Comments on: The Bible Is Pro-Choice. Really.

By: hector hernandez

hector hernandez — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 04:27:30 +0000

….even thought ‘person-hood’ is established before you are formed in the womb. I Still believe, it should be a woman’s choice as to what she does with what is happening to her body.

By: hector hernandez

hector hernandez — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 04:22:42 +0000

“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose.” Jeremiah 1-5

By: Tracey Darling

Tracey Darling — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 02:55:26 +0000

Check the story of Tamar. The Bible is totally ok with killing “innocent preborn babies” as long as their mother is a whore and the pre-born babies are whore bastards. Tamar was married to a man who died and required to ‘boink’ her dead husbands brother (Onan) because the men wanted a male heir…Bible doesn’t say how she feels about it.
Her brother-in-law can’t manage to knock her up either so she disguises herself as a prostitute and ‘boinks’ her Father-in-law so she can fulfill her obligation to produce a male heir for the line of Judah.
When her Judah discovers her preggo he is going to Burn Her and incidentally those “precious precious innocent pre-born babes that Jesus loves so much.” Oh, wait- they’re Whore babies!?!? Burn ‘EM!!!

When Tamar shows the stuff her father-in-law gave to the “whore” he ‘boinked’ as a marker then it is all OK.
And in Numbers there is the bit about if a man is jealous and Suspects his wife of infidelity he can have her go through the ordeal of Bitter Water which if she is guilty of getting knocked up with some guy not-her-husband’s baby it will cause her to miscarry a baby that is not owned by her husband.
Sure does seem like it is way more about which man owns the womb and the babes therein

By: Elena Louise Richmond

Elena Louise Richmond — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:54:12 +0000

Nice job, this one. I grew up with a fundamentalist mother. My observation was that she defined “God’s word” as whatever calmed her anxiety. The “Christian” right are terrified people.

By: Margaret L. Carter

Margaret L. Carter — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:02:02 +0000

“Paul was dead stupid on a lot of shit. He thought the world was gonna end like tomorrow. He wasn’t a huge fan of any kind of sex really.”

An all too common misapprehension. Did you know that, in regard to sex within marriage, it’s Paul who says the husband has the right to his wife’s body and THE WIFE HAS THE RIGHT TO HER HUSBAND’S BODY? Absolutely parallel and equal. And he advises them not to abstain from sex except very seldom and by mutual consent.

By: imbur

imbur — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 23:07:05 +0000

No one ever mentions numbers 5:12-31 where God commands abortion in cases of extramarital conception

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:37:25 +0000

PS: According to several biblical scholars and my comparative religious class in college, the great “gay debate” from Leviticus actually had nothing to do with being gay. Notice the focus is on “no man shall lay with another man”…..but mentions nothing about a women doing the same. Hmm. Why could that be? War. That’s right. Baby boys were much more valuable as were grown boys/men (even more valuable) because they made for stronger armies. And with no phones, tv, radio, Internet etc. everyone on earth was at war with everyone else. But to write that as the motivation not to be gay would be a bit sinful. And by the way the word “sin” has nothing to do with the Bible. It dates way back to ancient Greece and is a Greek archery term that simply means “to miss the mark” which we all do every day. It has nothing to do with evil or abomination. FYI biblical trivia.

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:27:29 +0000

Yup…same in our Bible (am Jewish) so a good bit of it is in your Bible as well. In ours, life begins (and the soul enters the body at the first breath). At the same time there are evangelical Christians who think Personhood is the way, and who am I to keep them from that belief and to practice it? I’d be arrogant to suggest to them that my belief is the right way. Islam believes that around 5 weeks the soul enters the body, and only allows abortions in rare exceptions. If I remember correctly, Hindu, Buddhism, etc all have varying beliefs…and all of this leads to RVWade being the only possible Constitutional platform. How can any one religion in a true democracy force another to abide by their beliefs? Rhetorical question.

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:33:23 +0000

By the way, bible sccholars only find a few scriptures about homosexuality and all of them are about either gang rape (sodom & gomorrah) or married men having sex with boys (new testament) which was common and what Paul was talking about. But even with that, I believe there’s a better argument re abortion and homosexuality, which are both private matters, and in which the argument before the law is different than the private realm. The US is a democracy, not a theocracy. The law is for the public realm, not the private. We have freedom of religion. We cannot impose religious views such as re abortion or homsexuality onto the general public legally. Also, If we delve into the private world legally, then we should punish those who cheat on their wives and a host of other private sin. Abortion hurts no one legally. Homosexuality between consenting adults, hurts no one legally. Neither should be legislated other than to protect the freedom of each. This is the Godly thing to do because it is loving our neighbor as ourselves by giving them their God-given choice and because it preserves our ability to worship freely and to have privacy.

By: ceejeemcbeegee

ceejeemcbeegee — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:40:36 +0000

Also, Paul was a woman hating wanker. He got a lot is stuff wrong, wrong, wrong. Plus there is context…. He says different things to different cultures. If you really want to know what Jesus said about anything, stick to Matthew mark luke and John.