Debunking pro-choice lies about pro-lifers

[@Ben-fm1tp]

There's such an easy answer to the "you only care about the baby until it's born" statement. It's called charity and private action. Just because perhaps some who are pro life believe in certain economic policies when it comes to government does not mean they do not offer their time or money to places that help pregnant women and new mothers

[@danieltemelkovski9828]

Beyond what you mentioned, there's actually no logical contradiction between being pro-life and being a "socialist" - or on the left - regarding economics, although it's fair to say that most pro-lifers are not on the left.

[@artistforthefaith9571]

They seem to forget that Catholics have their own economic system that is not jewish capitalism. Corporatism is far better then either socialism and capitalism and was designed with the idea of Church and state working together for the benefit of all.

[@rhwinner]

That argument is a projection of their own view: abortion frees me from having to care for, nurture and provide for a child.

[@Mish844]

private action and charity as a response are a cool thing. Prolifers using this response further confirms that prochoicer was in fact correct in that assesment - you only care about life until it is born. Maybe it is not clear but using charity as an excuse is lifting responsibility off of yourself. The responsibility dictated by prolife position, assuming it isn't a bait&switch for authoritarianism.

[@Ben-fm1tp]

@@Mish844 literally how? It puts responsibility on the individual to act. Unless you're going to assume the people using this defense do not donate to or volunteer for such causes in which case you would be wrong here. And how are all is it authoritarian?

[@dbg-dabraziliangamer8163]

Good morning, everyone ❤️

[@officialkodhark1075]

A Catholic from Nigeria i love your channel, God bless and give you more wisdom and knowledge you need to defend the truth.

[@RealSeanithan]

The overturning of Roe v Wade wasn't so much winning the war as it was the event that allows the war to actually begin.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

I am pro-life and a woman but am not altogether sure I agree with the discussion on women in the workforce. I think the reality is that the workforce presupposes in this day and age that one must work outside the home and not attend to one’s family. This is true for both men and women. Historically, before the industrial revolution, this was not so. The household was the center of work for both men and women for most people. I do not believe that making the work force outside the home more friendly for women will solve any problems. It militates against family life.

[@ConnieRossini]

I'm a conservative Catholic woman and believe the mother's role in caring for her children is irreplaceable. Yet, Pope JPII called for innovation, so that mothers could work while raising their kids. Since 2020, the number of businesses allowing workers to remain at home has grown astronomically. And there has always been the possibility of having a home business (easier than ever with the internet), working part time, or working once your kids are in school (if you send them to school) -- or in highschool. I have run my own part-time business for several years while homeschooling my kids. Family must come first, but there are many ways to pursue one's dreams without harming the family.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

@@ConnieRossini I think those are great alternatives and creative ways to handle both work and family life. I know other mothers who are doing the same thing as you and that is good. What I don’t like are those aspects of the economy which require 60 to 80 hours per week of work, for both men and women, at a workplace only. My son-in-law works for such an organization, but has managed, because of seniority, to put limits on how much time he spends at work. I also don’t like the attitude, which you obviously don’t share, which sees children is an obstacle.

[@kalioce]

Hi from Brazil! I really enjoy watching your videos because they help me learn more about the Catholic Church. That said, I'd really appreciate it if you could talk about the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) - how to read it and why it's arranged the way it is. Keep up the great work!!!

[@michaelibach9063]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Truth & Life App 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:4 RSV-CE

[@zeloraz8101]

Well, if babies are being killed, why is it immoral to stop a child being killed in ANY way possible?

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

Beautifully and masterfully done, Trent. 👏🏻

[@mikethemonsta15]

God bless you Trent!

[@newglof9558]

Thanks Trent! Free for all Friday idea: what would you be doing if you weren't an apologist/content creator

[@flyingrobotduck]

Prochoice Christians exist and prolife Atheists exist so it's not a religious issue.

[@haydongonzalez-dyer2727]

Awesome job Trent!

[@Mrs_Homemaker]

I have been missing your videos 😅 Enjoy your time off though. We all need it from time to time

[@Tzimiskes3506]

God Bless you Trent! You should take a break from all this insanity and relax for a bit.

[@yajunyuan7665]

Happy Birthday to Laura

[@GratiaPrima_]

I was missing your posts! Enjoy your time off and happy bday to your bride! My birthday is Monday 😄

[@yajunyuan7665]

Happy belated Birthday

[@GratiaPrima_]

@@yajunyuan7665 thanks!

[@nate9331]

Trent, Could you maybe talk about Father Tom Stier who left the Diocese of Oakland and wrote a "fiery letter saying goodbye to the Catholic Church"?

[@jessicakuck5105]

Hi Trent. Just recently got introduced to your channel through the “How to Be Christian” channel. I’m a follower of Christ with a strong desire to uphold the integrity and intended meaning of the Scriptures (and subsequently act in obedience accordingly), and am favorable towards upholding traditions/interpretations of those who came before me. I would consider myself to be “pro-life” in the linguistic sense of the phrase and in the Biblical sense (i.e., based on interpretation of the commands laid out in Scripture). I would also consider myself to be “pro-abortion” in specific cases namely 1) when the life of the mother is at risk and 2) when the baby has already died. All other cases, in my estimation, are unnecessarily ending the life of a human. So, to be clear: I’m not pro-life/anti-abortion nor pro-choice/pro-abortion. I am pro-life/pro-abortion, which currently doesn’t seem to be a political classification. When challenging a pro-life/anti-abortion argument of “How to Be Christian” it became clear to me that his Catholic views were muddying the water of the common discourse. The common definition for abortion is, “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.” The Catholic definition for abortion (as is commonly argued) is “the intentional killing of a human being living in the womb.” In fact, for pro-life/anti-abortion advocates, this seems to be the only definition of abortion that they agree to. This is an intellectually dishonest definition, in my humble opinion, and here is why I believe it to be so: 1) Molar and ectopic pregnancies occur, and if the woman desires to stay alive and have the most successful opportunity to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply (i.e., maintain her fertility) she must abort this baby at some point. 2) Sometimes the baby dies in utero (or out of utero, in the case of ectopic pregnancies) but the tissue that supports the baby’s life does not stop growing. In some cases (molar/ ectopic pregnancies) the woman’s life (and potentially fertility) are at risk, but in others, there is no health/potential religious-command-breaking risk to the mother. In other words, abortion-per the common vernacular-is not only killing a living human being in the uterus. When further investigating the Catholic view, I see that you actually have two different definitions of abortion: direct and indirect. From what I can grasp from the language, the only difference between the two is that “direct abortion” is an intentional act while “indirect abortion” is an unintentional one. This is an interesting distinction to me. And it does lend itself to being able to confidently argue that there is no medically necessary reason to have an “abortion” (intentionally kill a human being residing in the uterus) while also logically maintaining historic Catholic rulings. However, this is a psychologically damaging message to perpetuate to the masses because it is not completely true and stirs up confusion. 1) There is no possible way to have an unintentional “abortion” unless: a) you do not comprehend or misunderstand what an abortion entails (which is highly unlikely because a woman is informed by the doctor about the procedure, risks, and outcomes, AND the woman needs to schedule the procedure and make herself present for it), b) you do not realize the baby is indeed a human for one reason or another (which opens another can of worms)…perhaps there are more reasons. These reasons are not just limited to molar/ectopic pregnancies, yet the Catholic view only limits “indirect abortions” to certain kinds of pregnancies. 2) Not all abortions kill a baby in the uterus (ectopic pregnancy). 3) Not all abortions kill a baby. When pro-lifers argue for life only using the definition “the intentional killing of a human being residing in the uterus” and refuse to acknowledge legitimate instances of abortion that do not fit this criteria, they are 1) damaging their appearance of intellectual integrity, 2) devaluing the life of the children that must be aborted, 3) minimizing the severity of the killing on behalf of the mother (what an incredibly, gut-wrenching horrible state to find oneself in-mortal sin of killing her precious baby or mortal sin of killing herself by having full knowledge of her predicament and taking no action). Why not take the position that some abortion (common definition) is justified, removing fuel from pro-choice camps who claim pro-lifers are religious bigots stuck in ancient times, and then move forward pointing out what life is and how precious it is (e.g., how do we best preserve all life?, how do we best honor the dead and their physical bodies?)? OR, make all instances of abortion where a living baby is present of equal worth, while acknowledging that abortions of dead babies are indeed abortions but irrelevant to the discussion? It seems it would be difficult to be a religious Catholic and take either position, if I’m understanding Catholic law correctly, because you are strongly preserving ideas and definitions of abortion from your predecessors. I do not think it is Biblically permissible to kill another human being. However, in the instance of maternal self-defense (when the baby has unintentionally implanted itself or the baby cannot genetically develop past a certain stage…perhaps there are more like cases in later pregnancy…, which the baby unintentionally endangers the mother) there seems to be a need for action on her part to preserve as many lives as possible while preserving the ability to uphold as many Biblical commands as possible, which, tragically, may result in loss of life of the innocent child. Let her be tried accordingly. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Any response with your thoughts is extremely welcomed. I have yet to find a pro-life/anti-abortion advocate who will exchange thoughts on this.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Yes the church teaches it is fine to kill in self defense so if the development of your child is a blatant and sure threat to your life it is fine to kill him/her and remove him/her. It is also fine to remove a cadaver. You won't find any disagreement with Trent on this topic.

[@frankovstovski]

CCC 2271 - Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral code: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.” CCC 1754 - The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts.... circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. “Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Association of Large Families, AAS (1951), XLIII, p. 855.) “The classical example of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress. It is true that early medical terminology speaks of natural miscarriage as abortion, but it does not refer to the above examples by the name of abortion. In the case of the uterus, the usual name hysterectomy would be used, and the pregnancy would be noted in the pathology report. Both medically and legally, for the purposes of discussion, abortion is a direct and fatal attack upon the life of an unborn offspring of human parentage.” (EXCEPTION: TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER by Rev. E. M. Robinson, O.P.; copyright 1991; Catholicnewsagency.com) “There are three common medical procedures to address ectopic pregnancies, two surgical and one involving a drug. In all of the procedures, the embryo dies. From a Catholic perspective, direct abortion - the intentional killing of an unborn baby - is never permitted, but a procedure to save a woman's life that has the unintended effect of an unborn baby's death is morally permissible.” (Seven myths about overturning Roe v. Wade by Jonah McKeown, Jun 24, 2022; Catholicnewsagency.com) “The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall see immediately, it is permissible to perform.” (INDIRECT ABORTION (Taken from "Medical Ethics" by Edwin F. Healy, 1956)) “Indirect abortion is the foreseen but merely permitted evacuation of a fetus which cannot survive outside the womb. The evacuation is not the intended or directly willed result, but the side effect, of some legitimate procedure. As such it is morally allowable.” (Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon, S.J.)

[@John_the_Paul]

I haven't heard of anyone being against removing already dead fetuses/embryos, and when it comes to the life of the mother, I think most of us would agree that prioritizing the life of the mother is an albeit tragic, but likely necessary step to take. Neither of these views really contradict the standard position of minimizing death. (of course, it's best to do everything you can to save both)

[@csongorarpad4670]

Good morning, sirs!

[@Blasian62]

States should NOT have the power to decide on abortion! The Supreme Court should NOT have sent abortion to the states. The Supreme Court could and rightfully should have outlawed abortion federally, nationwide! The right to life is within the 14th amendment, that no state shall deprive a person of their life without due process of law. The Supreme Court could have and fully within their power made the the interpretation to ban abortion with this. Saying that abortion went back to the states "as it should" only WEAKENS our case, especially when states like California make laws for abortion anytime even 7 days or longer AFTER THR BABY IS BORN! In Kansas our ammendment to put limits in the abortion industry didn't pass. The people, these states shouldn't have the power to make these decisions! No man should have the right to make the decision to kill babies!

[@kimberHD45]

The law isn’t subject to your feelings or ideals. The individual states, according to the Constitution, are the proper authorities to decide these issues. It’s amazing to me how so many on the side of life fail to realize the glaringly obvious flaws in granting such powers to the centralized bureaucratic government that usurped such unconstitutional authority in 1973 with Roe v Wade. Not only Roe v Wade, your idea only empowered the left to undo proposition 8 which protected traditional marriage in California and cursed the entire country with gay marriage, and before that, was the mechanism for banning school prayer and public displays. With all due respect, I have to wonder if you’re even awake….what do you think Roe v Wade was, other than what you’re demanding now, only in reverse? Stop using the lefts tactics and arguments for centralized control via judicial review as a negative of state’s rights. Centralized control or fiat doesn’t work for Christ, Christians, constitutional law, conservatism or religious liberty, and it certainly didn’t work for the unborn!

[@bubblyfrog5]

"The Supreme Court could have and fully within their power made the interpretation to ban abortion" No, they couldn't have. Making federal law is the role of Congress, not the Supreme Court. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law.

[@scimaniac]

Agree with the sentiments, but by the 14th amendment, there would have to be judicial proceedings, so abortion would not be outlawed.

[@Mish844]

@@kimberHD45 No, by your own standards law IS a subject of feelings and ideals, as long as those ideals are aligned with yours, which you simply try to obscure with terms such as "traditional marriage". Secondly, Roe v Wade was constitutional, by the power of 14th amendment as it was explained. Now, you may disapprove of it, and fundamentalists and other idiots try to say it doesn't count, but that's just wishful thinking. Similar issue with gay marriage, there is no curse in it, unless other people having consensual relationship is especially offensive to you, which indicates that you're jsut a spoiled brat if other people getting marriage you don't approve of is on the same level of empowerment or disempowerment as prayers in public places. So let's get this outta way - this idea didn't empower just left, it empowered anyone who doesn't suffer from control obsession issues and being a braindead fundamentalist. Proposition 8 didn't protect anyone, please stop lying. It proposed banning gay marriage, harming specific group of people, which is not in service of justice in any capacity. Yes, law is supposed to serve justice, not to appeal to your approval. Not to mention that if central law was a bad idea in on its own, you wouldn't be states at all. What is supposed to be special about central law that doesn't apply to state law? Because if there is no such thing then by consistency you're either a person who hates law or defends federal laws such as roe v wade. Ofc your entire rant about states only makes sense if fundamentalists ddidn;t want to go further and Trent makes it explicit that it isn't over.

[@TruePT]

Morning dudes!

[@YovanypadillaJr]

Trent brother you looking great.

[@travisbrewer5391]

Overturning Obergefell or Grizwold v Connecticut would be a good riddance!

[@DeannaWillistonOFS]

Ah, but the abortion industry has completely changed tactics to fear-monegering around the topics of child rape, the availability of medical care for ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage, and access to medications for arthritis (that also could be used for abortions).

[@EpoRose1]

Oh, I missed the access for medications for arthritis. Can you elaborate?

[@DeannaWillistonOFS]

@@EpoRose1 it’s a two-part misinformation attack: first you claim that pro-choicers are sticking up on said medications for illegal use, secondly you report that since there is the rush of purchasing for illegal use, those who need the medicines for arthritis (in example) are afraid they won’t be able to get the medicines they need. The ethical answer would be to fund more research into medicines that don’t also have the potential to harm unborn humans. And this research exists, with new medications every day it seems. It’s why protesting against unethical medications is still important.

[@Mish844]

well, I've been debunking prolifers with ectopic pregnancy for half a decade or so now. Does it make me part of abortion industry?

[@DeannaWillistonOFS]

@@Mish844 what exactly do you mean? The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies resolve in miscarriage, those who need medical intervention can be done in such a way that the intention is not the death of the child. It is not the same as elective abortion and any doctor making someone wait until they rupture would be guilty of malpractice. Also abortion clinics don’t offer care for mothers with ectopic pregnancies, so it’s a straw man-just like miscarriage management.

[@Mish844]

@@DeannaWillistonOFS what you're doing is just sophistry, word gymnastics. If you look closely enough at what abortion is and what is its intetnion, you'll notice why it's used when encountering an ectopic pregnancy. Contrary to prolife dellusions the intention behind abortion is not to kill, but to immidietly end process of pregnancy, death being the secondary effect. Quite literaly the other name for abortion is "induced miscarriage", not "murder" as prolifers love to lie about this. And regarding the need for abortion in this case, ectopic pregnancy is a threat to mother's health and even life, given possibility to cause bleeding. Ofc, technically you don't have to do abortion in this case, because you can just play the russian roulette, which by the way justifies the phrasing "need for abortion" here. And remember, demanding others to play russian roulette to appease your sensitivities is the epitome of dangerous narcisism and is therefore immoral. No, abortion clinics caring isn't relevant topic here, don't try false leads, it won't work. What is relevant is whether ectopic pregnancy necessitates access to abortion, which I explained in previous paragraphs. edit: I would also kindly ask that you stop using terms such as "strawman" before first checking their intended use. This isn't a magic spell that you throw so it can somehow serve as a prosthetic for legitimate criticism.

[@marklizama5560]

For any commenter or viewer on here who supports abortion, before you say "American Taliban," "Christofascist" or "Religious Extremist" or the like, I just have one thing to say; the pro-life position is only religious if you believe the right to life is religious, if you belief the right life is based upon religious beliefs than yes, the pro-life position is a religious position. But if you don't believe you need religion to justify the right to life, than no, the pro-life position isn't a religious position.

[@jon6car]

I became pro life about 10yrs ago and came back to the Church from Atheism about 3yrs ago. So I defended the pro life position using only secular logic for about 7yrs. Which is not difficult to do. If one supposes that human life is unique and has intrinsic value then the pro abortion position becomes untenable. If it is extrensic then it allows for what many would consider abhorrent practices.

[@michaelibach9063]

Our form of government doesn’t care why you believe something, it only cares about what you believe. I’m free to advocate against abortion just because I believe it to be right regardless of why I believe it to be right.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

The only reason I dislike this is that it divorces the faith from the matter, @#£% if they think it is religious we are and are proud to save babies. Of course using science as well.

[@laurameszaros9547]

@@jon6car Human life is very unlikely to be unique. The cosmos is possibly teeming with life, and hopefully many of these life forms will be more sophisticated than we are. If we really are the pinnacle of creation, the cosmos must be a very sad place indeed.

[@jon6car]

@@laurameszaros9547 Why would I concern myself with the cosmos when it comes to abortion?

[@laurameszaros9547]

I don't know about the US, but in the UK the great majority of people are "nuanced" in the sense that they hold neither firm pro-choice nor firm pro-life views on the subject of abortion. Most people here would like to see abortion significantly restricted, although not altogether outlawed. For this reason it can be hard to find "extremists" on either side of this debate, hence not too many lies or misconceptions needing to be debunked, whether from pro-choice about pro-life or vice versa.

[@barneyleseven2854]

The issue with abortion being decided by individual states. Is that a woman’s equal right to control her own body shouldn’t change from state to state. Essentially in anti abortion states women would be second class citizens with less rights than men.

[@matthewjohnston1400]

I support capitalism because I care about children and don’t want them to starve.

[@LM-jz9vh]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Are The Ten Commandments Based On The Forty-Two Principles Of Maat That Appeared 2,000 Years Earlier? - Ancient Pages"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - Science"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@LM-jz9vh]

*Let's briefly run through the 'ten plagues':* First the rivers are turned to blood, all the fish die and the waters stink. No one has any water to drink. This lasted for seven days and would have resulted in mass deaths due to dehydration. Amongst the first to die would have been the children. *The author doesn't think to explain how the Hebrews were saved from this. No record of it was made anywhere in any Egyptian records.* Exodus 7:17-25. This is followed by a plague of frogs which had somehow survived the rivers of blood that had killed all the fish. A mere inconvenience, nothing more, and a big stink when they all died, *but no record anywhere.* Exodus 8:2-13. Next we have the plague of lice about which very little is said *and of course no record was made.* To a people who would have been accustomed to lice this would probably have been nothing remarkable. Exodus 8:16-18. Then the flies. Apart from the land being 'corrupted', whatever that means, there don't appear to have been any ill effects from this and they disappear as quickly as they came a few days later. *Nothing worth recording there, obviously.* Exodus 8:21-31. Now the author seems to begin to lose the plot and describes a 'grievous murrain' *which kills all the Egyptians' cattle, horses, camels and sheep.* ***They all died - hold that thought.*** *No Egyptian historian or keeper of official records deems it worthy of mention.* Exodus 9:3-6. Next come the boils which afflict everyone and everything, including all the livestock ***even though they had been killed by the 'grievous murrain' a few days earlier,*** *apparently, and yet no-one thought to write anything down anywhere.* Of course, anyone who understood anything about microorganisms and the aeteology of boils would have described this as an infestation with Staphylococcus - the signs of faecal contamination - but the author was obviously unaware of these. Maybe he was just in too much of a muddle by now to care. Exodus 9:8-11. Now it's hailstones so bad that every plant, every tree, every servant (for servant read slave) ***and even the livestock (that our story-teller has forgotten already that he killed off in the fifth plague before given them boils in the sixth) were harmed.*** It looks like our story-teller has learned from his earlier silly mistake with killing all the livestock too soon then having to resurrect them later. He mentions that some plants survive. Do I smell stinking fish again? *The greatest hail storm in all Egyptian history, apparently, but not worthy of being recorded.* Exodus 9:18-25. It's the turn of the locusts and it's suddenly obvious why some plants had to survive. *How could the locusts turn Egypt into a barren desert if the hail storm had done it earlier?* Good thinking there. Shame about the earlier boob! *Mysteriously, no Egyptian scribe appears to notice any of this or the inevitable famine and mass starvation which would have ensued.* Exodus 10:4-15. And for the penultimate trick, it's going to be dark for three days. *No one makes a record of this, obviously.* Exodus 10:21-23. The last 'plague' is not so much a plague as a ritual genocide. *Here our tale takes a nasty turn and the true character of the Hebrew god is revealed in all its glory - a petty, vindictive, homicidal psychopath who has not yet acquired the omniscience he will be granted later. He kills every firstborn Egyptian in a single night,* ***including the firstborn of all the cattle that died in the fifth plague.*** *For some reason he needs the Hebrews to leave a secret sign so he doesn't kill them too. Weirdly, he can't tell his own chosen people from ordinary Egyptians and doesn't even know where they live.* And he had been leading up to this, apparently, because after every plague he 'hardens the heart' of Pharaoh so that he wouldn't let the Hebrews go. He had actually been planning this genocide all along just to impress people with his powers. *And still no-one thought even this mass killing in a single night worth making a note of in any Egyptian records.* Exodus 12:1-30. And then, of course, Pharaoh could muster up 600 horses to pull the chariots ***from amongst all the dead livestock from the 5th plague*** (Exodus 14:7). Google *"Rosa Rubicondior: Origins Of The Exodus Myth"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking Christianity: PATTERNS OF POOR RESEARCH- A Critique of Patterns of Evidence:Exodus"* *"For you were (not) slaves in Egypt: The ancient memories behind the Exodus myth - Archaeology - **Haaretz.com**"* *"Why the Exodus Story Has Value Despite Being Complete Myth - Psychology Today Australia"* *"Is the Exodus a Myth? - Worlds Beyond"* *"Historicity of Exodus and Moses - The Creatively Maladjusted"* *"Biblical Contradiction #81. When did the Exodus allegedly happen: during the reign of Rameses II (1279-1213 BC) OR in 1447 BC?"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Biblical Contradiction #87. Does the god of the Hebrews reveal himself to Moses in Midian OR in Egypt?"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Bible Contradiction **#134**. Which Ten Commandments?"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Bible Contradiction **#147**. Who writes the laws and commandments on stone tablets: Moses OR Yahweh?"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Ten Reasons Why the Bible’s Story of the Exodus is Not True - by Tim Zeak - ExCommunications - Medium"* *"Why Moses Did Not Write the Torah - Thomas Shoemaker"* *"Sargon the Great and Moses - The Word of Me… Wordpress"* *"The Death of the Documentary Hypothesis | Rev. David Bokovoy"* *"The Neo-Documentary Hypothesis | Rev. David Bokovoy"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@andyfisher2403]

You should have another discussion with that Catholic who said overturning Roe wood be a bad thing.

[@neilsiddons-smith1574]

Hi Trent. Just trying to find the article regarding violence in prolife movements on slate but not having any luck. Realise that knowing the right keyword would be good. Has anyone else found it. Thanks

[@yajunyuan7665]

I like your superman tshirt (dark knight version)

[@dorakinwarhammer2946]

ROFL Now You Tube has to weigh in on What Abortion is. As if we peasants have no idea

[@PatientPerspective]

No it isn't. Im 100% prolife and not religious and the prolife movement was originally based off of religious views. Roe, for one, started off secular and wanted abortion. Then she became Catholic and wanted the Supreme Court to outlaw it. Then the Court said "hey, we can't outlaw it, but we can give you a deal: abort before viability, abort thereafter out of medical necessity, dont put undue stress on the mother." Pro-life has always been a religious movement. I've been around Catholics who literally picketed porn businesses because they were too close to the church (although on the other side of town) making one business owner (so she told me) lose lose money and almost lost her business. She had to remodel her store so people won't "know" what she sold. The same Church rioted against a religious store I visited every now and again in the same city because it was contrary to christian doctrine and catholic theology. The store closed down because of it (modern form of colonization). The religious message behind anti-abortion movement I agree with in general (the sanctity of a child and so forth) but, like every other movement, there is violence involved. We can call it "peaceful protest" but when rights and life of people are involved, its not at all peaceful.

[@dianaf.s.1345]

Just thinking, is our totally peaceful approach in some way reinforcing the Lefts belief that it is not a life that has value? If we believe that the unborn life has the same value as a one, two or three year old, would we still be standing as quietly outside the abortuaries as we do with the unborn. I’m not talking about violence but perhaps we would at least be using more aggressive tactics to save two year olds? Just wondering about this concept from a logical standpoint?

[@littledrummergirl_19]

One thing that I think is a good piece of food for thought on that point, is that when you compare aggressive tactics (like yelling, showing abortion imagery, intimidation etc…) while outside of abortion clinics as opposed to peaceful tactics (praying, sidewalk counseling, passionate but kind rhetoric, etc…) outside of abortion clinics - on days where there are those aggressive tactics used, statistics actually show that MORE abortions happen on those days. Whereas days where people use the peaceful tactics mentioned above, statistics show a decrease in abortions on those days. So if it helps to think about that, less children are killed at abortion clinics when the tactics outside are peaceful, regardless of how we feel about the abortionists killing the children inside. The simple fact is that we save more people while using the gentler tactics, because the women going there are almost always stressed and scared of the abortion as it is, and feel forced due to lack of support or resources. If we scare them more, they won’t want to reach out to the loving resources we DO have for them that would otherwise almost certainly change their mind about getting the abortion. I hope I worded that all properly lol

[@dianaf.s.1345]

@@littledrummergirl_19 Yes, good point that I’ve always relied on, just wondering about the approach of some who actually enter the clinics and peacefully try to dissuade the women. And truthfully, even I question myself, if they were actually murdering toddlers if I would have the same demeanor. Just a question I’ve been pondering these days in my own mind. More of a personal conscience thought process. Thanks for your input. 🙏🏻

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Only 50 minutes late and they be lying about the procedure itself.

[@rooforlife]

When did they lie about a procedure

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@rooforlife Well they say it is not murder for starters.

[@rooforlife]

@@johnnotrealname8168 Okay I will again and see which one says abortion is not murder

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@rooforlife Ummmm, you think pro-choice people agree with us that abortion is murder?

[@rooforlife]

@@johnnotrealname8168 NO I don't think that, I thought you were saying the guys speaking in the video was lying about the procedure. The lying would be the abortion supporters that say abortion isn't murder.

[@TerryMcKennaFineArt]

This starts out with what is a straw man. It really does not matter that Animal Rights Activists are less violent than the Pro-Life movement. First of all, the press does not present the Pro-Life movement as violent. Again - a straw man. In any case the Pro-Life movement has "won" and by winning has shown itself to be in the minority. And in the end, it will not win.

[@dezericka]

Yo tube overlords put a stamp of disapproval on this video

[@travisbrewer5391]

If the developers of KZbin disagree with the message, according to the 303 Creative ruling, they have NO OBLIGATION to publish it.

[@LM-jz9vh]

Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet is the general consensus of critical scholarship, even critical Christian scholars like Dale Allison. *Jesus falsely prophesied his return in the 1st century* Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom Matthew 16:28 Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God Luke 9:27 Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Mark 13:30 The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Matthew 24:29-34 There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Luke 21:25-32 *Jesus promised to return over 2, 000 years ago and he still hasn’t.* Jesus and the angels never appeared from Heaven, the stars never fell from the sky, none of these things happened. Nothing he prophesied happened. ***Apologists can try to spin this, but the simple fact is that Jesus was either wrong or misquoted.*** According to the Bible that makes Jesus a false prophet or misquoted (and if Jesus is misquoted than the Bible is not inerrant or the word of God) How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord? If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken Deuteronomy 18:21-22 *Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin* Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal) You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** Matthew 26:64 Mark 14:62 Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing. *Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel* Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathanael when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** John 1:50-51 *Nathanael never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.* The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, look up the following. *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"* (Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship) *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*

[@LM-jz9vh]

*"It needs to be emphasized that this line of reasoning isn't controversial among mainstream, middle-of-the-road NT critics.* I'm not talking about a view held by the Jesus Seminar, or earlier "radical" form and redaction critics like Norman Perrin. *Rather, I'm talking about the kinds of considerations that are largely accepted by moderates who are also committed Christians, such as Dale Allison and John P. Meier. Indeed, conservative scholars of the likes of none other than Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright largely admit this line of reasoning.* Why are they still Christians, you ask? I'll tell you: by giving unnatural, ad hoc explanations of the data. For example, *Meier gets around the problem by arguing that the false prediction passages are inauthentic (i.e., Jesus never said those things; the early church just put those words on the lips of Jesus, and they ended up in the gospels);* *Witherington gets around the problem by saying that what Jesus really meant was that the imminent arrival of the eschatological kingdom might be at hand(!); Wright gets around the problem by adopting the partial preterist line that the imminent end that Jesus predicted really did occur -- it's just that it was all fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem (Oh, really? So are we also to think that since he's already come again, he's not coming back? Or perhaps there will be a third coming?* But even putting these worries aside: why does Paul tell various communities very far *outside* of Israel about the same sorts of predictions of an imminent end that would affect *them* -- one that, like the one Jesus talked about, involved judgement, destruction, and the gathering of all the elect? And again, what about the author of Revelation's detailing the end-time judgment, which includes the Roman Empire *outside* of Israel, during the reign of Nero?). *Are you convinced by these responses? Me neither. And now you know why nobody outside of orthodox circles buys them, either."* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. *"The First Easters: Death and Resurrection Before Christ | atheologica"* *"The Christs Before Christ: Tammuz-Adonis | atheologica"* Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* *"Rising Gods, Pagan Parallels, and Cultural Context: A Response to M. David Litwa | atheologica"* *"An Evidence Attested Resurrection? - chromosome two"* *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* *"Theological Dodgeball: On the Posturing of Faith over Reason | atheologica"* *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@bluckobluc8755]

Oh hey a Bart D. Earthman bot lol

[@stephenjohnson9632]

Abortion is a human rights issue and therefore should not and cannot be left up to the states, just like slavery, voting rights, and civil rights.

[@lonelyberg1808]

Slavery??

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@lonelyberg1808 yes

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

I agree! Any country that declares in its constitution that it upholds a right to life MUST for coherency's sake ban abortion.

[@lonelyberg1808]

@@tafazzi-on-discord why ?

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@lonelyberg1808 Because abortion is murder. Allowing murder is the exact opposite of what a country that grants a right to life must do

[@adam7402]

I'm for contraception

[@zwijac]

👍 you being a favor of it is a good thing.

[@adam7402]

@@zwijac Doctrin on contraception is a lie. I don't know why apologists support such weak positions.

[@maxmaximus2608]

Yes - be happy about taking woman's rights away and help to establish these draconian laws. Be proud of your twisted moral stands.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Twisted? Twisted from what? We want to enforce the right to life to the full extent both to boys and girls. No such thing as a right to murder exists.

[@maxmaximus2608]

@@tafazzi-on-discord You enforce the elimination of basic human rights. Don't pretend you take some moral high ground when woman cannot make these choices any longer. Shame on you.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@maxmaximus2608 Shame on me? You want to murder children, I want to protect them. I have the factual and unambigous moral high ground you monster! Let me ask you this: do you realize that biologically zygotes are humans?

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

You are pro child murder, you don't have anything at all to say in your defense?

[@Mish844]

@@maxmaximus2608 I don't think those american christians know the value of humility, free will and human rights. They are so morally corrupt that they know no shame. You should treat them as a sect, not goodhearted christians