I just had to comment on a billboard I saw the other day that said "God is Pro Life."  

REALLY????   Have these folks even read the Bible?

Views: 160

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

pro' 'that life' the bigoted one...
pro death otherwise...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/claude-alexander-allen-arr...

Anyone who thinks that Yahweh is pro-life hasn't read the old testament.  At minimum, they sure as hell haven't read about the Moabites, the Kenites, the Amalekites and all the other "ites" that got hammered 'cuz the big guy said to hammer 'em, and that doesn't even mention the bits about killing down to every man, woman and child (excepting the juicy virgin girls!).

Oh, and has anyone read Psalm 137:9 recently?

I was researching Psalm 137:9 and came across this defense of the verse:

The meaning is pretty obvious in context.

Ps 137 is a lament for Jerusalem after the Babylonians have invaded and destroyed it. Verses 7-9 make it explicit:

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.

This is sheer gloating on the part of the psalmist. Whoever overthrows Babylon is someone the author wants to buy a beer! (Put another way, that person is someone really popular with the author.) Whoever wrote this really hated the Babylonians, and would love to kill their children.

Is this "right?" Remember, this is a psalm - an ancient song of the Hebrews. I suspect many a future scholar will puzzle over, say, the misogynistic lyrics of Eminem or many like-minded rappers. Psalms express the feelings of the writer, NOT THEOLOGICAL RULES FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR. (Although, it is often argued that the feelings reflected in the Psalms should be that of a mature Christian.)

Note also, there is nothing that says "You should bash a baby against a rock." Doesn't fit with the text or the nature of God. It would be a misreading of the text, which actually proves the point there are "rules" for reading the text.

So, why is it in Scripture?

Who knows. 'Could be that God desired to illustrate that the Exiles had learned their lesson about spurning God's good gifts in Jerusalem, could just be that people agreed with the sentiment.

For a person who doesn't believe the Bible is a "real" book, this verse is actually a pretty good arguement. If the Bible were merely the work of "men with an agenda," there doesn't seem to be a good reason to let such a genuine feeling in here.

The Bible can be literal but still express itself in the language of feeling.

[Source: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/what-is-the-me...]


Let's pick this one apart, shall we.

1) The meaning is pretty obvious in context.

Ps 137 is a lament for Jerusalem after the Babylonians have invaded and destroyed it. Verses 7-9 make it explicit

Agreed.  In context, Psalm 137:7-9 is about the human desire for revenge, and explicit it is.  Keeping this verse in its original temporal context, it paints a very vivid and disturbing portrait of the mindset of 'god's chosen ones'.  How could such a sentiment be relevant today, except as an example of how not to react?

2) Whoever wrote this really hated the Babylonians, and would love to kill their children.

Indeed!

 

3) Is this "right?" Remember, this is a psalm - an ancient song of the Hebrews. I suspect many a future scholar will puzzle over, say, the misogynistic lyrics of Eminem or many like-minded rappers.

Restated: "It's only a song, and therefore moral judgment of these lyrics in the present temporal context is irrelevant."  I could not agree with is argument more.  Just as in argument (1) above, the only relevance in present context is, again, how not to act.  I also suspect, as does the author, that today's lyrics of Eminem will have the same relevance of Psalm 127:9 thousands of years from now.

4) Note also, there is nothing that says "You should bash a baby against a rock." 

True, it doesn't explicitly say to commit such an act.  Yet, it doesn't have to.  Its mere utterance is enough to plant a seed of an idea.

5) Doesn't fit with the text or the nature of God.

Such a bald-faced lie here!  There are plenty of examples throughout the Bible to prove this wrong, but only one is really needed.  Here it is:

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord."  - Romans 12:19

6) So, why is it in Scripture?  Who knows.

A better question: why is such scripture considered so relevant and even "good" to such a large portion of today's population?

7) For a person who doesn't believe the Bible is a "real" book, this verse is actually a pretty good arguement.

Who has ever said the Bible is not a real book?  Of course it's a book - or, more technically, a volume of books.

8) If the Bible were merely the work of "men with an agenda," there doesn't seem to be a good reason to let such a genuine feeling in here.

On the contrary, if the motive was control through fear including such lines make perfect sense!

My rationale is far simpler: anyone who would take revenge out on a CHILD deserves to be hung by his scrotum, and I don't care who they are or which god they worship!

Yes!

You have this perfectly correct! Thanks. 

Deaths cause by supernatural beings in the Bible.

God - 2.3 million

Satan - 10

And the trophy goes to our winner and still reigning champion of needless slaughter - YWHW!!!!

Give a big round of applause, folks.

Will a Bronx Cheer do?

A wave letting him know "He's No. #1" would be appropriate. But, it would be with the  middle finger!

Is it not odd how those who champion religion and scripture, have such flimsy evidence upon which to build their foundation?

It was really nice of god to give me 2 miscarriages then.  ha.

Anyone who thinks "God is Pro Life" only has to look around at the conflicts of the world and count how many hate-mongers exist, carrying placards, invading government meetings with their delusions, imposing  on education systems to teach mythology, using fear as a tactic. Or listen to the rhetoric of combatants, ie. Israel/Palestine, or the bombers, blasters, murderers, maimers of people providing and needing health services. These people are worse than scum. They lie, distort, pontificate, and just about every disgusting mechanisms one can think of to enforce their primitive beliefs and practices on others. Remember that awful group, Terrorist Organization Profile: Army of God?

"Army of God member James Kopp, alias Atomic Dog: 

Dr. Barnett Slepian in 1998, murdered in shooting. 

Dr. Garson Romalis in Vancouver, BC, on November 8, 1994, shooting and injury. 

Dr. Hugh Short in Ancaster, ON, on November 10, 1995 (Kopp is charged with this shooting),

an unnamed physician in Rochester, NY, on October 28, 1997, and

Dr. Jack Fainman in Winnipeg, MB, on November 11, 1997."

Who hid out theses murderous bomber, shooters, and killers? Pure cowards. He, and others like him, are criminals and should all be prosecuted for helping lay down this precious cargo of murder. 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Pat commented on Sentient Biped's group Food!
10 minutes ago
Joan Denoo liked Grinning Cat's photo
12 minutes ago
Sentient Biped replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion In Liberia Christian Churches blame gays for Ebola in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
19 minutes ago
Pat replied to James M. Martin's discussion Clown Show Coming: Why the Republitards Will Lose in 2016 Unless They Wise Up and Pick a Charismatic Candidate
19 minutes ago
matthew greenberg replied to James M. Martin's discussion Clown Show Coming: Why the Republitards Will Lose in 2016 Unless They Wise Up and Pick a Charismatic Candidate
20 minutes ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to James M. Martin's discussion Clown Show Coming: Why the Republitards Will Lose in 2016 Unless They Wise Up and Pick a Charismatic Candidate
31 minutes ago
Grinning Cat posted a photo
41 minutes ago
James M. Martin replied to L. Alcorn's discussion Early Christianity
43 minutes ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to Deidre's discussion Dogmatic atheism?
53 minutes ago
James M. Martin replied to James M. Martin's discussion Clown Show Coming: Why the Republitards Will Lose in 2016 Unless They Wise Up and Pick a Charismatic Candidate
53 minutes ago
James M. Martin replied to James M. Martin's discussion Queerty Interview With Author of New Book About Judy Garland, Big LGBTQ Icon: Judy on Religion in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
58 minutes ago
James M. Martin replied to John Jubinsky's discussion Nose Nerve Cells Repair Man's Severed Spinal Cord in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
1 hour ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service