Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: A Note on Abortion
This is interesting.
I will address your final point first. I wholeheartedly agree that the ancient peoples had means, herbal or otherwise, to abort unborn babies. I do not disagree with you that religious scholars have documented these occurrences. I think your assertion on this topic is absolutely correct. Current religious and historical scholars do know of ancient concoctions that caused abortions.
Beyond that, I disagree, respectfully, of course.
First, these "documented cases" you reference are from sources other than the Holy Biblical Scriptures, which are found in the Old and New Testaments. For example, the earliest known/recorded description of abortion was around 1550 BC from an Egyptian medical text that pulled data from as early as the third millennium. Clearly, abortion occurred in ancient times. But, no where in the Holy Bible is it sanctioned by God.
In addition, if you go back and read the beginning of Numbers 5 verse 11 where this particular exchange begins, we see that the successive verses after verse 11 are spoken from GOD to Moses as directives/laws regarding marriages. It reads, ?Then the Lord said to Moses??
If you have read Scriptures than you know that God is one who loves children and calls them to Himself. He encourages them. Also, over and over again in both Testaments we can read language about not oppressing the weak, poor, and insignificant.
Assertions that Numbers 5 promotes, advocates, or even hints at abortion occurring and/or being acceptable are fallacious. God?s character and words about children run contrary to this position. God did not admonish Moses with directions to cause an abortion. Keep the verses in context. Know who the speakers are. Know who the listeners and receivers of the message are. God is talking here.
To re-cap: The husband who thinks his wife may have committed adultery, can take his wife before the priest. The priest instructs the wife to take an oath (in Hebrew times an oath was a sacred bond/vow made between people and God ? breaking it was death) that if she is innocent the bitter waters (mixed concoction) would have no effect on her. But if she was guilty that the bitter waters would cause her harm. Then, she was to drink them. If she took this oath and was innocent of adultery, the waters would have no ill effect. But if she were guilty, God would cause?
From the texts?of the original Hebrew?
?the water that causes the curse will go into her belly, cause her belly to swell, and her thigh to rot??
She drinks the substance ? it enters her stomach. It causes some sort of distension and illness of the bowels.
The ?thigh to rot? is the ancient concept or euphemism of genitalia. The curse is that her female parts become sickly or stop working and then she becomes barren ? unable to bear children.
There is absolutely nothing in the verses prior to Numbers 5, within Numbers 5, or after Numbers 5, to alert us to assume that the accused wife is pregnant. Nor is there anything which depicts a child being taken from her. This is not an ancient abortion procedure being described.
So, I agree with you that the correct wording is that ?her belly swells.? The Hebrew depicts this. However, this has nothing at all to do with abortion, but rather the ill effects of the bitter waters on her digestive system.
However, ?her womb will expel the filth of her sins,? is NOT in ACCURATE Scripture. This is just false. The ancient Scriptures do not state this. They only say her thigh will rot and she will become barren. No mention of expulsion. Again, this is not an ancient abortion procedure being described.
Lastly, regarding your statements on older Biblical translations, French Bibles, monks, and other translations? languages, I do not doubt they exist/existed. And, I think it?s very cool you have seen/read them. All I can say, which is a little clich?, is that it?s best to ?hear it from the horse?s mouth.? Seek the original texts for difficult passages. Not all versions of something are correct/accurate.
In addition, the NIV translation you cited in your PP is from 2011, their recent ?update.? Printings prior to that new NIV, but still within the NIV, from 1973, 1978, and 1984?all contain the original and CORRECT verbiage of these passages direct from the Hebrew.
If you?re a reader of Scripture, you know what Revelation 22:18-19 says, then?
I'm pro choice. I've heard this scripture before and I've never read it as an abortion thumbs up.
It is more of a statement on purity and the ills of not being chaste. It was a test much like the sink or swim test the Puritans gave presumed witches.
The reason we have a representative republic rather than a direct democracy is so that might doesn't equal right, so that the many cannot subjugate the few. Your argument that if the majority of people believe that a woman's body can be used without her consent to incubate a growing child is not how the law works; if it were, then women and black people still wouldn't have the vote, and slavery would likely still be perfectly legal.
That said, I find myself wondering if you've ever asked yourself why you should be trying to figure out what your god wants and living that way, or even if you should at all. What makes your god the absolute, unquestionable moral arbiter? If your idea of what is moral is that what he says is right absolutely is, because he's your god, does that mean that might equals right, that having a certain amount of power and ability turns your opinions into natural laws? If so, that would mean that a greater power could potentially come along and change the definitions of what is and isn't moral entirely. How do you choose your god?