I’m saying anyone claiming to be Christian and getting involved in politics is not a Christian.
Yes it’s true that the Bible says abortion is wrong. But that’s for the reader to apply to themselves, not forcibly apply to everyone else through politics.
It’s no different than Jainism with eating meat. They outright do not eat meat as a religious practice, which is fine. But imagine if they protested and took office to make it law that no one else can eat meat.
The Bible even says that people should not be getting involved in politics. So it’s a double whammy with forcing their beliefs onto other people through a means that God doesn’t approve.
I’m also curious. The bible says life begins after birth, when God breathes life into the lungs. This is stated multiple times. You are not alive until you take your first breath.
That’s kind of a stretch. The “breathing life into lungs” is a figurative way of saying “giving life to” or even “putting life into”. We don’t breathe “life”, we breathe “air”. And throughout time the act of breathing is associated with being alive. It’s visual and testable. When someone stops breathing, they die. No one dead breaths. So if you’re breathing, you’re alive.
The Bible also mentions the life of an unborn child multiple times, and no one today would say a fetus isn’t alive.
When you stop breathing you’re no longer a “living person”. Your cells are often alive for a while and there are some human cell lineages that have persisted for some time past the animal death. You are still biologically alive after its clear you’ve died as a person.
Even in the bible they don’t value a fetus like they do a person
There is ambiguity in the word “life” that doesnt translate well even among english speakers.
Suppose some “angel” did come down and try to communicate something to you and you wrote it down in english words today, do you think you’d be able to capture and tell people accurately what the angel intended or do you think its possible to maybe misquote a divine messager such that a bunch of dumbasses in a second language think a fetus is a person and use that interpretation as a test of faith that they mandate into law?
When you stop breathing you’re no longer a “living person”. Your cells are often alive for a while and there are some human cell lineages that have persisted for some time past the animal death. You are still biologically alive after its clear you’ve died as a person.
I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say. You’re hyper-fixating on the exact modern definition of a specific word.
There is ambiguity in the word “life” that doesnt translate well even among english speakers.
There absolutely is no ambiguity when talking about a person. You are either alive or not. Yes it’s possible to resuscitate someone after “clinical death”, but even that is well understood. Clinical death is the absence of vitals (heart beat, sinus rhythm, etc). And we also understand that as long as cellular respiration is occurring at the molecular level, the body hasn’t gone past the point of no return. However, once brain death or cellular death has occurred, it’s over. We understand all of this. We also understand that even with modern medical knowledge there’s nothing we can do past a certain point even in the most ideal conditions. And ideal conditions would be in a hospital bed surrounded by medical experts. We understand there is a hard line between “alive” and “not alive”.
Even in the bible they don’t value a fetus like they do a person
Except that even harming a woman who is pregnant, even accidentally, causing a miscarriage is considered punishable by death in the Mosaic Law. “A life for a life”. So no, you’re wrong.
do you think you’d be able to capture and tell people accurately what the angel intended or do you think its possible to maybe misquote a divine messager such that a bunch of dumbasses in a second language think a fetus is a person and use that interpretation as a test of faith that they mandate into law?
I’m very foggy on what you’re trying to say here. But if I have the gist of it, you’re asking if the writer of a Bible book could have misinterpreted an angel and wrote the wrong thing down. And then later on someone incorrectly translated the writings so that the 2nd language people “think a fetus is a person” and take it as a test of faith to mandate it into law?
It doesn’t explicitly say “abortion is wrong”, but it is inferred from other things like the sacredness of life, etc.
Anyways, that wasn’t the point of my comment. The point of my comment was that it doesn’t matter what the Bible says in the context of abortion. It’s not ok to force your beliefs on to others.
Spot on. There is no room for interpretation in the Bible for bigotry, violence, or hatred towards anyone.
The Bible does say “hate what is bad”, but never “hate WHO is bad”. In fact it says the opposite. The Bible literally says to “love your enemy” and “love your neighbour”. Anyone can be your neighbour.
But like you said, most people who are vocal in such things either haven’t read the Bible or don’t understand the words they read. Nothing is preventing any single one of those people from practicing what they believe. Other people being “ungodly” doesn’t impact themselves in any way.
Religion, unfortunately, is more often coopted as a tool for control than used for peace.
Edit: I like that I’m being downvoted for agreeing with dimlo, who is being upvoted. Feels like being on Reddit again.
What I’m saying is that it’s not a fair comparison. The definition of a “true Scotsman” is subjective outside of literally being born in Scotland.
The definition of a Christian is defined by the teachings in the Bible. If that definition isn’t met then you cannot claim to be a “true” Christian. One of those definitions is to not be involved with politics. Jesus rejected being called king because his “kingdom is no part of this world”.
John 18:36 Jesus answered: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.”
Matthew 20:25,26: But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. This must not be the way among you
And yet that’s exactly what these Christian groups are doing; wielding power over others.
Are the other interpretations disagreeing with me or with the Bible itself? I’m showing verses directly from the Bible that state clearly what I previously mentioned.
It’s difficult to interpret something that’s clearly stated. And I’m not trying to interpret anything here, I’m simply showing directly what the Bible says.
They wouldn’t care what I say. It doesn’t suite their goals.
I’m not sure why this difficult to understand. These people are using the Bible as a hammer to force others to do what they want. If it wasn’t the Bible, of the Bible didn’t exist, it would just be something else.
These people are using the Bible as a hammer to force others to do what they want.
AKA The Vatican and Christian leaders circa ~800 AD until Present. At some point you need to admit that Christianity and power dynamics are inseparable. You can argue semantics to people who don’t care all day, but at the end of the day the vast majority of “Christian” identifying people are just bots in a global power scheme. Christianity has not been in an unmolested state for millenia. Modern day Christianity and the power that came from it’s manipulation are one and the same, baked together throughout the ages, regardless of your semantics.
AKA The Vatican and Christian leaders circa ~800 AD until Present.
at the end of the day the vast majority of “Christian” identifying people are just bots in a global power scheme.
Christianity has not been in an unmolested state for millenia.
Agreed all all points.
Modern day Christianity and the power that came from it’s manipulation are one and the same, baked together throughout the ages, regardless of your semantics.
Mostly agreed.
I myself am a Christian and I find it deplorable and disgusting what most Christians say and do. What others want to do is none of my business and has no impact on what I believe. And my beliefs should not be imposed on anyone ever.
The way I see it is that most Christian values equate to just being a decent person and I think most people generally fit that bill regardless of their spirituality or faith. I would personally never identify as a Christian explicitly because of the state the religion is in. It seems to me that most people who proclaim to be Christian these days are just using it as a charade to be bigoted, hateful, and intolerant (see: millenia old power structures). Christ would flip so many tables if he came back and saw the shit people were doing/saying in his name.
See, the thing is that “Christian” is more an umbrella term at this point. Even hundreds of years ago there were literal wars between different Christians. This is why the Anabaptists had their “third” baptism.
Christ would flip so many tables if he came back and saw the shit people were doing/saying in his name.
Where exactly does the Bible say that abortion is wrong? Have you read the Old Testament? There are so many dead babies there you could use them for the foundations of the tower of Babel. There’s even a method described for inducing abortion.
Hold my grape juice while I come up with afactual refutations for every point you asserted because I fail to understand the difference between scholarship and wishful thinking. /s
It doesn’t explicitly say that abortion is wrong. It says that life is sacred and that killing someone is wrong. The Mosaic Law even said that if a pregnant woman was harmed, even accidentally, and it caused the baby to miscarry then the offender should be put to death, a “life for a life”.
Have you read the Old Testament? There are so many dead babies there you could use them for the foundations of the tower of Babel. There’s even a method described for inducing abortion.
Yes, I have read it. Just because something is mentioned in the Bible, it isn’t an endorsement. There are many accounts of people doing terrible things, but that doesn’t mean we should all go and do those things. They are there either as a historical account or as an example of what not to do.
Not at all. Preaching is different than pushing. Preaching is just sharing the info and letting the other person decide for themselves.
But you’re right that these anti-abortion laws are “pushing” those beliefs. However, that’s nothing to with religion itself, but people who want to exert control. Religion (the Bible) just becomes a means to do that. It’s an effective tool for those with ill intention because most people don’t really know the Bible, so it’s hard (if not impossible) to argue against somewhen when don’t know all the talking points.
So then the narrative becomes “this is what the Bible says, the Bible is from God, are you going against the word of God?”
When in reality it’s either twisting the words or just a flat out lie. The Bible makes it very clear that God’s people do not get involved with politics.
Specifically it says the world is in the power of the “wicked one”, the devil. Satan also offered Jesus control of all the world powers of Jesus performed one act of worship to Satan. This offer would have been empty, and Jesus would have known it, if Satan couldn’t make on that promise. Jesus also said “God’s people are no part of this world, just as in no part of this world” referring to him rejecting being made king.
The point I’m trying to make is that if someone actually studies the Bible, they would understand that politicizing abortion is just wrong on so many levels.
So Christianity in its common form in the US is about exerting control. But that’s not what Christianity, or religion in general, is about.
But that’s irrelevant if the information they have is wrong (meaning the information they think they have from the Bible).
Otherwise we could just as easily say that science is a problem because flat earthers say they use science, which they do claim but we know their knowledge is science is wrong.
The problem with religion is that it’s not objective. You can’t argue that they’re wrong if they’re invoking a passage that requires interpretation. And if they believe god is supporting them in their journey, which again can’t be refuted, there is not much you can say to stop them.
I disagree. There are many things in the Bible that are very clear. The idea that the Bible requires interpretation that can be variable is not true. The issue is that you need to read the entire Bible first. Unfortunately most people take bits and pieces out of context as proof for or against something, and they often never question it further because it supports their existing worldview.
And if they believe god is supporting them in their journey, which again can’t be refuted, there is not much you can say to stop them.
Except the Bible shows that God’s people should not be involved in politics. There’s no getting around that one.
You are inherently wrong, as clearly there are quite a few christians who disagree with you. I’d wager most. No amount of no true scotsman will get around the fact that this is an ideology perpetuated by christianity, wether you agree with how the people are going about it or not.
I mean I only need to point out the division between the church and theology🤷♀️
You are inherently wrong, as clearly there are quite a few christians who disagree with you.
They can disagree with me until the end of time. It won’t change the fact that they aren’t following what the Bible teaches.
No amount of no true scotsman will get around the fact that this is an ideology perpetuated by christianity
But it can’t be perpetuated by Christianity if it goes against Christian teaching, can it?
I mean I only need to point out the division between the church and theology
What of it?
We’re arguing about slightly different things here, while fundamentally agreeing with each other. We’re both saying these people are out of line with what they’re doing and it’s wrong. You’re saying it’s because of Christianity, and I’m saying it’s because they’re terrible people.
Basically, you’re arguing (I’m trying to steelman you here, please correct me if I’m wrong) that Christianity made them terrible people. But I’m arguing they’re terrible people using Christianity as a pretense to exert control.
Then please present why the bible is objectively not against abortion.
Your insistence that christianity is not open to interpretation on this issue is objectively wrong, as clearly there are others who do not interpret as you do. You cannot argue against this.
If this is genuinely objectively not what the bible is teaching, then christianity as a whole is a sham, because that is the prevalent teaching in christian spaces. You and your peers should probably break off and form your own flavour, as the majority of christians will not back you in this matter, including the actual institutions who claim to teach the word of god. Your insistence is that the prevalent interpretation is wrong. Think about it. Even if that is true, if the wrong teaching is prevalently being taught in christianity, then it is still a fault of christianity.
Preaching is the assumption others want to hear about your religion. It’s a bit like being a Magic the Gathering Fan boy. You’re going to tell everyone about it even though their eyes are glazed over and they have tried to change the subject 3 times in the past 5 minutes. Live a life that makes people go, hey why are you so kind and generous and loving I want to know about that, then answer their questions, otherwise you’re just another boring fanboi prattling on.
Preaching is the assumption others want to hear about your religion.
That’s beating someone over the head with a Bible. Preaching is talking about it to others. If the person says “not thanks” or “not interested” then that’s it. The act of preaching is done. Anything else beyond that is no longer preaching and is more like baggering.
I know what you’re saying and I absolutely understand, but it’s not fair to lump someone trying to be nice (and someone trying to share something they feel is positive is being nice) and someone pushing an agenda and not being happy until everyone thinks like they do. There’s a lot of middle ground to be had.
Nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with control.
That’s literally the same thing. Christianity IS control. Religion - all religion - is a cancer on society. We don’t live in ancient times anymore. Religion’s usefulness has long since past. We don’t need to use it to explain who the world works and with that how to control individuals.
That’s literally the same thing. Christianity IS control. Religion - all religion - is a cancer on society.
I don’t begrudge anyone who feels that way. The amount of harm, torment, and just all out disgusting things done in the name of religion should make anyone throw up just thinking about it.
Absolutely deplorable. I feel so terrible for those women. What an awful thing to go through. Even if a pregnancy goes well, it’s still incredibly hard. It’s also likely that the twin only lived because they selectively reduced the twin pregnancy in another state.
The argument against them is ridiculous. That it was really doctors who failed them? How? What’s the logic in that? It’s impossible to detect these birth defects before six weeks pregnant. We don’t have the technology for it. But it’s not fatal for the birth parent, so Texas doesn’t care.
That their case should be dismissed because they had a “go fund me”? This one really gets me. How does a “go fund me” negate the actions of the state? Or is the logic really “they got money and they’re only doing this for money?”
But it’s not fatal for the birth parent, so Texas doesn’t care.
even worse, even when it’s fatal a lot of medical professionals are now afraid to act until something is IMMEDIATELY fatal in texas. you’ve got women suffering, waiting for a predictable medical disaster, hospitals telling them “come back when you’re septic” and won’t do anything before then.
I feel that any lawmaker who votes for these laws should be held personally liable in cases like these, much like medical professionals can be sued for medical malpractice. Every single one of them should be sued into abject financial destitution as a warning for anyone else to think twice before pulling shit like this ever again.
This is absolutely terrible and was completely foreseeable. Republicans are waging class warfare in the name of their invisible wizard in the sky. Laws that applies to the poor but not for the rich.
Where are the fucking insurance companies?! They should be screaming about forced birth legislation that causes tens of thousands of dollars in medical procedures they would otherwise not incur.
This is a flippant comment that disregards the fact that MANY MANY people have health insurance that is NOT shitty and in fact pays up without a lot of horseshit. You’re not really responding to the question posed, just griping about the terrible state of American healthcare access. I am honestly curious about what role health insurance companies could play in undermining forced birth legislation.
Given the options of “drive, fly, or take a bus somewhere” or “shit out a tangle of goop and limbs you schlep around for 8 months” then you can’t really blame anyone but yourself if you choose b. Additionally if you can’t afford $400 and a round trip plane ticket to Las Vegas to get it scraped out then what the fuck are you even doing having a kid in the first place?
Contextually, probably something about leaving the state for an abortion or not having sex unless you can afford the entirely government imposed consequences. Just typical incel rhetoric.
Not to mention this is the state that lets anybody claim a $10,000 bounty on anybody aiding an abortion. Can’t get anybody to cover your shift at work, watch your other kids, help you pay for doctors, flights, and hotels to just hop, skip, and jump on over to New Mexico because any busy body can sue those people for helping you get an abortion.
She lives in Houston. It’s a 12+ hour drive to the nearest state where it would be legal.
Texas is seeking to punish women who leave the state for healthcare. They’ve currently been blocked at the federal court level from doing that, at least for now.
None of this has been about punishing people who are able to take a few days off work to travel out of state for healthcare.
Yeah because that’s the answer, force a woman who doesn’t want/cant have a child to incur travel expenses when it should be a Healthcare service offered nearby.
Especially in this instance, where is an extremely traumatic pregnancy, let’s just go ahead and force her to seek travel accommodations on top of what she’s dealing with.
Add comment