Republican strategists literally got around a table back in the '60s to work on coming up with a wedge issue that would let them win elections without doing anything good for voters and they settled on abortion
The New American Standard Bible in 1977 said in Exodus "so that she has a miscarriage," but then by 1995 redid it to read "so that she gives birth prematurely." So, yeah, definitely an agenda.
@@DaveCMthen you tell them that they shall not judge lest they be judged. There are ways of using biblical text to help them understand the fallacy they are in.
@@DaveCM Most don't reason themselves into belief, and the roots are frequently buried deep in an epistemological mess of fallacies, and poor reasoning. Some people stumble on something that contradicts a really core tenet of their world view, and that can trigger a deconstruction, but people tend to be very defensive of things that they sense are important to their identity so that doesn't happen easily. I care less about what people believe, and more about how they got there; if people don't have good critical thinking skills, even if you convince them drop one bad idea, nothing stops them from believing in a different illogical idea.
I must thank Dr Dan McClellan for helping me recover from a very strict and legalistic background in conservative Evangelical Christianity. On this topic the Jewish teaching seems the most compassionate and humble understanding of abortion. There are not millions of women celebrating having an abortion, or using abortion as routine birth control. Those are stereotypes invented by very judgmental opponents of abortion. I prefer to trust mothers, and fathers, and doctors to do what they think is best in these circumstances than some hateful bible thumpers.
@@howardroark6594 So what if some women ARE using abortion as birth control? None of your damned business. The Bible treats the fetus as the PROPERTY of the expectant father. (Exodus 21:22,23) Not that it matters what that collection of absurd barbaric mythology says anyway.
Yeah. This makes God seem pro-abortion. Must be different for Christians reading it though unless all those abortion clinic protesters have never read those verses.
Every Abrahamic monotheist apologist: "Let me explain why the Scripture doesn't say what it says, and why it says what it doesn't say ..." Every thinking person: "Nah, I'm good". 🤣
And unfortunately, "Early Church Fathers" is essentially a talisman, a magical relic imbued with mystical powers of its own, meant to remain unquestioned and unchallenged. But if you actually READ the real early church fathers at any length, you'll discover that they were no more unified, no more consistent than any similar group of theologians drawn from various traditions today. They argue with each other, sometimes rather ungraciously, accusing one another of heresy and apostasy. Some of them were considered orthodox for centuries until they were designated as heretical and summarily banned - yet we still quote them today in orthodox church settings. The writings by any one of them change theology from writing to writing; they're not even self-consistent. But so many people today drag out that "early church fathers" talisman, wave it around, and try to get you to bow before its superior Truth... without realizing (or caring) that they're completely wrong in their understanding of those fathers MOST of the time.
HeShem doesn't always seem very pro-life to me: - The Drowning of All People In The Deluge - The Death of All First Born of Egypt - Elisha and Child Death By Bears - The Purge of Jabesh-Gilead and their Children - The Purge of the Midianites and their Children - The Multiple perversions in Deuteronomy against Children - The Dashing of Infant Skulls in Psalms - The Ordeal of Bitter Waters
LETS GET YHE SO-CALLED UN-CANONICAL[REMOVED BOOKS]AND READ WHO TGESE SUNDRY TRIBES WERE[GEN6 INVASION PROGENY]THEN FACTOR IN THAT INFO!!! REAL REASON MOST OF THE UN-CANONICAL BOOKS BEXAME UN-CANONICAL!!! HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT[MACCABEES 1,3:48-51]!!!
Hi Dan, Thanks for this video. As you hinted at in the video, this is a perfect example of someone who believes something then casting about in the bible trying to find verses that sound like they are saying what the person already believes... Proof-texting at its finest!! But, as always the answer to a proof-text is the context. So thank you for providing the context in such a clear, thoughtful, easy-to-follow manner. God bless, D
Dan you are one of the most valuable voices on the entire internet for America right now. It is mind-blowing how shameless conservatives will be in their terrible attempts at defending the indefensible. Just mind blowing.
Dan is indeed a very valuable voice. I was astounded to learn that at the time of the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade my very own former denomination - the Southern Baptists - were pro-choice on this topic. Dr W A Criswell (pastor of 1st Baptis Church of Dallas) made a rather famous pro-choice statement at the time.
New subscriber here who is very appreciative of your extensive understanding of ancient writings & sharing it so comprehensively. We need this now more than ever. Thank you🙏
Numbers 5 is a pretty good assertion of how important they considered a fetus before birth... if you had an affair and got pregnant, we'll know by deliberately causing your miscarriage. 😳 It's pretty sick, actually.
Today on UA-cam I watched: - Dan demolish the biblical case against abortion - a woman bragging that she was so righteous she was going to carry a Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy potentially leaving her 7 children childless - texas sueung to get women's private information to enforce about crossing state lines for care
Thanks again for the scholarship. I'll add that I actually do think the Bible is largely counter to my pro-choice position, because I base it on a woman's right over her own body, upon which the Bible places no value at all.
Which is exemplary of whether or not one chooses to ascribe authority to parts of the Bible. Often ancient texts do not speak to the positive progress of humanity.
@@JasonPrzybycien Yes Dan, AKA Dr. McClellan, has talked on that here. He also made the point that the Bible is not particularly bad for its time, as the idea that females ought to have some say in their own lives only caught on relatively recently.
I think Jesus tried pretty hard to elevate women out of their status during his time. Take for example the fact that women carried the information that the tomb was empty and he had been resurrected. But at the time women weren't considered reliable sources of info. They couldn't even be witnesses in a trial. So Jesus advanced the legitimacy of women by a lot, during his time.
Even if one understands the passage in Exodus to impose the death penalty for killing the _fetus,_ it's still true that it's not dealing with abortion. The case is very specifically involving a third party who causes the injury. The implication is that if the woman or her husband causes the miscarriage (aka abortion if done on purpose), there is no punishment at all.
That's an oxymoron, though. If you believe the bible then you can't believe we have free will and if we can't have free will we can't be pro choice as there was never any choice. God planned and knew exactly what was going to happen therfore only presented the mere illusion of choice for a situation in which it already knew the outcome.
Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel, by Heath D. Durell, may give us some insight into YWHW's penchant for the sacrifice of first born children. Which seems completely at odds with using the Old Testament as a proof text to argue that abortions were considered abhorrent.
It’s not a coincidence that circumcisions take place on the 8th day. “7 days he shall be with his mother. But on the 8th day ye shall offer him to Me” Exodus 14:40 And considering as many as 100 boys die annually in the US from complications arriving as a result of circumcision one can reason that there would not been much of a difference between penile amputation and downright sacrifice in the days before sterile medical procedures were developed.
@isidoreaerys8745 complete side note.. but in some orthodox Jewish circumcision rituals, the infants contract herpes because the person performing the procedure puts their mouth on the child's genitals to suck the blood out. So the person ends up passing HSV to the child.
Thank you! When I first read that passage about miscarriage resulting in a fine but the death of the mother resulting in a penalty of death for the perpetrator I thought why is no one really talking about this in the Christian community? Then I Googled what "Christians" say about the passage & found the usual idea that if the Bible doesn't say what I want it to say I will ignore that passage or say that it was translated incorrectly. It is ludicrous to say that the passage is distinguishing between if the baby is "born alive" vs if the mother is killed. The passage is clearly distinguishing between if the unborn dies vs if the mother dies. Also if I recall, doesn't the passage mention that only one punitive death is required even if both the unborn and the mother dies? Either way, it should not be surprising to find out that evangelicals care more about imposing their own authoritarian will on others than they will ever care about God's will.
I find it interesting that he brings up the Didache. Especially since it pretty much lays out a communist like society. Something evangelicals loudly object to.
THANK YOU!! Your content is incredible. I recall many years ago debating a pastor about whether denominations are of God or man. For me, a denomination is simply a different negotiation of the text. I’d be very curious about your thoughts on this.
Our neighbors who choose to have abortions are struggling and in pain. Are they pushed to see abortion as their best solution to problems of food insecurity, housing insecurity, abusive relationships, lack of educational opportunities, lack of parenting skills, mental health problems, inability to earn a living wage, mental health issues, addiction? What is the Christian mandate when people are in pain? What should be our response to their pain as followers of Jesus?
I really appreciate your work, and this one is especially important, so I'm grateful that you did an especially good job on it. Interesting side note about the "omniscience" claim ("God knows each of us before we're born, so each of us is part of God's plan..."): those who call for a total ban on all abortions, even in cases of rape, are effectively claiming that God intends for women to be raped. I think some passages in scripture would support this claim, but that doesn't make it right.
Yes. That was always my interpretation when I was a theist. My god was all knowing. So babies who would not be brought to term in his divine foreknowledge did not receive ensoulment. What a silly god that goes around futilely placing souls in death bound vessels. Conservative evangelicals lack imagination and think very little of their god, assuming he prefers a chance to condemn and punish over seeing his will be done.
Ahhh...in the end, it's No True Scotsman. Well, thank you, Christian Nationalist bro for telling me what I am. Without you, I wouldn't have been able to define my poor, female self. Gotta love those Christian gatekeepers!!!
"there would be a punishment that would be _extracted_ upon that individual"? The appropriate word would be _exacted,_ which indicates this person has difficulty with words and meanings, but uses whatever words pile up that he can then negotiate with the meaning he intends for them. I'd also like him to explain how the Iron Age concept of non-adult non-male persons being property is in any way applicable to the Information Age.
Well a fine is something coming out of a person’s estate so “extract” is not an illogical word to use, though “exact” sounds more idiomatic. Of course, attacking a person’s capacity of rational thought based on a difference of opinion in diction is a low thing for anyone capable of rational thought to say. 😅
Children are very clearly property in contemporary US culture. Whether we're talking about Tucker Carlson with his unwholesome public fantasies about beating teenage girls, or the near-universal idea that parents should be _controlling_ what's taught in schools (as opposed to the schools being a safety net against poor parental education or poor parenting more broadly), the US has clearly not put the notion of humans as chattel behind it. I'm honestly more sanguine about Iron Age cultures, broadly, which typically seem to have acknowledged adulthood earlier, thought harder about the process of becoming an adult, and increasingly (as we improve our archaeological methods) show evidence of women in positions of authority. Of course, there will be good and bad examples from any period.
@@kentstallard6512 Most societies consider most other societies barbaric. My spouse is horrified that I eat cheese. There's some good stuff in the Bible, and indeed the rare occasions where it talks about _principles_ tend to be the most helpful. And I think that's the crux of the modern debate. Any attempt to reduce principles to hard-and-fast rules is doomed to be morally abhorrent. Decent people can debate about whether and when abortion is _desirable,_ but to say that we are willing to kill mothers because _in another situation_ we might save the life of a child is to lose the moral plot. Indeed, that's one of the principles that Jesus was good on. Set aside the letter of religious law and get down to healing the sick. (Not that any of this bears directly on politics. We can be more confident that separation of church and state is a good idea than we can that democracy is a good idea, and we don't yet have a better alternative to democracy. Though of course politics should be able to follow the same reasoning to the same conclusion, in the case that the reasoning is valid. A truth doesn't depend on which book it is written in.)
@@stephenspackman5573THE PSST THREE[3]YRS SHOUD SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STATE IS THE LAST ENTITY THAT SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH OWNING SOVEREIGN CITIZENS PROGENY!!!
I am so glad you mentioned the code of Hamurabai. So few people understand that there were laws that predated the Jewish religion that deal with morality and how we treat others. We weren’t the first to have that idea that should be humbling for everybody.
Before the discovery of the mammalian female ovum in 1827, it was generally held that the female provided little to the fetus beyond a fertile "ground" on to which the male might cast his life-bearing "seed". Biblically speaking, then, the fetus is not her body at all - but his. Interesting point: It was only 27 years later, in 1854, that the RCC proclaimed as Dogma, its long held pious belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception - no doubt to celebrate her newly discovered contribution to Jesus’ human component.
Fun fact: the RC dogma of the "immaculate conception" is actually heresy, so far as this theologically semi-trained mind can figure out. The early church fathers, after debating, came to the conclusion that Jesus is "fully human and fully devine." In order to be "fully human," Jesus needed chromosomal material from a human father. As well, Jesus is, for Christians, the Messiah foretold by Isaiah, who clearly stated that he would be a descendant of David. Which is traced through the male line...
It’s funny, because even if what he said in the beginning were true. It wouldn’t apply to every person getting an abortion. It would only apply to people who wanna keep their babies.
Deuteronomy addresses the life of a fetus/child in two places. First, if a man suspects his wife has been unfaithful and is carrying the child of another man, he was instructed to take her to the priests. The priests would give her a potion to drink, and if she had been unfaithful, the baby would be expelled from her womb. If the husband was the father, the baby would survive. Second, if a city was under siege and food ran out, the parents were commanded to eat the flesh of their children. And further, if the parents' neighbors were hungry, they were commanded to share the flesh of their children. If they refused to obey, they were condemned. These two examples address what could be called "chemical abortion" and the taking the life of a child. Both were not only approved, but were considered religious obligations. Neither were condemned.
Goddamn homeboy is FLAGRANT. I’m only a casual viewer and I was shocked to hear him lying so boldly like that right out the gate. Apologists will really just say anything it seems.
Thank you for the info on the Didache. That was the one bit of this I didn't really know. I didn't know it was one of many positions, which then makes Augustine's decision make more sense.
The Douay Rheims (Catholic translation) is one of the oldest translations still in use, This translation is very clear on the Exodus passage. 22. If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. 23. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life,
Thank you for addressing this issue. However the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals are egoically attached to the abortion issue and will not let it go regardless of what the showws.
Dan is not a honest scholar. He likes debunking for the sake of it. He catches Christians who haven't interacted with real believing scholars off guard. There really has been a Christian consensus that abortion is at least wrong, if not murder, throughout the history of the church. The Doctrina is a good example, and the Didache. The fact that the messiah comes through childbearing supports that position. Christianity is all about helping the weakest. Unborn children certainly fall in that category.
@ This is your logic? Who was it who said, let the dead bury the dead. Who is who said it was better not to marry, who was it who said in responding to a request by his mother and brother, said these are my brothers and sisters. Who was it that said I come with the sword of the tongue to cut son from father, mother from daughter, daughter in law from mother in law. Does this sound like the kind of person reaching into the womb of gentiles to save babies. You think Jesus was about building nuclear families, he says that he came to tear them apart. The family he was trying to build was mystical and apocalyptic, they were using the disenfranchised in the Jewish people to topple the self righteous of Judea. They believed that if the got enough supporters the Messiah would come and topple the priesthood, the scribes, and the Herodians. In the story of the promiscuous woman she was brought before the men in town to be stoned, and he sent them away, but he did not ask her to repent for her sins. It was sufficient only for him to show their self-righteousness. Jesus did not have time to wait for babies, they were in the false belief that the son of man would come riding on the clouds of heaven to rebuke the archons and establish the kingdom of heaven on earth. A little thing it took me a long time to learn. Matters of the bedroom need to stay in the bedroom, it is not the roll of any one of any faith to crawl into others bedsheets to make decisions for them….this is profanity.
People forget as well that Benjamin Franklin put in Poor Richard’s Almanac a home remedy to induce an abortion. Not really biblical, but it does point to this idea that abortion is murder as a relatively novel concept.
@@clay8546 yeah. Which just goes to show that trying to ground your morality in the Bible is really just people cherry picking and manipulating the Bible for their own purposes. Their morality isn’t grounded biblically at all.
@@clay8546 don’t know how you would make that claim or what you’d reference in the New Testament as pro-life. This video is a rebuttal of the supposed best arguments for the pro-life position supported in the entirety of the Bible. Where would the New Testament support the pro-life position? The synoptic Gospels? The writings of Paul? There’s a reason why Thomas Paine in Age of Reason was skeptical of the Bible being the word of God. It’s because by its very nature, literature is viewed through the subjective lens of its readers. It’s one of the reasons why Protestantism rises after the printing press. As soon as people could read the Bible themselves, almost immediately the Catholic interpretation is no longer authoritative, and subjective interpretation spread throughout Europe.
Two thoughts: 1) The rally cry over the importance of "Free Will" would suggest that a choice is needed to achieve any rewards in the first place. If you were denied the choice itself, you would also be denied the blessing associated with making that choice. Thus, Pro-Choice is a Pro-Blessings position while Pro-Life is a denial of blessings their religious freedom suggests they desire. 2) I've read (years ago) that there was a Catholic Priest who performed at least one abortion (possibly multiple). They were even attributed with this being a miraculous "restoration of a woman's virtue" or some such, and this was used to support their path to sainthood. And, oh by the way, the woman was a nun who was probably impregnated by a priest, so yeah, this may have also been an attempt to sweep the "real sin" aside and turn lemons "miraculously" into lemonade. #2 is a vague memory now, and I can't seem to locate anything current on it, so my memory could be off to a large extent, but I'm fairly sure it is a reputable claim that is probably well concealed rather than something that is entirely untrue.
I see a contradiction here. The law (even his limited understanding of it) as set out in the old testament refers to those who followed Judaism, it never was a universal law, this christian follower of what is mainly the Pauline doctrine is asserting old testament law applies to all? That seems strange since few if any modern day christian dogmas follow all of those laws and don't have a requirement to pre-convert to Judaism. It's cherry-picking again. As I remember it from my reading, particularly of the events surrounding the exilic period it was perfectly OK to kill babies in the womb, and after, as long as they weren't of the tribe of Israel or if it was commanded by the god of Abraham for the sin of not being born an Israelite. I think the Canaanites might have taken issue with his 'universal' views on the old testament personhood of the unborn.
Minute 5:10 Yes, anyone can search for: " My Jewish Learning, the beginning of life in Judaism " •••• Life was established to begin at first self breathing, and Malachi 3:6 states: " I am the LORD, I change not "
I'm surprised nobody is mentioning Hosea 13:16 which demands that the "Samaria is held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They shall fall by the sword, Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, And their women with child ripped open".
Once again Dan is endorsing the dogmatic position asserting the originality of The Hulk. We have no data to indicate that our earliest Hulk manuscripts are identical to the original composition of the text.
I'm just really curious how anything regardless of what it is that was written by anyone like 1500 years ago has anything to do with what is going on today?? We have made all of these advances in biology and technology and yet people still try to say that anything from that book is somehow legitimately relevant now. With all this knowledge why is it that anyone is constantly concerning themselves with anything from that book that has been Rewritten over and over and over again?? It was not written by some deity it was written by people!!!
It is easy to see that the man whom Dan McClellan is "debating" is young. I grew up in the evangelical church and it was not something that was really even discussed in the church until my college years (mid '70s).
"To take innocent life at anytime is murder." Woof - when this guy finally actually reads the bible and gets to 2 Samuel 12 where his god directly infects, tortures, and kills a baby, I bet he'll change his tune right quick. By which I menace he'd lie and spew nonsense, as per usual.
Or 1 Chronicles 21, where his god kills 70,000 Israelite men by plague (and an unstated amount of women and children presumably, unless we want to assume that this was a gender-discriminating plague) because David took a census.
But the number one issue is that I'm tired of people treating abortion as if it's only birth control and that it makes it murder. 1. Abortions are often prescribed by the physician to save the life of the mother. 2. Optional abortions are often requested because of hardship from poverty, childcare, current family size, broken families, etc. Those who oppose abortion also oppose providing any relief for these hardships.
And when you say, “My child will starve because I can’t afford to have a child,” pro-forced birth people retort: “then you shouldn’t have had sex.” Which to me proves the “precious baby” is not as precious as that “Christian’s” wallet. They have forgotten Jesus’s teachings to feed the poor to embrace the Republican creed of greed and hatred for the poor.
There's an interesting invitation God offers the Israelites in Deutoronomy 30:19 "...Now choose life..." so, after all, we have to choose. And yes, I know this passage is not related in any way, shape of form whatsoever to the topic at hand, but its an interesting couple of words...choose life.... I like the Christians that says "...I'm pro-life but I wont vote for someone to foce my ideology upon others through legislation..."
Lastly, meditate on this God believes choice is so important that he in his infinite glory and holiness will not even save you from eternal damnation if you choose not to believe. The God who created and loved humanity so much he came here and die for us still wants us to choose and accept salvation. Because you can not force love. And the greatest of all commandments was love God with everything you are and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus sacrifice can be summed up in those two commandments.
Scripture is very ambiguous on this topic. Hardly even skirting it, though it's unimportance is repeated. Here is (and other places) where the scribes fall way short of their job of clearly defining subjects. In lieu of unsolicited interests. What right has the clay to say to the potter? People aren't clay and that's a well known fact. If the clay has a mouth/piece to speak with; then all the right in the world.
I don't know if you take questions that aren't in video form, but I would love to hear you talk about Numbers 5 and the theory that it is a ritualized abortion commanded by YWHW.
I have a friend that went to the seminary and studied everything he could. The problem with the bible is it could not be translated with accuracy due to by the time of translation Hebrew the language it was written had changed enough that it didn't make sense. Due to this it was changed by the ones in control. Ie: king James creator of the king James version.
Republican strategists literally got around a table back in the '60s to work on coming up with a wedge issue that would let them win elections without doing anything good for voters and they settled on abortion
@@jeremygregorio7472 The ghost of Paul Weyrich continues to haunt us.
The New American Standard Bible in 1977 said in Exodus "so that she has a miscarriage," but then by 1995 redid it to read "so that she gives birth prematurely." So, yeah, definitely an agenda.
Thank you Dan!!! 67% of my Christian church membership, voted for Trump, because of the abortion issue, using all the "excuses" made by this guy.
Is your pastor a Trumpster, too?? 😮
I’ve said it before: ensoulment occurs the first time you hear James Brown.
This is the only objective view
Hallelujah, praise be The Soul Train!
legit
@@MarcosElMalo2 Good one! 😅
Amen.
This is one of the best take downs on the current crisis in Evangelical christianity...should be required watching by all. Spot on Dan.
Absodamnlutely!! Can't wait for Dan's book release
It won't make a difference to them. They refuse to change their dogma.
@@DaveCMthen you tell them that they shall not judge lest they be judged. There are ways of using biblical text to help them understand the fallacy they are in.
@@1Samsonyte That doesn't work either. I've tried it. They just get angry.
@@DaveCM Most don't reason themselves into belief, and the roots are frequently buried deep in an epistemological mess of fallacies, and poor reasoning. Some people stumble on something that contradicts a really core tenet of their world view, and that can trigger a deconstruction, but people tend to be very defensive of things that they sense are important to their identity so that doesn't happen easily. I care less about what people believe, and more about how they got there; if people don't have good critical thinking skills, even if you convince them drop one bad idea, nothing stops them from believing in a different illogical idea.
I must thank Dr Dan McClellan for helping me recover from a very strict and legalistic background in conservative Evangelical Christianity. On this topic the Jewish teaching seems the most compassionate and humble understanding of abortion. There are not millions of women celebrating having an abortion, or using abortion as routine birth control. Those are stereotypes invented by very judgmental opponents of abortion. I prefer to trust mothers, and fathers, and doctors to do what they think is best in these circumstances than some hateful bible thumpers.
@@howardroark6594
So what if some women ARE using abortion as birth control?
None of your damned business.
The Bible treats the fetus as the PROPERTY of the expectant father. (Exodus 21:22,23)
Not that it matters what that collection of absurd barbaric mythology says anyway.
Sadly😢, the acolytes of most churches couldn’t care less about the words of their book
Numbers literally has a miscarriage potion that the priest gives women who their husbands believe got pregnant with another man. Nuff said
Yeah. This makes God seem pro-abortion. Must be different for Christians reading it though unless all those abortion clinic protesters have never read those verses.
Every Abrahamic monotheist apologist: "Let me explain why the Scripture doesn't say what it says, and why it says what it doesn't say ..."
Every thinking person: "Nah, I'm good". 🤣
😂yes, it's just as excuse to make abbvser "what god wants"
The "Early Church Fathers" only matter to these people when they can use them to bolster their own beliefs.
Nicely spotted!
Exactly! They negotiate with the writings of the church fathers just as they do with the Biblical texts.
And unfortunately, "Early Church Fathers" is essentially a talisman, a magical relic imbued with mystical powers of its own, meant to remain unquestioned and unchallenged. But if you actually READ the real early church fathers at any length, you'll discover that they were no more unified, no more consistent than any similar group of theologians drawn from various traditions today. They argue with each other, sometimes rather ungraciously, accusing one another of heresy and apostasy. Some of them were considered orthodox for centuries until they were designated as heretical and summarily banned - yet we still quote them today in orthodox church settings. The writings by any one of them change theology from writing to writing; they're not even self-consistent.
But so many people today drag out that "early church fathers" talisman, wave it around, and try to get you to bow before its superior Truth... without realizing (or caring) that they're completely wrong in their understanding of those fathers MOST of the time.
@@Brandon_SoMD excellently put! I hope many people read your comment and take the facts on board!.
@@Brandon_SoMD 💯👏
Man, I would love to invite you to our Thanksgiving. You translate perfectly, and so beautifully.
Dan has the patience of a saint
A Latter-Day Saint! Yeah… I’ll see myself out.
@@BobjdobbsI definitely wanted to write that earlier, and thought I'd be playing to a crowd of me. Good on you, bud dum ching!
And the fits of a GAWD!! 🤣
@@robsaxepganaw... it's the fit of a puny God beat down! 😘😎🤣
HeShem doesn't always seem very pro-life to me:
- The Drowning of All People In The Deluge
- The Death of All First Born of Egypt
- Elisha and Child Death By Bears
- The Purge of Jabesh-Gilead and their Children
- The Purge of the Midianites and their Children
- The Multiple perversions in Deuteronomy against Children
- The Dashing of Infant Skulls in Psalms
- The Ordeal of Bitter Waters
Exactly.
As depicted he's a genocidal monster.
LETS GET YHE SO-CALLED UN-CANONICAL[REMOVED BOOKS]AND READ WHO TGESE SUNDRY TRIBES WERE[GEN6 INVASION PROGENY]THEN FACTOR IN THAT INFO!!!
REAL REASON MOST OF THE UN-CANONICAL BOOKS BEXAME UN-CANONICAL!!!
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT[MACCABEES 1,3:48-51]!!!
Not to forget YHWH's penchant for child sacrifice. Seems completely indifferent towards the well-being of children.
Basically. But "God works in mysterious ways."
@@stephenbelmont1918 Hosea 16:13
Awesome!! Thanks for giving me something to show people who like to argue like they’re actual scholars 😂
Hi Dan,
Thanks for this video.
As you hinted at in the video, this is a perfect example of someone who believes something then casting about in the bible trying to find verses that sound like they are saying what the person already believes...
Proof-texting at its finest!!
But, as always the answer to a proof-text is the context.
So thank you for providing the context in such a clear, thoughtful, easy-to-follow manner.
God bless,
D
Dan you are one of the most valuable voices on the entire internet for America right now.
It is mind-blowing how shameless conservatives will be in their terrible attempts at defending the indefensible. Just mind blowing.
Dan is indeed a very valuable voice. I was astounded to learn that at the time of the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade my very own former denomination - the Southern Baptists - were pro-choice on this topic. Dr W A Criswell (pastor of 1st Baptis Church of Dallas) made a rather famous pro-choice statement at the time.
New subscriber here who is very appreciative of your extensive understanding of ancient writings & sharing it so comprehensively. We need this now more than ever. Thank you🙏
Numbers 5 is a pretty good assertion of how important they considered a fetus before birth... if you had an affair and got pregnant, we'll know by deliberately causing your miscarriage. 😳 It's pretty sick, actually.
Your biblical knowledge and overall wisdom are stunning in this regard. Bravo 👏
Today on UA-cam I watched:
- Dan demolish the biblical case against abortion
- a woman bragging that she was so righteous she was going to carry a Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy potentially leaving her 7 children childless
- texas sueung to get women's private information to enforce about crossing state lines for care
The woman bragging absolutely breaks my heart. For her children😢😢
😢😢😢😢
Leaving her 7 children motherless, I think you meant. Still evil.
Strange how many people there are who consider the Bible the word of the God they worship who don't even have the basics down.
Thanks again for the scholarship. I'll add that I actually do think the Bible is largely counter to my pro-choice position, because I base it on a woman's right over her own body, upon which the Bible places no value at all.
I have heard - maybe from Dan - that the idea of asking a woman for consent appears nowhere in the bible. I'd rather be good than biblical.
Which is exemplary of whether or not one chooses to ascribe authority to parts of the Bible. Often ancient texts do not speak to the positive progress of humanity.
@@JasonPrzybycien Yes Dan, AKA Dr. McClellan, has talked on that here. He also made the point that the Bible is not particularly bad for its time, as the idea that females ought to have some say in their own lives only caught on relatively recently.
@@kennethklima5342 Yup, there's that. The Bible is great. The Bible is awful. Such are the works of man.
I think Jesus tried pretty hard to elevate women out of their status during his time. Take for example the fact that women carried the information that the tomb was empty and he had been resurrected. But at the time women weren't considered reliable sources of info. They couldn't even be witnesses in a trial. So Jesus advanced the legitimacy of women by a lot, during his time.
"alright lets see it" gets me everytime
Even if one understands the passage in Exodus to impose the death penalty for killing the _fetus,_ it's still true that it's not dealing with abortion. The case is very specifically involving a third party who causes the injury. The implication is that if the woman or her husband causes the miscarriage (aka abortion if done on purpose), there is no punishment at all.
Actually...
That's a very good point.
Holy shit well done
Non ironic gold star for you! 🌟
Property. You have to pay for damaged and destroyed property... if they fined for a miscarriage, it would be over lost property, not lost life.
Thank you for this! So many people out here pontificating and just haven't even read the Bible.
"...You are alone in your perspective..." What a manipulative, slimy thing for him to say.
That's evangelicals in a nutshell for you!
Yup we are 100% NOT alone. There are plenty of pro-choice bible believers.
That's an oxymoron, though.
If you believe the bible then you can't believe we have free will and if we can't have free will we can't be pro choice as there was never any choice. God planned and knew exactly what was going to happen therfore only presented the mere illusion of choice for a situation in which it already knew the outcome.
@Not_An_EV But then, all abortions would be part of God's plan, so that doesn't really matter.
Brilliant. Thanks Dan! I feel like “Safely ignored” is the current stage of my spiritual journey 😂😂😂😂
It’s very obvious the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is referring to the mother. Newborns don’t have teeth.
It’s incredibly how these religious apologists how they skew the Bible to fit their point of view. Shameful
Big book of multiple choice.
Always enjoy a Jeff Dee reference! ❤
You are my hero Dan. Thank you so much for clarifying everything. Amazing video.
Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel, by Heath D. Durell, may give us some insight into YWHW's penchant for the sacrifice of first born children. Which seems completely at odds with using the Old Testament as a proof text to argue that abortions were considered abhorrent.
Not to mention all the infants God directly unalived for whatever reason he wanted.
@@mdm123196, No doubt. YHWH's indifference towards life post-partum is inconsistent with any arguments that abortion is somehow sinful or wrong.
It’s not a coincidence that circumcisions take place on the 8th day.
“7 days he shall be with his mother. But on the 8th day ye shall offer him to Me”
Exodus 14:40
And considering as many as 100 boys die annually in the US from complications arriving as a result of circumcision one can reason that there would not been much of a difference between penile amputation and downright sacrifice in the days before sterile medical procedures were developed.
@isidoreaerys8745 complete side note.. but in some orthodox Jewish circumcision rituals, the infants contract herpes because the person performing the procedure puts their mouth on the child's genitals to suck the blood out. So the person ends up passing HSV to the child.
@@isidoreaerys8745the reason for the 8th day was so that the child would survive a full week and experience a sabbath prior to circumcision
Apologists vs Historian. The Apologists only accept or pay attention to the data that supports their present view
I appreciate you so much Dan for all of your knowledge you share with us!! Can't wait to read your new book!
I thought your message told Dan, I cant wait to spend eternity with you haha
@@decollagemedia Hahaha platonically sure
Thank you! When I first read that passage about miscarriage resulting in a fine but the death of the mother resulting in a penalty of death for the perpetrator I thought why is no one really talking about this in the Christian community? Then I Googled what "Christians" say about the passage & found the usual idea that if the Bible doesn't say what I want it to say I will ignore that passage or say that it was translated incorrectly. It is ludicrous to say that the passage is distinguishing between if the baby is "born alive" vs if the mother is killed. The passage is clearly distinguishing between if the unborn dies vs if the mother dies. Also if I recall, doesn't the passage mention that only one punitive death is required even if both the unborn and the mother dies? Either way, it should not be surprising to find out that evangelicals care more about imposing their own authoritarian will on others than they will ever care about God's will.
I find it interesting that he brings up the Didache. Especially since it pretty much lays out a communist like society. Something evangelicals loudly object to.
See also: the early church in Acts. They literally don’t get it.
Love the shirt!
Love these debunks / take downs!
Thanks, Dan! 😊❤
I wished I lived in Utah so I could vote for this man. Wait…no no no, on second thought I definitely don’t ever want to live in Utah. Ever!
Wait, what? Is Dan running for office?
@ I believe he’s run in the past.
I live in Utah …but wasn’t aware of this guy running for anything?
Darn you and your facts and evidence!
THANK YOU!! Your content is incredible. I recall many years ago debating a pastor about whether denominations are of God or man. For me, a denomination is simply a different negotiation of the text. I’d be very curious about your thoughts on this.
Our neighbors who choose to have abortions are struggling and in pain. Are they pushed to see abortion as their best solution to problems of food insecurity, housing insecurity, abusive relationships, lack of educational opportunities, lack of parenting skills, mental health problems, inability to earn a living wage, mental health issues, addiction? What is the Christian mandate when people are in pain? What should be our response to their pain as followers of Jesus?
I really appreciate your work, and this one is especially important, so I'm grateful that you did an especially good job on it. Interesting side note about the "omniscience" claim ("God knows each of us before we're born, so each of us is part of God's plan..."): those who call for a total ban on all abortions, even in cases of rape, are effectively claiming that God intends for women to be raped. I think some passages in scripture would support this claim, but that doesn't make it right.
Yes. That was always my interpretation when I was a theist. My god was all knowing. So babies who would not be brought to term in his divine foreknowledge did not receive ensoulment.
What a silly god that goes around futilely placing souls in death bound vessels.
Conservative evangelicals lack imagination and think very little of their god, assuming he prefers a chance to condemn and punish over seeing his will be done.
9:54 "the christian position has always uniformly unilaterally been ..." OMG WTH
That made me lol because Christians have never had a uniform, unilateral position on ANYTHING!!!!
@@katieoberst490 Exactly.
I’m grateful to you, thank you. I just pre-ordered your book!
Most Christians don’t read their Bibles. Preachers can lead the parishioners to believe the Bible says something it doesn’t.
Ahhh...in the end, it's No True Scotsman. Well, thank you, Christian Nationalist bro for telling me what I am. Without you, I wouldn't have been able to define my poor, female self. Gotta love those Christian gatekeepers!!!
"there would be a punishment that would be _extracted_ upon that individual"?
The appropriate word would be _exacted,_ which indicates this person has difficulty with words and meanings, but uses whatever words pile up that he can then negotiate with the meaning he intends for them.
I'd also like him to explain how the Iron Age concept of non-adult non-male persons being property is in any way applicable to the Information Age.
Well a fine is something coming out of a person’s estate so “extract” is not an illogical word to use, though “exact” sounds more idiomatic. Of course, attacking a person’s capacity of rational thought based on a difference of opinion in diction is a low thing for anyone capable of rational thought to say. 😅
Children are very clearly property in contemporary US culture. Whether we're talking about Tucker Carlson with his unwholesome public fantasies about beating teenage girls, or the near-universal idea that parents should be _controlling_ what's taught in schools (as opposed to the schools being a safety net against poor parental education or poor parenting more broadly), the US has clearly not put the notion of humans as chattel behind it.
I'm honestly more sanguine about Iron Age cultures, broadly, which typically seem to have acknowledged adulthood earlier, thought harder about the process of becoming an adult, and increasingly (as we improve our archaeological methods) show evidence of women in positions of authority. Of course, there will be good and bad examples from any period.
@@stephenspackman5573Any contemporary society actually governed by Bible "principles" would be considered barbaric.
@@kentstallard6512 Most societies consider most other societies barbaric. My spouse is horrified that I eat cheese.
There's some good stuff in the Bible, and indeed the rare occasions where it talks about _principles_ tend to be the most helpful.
And I think that's the crux of the modern debate. Any attempt to reduce principles to hard-and-fast rules is doomed to be morally abhorrent. Decent people can debate about whether and when abortion is _desirable,_ but to say that we are willing to kill mothers because _in another situation_ we might save the life of a child is to lose the moral plot.
Indeed, that's one of the principles that Jesus was good on. Set aside the letter of religious law and get down to healing the sick.
(Not that any of this bears directly on politics. We can be more confident that separation of church and state is a good idea than we can that democracy is a good idea, and we don't yet have a better alternative to democracy. Though of course politics should be able to follow the same reasoning to the same conclusion, in the case that the reasoning is valid. A truth doesn't depend on which book it is written in.)
@@stephenspackman5573THE PSST THREE[3]YRS SHOUD SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STATE IS THE LAST ENTITY THAT SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH OWNING SOVEREIGN CITIZENS PROGENY!!!
I am so glad you mentioned the code of Hamurabai. So few people understand that there were laws that predated the Jewish religion that deal with morality and how we treat others. We weren’t the first to have that idea that should be humbling for everybody.
Before the discovery of the mammalian female ovum in 1827, it was generally held that the female provided little to the fetus beyond a fertile "ground" on to which the male might cast his life-bearing "seed".
Biblically speaking, then, the fetus is not her body at all - but his.
Interesting point: It was only 27 years later, in 1854, that the RCC proclaimed as Dogma, its long held pious belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception - no doubt to celebrate her newly discovered contribution to Jesus’ human component.
Fun fact: the RC dogma of the "immaculate conception" is actually heresy, so far as this theologically semi-trained mind can figure out.
The early church fathers, after debating, came to the conclusion that Jesus is "fully human and fully devine." In order to be "fully human," Jesus needed chromosomal material from a human father. As well, Jesus is, for Christians, the Messiah foretold by Isaiah, who clearly stated that he would be a descendant of David. Which is traced through the male line...
I appreciate and celebrate your posts. Thank you.
I truly appreciate your effort to clarify the biblical guidance on the important issues which are dividing us.
What a priceless rebuttal!
It’s funny, because even if what he said in the beginning were true. It wouldn’t apply to every person getting an abortion. It would only apply to people who wanna keep their babies.
"I think it's verse 22" he says while he reads off of his notes on the left
Fantastic response!
Deuteronomy addresses the life of a fetus/child in two places. First, if a man suspects his wife has been unfaithful and is carrying the child of another man, he was instructed to take her to the priests. The priests would give her a potion to drink, and if she had been unfaithful, the baby would be expelled from her womb. If the husband was the father, the baby would survive.
Second, if a city was under siege and food ran out, the parents were commanded to eat the flesh of their children. And further, if the parents' neighbors were hungry, they were commanded to share the flesh of their children. If they refused to obey, they were condemned.
These two examples address what could be called "chemical abortion" and the taking the life of a child. Both were not only approved, but were considered religious obligations. Neither were condemned.
"The entire Bible is negotiable" --- Great line!
Goddamn homeboy is FLAGRANT. I’m only a casual viewer and I was shocked to hear him lying so boldly like that right out the gate. Apologists will really just say anything it seems.
Thank you for the info on the Didache. That was the one bit of this I didn't really know. I didn't know it was one of many positions, which then makes Augustine's decision make more sense.
It's all negotiation that God values a fetus.
The Douay Rheims (Catholic translation) is one of the oldest translations still in use, This translation is very clear on the Exodus passage.
22. If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.
23. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life,
Thank you for addressing this issue. However the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals are egoically attached to the abortion issue and will not let it go regardless of what the showws.
It’s not eye for an eye. It’s a monetary liability. This is eighth grade Bible study stuff.
Dan is not a honest scholar. He likes debunking for the sake of it. He catches Christians who haven't interacted with real believing scholars off guard. There really has been a Christian consensus that abortion is at least wrong, if not murder, throughout the history of the church. The Doctrina is a good example, and the Didache. The fact that the messiah comes through childbearing supports that position. Christianity is all about helping the weakest. Unborn children certainly fall in that category.
@ This is your logic?
Who was it who said, let the dead bury the dead. Who is who said it was better not to marry, who was it who said in responding to a request by his mother and brother, said these are my brothers and sisters. Who was it that said I come with the sword of the tongue to cut son from father, mother from daughter, daughter in law from mother in law. Does this sound like the kind of person reaching into the womb of gentiles to save babies.
You think Jesus was about building nuclear families, he says that he came to tear them apart.
The family he was trying to build was mystical and apocalyptic, they were using the disenfranchised in the Jewish people to topple the self righteous of Judea. They believed that if the got enough supporters the Messiah would come and topple the priesthood, the scribes, and the Herodians.
In the story of the promiscuous woman she was brought before the men in town to be stoned, and he sent them away, but he did not ask her to repent for her sins. It was sufficient only for him to show their self-righteousness. Jesus did not have time to wait for babies, they were in the false belief that the son of man would come riding on the clouds of heaven to rebuke the archons and establish the kingdom of heaven on earth.
A little thing it took me a long time to learn. Matters of the bedroom need to stay in the bedroom, it is not the roll of any one of any faith to crawl into others bedsheets to make decisions for them….this is profanity.
Love your work, Dan.
People forget as well that Benjamin Franklin put in Poor Richard’s Almanac a home remedy to induce an abortion.
Not really biblical, but it does point to this idea that abortion is murder as a relatively novel concept.
The idea humans slavery is bad is a relatively novel concept as well
Did it involve a pregnant woman flying a kite in an electrical storm?
@@clay8546 yeah. Which just goes to show that trying to ground your morality in the Bible is really just people cherry picking and manipulating the Bible for their own purposes. Their morality isn’t grounded biblically at all.
@ i think a pro life position is pretty consistent with the New Testament. I agree the old testament is wack
@@clay8546 don’t know how you would make that claim or what you’d reference in the New Testament as pro-life. This video is a rebuttal of the supposed best arguments for the pro-life position supported in the entirety of the Bible.
Where would the New Testament support the pro-life position? The synoptic Gospels? The writings of Paul? There’s a reason why Thomas Paine in Age of Reason was skeptical of the Bible being the word of God. It’s because by its very nature, literature is viewed through the subjective lens of its readers. It’s one of the reasons why Protestantism rises after the printing press. As soon as people could read the Bible themselves, almost immediately the Catholic interpretation is no longer authoritative, and subjective interpretation spread throughout Europe.
Two thoughts:
1) The rally cry over the importance of "Free Will" would suggest that a choice is needed to achieve any rewards in the first place. If you were denied the choice itself, you would also be denied the blessing associated with making that choice. Thus, Pro-Choice is a Pro-Blessings position while Pro-Life is a denial of blessings their religious freedom suggests they desire.
2) I've read (years ago) that there was a Catholic Priest who performed at least one abortion (possibly multiple). They were even attributed with this being a miraculous "restoration of a woman's virtue" or some such, and this was used to support their path to sainthood. And, oh by the way, the woman was a nun who was probably impregnated by a priest, so yeah, this may have also been an attempt to sweep the "real sin" aside and turn lemons "miraculously" into lemonade.
#2 is a vague memory now, and I can't seem to locate anything current on it, so my memory could be off to a large extent, but I'm fairly sure it is a reputable claim that is probably well concealed rather than something that is entirely untrue.
I see a contradiction here. The law (even his limited understanding of it) as set out in the old testament refers to those who followed Judaism, it never was a universal law, this christian follower of what is mainly the Pauline doctrine is asserting old testament law applies to all? That seems strange since few if any modern day christian dogmas follow all of those laws and don't have a requirement to pre-convert to Judaism. It's cherry-picking again. As I remember it from my reading, particularly of the events surrounding the exilic period it was perfectly OK to kill babies in the womb, and after, as long as they weren't of the tribe of Israel or if it was commanded by the god of Abraham for the sin of not being born an Israelite. I think the Canaanites might have taken issue with his 'universal' views on the old testament personhood of the unborn.
Bravo.
Minute 5:10 Yes, anyone can search for:
" My Jewish Learning, the beginning of life in Judaism "
•••• Life was established to begin at first self breathing, and Malachi 3:6 states:
" I am the LORD, I change not "
I'm surprised nobody is mentioning Hosea 13:16 which demands that the "Samaria is held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They shall fall by the sword, Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, And their women with child ripped open".
Why are many Christian bible readers so simple minded?
Once again Dan is endorsing the dogmatic position asserting the originality of The Hulk. We have no data to indicate that our earliest Hulk manuscripts are identical to the original composition of the text.
We need a T-shirt with the writing "in nowhere shape or form whatsoever!"
also sounds like everything in the bible where the mom and fetus are commodities...you got it "material or monetary loss"...
It doesn’t matter. Religion doesn’t belong in government. Plus the Bible does not grow with the knowledge we gain over time.
I'm just really curious how anything regardless of what it is that was written by anyone like 1500 years ago has anything to do with what is going on today?? We have made all of these advances in biology and technology and yet people still try to say that anything from that book is somehow legitimately relevant now. With all this knowledge why is it that anyone is constantly concerning themselves with anything from that book that has been Rewritten over and over and over again?? It was not written by some deity it was written by people!!!
It is easy to see that the man whom Dan McClellan is "debating" is young. I grew up in the evangelical church and it was not something that was really even discussed in the church until my college years (mid '70s).
"To take innocent life at anytime is murder."
Woof - when this guy finally actually reads the bible and gets to 2 Samuel 12 where his god directly infects, tortures, and kills a baby, I bet he'll change his tune right quick.
By which I menace he'd lie and spew nonsense, as per usual.
Or 1 Chronicles 21, where his god kills 70,000 Israelite men by plague (and an unstated amount of women and children presumably, unless we want to assume that this was a gender-discriminating plague) because David took a census.
There's sophistry for that. 😅
They declare that the people were evil so it’s ok.
But the number one issue is that I'm tired of people treating abortion as if it's only birth control and that it makes it murder.
1. Abortions are often prescribed by the physician to save the life of the mother.
2. Optional abortions are often requested because of hardship from poverty, childcare, current family size, broken families, etc. Those who oppose abortion also oppose providing any relief for these hardships.
And when you say, “My child will starve because I can’t afford to have a child,” pro-forced birth people retort: “then you shouldn’t have had sex.” Which to me proves the “precious baby” is not as precious as that “Christian’s” wallet. They have forgotten Jesus’s teachings to feed the poor to embrace the Republican creed of greed and hatred for the poor.
There's an interesting invitation God offers the Israelites in Deutoronomy 30:19 "...Now choose life..." so, after all, we have to choose. And yes, I know this passage is not related in any way, shape of form whatsoever to the topic at hand, but its an interesting couple of words...choose life.... I like the Christians that says "...I'm pro-life but I wont vote for someone to foce my ideology upon others through legislation..."
❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!
Thank you -
Lastly, meditate on this God believes choice is so important that he in his infinite glory and holiness will not even save you from eternal damnation if you choose not to believe. The God who created and loved humanity so much he came here and die for us still wants us to choose and accept salvation. Because you can not force love. And the greatest of all commandments was love God with everything you are and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus sacrifice can be summed up in those two commandments.
When Egypt's firstborn all died had they been ensouled yet?
THE BIBLE as TOTEM.
This is taught in the christian church especially in the Independent Baptist saying that God is pro life
I notice that Dan doesn't have to go "uh uh uh" very often
Although as i typed that he did utter an "uh" lol
Can you make a video about how the covenant code draws their legislation from the laws of Hammurabi?
*Punishment for premature birth* ala Exodus 21:22 would mean that the fetus is NOT a full person yet. Otherwise, what is the harm?
Some things need to be re-visited many times.
Scripture is very ambiguous on this topic. Hardly even skirting it, though it's unimportance is repeated. Here is (and other places) where the scribes fall way short of their job of clearly defining subjects. In lieu of unsolicited interests. What right has the clay to say to the potter? People aren't clay and that's a well known fact. If the clay has a mouth/piece to speak with; then all the right in the world.
Just the fact that they’re arguing around a statement concerning how to hit women is kinda cringe
Do not bend, twist, or ignore. Is that similar to fold, spindle, or mutilate?
Numbers 5 11-31 is cristal clear about god explaning how to perform a magic spell and a curse that can cause an abortion.
I came here to listen but I think those T- shirts are the bomb, tho.
Sorry buddy, they left out the Didache. No takesies backsies. Abortion is not prohibited by the Bible.
By this guy's logic anything that a person can own is a person.
I don't know if you take questions that aren't in video form, but I would love to hear you talk about Numbers 5 and the theory that it is a ritualized abortion commanded by YWHW.
I have a friend that went to the seminary and studied everything he could. The problem with the bible is it could not be translated with accuracy due to by the time of translation Hebrew the language it was written had changed enough that it didn't make sense. Due to this it was changed by the ones in control. Ie: king James creator of the king James version.
And if im not a Christian your religious doctrine should have no basis in my decisions about my healthcare or my choices for my body
Let’s talk about that suit jacket with that shirt. Oh my God no way in hell.