because they disregard my liberal Twitter ideal of Christianity" tacitly accepts that religion matters to American law. Which it shouldn't. First Amendment.

Freedom of religion means you're allowed to have the religious beliefs you want, and you're even allowed to let them inform your politics, but I'm increasingly longing for a world when "the Bible says" used as a political argument results in a firm "NO" and a swift bop to the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.


It isn't that the Bible should be the watchword on any legal issue.  But more that they should be challenged with their own book to highlight how what they are claiming is not a universal take-away from said book.  If they are going to present the idea that the Bible says life begins at conception as if it were a basic fact, and thus the government can't impinge upon their religious beliefs by acting contrary, the simplest rebuttal is that actually the Bible never says that - and that the guys who wrote the parts that even touch on abortion tangentially are adamant that life begins when the umbilical cord is cut.  It isn't using the Bible to set policy.  It using the Bible to undercut their contention that the Bible even has a position to be used for policy.  Conception and the doctor tying your bellybutton are about as far apart as you can get on the issue of when life starts.  If that is the positions available, the Bible provides no guidance on the issue, and should be rejected even in an advisory capacity.
 
2022-05-09 12:52:48 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Freedom of religion means you're allowed to have the religious beliefs you want, and you're even allowed to let them inform your politics


Well that's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? That evangelicalism, and its stranglehold on (Republican) politics for the last 40 years, has meant that what was moral decision made by one slice of one part of one religion based on a narrow understanding of one part of their book became "a settled matter of morality".

They make what the courts see as a "good-faith" (har) claim - that it's not THE BIBLE that directs this effort, it's just BASIC MORALITY; like the way we outlaw stealing - and the courts, being staffed by the same people who deluded themselves into the same thinking (or who actively have bad faith when it comes to healthcare rights, which is probably more than a few) are now falling all over themselves to agree.

// there's some saying like "you can't get a fish to understand water" that I think is relevant here
 
2022-05-09 12:54:15 PM  
"Evangelical" became a political description a long time ago.
 
2022-05-09 12:55:01 PM  
If it grows it is alive.

It's a human egg being fertilized by a human sperm so whatever you want to call it, (zygote, fetus, clump of cells, unborn baby, etc.) it is human.

So the debate isn't about it being a living human.  The debate is about whether or not the living human should qualify as a legal person and as such be endowed with the same basket of rights given to a legal person in this country.

People get really hung up on the wrong point in this.
 
2022-05-09 12:56:11 PM  

phalamir: Martian_Astronomer: 1. Just because American Evangelicals changed their position on the topic doesn't mean they don't actually believe their current position. Saying they're insincere is the wrong takeaway; it's that their sincerity can be lead around by the nose. Which may be worse.

2. Fred Clark (the blogger in TFA)'s essay is interesting, his point is well-taken, and he cites some good sources. (He's written about this a few times.) And the beliefs of American evangelicals do matter inasmuch as politicians who answer to them are responsible for making the destruction of Roe a political priority.

--- HOWEVER ---

I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to the point of view we had a thread about a few days ago: When we're talking about law and real consequences for real people, fark what the Bible says. Arguing "well, actually, the Bible says this about abortion...." or "see, Evangelicals are being hypocrites because they disregard my liberal Twitter ideal of Christianity" tacitly accepts that religion matters to American law. Which it shouldn't. First Amendment.

Freedom of religion means you're allowed to have the religious beliefs you want, and you're even allowed to let them inform your politics, but I'm increasingly longing for a world when "the Bible says" used as a political argument results in a firm "NO" and a swift bop to the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

It isn't that the Bible should be the watchword on any legal issue.  But more that they should be challenged with their own book to highlight how what they are claiming is not a universal take-away from said book.  If they are going to present the idea that the Bible says life begins at conception as if it were a basic fact, and thus the government can't impinge upon their religious beliefs by acting contrary, the simplest rebuttal is that actually the Bible never says that - and that the guys who wrote the parts that even touch on abortion tangentially are adamant that life begins when the umbilical ...


The simplest rebuttal is to remind them of separation of church and state.  Doesn't matter WHAT their book says.  You can't use it to govern.  End of discussion.
 
2022-05-09 12:56:16 PM  
Freedom of speech and Freedom of religion means that you are absolutely free to explain to me all about what your religion does or does not say about any given philosophical issue.

And I am just as free to laugh at you and say 'Sure, Jan'.

And yes, telling someone they have to let a fetus grow inside them because that fetus MIGHT be a person someday is the imposition of a philosophical position.
 
2022-05-09 12:57:40 PM  

snowshovel: In god We Trust is in the Pludge.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-09 12:58:01 PM  

JDAT: It's a human egg being fertilized by a human sperm so whatever you want to call it, (zygote, fetus, clump of cells, unborn baby, etc.) it is human.


Horseshiat. That group of cells isn't recognizably human for months. Before that, there is as much 'human' in the booger you farmer-sneezed out in the shower last night.
 
2022-05-09 12:58:31 PM  

JDAT: If it grows it is alive.

It's a human egg being fertilized by a human sperm so whatever you want to call it, (zygote, fetus, clump of cells, unborn baby, etc.) it is human.

So the debate isn't about it being a living human.  The debate is about whether or not the living human should qualify as a legal person and as such be endowed with the same basket of rights given to a legal person in this country.

People get really hung up on the wrong point in this.


You can't force someone to give blood, bone marrow, or organs even if it would save someone else.  You even need their prior permission if they die.  Forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will gives them less rights than a corpse.
 
2022-05-09 1:00:05 PM  

JDAT: If it grows it is alive.

It's a human egg being fertilized by a human sperm so whatever you want to call it, (zygote, fetus, clump of cells, unborn baby, etc.) it is human.

So the debate isn't about it being a living human.  The debate is about whether or not the living human should qualify as a legal person and as such be endowed with the same basket of rights given to a legal person in this country.

People get really hung up on the wrong point in this.


What about the person gestating that fetus? Do they get no say in the matter?

// see, this is why, two farking thousand years ago, the Judeos in your "Judeo-Christian" tradition decided that not only was abortion OK right up until the moment the fetus' head touches air, that most concerns about health - MENTAL health, not just physical - trumped any concerns about the fetus' "life" (which, to repeat what others have said ITT, they did not consider equal to already-existing human life)
// and these were generations of Biblical scholars, not maybe-once-a-month-at-church ecumenical gadflies
 
2022-05-09 1:00:15 PM  

phalamir: Martian_Astronomer: 1. Just because American Evangelicals changed their position on the topic doesn't mean they don't actually believe their current position. Saying they're insincere is the wrong takeaway; it's that their sincerity can be lead around by the nose. Which may be worse.

2. Fred Clark (the blogger in TFA)'s essay is interesting, his point is well-taken, and he cites some good sources. (He's written about this a few times.) And the beliefs of American evangelicals do matter inasmuch as politicians who answer to them are responsible for making the destruction of Roe a political priority.

--- HOWEVER ---

I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to the point of view we had a thread about a few days ago: When we're talking about law and real consequences for real people, fark what the Bible says. Arguing "well, actually, the Bible says this about abortion...." or "see, Evangelicals are being hypocrites because they disregard my liberal Twitter ideal of Christianity" tacitly accepts that religion matters to American law. Which it shouldn't. First Amendment.

Freedom of religion means you're allowed to have the religious beliefs you want, and you're even allowed to let them inform your politics, but I'm increasingly longing for a world when "the Bible says" used as a political argument results in a firm "NO" and a swift bop to the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

It isn't that the Bible should be the watchword on any legal issue.  But more that they should be challenged with their own book to highlight how what they are claiming is not a universal take-away from said book.  If they are going to present the idea that the Bible says life begins at conception as if it were a basic fact, and thus the government can't impinge upon their religious beliefs by acting contrary, the simplest rebuttal is that actually the Bible never says that - and that the guys who wrote the parts that even touch on abortion tangentially are adamant that life begins when the umbilical ...


The problem is unlike most western societies you can't do that as a test of religious beliefs. Basically you can say I believe God is a purple alien and abortions are a religious rite and the court has to assume it as fact.
You can't force them to prove they really believe God is a transvestite hooker who gives blow jobs on 5th avenue and claims vaccines are bad. Our lives would be really different if we could call religious nutjobs on their bullshiat.
 
2022-05-09 1:01:37 PM  
The Constitution is a fundamental law , the Bible is not .. Stop using it as a prop to justify your arguments in a court of law ..
 
2022-05-09 1:02:44 PM  
Things start making a lot more sense when you realize the religious sects that departed England (or were departed FROM England) wanted religious freedom only to the end they could set up their own theocracies in the New World.
 
2022-05-09 1:03:51 PM  
I honestly don't care when "life" begins -- I care when that life reaches a point where it has some sort of experience with the world that allows it to contextualize it's own existence. No matter how fully-formed a fetus is, it has no experience of the world outside the womb, and I simply can't think of that as "human". Maybe it is in a strictly biological sense, but there's more to being human than just biology.
 
2022-05-09 1:06:06 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: But it wasn't what they believed 30 years ago. Thirty years ago they all believed quite the opposite.

Again, that's interesting.

Not really.

30 years ago, they were more interested in actually being christians (not that much, but still more).

Now they are christo-facists.


until a few decades ago, the willfully-ignorant right-wing authoritarians had hardcore racism to hold their propaganda-based subculture together. When they couldn't sell racism to their own children, they pivoted to controlling women. Their subculture needs outsiders to hate, and dividing the country on women's rights works better than dividing on racism these days.
 
2022-05-09 1:07:28 PM  

JDAT: If it grows it is alive.

It's a human egg being fertilized by a human sperm so whatever you want to call it, (zygote, fetus, clump of cells, unborn baby, etc.) it is human.

So the debate isn't about it being a living human.  The debate is about whether or not the living human should qualify as a legal person and as such be endowed with the same basket of rights given to a legal person in this country.

People get really hung up on the wrong point in this.


Fire grows
Rivers grow
Canyons grow
Crystals grow

You're an idiot and your simplistic view of complex issues makes that abundantly clear
 
2022-05-09 1:08:00 PM  

JDAT: If it grows it is alive.

It's a human egg being fertilized by a human sperm so whatever you want to call it, (zygote, fetus, clump of cells, unborn baby, etc.) it is human.

So the debate isn't about it being a living human.  The debate is about whether or not the living human should qualify as a legal person and as such be endowed with the same basket of rights given to a legal person in this country.

People get really hung up on the wrong point in this.


You're hung up on the wrong point on this, so I can demand use of your kidneys. The question is whether anyone has the right to demand the use of another person's body, and the answer is hell no.
 
2022-05-09 1:09:40 PM  
Beliefs have nothing to do with anything. It's all about making up whatever you want to use religion as a weapon against those you don't like and then using religion as a shield against any consequences.
 
2022-05-09 1:10:43 PM  
THE USA IS NOT A  CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY!!!!

(not yet, anyway)

stop arguing christian theology/ bible stuff with these nutballs.

It's irrelevant. Arguing about the bible's definitions of 'life' is just making them feel like their country should be or already is a theocracy. and it isn't. and it shouldn't be. and our freeeken constitution SAYS SO!!

Nobody cares what your book of stone age goat herder superstition says. booga booga. Go away with that nonsense.
 
2022-05-09 1:13:13 PM  
If abortions are acceptable in Judaism, they're damn well acceptable in Christianity too unless you're a brainwashed evangelical.
 
2022-05-09 1:13:45 PM  

ImpendingCynic: Beliefs have nothing to do with anything. It's all about making up whatever you want to use religion as a weapon against those you don't like and then using religion as a shield against any consequences.


That is what right-wing authoritarian Christianity is, but religion isn't a weapon to all religious people.
 
2022-05-09 1:16:58 PM  
30 years ago, among churchy types who were over 50 then, there was still some echo of "we're not the Catholics" as a relevant cultural touchstone. Substantially more so 50 or more years ago.  So, Catholics get bothered by abortion and contraception?  We're (mildly) pro-choice.  Catholics drink?  We're teetotalers.  Catholics ban membership in things like Masonic lodges?  Tons of Presby and Lutheran ministers join lodges.

Post Vatican II and with both sides losing active participation, the "OMG the Catholics!" thing is hardly a concern in your non-denominational rock band cool-dad-beard evangelical franchised-megachurch.  Even much enmity and different with Mormons is papered over with "at least we're not secular liberals".
 
2022-05-09 1:18:32 PM  

nemobeamo: If abortions are acceptable in Judaism, they're damn well acceptable in Christianity too unless you're a brainwashed evangelical.


Not only "acceptable" - sometimes they're MANDATORY.

// Jewish law says you're not allowed to give up your life in most situations
// and there are opinions which forbid refusing medical intervention (in narrow circumstances)
// consult your local rabbi(s) if you'd like to know more
 
2022-05-09 1:19:45 PM  
There's one big problem with pointing out that the Bible very clearly treats the loss of a fetus as a property issue and not the loss of a human life.

These assholes proved beyond all doubt that they value property over human life during the protests of 2020.
 
2022-05-09 1:21:48 PM  
Who cares about when life begins?  There is no rights controversy to ballance anymore.
 
2022-05-09 1:23:06 PM  
Bible doesn't mention abortion, does endorse slavery.  FARK the Bible
 
2022-05-09 1:25:19 PM  
Fighting fantasy with fantasy is stupid...  It's like arguing over the length of Santa's beard.
 
2022-05-09 1:29:24 PM  
As time goes by, the bible, unlike our constitution, is subject to changing interpretation.
 
2022-05-09 1:32:10 PM  

HerptheDerp: Their Bible clearly states that life begins at first breath and has a recipe to induce abortions written in to it.

At this point they're not even following their own stated religion. I don't know what they're following but even this atheist knows it isn't Christianity


I think the first breath is when the Holy Spirit is supposed to infuse a soul into a human body.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.