Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

God is not Pro-life

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Marie-Bernadette
    Marie-Bernadette
    Corsair of the Second Ether
    Marie-Bernadette
    Corsair of the Second Ether
    • Dec 2003
    • 90

    God is not Pro-life

    Originally posted by Groakes View Post

    Been in that space too. Seems to me that when they say "Pro-Life", what They in fact mean is "No Choice".
    I agree. Their alleged "Pro-life" position is really based on their hatred of women and their desire to control them. The women who go along with this misogyny do so because they are suck ups who want the approval of their men and their god and also because they fear punishment.

    You know those black and white bill boards with supposed messages from "God"? Well, here's one:

    "They shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces and their woman with child ripped open." (Hosea 9:13-16)
    --God

    Here are a few more ways God shows his "love" for women and children:

    Numbers 31: 14-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." -- God

    Exodus 12 12-13 "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn-- both men and animals. . ." --God

    Judges 20: 46-48 "The men of Israel went back to Benjamin and put all the towns to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found."

    2 Kings 2: 23-25 Some boys called Elisha a "baldhead" so Elisha has God send two bears to maul 42 of the youths.

    Joshua 6: 20-21 "They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-- men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys."

    Psalms 137:9 "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock."

    There are many more examples, too, but I don't have the time to list them all. Obviously, the God of the Bible hates women and children. I refuse to worship such an evil god.
    WWED -- What Would Elric Do?
  • Prof. Faustaff
    Prof. Faustaff
    I knew I should have turned left at Albuquerque
    Prof. Faustaff
    I knew I should have turned left at Albuquerque
    • Feb 2007
    • 416

    #2
    And yet, on the other side of the Biblical coin, we find passages like these:

    At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
    But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
    At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
    "No one, sir," she said.
    "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:2-11)
    At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
    He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
    "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matthew 18:1-6)
    Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matthew 19:13-14)
    Doesn't suggest a woman-hating or child-hating attitude on the part of the Son of God to me, but YMMV I guess. *shrug*
    "They went into the house and were soon rolling about in bed together." - The Wrecks of Time, James Colvin, 1966

    Comment

    • Jolanthus Trel
      Jolanthus Trel
      Apprentice wordsmith
      Jolanthus Trel
      Apprentice wordsmith
      • Sep 2005
      • 914

      #3
      Originally posted by Marie-Bernadette View Post
      Originally posted by Groakes View Post

      Been in that space too. Seems to me that when they say "Pro-Life", what They in fact mean is "No Choice".
      I agree. Their alleged "Pro-life" position is really based on their hatred of women and their desire to control them. The women who go along with this misogyny do so because they are suck ups who want the approval of their men and their god and also because they fear punishment.

      You know those black and white bill boards with supposed messages from "God"? Well, here's one:

      "They shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces and their woman with child ripped open." (Hosea 9:13-16)
      --God

      Here are a few more ways God shows his "love" for women and children:

      Numbers 31: 14-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." -- God

      Exodus 12 12-13 "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn-- both men and animals. . ." --God

      Judges 20: 46-48 "The men of Israel went back to Benjamin and put all the towns to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found."

      2 Kings 2: 23-25 Some boys called Elisha a "baldhead" so Elisha has God send two bears to maul 42 of the youths.

      Joshua 6: 20-21 "They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-- men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys."

      Psalms 137:9 "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock."

      There are many more examples, too, but I don't have the time to list them all. Obviously, the God of the Bible hates women and children. I refuse to worship such an evil god.

      That seems to be Old Testament God. He was more tyranical then or seemed to have anger management issues then. He seemed to mellow with fatherhood.
      Mutant Ill-Tempered Sea Bass Player

      Comment

      • Marie-Bernadette
        Marie-Bernadette
        Corsair of the Second Ether
        Marie-Bernadette
        Corsair of the Second Ether
        • Dec 2003
        • 90

        #4
        Originally posted by Prof. Faustaff View Post
        And yet, on the other side of the Biblical coin, we find passages like these:




        Doesn't suggest a woman-hating or child-hating attitude on the part of the Son of God to me, but YMMV I guess. *shrug*
        Yeah, I always liked the "let those without sin cast the first stone" story, but I was listening to NPR a while ago and Bart Ehrman, who wrote _Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why_ (I think, but I'm not sure because it's nearly 2 AM and I'm tired), said that Jesus never told that story; it was actually added much later. I think it's still a valuable story, but it seems it wasn't originally part of the Bible.

        I have mixed feelings about Jesus. On the minus side, he was sometimes rude to his mother and, like most of the Bible, he was full of contradictions. I think that these contradictions come from misinterpretations and mistranslations. They also come from the Bible being pieced together over the centuries and having parts adding and subtracted by various groups with differing agendas and differing understandings of history. On the plus side, Jesus did seem to be a rebel. He seemed to promote love, tolerance and kindness, and there are instances where he treated women well. Many times he seemed to reject the old and the irrational, including the old testament. But if that's so, what god was he really the son of? What god did he actually believe in and what god did he think he was the son of? He was a king--an exiled king. When he talked of being the "son of god", I believe he was referring to the god-kings that came before him. I also think that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism. When I went to a fundamentalist school, they never gave me any rational answers. One of the many things they were not able to give me a rational answer on was this: what did Jesus do between the ages of 12 and 35? They couldn't tell me. Here is what I think: Jesus traveled extensively and studied Buddhism as well as other religions and philosophies. When he talked of being born again, a spiritual rebirth, well, that sure sounds like re-incarnation to me! I've been studying Buddhism lately, and the more I learn of it, the more I think Jesus knew of it and adopted many of its teachings. I think he put his own spin on it to adapt it for his own people, but I definitely think he was influenced by it.

        I have read the KJV of the Bible from cover to cover twice, some parts more than twice. It's full of racism, sexism, justification for slavery, rape and war. Not my idea of a holy book! Looking at it from an objective viewpoint, looking at the history of it, I think that the god of the old testament was actually a king, or rather a series of kings, over centuries, who believed, like the Egyptian kings did, that they were actually divine, god-on-earth. When God "says" something in the Bible, it is actually said by whoever was the king at the time.

        Oh, it's 2:20 AM now. I better go to bed. I hate having insomnia.
        WWED -- What Would Elric Do?

        Comment

        • Prof. Faustaff
          Prof. Faustaff
          I knew I should have turned left at Albuquerque
          Prof. Faustaff
          I knew I should have turned left at Albuquerque
          • Feb 2007
          • 416

          #5
          Originally posted by Marie-Bernadette View Post
          I have mixed feelings about Jesus. On the minus side, he was sometimes rude to his mother and, like most of the Bible, he was full of contradictions. I think that these contradictions come from misinterpretations and mistranslations. They also come from the Bible being pieced together over the centuries and having parts adding and subtracted by various groups with differing agendas and differing understandings of history. On the plus side, Jesus did seem to be a rebel. He seemed to promote love, tolerance and kindness, and there are instances where he treated women well. Many times he seemed to reject the old and the irrational, including the old testament.
          Hmm... didn't He say He was the fulfilment of the Law?
          "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)
          What Jesus often did was offer new, less literal, interpretations of the OT Law:
          "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.(Matthew 5:21-22)
          "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)
          as well as simplifications:
          One of [the Pharisees], an expert in the law, tested [Jesus] with this question:
          "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
          So, I don't think you can divorce the God of the OT from the Son of God of the NT because the latter fulfils (completes) the former.

          Originally posted by Marie-Bernadette View Post
          But if that's so, what god was he really the son of? What god did he actually believe in and what god did he think he was the son of?
          I think Jesus gives pretty good clues as to which God He's refering to:
          Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (Matthew 22:29-32)

          Originally posted by Marie-Bernadette View Post
          He was a king--an exiled king. When he talked of being the "son of god", I believe he was referring to the god-kings that came before him.
          I'm kinda interested in what this belief is based on. I guess if you genuinely regard the Jewish God as an 'evil god' but are sympathetic to Jesus Christ then it may be kind of hard to resolve that (apparent) paradox in such a way as to cover all the bases. Much easier perhaps to re-interpret Christ's claims in a way that is more personally satisfying even if it turns the Scriptual texts on their head? I guess what I'm getting at (in my own clumsy way) is that 'belief' isn't synomynous with 'truth'. I might believe that the Washingtson Redskins are going to win the Super Bowl next year but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

          Originally posted by Marie-Bernadette View Post
          I also think that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism. When I went to a fundamentalist school, they never gave me any rational answers. One of the many things they were not able to give me a rational answer on was this: what did Jesus do between the ages of 12 and 35? They couldn't tell me. Here is what I think: Jesus traveled extensively and studied Buddhism as well as other religions and philosophies. When he talked of being born again, a spiritual rebirth, well, that sure sounds like re-incarnation to me! I've been studying Buddhism lately, and the more I learn of it, the more I think Jesus knew of it and adopted many of its teachings. I think he put his own spin on it to adapt it for his own people, but I definitely think he was influenced by it.
          I'm going to hazard a guess here that you don't have any actual evidence to support your belief that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism though, do you? It's a kind of 'blind faith' that because there might be similarities between the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of Christ Jesus then the latter is influenced by the former. The philosophers around here will know the precise terminology but what I' m getting at (again clumsily) is something like: 'Because snow is white and my coffee mug is white, therefore my mug is made of snow'; alternatively, 'Because all nuns are women and lesbians are women; therefore, all women are lesbian nuns'.

          I'm going to query your assumption that when Jesus spoke of needing to be 'born again' He was refering to reincarnation. Afaik, there's nothing in either the Jewish scriptures or the NT to support reincarnation as part of God's plan for Humanity. Neither does Jesus seem to suggest that being 'born again' is an ongoing experience - that is, being re-born over and over again. In fact, he quite clearly states that being 'born again' is not a physical rebirth but a spiritual one:
          Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
          In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
          "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
          Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' (John 3:1-7)
          On the question of what Jesus did between the ages of 13 and 30 (and I apologise for dealing with this out of sequence) I guess the answer I would give is 'We simply don't know'; none of the Gospel authors seem to think of it as a critical period in Jesus' life. Whether you think he worked in Joseph's carpentry shop or travelled to India or even to Albion, at the end of the day it's all speculation. I think it would have been fairly simply for either Matthew, Mark, Luke or Ringo John to have put a sentence like, "And during this time he travelled." into their accounts of Jesus' life but remarkably none of them thought it necessary.

          Originally posted by Marie-Bernadette View Post
          I have read the KJV of the Bible from cover to cover twice, some parts more than twice. It's full of racism, sexism, justification for slavery, rape and war. Not my idea of a holy book!
          Well, personally I would avoid the KJV unless I wanted to appreciate the literariness of the text. I think it's a very bad translation and ought not be relied upon for a correct understanding of the Scriptures. The Revised Standard Version and the New International Version are the texts that I would normally refer to.

          Originally posted by Marie-Bernadette View Post
          Looking at it from an objective viewpoint, looking at the history of it, I think that the god of the old testament was actually a king, or rather a series of kings, over centuries, who believed, like the Egyptian kings did, that they were actually divine, god-on-earth. When God "says" something in the Bible, it is actually said by whoever was the king at the time.
          Again, that's an interesting hypothesis. I'm not sure how much textual evidence there is to support that belief though. How do you square 'YHWH' appointing Saul, David, Solomon, etc. as earthly kings over the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews if 'He' was the King?

          Originally posted by Marie-Bernadette View Post
          Oh, it's 2:20 AM now. I better go to bed. I hate having insomnia.
          I'm sorry. I hope the insomnia works itself out quickly for you.
          "They went into the house and were soon rolling about in bed together." - The Wrecks of Time, James Colvin, 1966

          Comment

          • johneffay
            johneffay
            Born Again Nihilist
            johneffay
            Born Again Nihilist
            • Sep 2005
            • 3394

            #6
            Originally posted by Prof. Faustaff View Post
            I'm going to hazard a guess here that you don't have any actual evidence to support your belief that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism though, do you?
            It's actually quite a common claim, although the basis of it appears to come from this book which, as the link mentions, has been generally discredited.

            Comment

            • Prof. Faustaff
              Prof. Faustaff
              I knew I should have turned left at Albuquerque
              Prof. Faustaff
              I knew I should have turned left at Albuquerque
              • Feb 2007
              • 416

              #7
              Indeed. If you Google Was Jesus a Buddhist? you get a ton of results from various sites suggesting a causal link between Christ's teaching and Buddhism.

              My skepticism with the notion that Jesus took the teachings of Buddha and modified them to His own ends revolves mostly around the fact that it would seem to negate Christ's claim to divinity - i.e. of being the Word of God (as John describes Jesus) - and reduce Him to the mere status of merely being a 'wise or holy man', which lots of people seem prepared to do without being able to accept his claim to be God. But my skepticism is also informed by the fact that since there are similarities between Jesus's teachings and Plato's writings one might as well ask 'Was Jesus a Platonist?' for all the illumination it provides.

              Again, this all comes down (I think) to causality; just because Source B contains the same (or similar) ideas as Source A it doesn't necessarily follow that Source B was influenced by Source A. It doesn't mean it wasn't, of course, but without (reasonable) evidence of some kind of 'linkage' between the two it's dangerous to make assumptions.

              As has been said elsewhere:
              Originally posted by David Mosley View Post
              ...if all Truth derives from God then other texts may contain truthful elements though He hasn't spoken through them.
              It goes without saying that Christians, of course, have an exclusive belief that only their faith provides a guaranteed path to Salvation. Which again some people find unaceptable.

              Interesting discussion though.
              "They went into the house and were soon rolling about in bed together." - The Wrecks of Time, James Colvin, 1966

              Comment

              • Kevin McCabe
                Kevin McCabe
                Citizen of Tanelorn
                Kevin McCabe
                Citizen of Tanelorn
                • Jun 2007
                • 6112

                #8
                My mother, then an ardent Irish/American catholic, told me this story when I was about seven. Smething about The Lost Years. I'll ask her.
                Kevin McCabe
                The future is there, looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become. William Gibson

                Comment

                • UncleDes
                  UncleDes
                  Got Moves like Jagged
                  UncleDes
                  Got Moves like Jagged
                  • Dec 2006
                  • 3682

                  #9
                  What is miscarriage?

                  My wife, like many other women, was unfortunate enough to lose a child in the first trimester.

                  I still can't figure this into the "God is pro-life" thing. I believe that a large minority of pregnancies (about 15-20 percent) end like this at an early stage.

                  Trying not to muddy the water, here, but fear I may have already.

                  Des
                  Spacerockmanifesto on Facebook

                  Hawkwind tabs

                  Comment

                  • Klyve
                    Klyve
                    Multiversant
                    Klyve
                    Multiversant
                    • Jul 2005
                    • 28

                    #10
                    Their alleged "Pro-life" position is really based on their hatred of women and their desire to control them. The women who go along with this misogyny do so because they are suck ups who want the approval of their men and their god and also because they fear punishment.
                    Marie Burnadette, did you want to engage in reasoned debate or slander? Just curious as I would love to enter this thread if it's the former. Anyone can do ad hominem. That's why they call it juvenile.

                    Then you proceed to "quote" from the OT to "prove your point". Thankfully, this thread turned out much better than the tone you set for it. When I make it back to this forum, I'd be glad to engage in thoughtful discussion if that's what you want. I opened this thread thinking it would be something like that. I didn't know what you did was acceptable here.

                    Reasoned Debate Primarily for the discussion of political current events, this forum exists for the exchange of intelligent and factual articles. There is an expectation of quality and respectfulness from contributors. This is a members only forum, though guests are welcome to read. Members that engage in trolling will have access to this forum restricted to read-only.
                    The Cosmic Balance
                    The Final Programme
                    Last edited by The Cosmic Balance; 11-18-2008, 04:24 AM. Reason: Bible content copied to 'Views on Bible' thread; pro-life comments left here.

                    Comment

                    • johneffay
                      johneffay
                      Born Again Nihilist
                      johneffay
                      Born Again Nihilist
                      • Sep 2005
                      • 3394

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Klyve View Post
                      Marie Burnadette, did you want to engage in reasoned debate or slander? Just curious as I would love to enter this thread if it's the former. Anyone can do ad hominem. That's why they call it juvenile.
                      Klyve, I mod this forum and Marie-Bernadette expressed an opinion (albeit in a forceful manner) and proceeded to back it up with what she saw as evidence from the Old Testament. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you address her evidence rather than implying that she has engaged in an ad hominem attack and is therefore juvenile. I'm sure you realize that your claim that ad hominem attacks are juvenile is, itself, an ad hominem attack upon her: Pots, kettles and all that.

                      Comment

                      • Klyve
                        Klyve
                        Multiversant
                        Klyve
                        Multiversant
                        • Jul 2005
                        • 28

                        #12
                        John, to be sure, I wasn't implying that she was doing ad hominem-that was a firm statement. Is that not allowed here? I had no problem with it that cannot be handled by our dialogue.

                        Pots, kettles and all that.
                        ...and spades.

                        Comment

                        • johneffay
                          johneffay
                          Born Again Nihilist
                          johneffay
                          Born Again Nihilist
                          • Sep 2005
                          • 3394

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Klyve View Post
                          John, to be sure, I wasn't implying that she was doing ad hominem-that was a firm statement. Is that not allowed here?
                          What's not allowed is insulting someone by implying that they are juvenile. Saying that it was a firm statement rather than an implication hardly makes it better.

                          If you have a problem with what she says, by all means address it; if you think her argument is ad hominem, say why in a reasonable manner. Being rude to someone and then dismissing their claims by writing

                          Originally posted by Klyve
                          Then you proceed to "quote" from the OT to "prove your point". Thankfully, this thread turned out much better than the tone you set for it. When I make it back to this forum, I'd be glad to engage in thoughtful discussion if that's what you want.
                          Certainly breaks the terms and conditions of use of this forum that you quoted earlier.

                          Comment

                          • Klyve
                            Klyve
                            Multiversant
                            Klyve
                            Multiversant
                            • Jul 2005
                            • 28

                            #14
                            Oh, my.

                            What's not allowed is insulting someone by implying that they are juvenile.
                            What to do with the double standard then?

                            You are insinuating that I implied someone was juvenile. I was stating that what someone was doing was juvenile and beneath them as a person.

                            Saying that it was a firm statement rather than an implication hardly makes it better.
                            I wasn't even trying to "make anything better"-only clarifying my point. I was explaining myself.

                            If you have a problem with what she says, by all means address it
                            I've addressed it. By the way-once again-I have no problem. Other than I'd like to get back on-topic.

                            if you think her argument is ad hominem, say why in a reasonable manner
                            I hardly think this quote:

                            Their alleged "Pro-life" position is really based on their hatred of women and their desire to control them. The women who go along with this misogyny do so because they are suck ups who want the approval of their men and their god and also because they fear punishment.
                            needs an explanation as ad hominem.

                            Is it not tolerable to call someone on something they said here? Look, I thought it was just accepted that ad hominem, by virtue of its definition, was juvenile in context of dialogue.

                            For the record: I'm truly sorry that I've offended anyone or broken the terms and conditions for this forum.

                            Where were we?

                            Comment

                            • johneffay
                              johneffay
                              Born Again Nihilist
                              johneffay
                              Born Again Nihilist
                              • Sep 2005
                              • 3394

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Klyve View Post
                              Is it not tolerable to call someone on something they said here? Look, I thought it was just accepted that ad hominem, by virtue of its definition, was juvenile in context of dialogue.
                              It's not juvenile; it's misdirected, which is a different thing altogether.

                              Originally posted by Klyve View Post
                              For the record: I'm truly sorry that I've offended anyone or broken the terms and conditions for this forum.
                              Thanks very much for that. Now we can resume normal service

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X