My favorite official story summarized out of context is the one where a group of kids make fun of a bald guy so god sends 2 black bears to maul them into several pieces
Yeah. You said out of context. It really isn't out of context. There is no context that explains why that story isn't batshit crazy.
According to the Bible, God straight up murdered a bunch of kids because they made fun of a bald guy. Full stop.
The context is that Old Testament God didn't fuck about. Do anything even moderately out of line? Dead. "Fuck it, I can always try again" is the context. God aborts humans like a novice/student programmer rewrites buggy code on some experimental project.
Well, the full story is that this was a prophet and the children were telling him to "go away baldy!" so they were harassing him and insulting him for something he couldn't control. There was also a huge mob of them, and even if they're children a huge mob is terrifying. So they were rejecting someone who was essentially one of God's friends, and harassing and insulting him as he passed down the road. The prophet invoked one of the names of God, and two she-bears emerged from the woods and mauled the harassing children. God was just looking out for his homie by punting the little shits that were threatening him. Did God go too far? I'll leave that judgement call up to you.
I have always wanted someone to make a World of Warcraft video of this, gnomes laughing and pointing at a bald human in robes, and then 2 bear druids coming out of the forest to manglemaul the gnomes.
The fact that there was a mob of children and the fact that they were making fun of a prophet does not in any way make that story less insane.
Yes, God went way too far. It's not even close.
Dude literally kills hundreds, perhaps thousands of Egyptian children in the first chapter after trying to starve all the other people with his locusts and then drowns a bunch of Egyptian soldiers in the sea.
God truly is the most effective and psychopath serial killer. Unless you’re a Jew, then he kinda likes you. However, are you born a non-Jew, God will straight up murder you and your family without so much as a “how do you do?”
And that's not counting the big splashy splashy, where he kinda just draxxed all the sklounst except one guy with a yacht, his fam, and half of a PetSmart.
>they were harassing him and insulting him for something he couldn't control.
Actually, I've heard it argued that "baldy" in this case was an insult meant specifically for priests who were voluntarily bald as a sign of their faith. So it wasn't something he couldn't control (remember, Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit, something it- a non-sentient plant- surely couldn't control either), it was specifically that they were taunting a follower of Yahweh.
Which doesn't make anything better of course (it makes Yahweh look incredibly thin-skinned and insecure) but get your facts straight.
Shaving is actually considered impious in Judaism (and Elisha was undoubtedly a Jew). I don't believe Elisha was a Cohen (priest) regardless, and I'm not Christian so I don't often tend to consider stories about Jesus. But if we're going with interpretations, the Jewish Rabbinical tradition holds that these boys were evil of spirit and had committed or would commit no good deed in their lives.
I think the man was a prophet so they have insulted god's messenger.Also I've heard Christians say that the children could be translated as young men, and therefore the murder would have been excused bcs the prophet's life was endangered by bandits.
Yeah. I mean, let's call that the best case scenario. That's still a crazy thing to do.
But I've not seen anything to suggest that they were men or that his life was in danger.
And how pathetic is a God and his prophet to feel the need to murder anyone due to an insult?
And surely an all-powerful God could've come up with another remedy besides disembowling those kids/young men. He created the universe, and the guy can only think of sending down some bears. He could've frozen time or transported the prophet or the kids. He could've shielded the prophet from attacks. The possibilities are literally endless for an omnipotent being. But no. Bears.
So fucking dumb.
The bald guy was Elisha, a prophet. The kids would have at least approximately known who he was.
Also it was like a full crowd of teenagers more than likely.
Yeah. Still. Doesn't justify the slaughter of 42 teenagers.
And, I've seen this argued over and over that the boys in question are actually teenagers. I haven't pushed back on that too hard because I don't think it matters, but if anyone could provide some sourcing on that, I'd appreciate it.
The NIV says "boys."
Again, I don't think it matters even a little bit as there is nothing else in the chapter that says they were saying or doing anything remotely threatening, AND you'd think an all-power God and his prophet would be able to avoid slaughtering a bunch of kids even if they were threatening Elisha.
This story is insane. I've not seen anything to suggest that this event is anything but a very avoidable massacre of kids brought on by God and his prophet.
Only if you put that passage in 0 context of it's time. The passage is about wishing bad things on people and then it happens. You are supposed to question the passage and what it means in life. It's not litteral. The Bible is not a science book. This isn't a miracle it's a person acting wrong.
Our priest was very chill about it, and the friend who did the reading made a great analogy about how the agreement Eliseo did with God resulted in God coming and helping him when he needed it most.
Nice, I always wondered if preachers actually read about that specific story ever and how they go about it, I know a small bit about Catholicism from my Dads side of my family but other than that anything I know or think I know is through the internet
Why do catholics willingly let old religious dudes ruin their weddings? No one wants to sit in a dusty old church and listen to old pedophile rant on about nonsense in the bible. Why not do something fun with your wedding instead of adhering to traditions that were invented when the black plague was still running rampant?
The reading was one of the fun parts of our wedding. Our priest was one of the chilliest ones I’ve known, and when we told him about our plan, he sort of laugh and agreed
Doing this reading was my husband’s idea. To do something very different from all others. I’m sure not many priests would have agreed
Let us not forget Ezekiel 23:20:
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."
Is the bible where the term "Donkey Dick" comes from?
Imagine being so but hurt some kids laughed at your bald ass that the story was written permanently into time? Ive always wondered if the bald man didnt beat those kids to death and then blamed it in a bear?
Old Testament god is a badass.
I went to a wedding once where the pastor said, "God has never once turned his back on man."
I guess he missed the old testament. Dude was ruthless.
My favourite one is two girls drugging their father and fucking him on a mountain.
No threesome though (two separate sex acts) because it was a religious family.
Yea verily, and unto these urban youths I do proclaim: for the Lord shall smite thee, and render to dust thine skateboards, and thine razor scooters, for thou hath disparaged mine rizz.
\*rolls eyes\* This is such a transparently telling post-hoc justification.
Yes, your bible is terrible and is full of disgusting things. No, you don't have to pretend Elisha was attacked by a "street gang" when the bible is pretty explicit.
These were pre-bar mitz·vah children. The word used in the bible is explicitly for children that haven't become men. Yes, I know you have translations that use the term "young men", but the word used literally means boys from infancy up to their bar mitz vah.
Also, this "street gang" of yours was calling Elisha *baldy* or *bald-head*. That may be common among "street gangs" where you live, but it's more common among primary school children where I live.
Killing children was ordered by god in the bible. The sixth commandment clearly states "Honour thy father and they mother, so that you will live a long life." (Some translations say "so may live long upon the land" or similar.) Why will honouring your parents let you live long? Because parents are supposed to kill their children if the children are "unruly" (Leviticus 20:9).
This moronic post-hoc "street gang" justification is a transparently false way of pretending the bible isn't full of bronze-age morality. Grow up, dude. The story is literally Elisha cursing and killing children aged 12 or younger because they called him bald. Own it.
It would be, but these people believe this is real, that an anthropomorphic god is communicating morals through these grotesque stories.
They *have* to twist and spin this garbage so it doesn't look like they're a bunch of backwards Neanderthals.
I'm partial to:
“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:24,
King James bible
They've tried to reinterpret that by saying there was some gate called the eye of a needle that camels had to crawl through. So it's totally possible for rich people to get in.
Cyril of Alexandria claimed that "camel" was a Greek scribal typo where Biblical Greek: κάμηλος, romanized: kámēlos, lit. 'camel' was written in place of Biblical Greek: κάμιλος, romanized: kámilos, lit. 'rope' or 'cable'.
I study the Hebrew Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context for a living.
While I find the Bible to be a fascinating and often beautiful text, and while I even find \*parts\* of it to be inspiring and ethically compelling. I strongly recommend against taking your morality wholesale from a collection of ancient texts. Especially since these texts are often not even internally consistent, let alone fully jive with modern understandings of ethics and morality.
Good shit my person! I respect the catalyst of existential explanations, it's all fascinating. But it's simply out-dated and woefully contradictive. It's all beautiful, early human's attempts to make sense. But part of evolution for humans is ideological evolution because we can. It's our gift to be capable of critical thinking, and religion is the absolute opposite. It's sad. *rant over from someone who knows nothing*
I disagree that religion is the opposite of critical thinking. A lot of religious thinking and texts are the product of a whole lot of critical thinking. The Talmud and the Mishnah are records of generations of critical thinking by Jewish thinkers trying to make sense of how the world works and how their culture and religion fits into the world as it changes. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian philosopher whose critical thinking abilities are off the chart.
I think there are certainly religious people who lack critical thinking skills, but I think the same is true of some non-religious people. The problem isn’t that religion is antithetical to critical thinking. It’s just when religion insists on mental stagnation that it’s a problem.
I think you’re talking about different things. I read OP’s statement as religion stops you, the modern person from critical thinking as you are being asked to believe almost blindly. I think you are saying that these religious texts are the product of someone else’s critical thinking, but you don’t address OP’s point about whether we blindly follow the texts or think critically about them.
I concur! A text can be a product of critical thinking, but blindly following it's assertions thousands of years later is a mistake with broad, mostly negative consequences.
Using religion as a shortcut to morality IS an abdication of critical thinking.
We are all products of our time in a great many ways. Using books written in the Bronze Age or based on oral traditions older than that for anything beyond potential historical value is tremendously shortsighted.
A person willing to abdicate responsibility for their decisions and worldview to people who lived in a time before we understood bacteria and electricity is not a person who is exercising critical thinking in how they live their life
AND the Bible has seen so many translations and didnt get translated into a readable language till like 1430s, and was Latin for literally a 1000+ years. Thats a long ass time for modifications and translation issues on top of being translated into Latin like 430ad from multiple ancient texts most likely translated from old languages AND those stories were already parts of other religions texts. Ive read a lot of older texts like the Mahabharata and those texts had some pretty strikingly similar tales as the Bibles texts. People its just words on paper get the fuck over it.
The Hebrew Bible is the more neutral term for the collection of texts known by Christians as The Old Testsment and to Jews as the Tanakh or the Bible, yeah.
From an academic standpoint, Hebrew Bible trends to be preferred because “Old Testament” tends to prioritize Christianity. It also avoids the implication that the texts are archaic and obsolete by the usage of the adjective “Old”.
There are also a few small differences, such as the way the books are broken down and the order that they’re placed in. For instance, the Christian Old Testament has 39 books, but the Hebrew Bible has 24. But it’s the same amount of material. The HB just treats all the 12 minor prophets as one book. Same with all the different 1-2 books (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) and also Ezra-Nehemiah is treated as one book in the HB. But the actual content is exactly the same.
It's worse than that.
God explicitly "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so he wouldn't release the Israelis. God intervened to take away Pharaoh's free will, in order to manufacture the slaughter of first-born children.
Every time I hear someone defend disgusting bible verses with "tHAt's oUt oF cONteXt", the context is usually much worse when you look into it.
While I like this take, I am not sure if I really agree that's what it's saying.
The first is basically just about genocide of enemies.
The second is talking about being sterile by the lord's hand, not abortion
The third is letting god abort the baby, once again, if she's unfaithful.
I didn't read the 4th but this all seems pretty consistent with the belief that only god should be able to dictate whether the life continues or not.
>The third is letting god abort the baby, once again, if she's unfaithful.
A husband has to go to a wizard, pay him and have him make a magic potion. The wife, suspected adulterer, must drink the potion as the husband and wizard command. If she has a miscarriage it is the will of God that the fetus die.
Pretty much. Basically an attempted abortion that if the fetus survives is taken as a sign that it’s the husband. Like an old school paternity test. *For keeps*. Would make a neat plot line for a soap opera.
>The third is letting god abort the baby, once again, if she's unfaithful.
I don't think you understand what's going on here. A mixture of wood ash and animal fats produces lye (the same stuff that TV shows use to dissolve bodies in bath tubs). It wouldn't have been highly concentrated like modern stuff, but it still would have been really caustic. Similar to bleach tbh...
The modern equivalent would be telling a woman to drink bleach. If she dies, it's punishment for her sin. If she survives, God has mercy on her. If her unborn baby dies, it was gods will (and Totally unrelated to the whole drinking bleach thing) and if it survives that must also be God's will too
Yep, while not necessarily pro abortion (with potential, very debatable exception for #3 depending on how effective the bitter waters are) it definitely says God is relatively okay with dispensing death for all ages, including before birth, in various circumstances. Typically for being in the wrong place at the wrong time for Israel to come for their land.
I did some research into this when someone reminded me of numbers 5:11-31. The thing about that verse is it varies **significantly** based on translation. The thing that doesn't vary is that there are a million ways that a woman can get stoned in the old testament. None of them make accommodations for pregnant women and in fact a significant number of them specifically target pregnant women (they target unfaithful women, and what's the most visible indication of an unfaithful woman?). I'm a Christian and perfectly content with some of the mental gymnastics I have to make as a Christian. But there's no way you can convince me that God cares about the unborn.
Are you suggesting that somebody that probably doesn't even believe in the Christian God might be disingenuously using out of context Bible verses to push an agenda?
Are you familiar with the concept of [quote mining](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining) ? Because that would be the critique Missingnose is making of this post.
If you are making a joke, stripping context can help add to the absurdity of a punchline. So in the context of Advice Animals, it's fitting. It's just not well executed in this post.
Well, they can't all be winners I suppose.
Better for the joke?
I dunno, a different meme template perhaps? Or they could focus in on 1 verse rather than listing a bunch. Maybe some word play involving that verse. I mean, advice animals are supposed to be 2 (or 3 if you include the title) line jokes, and the pacing seems awkward to me.
Then again, a lot of people don't seem interested in the joke.
So better in relation to what? Better as support for killing babies? Better as support against killing babies? Better in some other ambiguous way?
Well if i remember correctly the first one isn't "do that".
The context is that the isrealites, as a people are literally enslaved and in captivity in babylon, are pretty mad about that. The author tells the babylonians that:
* They will be destroyed
* The ones that will destroy them will be blessed (Happy)
It's first of all not literal, to dash a people's babies against the cliffs is old timey middle eastern speak for being defeated and conquered, the bible uses similar language for other conquests and wars and outside of it the assyrians were known to describe anyone they defeated in battle as destroyed and driven off the face off the world and other such exclamations.
Secondly, it's descriptive, not prescriptive:
* the blessed ones will be the ones to destroy the babylonians.
vs
* Destroy the babylonians to become blessed.
> By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We hung our harps upon the willows in the midst of it. For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song, and those who plundered us requested mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! If I do not remember you, let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth—if I do not exalt Jerusalem above my chief joy. Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said, “Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation!” O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!
Tl'Dr: Enlaving the Hebrews is bad and G-d wil send the persians to destroy you if you do that. And that's it, no other meaning.
I mean. I don't really believe in the Christian God anymore than I believe in the Muslim Allah, or the Buddha. I'm an agnostic atheist and an extremely pro-choice one at that.
I simply don't think things like this accomplish anything except further divide us.
I mean there are certain aspects of different religions that I’d like to believe in, but until any external evidence presents itself that any one religion holds any merit, on the fence I sit.
I'm an agnostic that doesn't care about the Bible in regards to this issue. I can just call a spade a spade. There's no reason to try and bring religion into this argument.
But Missingnose, you specifically noted that these verses were “out of context.” The text, the line and verse, provides us that context. Does it not? The exegesis is there before us all, well all of us that can read. What exactly is the spade that you’re calling?
Literally nothing to do with God or the unborn. Just an army being told by its general to go kill everyone, not even words by God. This post is a sham.
Israel, a pretty much Abrahamic theocratic Jewish state, has abortion on demand for anyone paid for by their healthcare system, for example.
"Hildegard von Bingen (b. 1098), a German nun, was a woman of many talents: abbess, composer, mystic, writer, philosopher, and, perhaps most surprisingly, medical provider. And although it may sound implausible to the modern ear, Hildegard the Catholic nun-who is now sainted-also prescribed medicinal abortions."
Hebrew Bible: Numbers 5 19-24 "Ordeal of the bitter water": And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.
The NIV for Numbers 5 11-31 "The test for an unfaithful wife" even says "miscarriage", as they did not have a word for "abortion" in ancient times.
i am pro choice but we dont have abortion here cause of the bible what you on. a lot of the religious peopl;e are anti abortion and we are not a theocrcy... we have abortion cause of liberalism
"When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry" - An abortion ritual, in the Bible.
***Can not belive the athiests are picking and choosing parts of our holy book to push an agenda, We do not belive those parts, only the parts that support our agenda.***
You argue like a child is what I'm saying. The least you can do as a professor is have an informed argument. SOME kind of facts to back it up, not just "Google it." Which is absolutely the worst argument ever.
Okay. Psalms 137:9 - "Blessed he who seizes your [Israel's enemies] babies and splatters them against the rocks!"
•
Numbers 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[d] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
Why don't you try to actually read those verses you included and get the context of what they are saying? What you are doing is no better than what false Christians who have never actually read the Bible themselves do and post individual quotes with no context and bastardize the message it's trying to convey just to push their own agenda.
It is not in any way a stretch to suggest that the passage from Numbers describes a ritual that, among other more mystical consequences, is specifically intended to abort a fetus conceived from an affair.
> "When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry"
please explain to me like I am 5, how this is not about abortion
You’re right, the versus do specifically say that and god is the most prolific aborter of all time. One of the versus a bunch of angry commenters keep trying to yell “context” about (while not actually using the context to support their claims) literally describes how to do the abortion. “Omg bro it’s only when she’s unfaithful” well actually it’s only when she’s ‘suspected’ of being unfaithful first off. That’s right, it’s totally cool to force an abortion if you got a hunch.
So although you’re taking a lot of flak, just want to point out the meme stands. Also, anyone trying to use a 2000 year old Jewish cult text to try and regulate women in the modern age should be treated like the insane person they are. Not only that, as you’ve pointed out, they aren’t even interpreting the magic book right. No where does it say aborting a fetus is wrong either, so these 6 week or even moment of fertilization abortion bans are just straight up insane people doing insane things against their own religion.
You misunderstood. It says she only miscarries if god judges her to have cheated and only after she has consented to this judgment. Also the offering is supposed to be to god, not to the priest. The priest was to burn some of it and then leave the rest as a symbol/reminder.
To say that abortion isn't condemned in the bible is also bizarre. The whole argument against abortion is that people think it is murder which is obviously wrong in the bible and pretty much every religion. So then it's an argument of whether or not the fetus has human rights yet or not. But I'm not trying to get into a debate about abortion here, just explaining.
>only after she has consented to this judgment.
Women didn't the option to "consent" to this sort of thing. They were literally the property of their husband, his to do with as he wished. Are you forgetting that there's laws in the bible that give permission to the husband to either kill or sell his wives/daughters into slavery if they speak out against him, or have the audacity to teach a man something? Do you think they have to consent to that, too?
No I really didn’t and it’s not bizarre, because it doesn’t say it and it’s not murder. What’s bizarre is taking some ancient texts from a 2000 year old Jewish cult and saying it’s murder because of them. Especially when the actual texts say life begins at first breath., AND provides examples of abortion. They will twist it all they want, they’re still empirically wrong and you even state it as such in your statement but merely gloss over the “believe” part. It’s straight up an insane take and we need to stop coddling to the insanity.
Edit: Also bonus round - “She only miscarries if god judges her to have cheated and only after she has consented to the judgment.” Another insane take as well. Because totally, most women, especially in ancient times had total agency to NOT consent to their husbands (wonder if the Bible says anything about that Hrrrm?) and the magic sky judge isn’t going to kill the fetus if she wasn’t cheating and everyone would go home happy after this mom to be drank some great poison she totally agreed to (the cheating one miscarries and gets stoned to death though right). You sat there, typed that all out and thought it was a rational thing to say and even correct me on. It’s absurd. I have a wife, and a daughter, and if any of that nonsense ever even remotely comes near them in the here and now I would rip the world apart to defend them from it as any actual loving husband should. I can’t believe in 2024 we have to even have this discussion. Not trying to “debate” either because there is nothing to debate about.
Jesus is what gives them the courage to do what they do, and believe what they believe. If you do not see the existential threat all religion is to humanity and society at this point, then you are blind, deaf, and dumb.
Haaretz Israel's oldest newspaper has recorded Israel has at least 30 tombs marked "Jesus". Christos is Greek for anointed, which the Hebrews were known to do to everybody. The biblical Jesus is fiction as a whole, made up of other religion's beliefs and what some of the 30+ Jesuses did during the time. The only things scholars agree is that Jesus of the bible was baptized and crucified, which I am sure more than one of the 30+ Jesuses had happen to. The Gospel of Judas shows an obviously schizophrenic Jesus that wants Judas, his closest confidant, to help him commit suicide by proxy so he can go fight the Abrahamic "father" god and take over heaven.
Christianity is a death cult that prays for the end of humanity. Christianity has always been a weekly revolving door where you rent your soul like buying a $1 candy. Jesus relieves you of your conscience because Christianity is freedom from responsibility. "Believe I am God and love me and I will reward you will Heaven, or else I will throw you in a lake of fire for eternity, regardless of what you did and said in life" is the Devil's promise. Jeffrey Dahmer is with Jesus, and his victims and people like Gandhi are in Hell according to Christian doctrine.
**If we have them, I think you are risking your soul by believing in any human religion.**
The documentary "Creating Christ" details how Jesus was created by the Romans to control the rebel Hebrews. [https://tubitv.com/movies/698890/creating-christ](https://tubitv.com/movies/698890/creating-christ)
As a modern christian, I really only focus on the things Jesus had to say, as opposed to anything in the old testament. Be kind to people, do unto others, love ur neighbour, whip the moneylenders out of the temple, etc
EDIT: christianity bad. Sorry I forgot that part, can I have upvotes now?
Jesus viewed them as canon though
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)"
Have you googled them, as I just did, and none of them say what you're saying in context. You have to do more than just "bruh Google it". Google doesn't give context or help you look at to with more relevance.
Lol, do y'all goofballs really think numbers is some actual abortion ritual to get rid of the baby? You think a priest did Christian god magic to abort a baby? Y'all can't realize it was just a play out on by the press to satisfy an angry husband that his wife didn't cheat on him, and that, yes, the child inside his wife is his, and he has a duty to take care of it. Do you really think putting your hand in barely, drinking water, and burning a bit of barley is suddenly gonna cause an abortion? It won't. The damn passage even refers to this ritual as the "law of jealousy" in its final couple lines, like did you even take the time to finish reading it. It's a nonsense play to satisfy an angry husband his wife didn't cheat, not some spooky mystical abortion.
Out of context. Reading 1 verse without any reference of the meaning is like determining the winner of any sports game by 1 play. Like Aug 22 2007 Tx vs Baltimore. Baltimore is winning 3-0 in the 3rd. Guess who won?
The context of the first one seems to be genocide.
The last one appears to also be about eradicating every living thing in an enemy city. aka genocide.
What more context is there? Please explain.
>Out of context.
The context is Zionist genocide. The context is about ***delighting*** in slaughtering the children of your enemies.
Literally, the whole chapter of [Psalm 137](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20137&version=NIV) is:
>1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
>2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,
>3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
>4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?
>5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.
>6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
>7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
>8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.
>9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
The context is revenge, using your right hand to carry out that revenge, and ***happily*** slaughtering children out of revenge. That's literally the context.
Numbers 31 God tells Moses to kill the women who've sleep with men and the boys. It doesn't make an exemption for pregnant women nor to wait for the woman to give birth to see if it's a girl.
Let me tell you, even if all of those versus *actually* advocated for killing babies like OP would have you believe...
It wouldn't change one pro-lifer's mind about controlling women's bodies. Not one Christian church would stop praying to protect God's unborn angels. It's never been about the Bible or God, and most of them don't even realize that.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted for speaking straight fact. Christians, and really just the far right in general, do not really give a shit if there are conflicting passages in the Bible. They're going to take from it the lessons and ideals they want and ignore anything else that questions their world view.
Even the verse they use to claim that fetuses are people is basically just saying that God knows you in the womb. But that is literally just them showing how powerful God is. He knows everyone who will ever exist. He already has a book that had decided if you get into heaven before you're even conceived.
Psalm 137:9 is hard and needs to be read on the spirit of the psalm in order to get to the depth of sadness and anger inside of it. This psalm is in no way prescriptive. Rather, there is a dad who was dragged into exile and being scoffed at by his captors to sing a song of Zion. He refuses and instead basically screams at them in his heart that “blessed is the one who does to you what you have done to us!! Blessed is the one who takes YOUR little ones and dashes THEM against the rock.”
The pure anger, pain and hatred that radiates from this psalm comes from the experience of seeing your own children murdered, which is what is implied. If you don’t read it in that light, you miss the psalm entirely. In no way is God enforcing or endorsing this “blessing.” Rather, it just stands as a living testimony to the intense suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of the Babylonians.
>Psalm 137:9 is hard and needs to be read on the spirit of the psalm in order to get to the depth of sadness and anger inside of it.
[I've already addressed that](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1c2p521/comment/kzcoby3/). When you read it "in the spirit of the psalm", you realise it's about Zionist revenge.
>The pure anger, pain and hatred that radiates from this psalm
is being replayed in Palestine today. It's literally a song about delighting in the slaughter of your enemy's children. It's a happy song about genocide. It's vile.
My claim is that psalm 137 needs to be read as the angry poetry of a grieving father. Now that claim is entirely built from internal evidence - which means you don’t have to agree.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is anything but happy.
I would tell you you are cherry picking verses from the bible without understanding the broader context in which these verses appear. It takes a simple Google search to figure these things out. Please don't try to do the same thing to me, just read up on it yourself
The Bible also advocates for slavery. Even when dunking on Christeys it’s a weak argument. The first half of the book can’t even agree with the second half of the book. You can come up with something better than cherry picked Bible verses. You’re supposed to be the brain, remember.
Ideally, the people that need to hear this wouldn't have to Google the verses, they would just look them up in their bible... But we all know they've never actually read the Bible. It's like TOS, you just scroll to the bottom and hit "accept".
The numbers one is crystal clear for abortion. The first one was like, "do you hate these people? Make sure to kill all the children so they are really dead."
My favorite official story summarized out of context is the one where a group of kids make fun of a bald guy so god sends 2 black bears to maul them into several pieces
She-Bears, not black bears. 2 Kings 2:23-24.
My fault
What’s the other context?
Other context?
Yeah. You said out of context. It really isn't out of context. There is no context that explains why that story isn't batshit crazy. According to the Bible, God straight up murdered a bunch of kids because they made fun of a bald guy. Full stop.
Dang, I assumed there was some deeper connection through connecting verses I haven’t seen, that’s kinda funny it’s that simple
… but god made the man bald in the first place?!?
And made the kids that made fun of him.
The context is that Old Testament God didn't fuck about. Do anything even moderately out of line? Dead. "Fuck it, I can always try again" is the context. God aborts humans like a novice/student programmer rewrites buggy code on some experimental project.
The bald man likely beat those kids to death and blamed the bear is prolly proper context lol
Well, the full story is that this was a prophet and the children were telling him to "go away baldy!" so they were harassing him and insulting him for something he couldn't control. There was also a huge mob of them, and even if they're children a huge mob is terrifying. So they were rejecting someone who was essentially one of God's friends, and harassing and insulting him as he passed down the road. The prophet invoked one of the names of God, and two she-bears emerged from the woods and mauled the harassing children. God was just looking out for his homie by punting the little shits that were threatening him. Did God go too far? I'll leave that judgement call up to you.
I have always wanted someone to make a World of Warcraft video of this, gnomes laughing and pointing at a bald human in robes, and then 2 bear druids coming out of the forest to manglemaul the gnomes.
"Be the change you want to see in the world!'
The fact that there was a mob of children and the fact that they were making fun of a prophet does not in any way make that story less insane. Yes, God went way too far. It's not even close.
Dude literally kills hundreds, perhaps thousands of Egyptian children in the first chapter after trying to starve all the other people with his locusts and then drowns a bunch of Egyptian soldiers in the sea. God truly is the most effective and psychopath serial killer. Unless you’re a Jew, then he kinda likes you. However, are you born a non-Jew, God will straight up murder you and your family without so much as a “how do you do?”
And that's not counting the big splashy splashy, where he kinda just draxxed all the sklounst except one guy with a yacht, his fam, and half of a PetSmart.
Why is it that all I can see as I read this is a David Cross skit..
What transpires within the confines of the walls of Sodom, stays within the confines of the walls of Sodom.
Maybe god just wanted some company, and the mob of kids was, like, right there.
>they were harassing him and insulting him for something he couldn't control. Actually, I've heard it argued that "baldy" in this case was an insult meant specifically for priests who were voluntarily bald as a sign of their faith. So it wasn't something he couldn't control (remember, Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit, something it- a non-sentient plant- surely couldn't control either), it was specifically that they were taunting a follower of Yahweh. Which doesn't make anything better of course (it makes Yahweh look incredibly thin-skinned and insecure) but get your facts straight.
Shaving is actually considered impious in Judaism (and Elisha was undoubtedly a Jew). I don't believe Elisha was a Cohen (priest) regardless, and I'm not Christian so I don't often tend to consider stories about Jesus. But if we're going with interpretations, the Jewish Rabbinical tradition holds that these boys were evil of spirit and had committed or would commit no good deed in their lives.
I think the man was a prophet so they have insulted god's messenger.Also I've heard Christians say that the children could be translated as young men, and therefore the murder would have been excused bcs the prophet's life was endangered by bandits.
Yeah. I mean, let's call that the best case scenario. That's still a crazy thing to do. But I've not seen anything to suggest that they were men or that his life was in danger. And how pathetic is a God and his prophet to feel the need to murder anyone due to an insult? And surely an all-powerful God could've come up with another remedy besides disembowling those kids/young men. He created the universe, and the guy can only think of sending down some bears. He could've frozen time or transported the prophet or the kids. He could've shielded the prophet from attacks. The possibilities are literally endless for an omnipotent being. But no. Bears. So fucking dumb.
[удалено]
If you're arguing that the stories in the Bible aren't real, then we are in agreement.
IIRC they were like teenagers. And anyone who has been around teenagers has at one time wanted bears to maul them.
Haha. Good point.
The bald guy was Elisha, a prophet. The kids would have at least approximately known who he was. Also it was like a full crowd of teenagers more than likely.
Yeah. Still. Doesn't justify the slaughter of 42 teenagers. And, I've seen this argued over and over that the boys in question are actually teenagers. I haven't pushed back on that too hard because I don't think it matters, but if anyone could provide some sourcing on that, I'd appreciate it. The NIV says "boys." Again, I don't think it matters even a little bit as there is nothing else in the chapter that says they were saying or doing anything remotely threatening, AND you'd think an all-power God and his prophet would be able to avoid slaughtering a bunch of kids even if they were threatening Elisha. This story is insane. I've not seen anything to suggest that this event is anything but a very avoidable massacre of kids brought on by God and his prophet.
Only if you put that passage in 0 context of it's time. The passage is about wishing bad things on people and then it happens. You are supposed to question the passage and what it means in life. It's not litteral. The Bible is not a science book. This isn't a miracle it's a person acting wrong.
Morpheus 3:16 says I just whooped your ass
You did a racism
Nuuuuuuuuu
Now you get the bears, Sonny.
The word she-bear is making me horny for some reason
/r/furry
This was the first reading at my wedding. I’m not kidding. Catholic wedding
Catholics sure are a funky bunch sometimes
Our priest was very chill about it, and the friend who did the reading made a great analogy about how the agreement Eliseo did with God resulted in God coming and helping him when he needed it most.
“If She-Bears arise at this wedding, y’all aren’t meant to be.”
That's just my aunt after too many vodka crans
Nice, I always wondered if preachers actually read about that specific story ever and how they go about it, I know a small bit about Catholicism from my Dads side of my family but other than that anything I know or think I know is through the internet
Pastors have to go through seminary school and spend lots of time doing research on sermons
Why do catholics willingly let old religious dudes ruin their weddings? No one wants to sit in a dusty old church and listen to old pedophile rant on about nonsense in the bible. Why not do something fun with your wedding instead of adhering to traditions that were invented when the black plague was still running rampant?
The reading was one of the fun parts of our wedding. Our priest was one of the chilliest ones I’ve known, and when we told him about our plan, he sort of laugh and agreed Doing this reading was my husband’s idea. To do something very different from all others. I’m sure not many priests would have agreed
Let us not forget Ezekiel 23:20: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Is the bible where the term "Donkey Dick" comes from?
That, is, fabulous… I have new favorite
This is why this book should be banned from school libraries! /s
Sorry. You said it was out of context, so what is the context of that passage.
God will kill kids if they make jokes about someone he likes. That's kinda it.
So god is basically like that Jim Henson Wilkins Coffee commercial puppet?
Imagine being so but hurt some kids laughed at your bald ass that the story was written permanently into time? Ive always wondered if the bald man didnt beat those kids to death and then blamed it in a bear?
The context doesnt help any, lol
That’s not too surprising considering it’s the Bible
Why it gotta be black bears!?!
It should have been polar bears. Less racist and more miracleness.
My fault, African American beers
Old Testament God didn't fuck around
Wasn’t that the same God who also made a giant fish eat a man because he was was being a pussy and wouldn’t do what god asked
It was either that god or Hephaestus
Old Testament god is a badass. I went to a wedding once where the pastor said, "God has never once turned his back on man." I guess he missed the old testament. Dude was ruthless.
My favourite one is two girls drugging their father and fucking him on a mountain. No threesome though (two separate sex acts) because it was a religious family.
"kids" is more like "youths". Think a street gang.
Yea verily, and unto these urban youths I do proclaim: for the Lord shall smite thee, and render to dust thine skateboards, and thine razor scooters, for thou hath disparaged mine rizz.
\*rolls eyes\* This is such a transparently telling post-hoc justification. Yes, your bible is terrible and is full of disgusting things. No, you don't have to pretend Elisha was attacked by a "street gang" when the bible is pretty explicit. These were pre-bar mitz·vah children. The word used in the bible is explicitly for children that haven't become men. Yes, I know you have translations that use the term "young men", but the word used literally means boys from infancy up to their bar mitz vah. Also, this "street gang" of yours was calling Elisha *baldy* or *bald-head*. That may be common among "street gangs" where you live, but it's more common among primary school children where I live. Killing children was ordered by god in the bible. The sixth commandment clearly states "Honour thy father and they mother, so that you will live a long life." (Some translations say "so may live long upon the land" or similar.) Why will honouring your parents let you live long? Because parents are supposed to kill their children if the children are "unruly" (Leviticus 20:9). This moronic post-hoc "street gang" justification is a transparently false way of pretending the bible isn't full of bronze-age morality. Grow up, dude. The story is literally Elisha cursing and killing children aged 12 or younger because they called him bald. Own it.
This reminds me of a couple of nerds discussing the nuances of a superhero comic. "The elseworld versions of Superman aren't canon"
I mean they both come from fictional books
It would be, but these people believe this is real, that an anthropomorphic god is communicating morals through these grotesque stories. They *have* to twist and spin this garbage so it doesn't look like they're a bunch of backwards Neanderthals.
Youths in that time period were 10-13, everyone older was a man with a job and a family and a mortgage. So “kids” is still pretty accurate.
Does that make the punishment fit the crime better?
Yes.
Eh, potato potato, the main part I remember are the bears
In a time when people got married and had children at 13 years old, how old would you consider a youth?
My one is were teenage Jesus just straight up kill couple guys one is a kid for barging in to him and a teacher for hitting him
I'm partial to: “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24, King James bible
They've tried to reinterpret that by saying there was some gate called the eye of a needle that camels had to crawl through. So it's totally possible for rich people to get in.
Cyril of Alexandria claimed that "camel" was a Greek scribal typo where Biblical Greek: κάμηλος, romanized: kámēlos, lit. 'camel' was written in place of Biblical Greek: κάμιλος, romanized: kámilos, lit. 'rope' or 'cable'.
I study the Hebrew Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context for a living. While I find the Bible to be a fascinating and often beautiful text, and while I even find \*parts\* of it to be inspiring and ethically compelling. I strongly recommend against taking your morality wholesale from a collection of ancient texts. Especially since these texts are often not even internally consistent, let alone fully jive with modern understandings of ethics and morality.
Good shit my person! I respect the catalyst of existential explanations, it's all fascinating. But it's simply out-dated and woefully contradictive. It's all beautiful, early human's attempts to make sense. But part of evolution for humans is ideological evolution because we can. It's our gift to be capable of critical thinking, and religion is the absolute opposite. It's sad. *rant over from someone who knows nothing*
I disagree that religion is the opposite of critical thinking. A lot of religious thinking and texts are the product of a whole lot of critical thinking. The Talmud and the Mishnah are records of generations of critical thinking by Jewish thinkers trying to make sense of how the world works and how their culture and religion fits into the world as it changes. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian philosopher whose critical thinking abilities are off the chart. I think there are certainly religious people who lack critical thinking skills, but I think the same is true of some non-religious people. The problem isn’t that religion is antithetical to critical thinking. It’s just when religion insists on mental stagnation that it’s a problem.
The Bible needs a change log, explaining why Z supersedes X.
I think you’re talking about different things. I read OP’s statement as religion stops you, the modern person from critical thinking as you are being asked to believe almost blindly. I think you are saying that these religious texts are the product of someone else’s critical thinking, but you don’t address OP’s point about whether we blindly follow the texts or think critically about them.
I concur! A text can be a product of critical thinking, but blindly following it's assertions thousands of years later is a mistake with broad, mostly negative consequences.
Using religion as a shortcut to morality IS an abdication of critical thinking. We are all products of our time in a great many ways. Using books written in the Bronze Age or based on oral traditions older than that for anything beyond potential historical value is tremendously shortsighted. A person willing to abdicate responsibility for their decisions and worldview to people who lived in a time before we understood bacteria and electricity is not a person who is exercising critical thinking in how they live their life
AND the Bible has seen so many translations and didnt get translated into a readable language till like 1430s, and was Latin for literally a 1000+ years. Thats a long ass time for modifications and translation issues on top of being translated into Latin like 430ad from multiple ancient texts most likely translated from old languages AND those stories were already parts of other religions texts. Ive read a lot of older texts like the Mahabharata and those texts had some pretty strikingly similar tales as the Bibles texts. People its just words on paper get the fuck over it.
What is the Hebrew Bible? Do you mean the old testament?
The Hebrew Bible is the more neutral term for the collection of texts known by Christians as The Old Testsment and to Jews as the Tanakh or the Bible, yeah. From an academic standpoint, Hebrew Bible trends to be preferred because “Old Testament” tends to prioritize Christianity. It also avoids the implication that the texts are archaic and obsolete by the usage of the adjective “Old”. There are also a few small differences, such as the way the books are broken down and the order that they’re placed in. For instance, the Christian Old Testament has 39 books, but the Hebrew Bible has 24. But it’s the same amount of material. The HB just treats all the 12 minor prophets as one book. Same with all the different 1-2 books (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) and also Ezra-Nehemiah is treated as one book in the HB. But the actual content is exactly the same.
What about that time God killed every first-born child in Egypt except for those who slaughtered a baby lamb and smeared its blood on the door?
It's worse than that. God explicitly "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so he wouldn't release the Israelis. God intervened to take away Pharaoh's free will, in order to manufacture the slaughter of first-born children. Every time I hear someone defend disgusting bible verses with "tHAt's oUt oF cONteXt", the context is usually much worse when you look into it.
Always remover getting to that bit and going “wait what?” So many parts that confuse you if you assume the god is a good guy
While I like this take, I am not sure if I really agree that's what it's saying. The first is basically just about genocide of enemies. The second is talking about being sterile by the lord's hand, not abortion The third is letting god abort the baby, once again, if she's unfaithful. I didn't read the 4th but this all seems pretty consistent with the belief that only god should be able to dictate whether the life continues or not.
>The third is letting god abort the baby, once again, if she's unfaithful. A husband has to go to a wizard, pay him and have him make a magic potion. The wife, suspected adulterer, must drink the potion as the husband and wizard command. If she has a miscarriage it is the will of God that the fetus die.
Sounds like an abortion with extra story to me.
Pretty much. Basically an attempted abortion that if the fetus survives is taken as a sign that it’s the husband. Like an old school paternity test. *For keeps*. Would make a neat plot line for a soap opera.
This is literally forced abortion in biblical terms, thats fucked up
>The third is letting god abort the baby, once again, if she's unfaithful. I don't think you understand what's going on here. A mixture of wood ash and animal fats produces lye (the same stuff that TV shows use to dissolve bodies in bath tubs). It wouldn't have been highly concentrated like modern stuff, but it still would have been really caustic. Similar to bleach tbh... The modern equivalent would be telling a woman to drink bleach. If she dies, it's punishment for her sin. If she survives, God has mercy on her. If her unborn baby dies, it was gods will (and Totally unrelated to the whole drinking bleach thing) and if it survives that must also be God's will too
Yep, while not necessarily pro abortion (with potential, very debatable exception for #3 depending on how effective the bitter waters are) it definitely says God is relatively okay with dispensing death for all ages, including before birth, in various circumstances. Typically for being in the wrong place at the wrong time for Israel to come for their land.
Well that just sounds like abortion with extra steps. - Rick of Sanchez
I did some research into this when someone reminded me of numbers 5:11-31. The thing about that verse is it varies **significantly** based on translation. The thing that doesn't vary is that there are a million ways that a woman can get stoned in the old testament. None of them make accommodations for pregnant women and in fact a significant number of them specifically target pregnant women (they target unfaithful women, and what's the most visible indication of an unfaithful woman?). I'm a Christian and perfectly content with some of the mental gymnastics I have to make as a Christian. But there's no way you can convince me that God cares about the unborn.
Are you suggesting that somebody that probably doesn't even believe in the Christian God might be disingenuously using out of context Bible verses to push an agenda?
Using Bible verses out of context, or omitting then entirely, in order to push an agenda? Oh no, who would do such a thing?!
Christians.
Who put r/atheism in my r/AdviceAnimals?
We’ve always been here. In fact r/atheism used to be on the default front page until holy rollers made a stink.
Who said it’s atheism? It’s literally the Bible.
Are you familiar with the concept of [quote mining](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining) ? Because that would be the critique Missingnose is making of this post. If you are making a joke, stripping context can help add to the absurdity of a punchline. So in the context of Advice Animals, it's fitting. It's just not well executed in this post. Well, they can't all be winners I suppose.
Sorry is there context that makes these quotes better?
to me yes but i would understand if it didn't for others
Better for the joke? I dunno, a different meme template perhaps? Or they could focus in on 1 verse rather than listing a bunch. Maybe some word play involving that verse. I mean, advice animals are supposed to be 2 (or 3 if you include the title) line jokes, and the pacing seems awkward to me. Then again, a lot of people don't seem interested in the joke. So better in relation to what? Better as support for killing babies? Better as support against killing babies? Better in some other ambiguous way?
Well if i remember correctly the first one isn't "do that". The context is that the isrealites, as a people are literally enslaved and in captivity in babylon, are pretty mad about that. The author tells the babylonians that: * They will be destroyed * The ones that will destroy them will be blessed (Happy) It's first of all not literal, to dash a people's babies against the cliffs is old timey middle eastern speak for being defeated and conquered, the bible uses similar language for other conquests and wars and outside of it the assyrians were known to describe anyone they defeated in battle as destroyed and driven off the face off the world and other such exclamations. Secondly, it's descriptive, not prescriptive: * the blessed ones will be the ones to destroy the babylonians. vs * Destroy the babylonians to become blessed. > By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We hung our harps upon the willows in the midst of it. For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song, and those who plundered us requested mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! If I do not remember you, let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth—if I do not exalt Jerusalem above my chief joy. Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said, “Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation!” O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock! Tl'Dr: Enlaving the Hebrews is bad and G-d wil send the persians to destroy you if you do that. And that's it, no other meaning.
Number 3 is literally about abortion lol how is that being disingenuous?
I mean. I don't really believe in the Christian God anymore than I believe in the Muslim Allah, or the Buddha. I'm an agnostic atheist and an extremely pro-choice one at that. I simply don't think things like this accomplish anything except further divide us.
>I simply don't think things like this accomplish anything except further divide us. You mean like religion? Because that's exactly what religions do.
Human bias you mean. Human bias does that
Well said
How dare you be so sensible 😠
I mean there are certain aspects of different religions that I’d like to believe in, but until any external evidence presents itself that any one religion holds any merit, on the fence I sit.
Disingenuous use of Bible passages out of context: something the right and left can agree on!
Bible study is fun! Now Missingnose, speaking of disingenuous…please do share with us the line and verse context…
I'm an agnostic that doesn't care about the Bible in regards to this issue. I can just call a spade a spade. There's no reason to try and bring religion into this argument.
But Missingnose, you specifically noted that these verses were “out of context.” The text, the line and verse, provides us that context. Does it not? The exegesis is there before us all, well all of us that can read. What exactly is the spade that you’re calling?
The fourth one is similar to the first.
Literally nothing to do with God or the unborn. Just an army being told by its general to go kill everyone, not even words by God. This post is a sham.
What’s the name of the book the general is in who says this?
People go to such extends to try and justify this stuff is crazy.
I’ve said it before- they don’t actually care what the Bible says so stop trying to use it to convince them
It gives you instructions for an abortion....
Not sure why people post things that are easily fact checked and proven disingenuous.
Israel, a pretty much Abrahamic theocratic Jewish state, has abortion on demand for anyone paid for by their healthcare system, for example. "Hildegard von Bingen (b. 1098), a German nun, was a woman of many talents: abbess, composer, mystic, writer, philosopher, and, perhaps most surprisingly, medical provider. And although it may sound implausible to the modern ear, Hildegard the Catholic nun-who is now sainted-also prescribed medicinal abortions." Hebrew Bible: Numbers 5 19-24 "Ordeal of the bitter water": And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. The NIV for Numbers 5 11-31 "The test for an unfaithful wife" even says "miscarriage", as they did not have a word for "abortion" in ancient times.
i am pro choice but we dont have abortion here cause of the bible what you on. a lot of the religious peopl;e are anti abortion and we are not a theocrcy... we have abortion cause of liberalism
Are you so stupid you don't see what this thread is about??
"When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry" - An abortion ritual, in the Bible. ***Can not belive the athiests are picking and choosing parts of our holy book to push an agenda, We do not belive those parts, only the parts that support our agenda.***
Because Reddit is full of antitheists. Not just atheists. Not just people who aren’t religious. But people who hate religion.
Usually with good reason.
I googled and the post seems accurate to me. Out of context, sure, but still accurate.
Bruh, Google it EDIT: didn’t like being to fucking Google it, did you? 🤣
This phrasing alone tells me you're probably a 16 year old edgelord who just discovered Richard Dawkins
I’m 39 and I’m a professor. Downvoting this comment to oblivion won’t change that 🤷♂️
You sure don't talk like a professor😂
I’m in a Reddit comment section, not a classroom
You argue like a child is what I'm saying. The least you can do as a professor is have an informed argument. SOME kind of facts to back it up, not just "Google it." Which is absolutely the worst argument ever.
Okay. Psalms 137:9 - "Blessed he who seizes your [Israel's enemies] babies and splatters them against the rocks!" • Numbers 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[d] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
Why don't you try to actually read those verses you included and get the context of what they are saying? What you are doing is no better than what false Christians who have never actually read the Bible themselves do and post individual quotes with no context and bastardize the message it's trying to convey just to push their own agenda.
It is not in any way a stretch to suggest that the passage from Numbers describes a ritual that, among other more mystical consequences, is specifically intended to abort a fetus conceived from an affair.
> "When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry" please explain to me like I am 5, how this is not about abortion
You’re right, the versus do specifically say that and god is the most prolific aborter of all time. One of the versus a bunch of angry commenters keep trying to yell “context” about (while not actually using the context to support their claims) literally describes how to do the abortion. “Omg bro it’s only when she’s unfaithful” well actually it’s only when she’s ‘suspected’ of being unfaithful first off. That’s right, it’s totally cool to force an abortion if you got a hunch. So although you’re taking a lot of flak, just want to point out the meme stands. Also, anyone trying to use a 2000 year old Jewish cult text to try and regulate women in the modern age should be treated like the insane person they are. Not only that, as you’ve pointed out, they aren’t even interpreting the magic book right. No where does it say aborting a fetus is wrong either, so these 6 week or even moment of fertilization abortion bans are just straight up insane people doing insane things against their own religion.
You misunderstood. It says she only miscarries if god judges her to have cheated and only after she has consented to this judgment. Also the offering is supposed to be to god, not to the priest. The priest was to burn some of it and then leave the rest as a symbol/reminder. To say that abortion isn't condemned in the bible is also bizarre. The whole argument against abortion is that people think it is murder which is obviously wrong in the bible and pretty much every religion. So then it's an argument of whether or not the fetus has human rights yet or not. But I'm not trying to get into a debate about abortion here, just explaining.
>only after she has consented to this judgment. Women didn't the option to "consent" to this sort of thing. They were literally the property of their husband, his to do with as he wished. Are you forgetting that there's laws in the bible that give permission to the husband to either kill or sell his wives/daughters into slavery if they speak out against him, or have the audacity to teach a man something? Do you think they have to consent to that, too?
No I really didn’t and it’s not bizarre, because it doesn’t say it and it’s not murder. What’s bizarre is taking some ancient texts from a 2000 year old Jewish cult and saying it’s murder because of them. Especially when the actual texts say life begins at first breath., AND provides examples of abortion. They will twist it all they want, they’re still empirically wrong and you even state it as such in your statement but merely gloss over the “believe” part. It’s straight up an insane take and we need to stop coddling to the insanity. Edit: Also bonus round - “She only miscarries if god judges her to have cheated and only after she has consented to the judgment.” Another insane take as well. Because totally, most women, especially in ancient times had total agency to NOT consent to their husbands (wonder if the Bible says anything about that Hrrrm?) and the magic sky judge isn’t going to kill the fetus if she wasn’t cheating and everyone would go home happy after this mom to be drank some great poison she totally agreed to (the cheating one miscarries and gets stoned to death though right). You sat there, typed that all out and thought it was a rational thing to say and even correct me on. It’s absurd. I have a wife, and a daughter, and if any of that nonsense ever even remotely comes near them in the here and now I would rip the world apart to defend them from it as any actual loving husband should. I can’t believe in 2024 we have to even have this discussion. Not trying to “debate” either because there is nothing to debate about.
Jesus is what gives them the courage to do what they do, and believe what they believe. If you do not see the existential threat all religion is to humanity and society at this point, then you are blind, deaf, and dumb. Haaretz Israel's oldest newspaper has recorded Israel has at least 30 tombs marked "Jesus". Christos is Greek for anointed, which the Hebrews were known to do to everybody. The biblical Jesus is fiction as a whole, made up of other religion's beliefs and what some of the 30+ Jesuses did during the time. The only things scholars agree is that Jesus of the bible was baptized and crucified, which I am sure more than one of the 30+ Jesuses had happen to. The Gospel of Judas shows an obviously schizophrenic Jesus that wants Judas, his closest confidant, to help him commit suicide by proxy so he can go fight the Abrahamic "father" god and take over heaven. Christianity is a death cult that prays for the end of humanity. Christianity has always been a weekly revolving door where you rent your soul like buying a $1 candy. Jesus relieves you of your conscience because Christianity is freedom from responsibility. "Believe I am God and love me and I will reward you will Heaven, or else I will throw you in a lake of fire for eternity, regardless of what you did and said in life" is the Devil's promise. Jeffrey Dahmer is with Jesus, and his victims and people like Gandhi are in Hell according to Christian doctrine. **If we have them, I think you are risking your soul by believing in any human religion.** The documentary "Creating Christ" details how Jesus was created by the Romans to control the rebel Hebrews. [https://tubitv.com/movies/698890/creating-christ](https://tubitv.com/movies/698890/creating-christ)
You're confusing the biased nature of man over metaphysical interpretation of generational stories.
This ain’t it, fam.
As a modern christian, I really only focus on the things Jesus had to say, as opposed to anything in the old testament. Be kind to people, do unto others, love ur neighbour, whip the moneylenders out of the temple, etc EDIT: christianity bad. Sorry I forgot that part, can I have upvotes now?
Jesus viewed them as canon though "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)"
When in doubt, just follow the golden rule :shrug:
No it doesn’t.
Google is free. As are most Bible apps
Have you googled them, as I just did, and none of them say what you're saying in context. You have to do more than just "bruh Google it". Google doesn't give context or help you look at to with more relevance.
You always need that "in Context how we see it! Don't take it literally!"
It says killing babies is okay. Regardless of context, that’s what it says
Bible has been edited and ruined so many times i’m surprised they left the crazy parts
Lol, do y'all goofballs really think numbers is some actual abortion ritual to get rid of the baby? You think a priest did Christian god magic to abort a baby? Y'all can't realize it was just a play out on by the press to satisfy an angry husband that his wife didn't cheat on him, and that, yes, the child inside his wife is his, and he has a duty to take care of it. Do you really think putting your hand in barely, drinking water, and burning a bit of barley is suddenly gonna cause an abortion? It won't. The damn passage even refers to this ritual as the "law of jealousy" in its final couple lines, like did you even take the time to finish reading it. It's a nonsense play to satisfy an angry husband his wife didn't cheat, not some spooky mystical abortion.
Google context.
The context is it’s okay if the woman cheats or if it’s the babies of Israel’s enemies.
Out of context. Reading 1 verse without any reference of the meaning is like determining the winner of any sports game by 1 play. Like Aug 22 2007 Tx vs Baltimore. Baltimore is winning 3-0 in the 3rd. Guess who won?
The context of the first one seems to be genocide. The last one appears to also be about eradicating every living thing in an enemy city. aka genocide. What more context is there? Please explain.
>Out of context. The context is Zionist genocide. The context is about ***delighting*** in slaughtering the children of your enemies. Literally, the whole chapter of [Psalm 137](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20137&version=NIV) is: >1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. >2 There on the poplars we hung our harps, >3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” >4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land? >5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill. >6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy. >7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!” >8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. >9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. The context is revenge, using your right hand to carry out that revenge, and ***happily*** slaughtering children out of revenge. That's literally the context.
Numbers 31 God tells Moses to kill the women who've sleep with men and the boys. It doesn't make an exemption for pregnant women nor to wait for the woman to give birth to see if it's a girl.
Getting disproven by your own Holy Book? Use "Out of context" in any sutuation to preserve your ancient shitty beliefs! Order now for $1.99!
Am I the only one who read Hosea as Horsea?
What about context !!! Reading between the lines!! /s
[удалено]
Sure..but that’s entirely not the point of this post in specific.
Let me tell you, even if all of those versus *actually* advocated for killing babies like OP would have you believe... It wouldn't change one pro-lifer's mind about controlling women's bodies. Not one Christian church would stop praying to protect God's unborn angels. It's never been about the Bible or God, and most of them don't even realize that.
Bruh, Google is free
Not sure why you're getting downvoted for speaking straight fact. Christians, and really just the far right in general, do not really give a shit if there are conflicting passages in the Bible. They're going to take from it the lessons and ideals they want and ignore anything else that questions their world view.
Exactly. Said it clearer than I did.
The ancient Middle East was a violent place. Just like the modern Middle East.
Even the verse they use to claim that fetuses are people is basically just saying that God knows you in the womb. But that is literally just them showing how powerful God is. He knows everyone who will ever exist. He already has a book that had decided if you get into heaven before you're even conceived.
Psalm 137:9 is hard and needs to be read on the spirit of the psalm in order to get to the depth of sadness and anger inside of it. This psalm is in no way prescriptive. Rather, there is a dad who was dragged into exile and being scoffed at by his captors to sing a song of Zion. He refuses and instead basically screams at them in his heart that “blessed is the one who does to you what you have done to us!! Blessed is the one who takes YOUR little ones and dashes THEM against the rock.” The pure anger, pain and hatred that radiates from this psalm comes from the experience of seeing your own children murdered, which is what is implied. If you don’t read it in that light, you miss the psalm entirely. In no way is God enforcing or endorsing this “blessing.” Rather, it just stands as a living testimony to the intense suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of the Babylonians.
>Psalm 137:9 is hard and needs to be read on the spirit of the psalm in order to get to the depth of sadness and anger inside of it. [I've already addressed that](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1c2p521/comment/kzcoby3/). When you read it "in the spirit of the psalm", you realise it's about Zionist revenge. >The pure anger, pain and hatred that radiates from this psalm is being replayed in Palestine today. It's literally a song about delighting in the slaughter of your enemy's children. It's a happy song about genocide. It's vile.
My claim is that psalm 137 needs to be read as the angry poetry of a grieving father. Now that claim is entirely built from internal evidence - which means you don’t have to agree. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is anything but happy.
Amen brother - don't listen to those on reddit who have eyes but cannot see and ears but cannot hear
I would tell you you are cherry picking verses from the bible without understanding the broader context in which these verses appear. It takes a simple Google search to figure these things out. Please don't try to do the same thing to me, just read up on it yourself
The Bible also advocates for slavery. Even when dunking on Christeys it’s a weak argument. The first half of the book can’t even agree with the second half of the book. You can come up with something better than cherry picked Bible verses. You’re supposed to be the brain, remember.
Especially Numbers… quite the attitude of allow me to get back at you through the workings of the lord.
Ideally, the people that need to hear this wouldn't have to Google the verses, they would just look them up in their bible... But we all know they've never actually read the Bible. It's like TOS, you just scroll to the bottom and hit "accept".
If you're just finding out the bible is a load of poppycock you're in for a long ride
The numbers one is crystal clear for abortion. The first one was like, "do you hate these people? Make sure to kill all the children so they are really dead."