The Bible Condones Abortion?! My Response

[@TestifyApologetics]

Two things: KZbin has put limited monetization on this video because of the sensitive nature of the topic. There is nothing in their rules that says you can't speak for or against abortion, so I've asked for a review. But that takes time. So if you found this video helpful and feel so inclined use the Give Thanks button and leave me a tip. If just a handful of people do this, it will cover what normally comes in through Adsense and as always, your gifts go to support me being able to make more videos. If you can't do that, liking and commenting helps a lot to share its reach. Thanks! 2nd, as far as atheist channels go, I've always found The Non-Alchemist to be one of the more philosophically informed and smart skeptics out there. Give him a sub if you're interested in hearing one of the better cases from the other side. See the link in the description. Normally his videos are brief and entertaining, and Christians would do well to learn what they can from him and wrestle w/ his arguments. I shouldn't have to say this, but please refrain from any personal attacks in the comments. It's been a thing in the past, so let's not have it.

[@computationaltheist7267]

A major problem that I have with counter apologists like Non-Alchemist (incorrect) interpretation of Numbers 5:22-25 is they think that just because God takes life, it means Christians can take life. That's a huge leap of logic. I like the way Jimmy Akin put it " So even if this passage said “And if she’s pregnant due to adultery, she’ll miscarry,” which it does not say, that would be something that’s put in God’s hands, God having the power of life and death. That doesn’t mean we’ve got the power of life and death and can kill people on our own."

[@raelenebroome4047]

@@computationaltheist7267 100% agree.

[@supayakamupercaya]

I'm sorry brother. I have updated my KZbin and still no Give Thanks button. I wondered if its still not available from I'm from (South East Asia region)

[@mattgrace230]

For people new to your channel it might be good to set up the beginning of this video better as it just jumps in and if I didn't know your voice I would have assumed you were the guy you were countering

[@vinnygiggidy]

You might be surprised but I agree with the pro life movement and believe abortion is wrong. I'm an atheist so I don't believe in an after life, so our only chance to exist is this life.

[@JP-rf8rr]

Honestly, even if I was convinced Christianity was false, I'd still be pro life for the philosophical and moral arguments. The Abortion debate shouldn't be segmented on religious lines.

[@vinnygiggidy]

@@JP-rf8rr alot of atheist (like myself) base there morality on empathy or the golden rule do onto others as you would have them do onto you. I believe in order to be morally consistent the pro life stance is the morally correct choice. I'm would rather be born then not born and I will extend that to others.

[@littlefishbigmountain]

@@vinnygiggidy I was talking to my dad’s friend’s son once, who appeared to be an atheist and a materialist, who eventually burst out and asked me, “DON’T WE ALL SOMETIMES WISH WE WERE ABORTED??” and started talking about how he’d rather have been aborted than born into this world. Needless to say, it got very quiet and awkward. He started saying something about how he knew I was probably judging him, but the truth is I wanted to cry but didn’t know what to say to him. I just told him something like he had no idea what I was thinking in as empathetic a tone as I could manage. In any case, he could obviously rationalize that assuming someone would want to be born doesn’t mean they won’t wish they weren’t, and as a (seeming) materialist atheist by taking their life they’ll never know what they were missing out on so the safe bet would be to abort babies because letting them be born risks them being forcibly born into a world they don’t want to exist in and force them to either suffer through it or take their own life in a much more painful and tragic way, I imagine is something like what he would’ve thought about it. However, given the nature of the golden rule, we can only go based on what _we_ would have others do to _us_ so while he could use the golden rule to justify abortion (allegedly, although I doubt if the reality wouldn’t be different), you and I and many others obviously couldn’t.

[@2l84me8]

It’s not your place to demand someone remain pregnant against their will. No fetus nor person has a right to someone else’s bodily resources.

[@vinnygiggidy]

@2l84me8 the only way you can be pregnant against your will is if you get pregnant against your will. (R@pe). If you consent to sex you consent to all the consequences that come with sex. That's how consent works.

[@ChildofGod98765]

I love you Heavenly Father even as I struggle to provide for my two autistic children I always remember to keep faith in you, since losing my job for declining the vaccine. Things have been very hard. I declined because I have pre existing health condition Lupus and heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption. My husband passed away three years ago, so I’m all alone. No family nor friends. Every month I don’t know how we are going to make it. Every month is a struggle. But every month God provides. Thank you father for that. I’m so embarrassed of my situation. I’m so tired of struggling every month and being put down over my circumstances or accused of lying simply because I post comments. Again just evil lies to hurt me. NO MATTER WHAT I have Faith that God will provide! He is faithful. He knows my heart! He will save me and my children from poverty. IN JESUS name. Please pray for me and my boys.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Your children's lives matter. Thank you for your brave faith.

[@Peanuts76]

Hei, hope everything's goin better to you, back then i got exactly one heart attacks, but never did anything checks, and i know so well regarding struggle and mental health..... Again, I'll that you're gonna gone well and thrive....

[@heftymagic4814]

Stay strong 💪

[@paru-chinbaka5214]

PLEASE drop your cashapp

[@dovonovich]

Thank you. On a related note, if you have not before seen, I recommend a video titled, “Clay B Jones: Killing the Canaanites was Justified Capital Punishment”.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks for the support! I've read it, it's thought provoking. I lean closest to Jones's view at the moment but it's still a bit difficult to reconcile.

[@Delgen1951]

Also Michal Haiser does work in this area.

[@sjappiyah4071]

Notice how you didn’t even use the bible in the argument he’s responding too. Pro-Choicers are so insistent on stopping pro-lifers from using scripture….then they go use it themselves 🤦🏿‍♂️ Like pick a side y’all lol. Great response video

[@Xarai]

pro choicers dont care about religious texts. why should we? is the quran relevant? hindu text? satanic bible? daoist text? your religion should never have any say in any political matter ever. it should also never dictate anyone's life but your own if you have a fetus fetish keep it to yourself

[@wesleybasener9705]

Dude, great response! The non alchemist is a formidable guy, which is why I love him. I really appreciate your ability to admit you don't have all the answers. This is a tough topic and I'm glad you handled it the way did.

[@ElliottWong2024]

He is quite condescending though.

[@PeterTheRock-II]

Greetings brother from Kenya. May our LORD Jesus Christ bless you.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks for watching!

[@khumbomunsaka]

The Exodus passage would be Biblical proof that God considers the unborn human. I'm not sure how he would see it as not pro-life.

[@KainL33]

I love when people try to use Exodus 21 to try and prove the Bible is pro-choice and this is exactly how I argue against them.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

And I could just go on and on and on about why using that just doesn’t work as absolute terrible example.

[@KainL33]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 I'm confused by your wording. Are you saying you can show why using Exodus 21 would actually argue the opposite of pro-life or are you agreeing with me and saying you know multiple ways it could be used to support my statement? If it's the former I would love to hear your exegetical response with historical expressions and understandings surrounding the Levant and their practices.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@KainL33 OK OK I’m sorry I’m sorry I should’ve been more clear, no I’m in total agreement with you, what I was saying was the verse contradicts the points pro-choice people are trying to make, it ironically actually values the life of the unborn child it doesn’t devalue it.

[@KainL33]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 I was just confused by your wording a bit. I don't think the verse in question can one for one express our modern understandings but it undoubtedly shows value in the unborn life. Especially when put into cultural context in the Levant area. Other verses shows a shared understanding concerning the life of the unborn infant, Jeremiah being knitted together in his mother's womb, John the Baptist recognizing the Christ in Mary's womb, Isaiah expressing how he was formed in his mother's womb to be a servant. Elsewhere in Jeremiah God expresses His anger towards Jerusalem when they listen to false prophets, killing their own babies, he proclaims, "it never even crossed my mind," which is similar to Christians today when they claim God would be ok with abortion and twist His words for evil deeds.

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Great vid: have responded to the 'punishment regarding striking a pregnant woman' passage before. It seems like many people have to resort to a surface-level reading of a Biblical passage in order to help provide evidence in their case to 'debunk' a pro-life argument (which - even though the pro-life position is consistent with the Biblical position - most arguments for it never once mention the Bible). It's incredibly common, and has happened to me multiple times if memory serves: if abortion's the first topic, then before God or the Bible or Jesus is even mentioned, out comes the question "Are you a Christian?" or "Do you believe the Bible?" followed by more anger: all ya gotta do is just debunk a tiny bit of the terribly flawed pro-abortion position, and their zealotry rises to the surface. I wonder how pro-life atheists feel when they get these questions. :P ==== Additionally, regarding the passage about the judgment of the Amalekites (or other similar passages, like the Canaanites): a few important things to note: -Repeatedly the Bible notes that these punishments are due to the sins of the people of the land, and that Israel would have the same judgment if they rebelled against God (which they did numerous times, receiving similar punishment) -Sometimes the targeted group still exists after the judgment (indicating potential hyperbolic use of language: to use a Superbowl example[had to Google the result], this'd be akin, though not exactly alike, to saying the Rams utterly annihilated the Bengals. A victory is often hyperbolically stated) -Further, in these judgments, often God takes out most of the people Himself (we read repeatedly of God accompanying Israel and Judah in their battles, and that more fall to His work than the earthly armies who obeyed Him) -Further still, many of these judgments do not use human instrumentation at all If God is morally justified to take any life - whether by flood, disease, earthquake, heart attack, organ failure, or what have you - then He is justified if He chooses to use human beings to carry out a judgment. The atheist position would then have to then say: A. That it's not morally permissible for a Divine being to use humans as an instrument of His judgment (in which case they'd have to provide a source of objective morality independent of God by which to condemn His actions. Otherwise they'd simply just be saying they dislike the idea that God uses humans as an instrument of judgment, and their dislike of something isn't an argument) B. Or they'd have to say that God is not ever allowed to pass judgment or take a life C. Or they'd have to say that God doesn't exist (which, if they make this claim, they'd be giving up the internal critique of Christianity and making a different argument altogether instead of saying that the Christian view - which recognizes God - is inconsistent) If they go with B and claim it's never justifiable to pass judgment or take a life, then we'd bring up the hijacked plane scenario, or even basic self-defense. If they believe (for example) that even self-defense is never permissible, then they'd have to bring up a source of objective morality independent of God, and we're back to the response to A again. If they believe that it's justifiable for humans to take a life, but not God, then we are back to the response to A yet again. ----- It can be hard to deal with the idea of God passing judgment, especially using humans. That doesn't make it false. Nor does that make heaven or hell false. Nor does it change the marching orders for Christians, such as "As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (From Rom 12), and "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." (The Great Commission, from Matthew 28). The special circumstances surrounding the development of Israel and the coming of the Messiah aren't "marching orders" for people today: imitating Christ and making Him known is. Finally, if Jesus died on the cross for our sins - if any and all sin is that big a deal that it deserves the death penalty, that the Creator reached out in love to pay the fine for us (not just the physical death, but the righteous wrath of God against sin, in our stead) - ought we not to carefully consider the value of life itself, what we do with it, and how to flee from the wrath to come? If our lives are not a mere three-score and ten, but rather stretch into eternity based on how we react to the Messiah - born of a woman, mind! - all the more reason to take this, and the topic of the life of the unborn, seriously. ===== Thanks for the vid, and what you do. :)

[@xianartman]

This has compiled some of the best refutations of the scriptures I have brought up in oppositional arguments. Well done. I was not surprised by the notes, but I was impressed with your thorough and logical response.

[@RonaldDPotts1]

Well done, Eric. Your quite correct that, while I believe the prolife position is fully consistent with the Christian/ Biblical worldview, the Bible isn't required to make the argument. There are, indeed, prolife atheists. When I was an atheist I was still prolife, myself.

[@samuelhunter4631]

Concerning the Amalekites, I'd argue that there wasn't a mass killing of people as many assume Consider the passage 1Sam.15.8 - And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. If this was referring to a mass execution, why are there Amalekites still existing after? 1Sam.30.1 - And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire; Not just a handful of survivors, but a large force enough to ransack and raze an entire village. Seems rather odd if ALL Amalekites were supposedly killed by Saul. I'd wager that the writer was employing common rhetoric used for military conquest. Concerning God's command, it could also be an effort to drive them out of the land by employing lethal force

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yeah, but the command is still there regardless so I don't think the hyperbole argument by Copan works. It's not a silver bullet. I don't think saying it wasn't really what God meant flies.

[@gospelfreak5828]

@@TestifyApologetics Like even if it’s not meant to convey a literal killing of every human being, which you cannot read these war passages and conclude God wanted every last one of them dead while seeing not everyone of them died, it still seems like the command would apply to some children and some women. And the only thing necessary to cause doubt is God allowing one baby, child, or innocent women to die. Or I should rephrase and say commanded versus allowed. I think it’s just something we as Christian’s will have to struggle with. As Mike Winger puts it best, when we are questioning Gods morality we shouldn’t conclude God is wrong, but that we are wrong. I don’t need a justification for every question in the Bible. I think there’s plenty of justification for many of it. I think intellectually, the fact that God must be the source of morality alone shows it’s ridiculous to question him, along with his omniscience as well. We don’t see the whole picture. Only God can. So is the war language likely hyperbolic? Sure. But it’s still war. There’s still death. And no doubt children and women died

[@samuelhunter4631]

@@gospelfreak5828 Of course I'm not arguing that women and children didn't die. It's war. Of course people die. My point is that the command was to DRIVE them out, not commit a literal genocide.

[@MatthewFearnley]

Great video! I was impressed with how you steelmanned the Exodus case by leading in with the NRSV’s “miscarriage” translation.

[@TandemSix]

I heard that "argument" before, which presumed the other man was married and that his wife was pregnant. It would have been ignorant of the Lord to say "OK, you killed that unborn child, your unborn child will pay for you"

[@krishnarjunmukherjee9449]

Regarding 1st Smauel 15,the Church tradition including the writing of the saints, St. John Chrysostom, St.Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor and Origen (Not a fan of him but he is right here) , writings of the Desert Fathers and mothers, St. Anthony the Great, St.Pachomius, and St. Macarius all agree that the issue of killing infants is a sign of hard heartedness of israelites and must be taken by us in a spiritual sense to describe the spiritual warfare which takes in hearts of christians, infants representing the conception of sinful thoughts. We see in the Bible that King David carried out raids against the Amalekites in 2Kings . Thus the command is rhetorical and was not issued by God , and the Scriptures, the Church tradition, the writings of saints and desert fathers unanimously agree on that. It was taken allegorically by the entire early church and by the 2nd temple jewish community. St. Gregory of Nyssa states that interpretation that God ordered the massacre of infants is erroneous and blasphemous. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4LMhouZZ62GnLc kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZ6bmqx5rbprgas www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/07/violence-in-old-testament-patristic.html?m=1 harvardichthus.org/2018/07/when-god-kills-encountering-exodus-with-gregory-of-nyssa/ afkimel.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/for-i-will-pass-through-the-land-of-egypt-this-night-and-will-smite-all-the-firstborn-st-gregory-of-nyssa-and-the-allegorical-sense-of-scripture/ Note: The issue is sign of ancient war polemic as noted by Dr. John Wlaton

[@servantofjesuschrist8606]

Hey bro how are you? I used to talk to you here on KZbin with my real name. Now I don't use my real name on here anymore. You made a few videos but then you stopped making them.

[@zandrey7009]

Isn't the Ancient Hebrew language a hyperbolic language in many occasions as well? Meaning that "genocide" in the OT could refer to total defeat in battle, or being erased from the land. It seems to be a consistent theory, given that certain groups of peoples appear in a short amount of time post "genocide"

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Intriguing. As a recently baptised Orthodox Christian I was wondering what the patristic view was so thank you. I wonder might you recommend any patristic commentaries on Deuteronomy - I recently saw Deut 23:1 being used by a critic but I couldn't find anything solidly patristic.

[@krishnarjunmukherjee9449]

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 O I have patrstic commentary, but its coptic orthodox, but nothing is monophysitie there, i gurantee The best patristic source is St. Maximus the Confessor's "On Difficulties in Holy Scriptures, a response to Thalassios" Furthermore Congregation of the Lord means a political structure of Israel not the temple, sinch Eunuchs were said to be celebrating sabbath in Isaiah 63 and Bastards like Jephthah were even allowed to be judges. The normal view is that if the person truly repents , then he can enter the Congregation of the Lord, as the Lord said," i desire mercy, not sacrifice" Orthdox commentary on Deuteronomy 1 linksharing.samsungcloud.com/zJ2gQbnV9owJ Orthdox commentary on Deuteronomy 2 linksharing.samsungcloud.com/eUusbGbsWSLs 2nd one is pretty extensive amd eshaustive.

[@krishnarjunmukherjee9449]

@@servantofjesuschrist8606 hiii,

[@alphonsofrett2757]

My theory about the amalakits is they where fooling around with a special kind of witchcraft that really got the lord very angry 😠

[@landoonaboat]

I think it was because there were giants in the land and God wanted them gone because they were contaminating the human genome. The Canaanites were practicing witchcraft and child sacrifice for sure, which are some of the practices God wanted the Israelites to stay away from, but most of the Canaanites were doing these things, but God didn't order the same judgement for all of the tribes, which makes me believe that there was something even more sinister going on with tribes like the Amalekites.

[@Christian_Maoist.]

For the question of "God commanding the murder of innocents" John Walton is an old testament scholar and a good resource on this stuff.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

And those are also evil people as well.

[@Michael-bk5nz]

Isn't the reason that causing a miscarriage doesn't carry the death penalty because it wasn't intentional? Even in ancient times, people made a distinction between an intentional act of murder and involuntary manslaughter

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yeah there are just so many reasons why using that passage just doesn’t work, and also an important thing to keep in mind is that this is part of the mosaic law in the Old Testament only meant to be Applied to Jews and gentiles, and also this versus somebody accidentally hitting a woman and her miscarrying, not a woman intentionally going to an abortion clinic and getting in abortion, so it’s not all the same thing whatsoever,And again a miscarriage is not even occurring whatsoever at all so it’s just kind of irrelevant.

[@markhorton3994]

By definition a gentile is anyone who is not a Jew. Everyone is either a Jew or a gentile. I think you mean that that part of Mosaic law was part of the civil code of law of the theocratic Israelite nation and only ever applied to people under its jurisdiction.

[@Michael-bk5nz]

@@markhorton3994 Well, most of the examples given in the Torah sound like case law, the book of Exodus states that Moses 'judged the nation', and many of the laws, such as this one, have very specific examples attached, which sound a lot like a record of a ruling made by Moses or one who was appointed by Moses, this particular doesn't seem unreasonable at all, if you intentionally murder someone, you are subject to the death penalty, on the other hand if you are negligent in some way and death results, you are liable but not for murder. this is the same law we apply today

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

I see life as a continuum.. A human being is a human being no matter how we view them as being in various stages of development.. These recognized stages are human creations that are helpful in the medical and psychological care of the person but they do not have anything to do with the absolute value of the ever-transforming human being whether at conception or in old age.

[@jackwalters5506]

What is in my opinion the best answer to the command to wipe out the Amalakites is that it is an exaggeration. Throughout the history of the region, records are filled with the accounts of a rebellious tribe being exterminated entirely, so that even the children were killed, only for them to rise up and rebel a few decades later(and be "exterminated" again). It's seems possible that they were just following the writing standards of the time. There are other cases where this is done too. I can't remember the verse, but I don't think even most literalists would claim that God literally halted the progression of the Sun in the sky to allow the Israelites to crush their enemies more thoroughly. Such a motif of holding the sun in place was a common literary technique used to emphasize the scale of a victory

[@litigioussociety4249]

This is the first I have ever heard anyone interpret the passage in Exodus 21 to be referring to the woman not the baby. It doesn't make sense, since eye for eye and life for life would already apply to all Israelites, so obviously the point of the law is in regard to hurting the baby.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Exactly.

[@lsixty30]

A couple of admittedly difficult verses isn’t enough to dismiss thousands and thousands of complimentary verses. If God had instituted a lasting command to kill throughout time that would be impossible to reconcile, but that isn’t the case, this was a specific command during a time of war, at most it is a symptom of God interacting with a fallen race, not a symptom of an inconsistent God.

[@lsixty30]

If my only option left is to say I don’t know why God did what he did, but I know he has authority to judge the living and the dead of any age then really it’s amazing he suspends his judgement at all, not that he sometimes brings it forward to remind people of the dire state we would all be in if not for his grace.

[@lsixty30]

Children are a gift, a gift God allows sinners to continue receiving, yet when he decides to actually bring forward the consequences of rebellion we shudder and act like we deserve better, only because we are so used to the grace God has made so common place.

[@LoavesofBread]

The other thing that all these anti-theists do is look at the short passage out of context from its place in the book and, in this case, its place in the Torah. And the advances in second temple Judaism law. The thought process would be like doing all medical procedures based on Gray's Anatomy. Even though its procedures have been updated through practice and advancement.

[@philtanics1082]

Umm the whole point of Exodus 21 is that if the pregnant woman is harmed and forced to miscarry its counted as murder, and the guilty party gets death for killing the unborn child if was purposful, banishment if it was unintentional.

[@jman518192]

While I have so much on this topic where I find flaws and criticisms on both sides of this life v choice issue. What I want to say for now for the sake of brevity is that God has shown us where He stands on “when does life begin?” Simple by looking at the birth of Jesus. From my point of view and hopefully most Christians probably see exactly where I’m going. Since The angel tells Mary that “the Holy Spirit will overshadow Mary and she will conceive” meaning Jesus was considered “conceived and alive” at the moment of conception. No Sperm is involved we go from egg to “The Most High” faster than Thanos can 🫰🏿. I believe this is plain to see and right in our face and it makes sense of course God considers life to begin to at the moment of conception, He is the source of life and brings life into existence just by speaking it’s laughably obvious and even more laughable that it’s a source of contention, again to me and in my humble opinion. May God bless you all.

[@hrgirl26]

Thank you so much for correctly translating this using the Hebrew! So many people just depend on the English and not the original Hebrew.

[@calebjore3295]

Nice work!

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks!

[@jbranson7694]

I am a 65 year old woman who will never have the privilege of having a child within my womb nor to give birth to a child. I lament constantly over this, as I would have given my child back to GOD whom gave that child to me in then1st place! This is why I am so against women who have abortions, be glad and give birth to your baby, for you are so blessed to have this chance to give life to your child. I would do anything to trade places with you, to feel a baby within my womb and to be able to give birth to that child! GOD Bless those of us that are barren and GOD is indeed Pro Life!

[@djmarsupiaI]

…for their feet rush into evil, they are swift to shed blood. Proverbs 1:16

[@Aaron.T2005]

The fact that we can’t answer every objection is totally fine. Besides, how are atheists in any position to say our God is evil? They come from a relativist, nihilist meaningless worldview that doesn’t resolve the is-ought problem. How can they make any moral claim? They believe the only way you prove anything is through science. How can you get an ought from an is? How can you justify any moral claim as an atheist?

[@JabberW00kie]

I love your answer to the Amalekite problem. I’ve never heard a completely satisfactory response for the non-believer. Atheists try to use that passage as proof that the God of the Bible is immoral while ignoring the far more numerous passages that point to His moral superiority. Certainly, one passage that “seems” to present a moral contradiction should not be used to negate all of the other passages that are harmonious. The reasonable assertion is that my information or understanding about that one passage is lacking.

[@johnsteindel5273]

Based on the Bible even unborn children are conceived in sin, since we are all part of Adam's race we are by nature sinners and law breakers. Our actual sins, when we are old enough to commit them, simply reveal our nature. So unborn children aren't 'innocent'. I believe they will not suffer eternal punishment, but if they do God is not unjust. It's essentially the same question as the man on a remote island who never was told about God at all let alone Jesus, is God unjust to punish him? No, all humans get justice or mercy. There is not injustice in God.

[@kennylee6499]

I find that many of these sorts of issues can be, or can apparently be resolved on a Molinistic view. What are your thoughts on Molinism?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm open to Molinism

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

Hey Erik, how would you respond to the accusation that pro-lifers in the pro-life movement don't shy away from violent acts in order to maintain their convictions & beliefs?

[@nathanaelnewitt3961]

There's a chapter on the Amalekites in John Walton's book The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest if that's helpful to anyone. It's an all round great book so I recommend anyway 😂

[@RafelB1986]

The way I see it its this, God is the author and owner of life, your life is not yours, it was given to you by God and he take it back at any time, men are not allowed to kill because they cannot give life back to those who they kill but God can and this is the reason why God can order his people to kill their enemies. God knows this is difficult to understand to a lot of people and still he answers this in the bibble, remember that according to the Book of Revelation in the judgement day everyone will be there for the final judgement, that includes those who God commanded to kill in the bibble, they been there in the final day will prove that God owns life, they could not be there if it was not true so its a matter of trusting in God.

[@benclark4823]

"Imagine you are God. You’re all-powerful, nothing is beyond you. You’re all-loving. So it is really, really important to you that humans are left in no doubt about your existence and your loving nature, and exactly what they need to do in order to get to heaven and avoid eternity in the fires of hell. It’s really important to you to get that across. So what do you do? Well, if you’re Jehovah, apparently this is what you do. You talk in riddles. You tell stories which on the surface have a different message from the one you apparently want us to understand. You expect us to hear X, and instinctively understand that it needs to be interpreted in the light of Y, which you happen to have said in the course of a completely different story 500-1,000 years earlier. Instead of speaking directly into our heads - which God has presumed the capability of doing so - simply, clearly and straightforwardly in terms which the particular individual being addressed will immediately understand and respond to positively - you steep your messages in symbols, in metaphors. In fact, you choose to convey the most important message in the history of creation in code, as if you aspired to be Umberto Eco or Dan Brown. Anyone would think your top priority was to keep generation after generation after generation of theologians in meaningless employment, rather than communicate an urgent life-or-death message to the creatures you love more than any other."

[@omegaarts8317]

In my opinion brother i agree in what you say we do not have to have all answers. In regards to the Holy Spirit, which everyone is blessed in a different manner and force in the passage of time considering how much we strengthen in the word of God, we might don't have an answer today, but tomorrow we will. My humble oppinion in the topic now is that, before we engage with the moral problems of the command of the annihilation of the Amalikites, we should ask first as a prequisite: '' Should be God bind His actions to a law that he specifically created for His people?'' In other words, is it wise or even reasonable to expect God limit Himself under a law that was created for humans? We must not kill innocent people, anyone agrees on that (except fetuses as atheists claim) but God's standards are a lot higher. Someone we consider as innocent, might be guilty and we simply don't know why. In any case, i wouldn't consider the opinion of anyone using the Bible for their agenda. If their interpretation leads them that Yahweh would ever allow abortion, we know quite well that they are plain wrong.

[@khumbomunsaka]

I shall like and comment

[@John14-6...]

To me the conquest of Canaan is better explained with the fallen angel interpretation of Genesis 6 resulting in a gross genetic offspring some of which were the Nephilim. Chuck Missler, Dr. Michael Heiser, LA Marzulli as well as Josephus and most of the early church fathers believed in this over the now more palatable Sethite view

[@MaiaGothmog]

The sons of God were the righteous line of Seth, not angels. Nephilim were warriors, not giants or hybrids. That's a fairy tale that is the product of misinterpretation.

[@narnia1233]

This probably is insensitive, but it is interesting that there might be interpretation that a woman being unfaithful can lead to infertility is said in the Bible, because that's known to be true based on our medical knowledge today. Obviously it's rare, but getting STDs, having abortions, etc. can affect your fertility and even make you infertile.

[@matthieulavagna]

Could you please make a video on why you disagree with Randal Rauser? Thanks!

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'd have to reread his book but I just struggle with his view of Scripture, honestly. For Rauser it seems like very little can override his moral intuitions. At least Boyd maintains a higher view with his cruciform approach.

[@matthieulavagna]

@@TestifyApologetics what is the difference between Boyd and Copan?

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@matthieulavagna www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Greg-Boyd-Paul-Copan-debate-Old-Testament-violence-and-Boyd-s-new-theology-in-Crucifixion-Of-The-Warrior-God

[@willbyrob6582]

The Amalekite thing doesn’t make sense for 2 reasons: 1. Wouldn’t commanding the Israelites to adopt the Amalekites as their own children solve the problem without the unnecessary slaughter of innocent babies? 2. If it’s moral for God to sacrifice unborn babies to keep them from growing up to rebel against Him, why only do this when they’re opposing Israel? Why not do this much earlier and save many more generations from rebellion? If your answer is free will, that puts Yahweh in the wrong for commanding the killing of the Amalekite children, as that took away their free will. It seems that either reason He has for doing this, He acted inconsistently with it. I’m pro-life, but if I were a Christian, I don’t think I could ever be pro-life in good conscience, as that would involve actively fighting for an unborn baby to have a chance of experiencing eternal torment just so they can experience an earthly life. Put simply, I would prefer existing without free will to not existing and would far prefer not existing to eternal torment (or in this case a significant chance of eternal torment), so I would far prefer existing without free will to a significant chance of being tormented forever, so I could never inflict such a thing on someone else by pushing against abortion if I were a Christian.

[@jesussaves6625]

Commanding people to perform a certain act does not "take away free will". The people still have the free will to obey or not obey. God does not have to obey the rules that He created for humans to follow. Just as a parent needn't be home by curfew if he imposes a corner on his child.

[@willbyrob6582]

@@jesussaves6625 Are you saying the Amalekite babies would choose whether or not to accept God after death?

[@jesussaves6625]

@@willbyrob6582 No, I was not implying that. What do you mean? I was saying that God is above any rules that He had placed on mankind.

[@willbyrob6582]

@@jesussaves6625 I’m not holding Yahweh to human standards; I’m saying that Yahweh acts inconsistently with Testify’s attempted reason to explain this in the video (stopping the Amalekite children from rebelling against him), because he doesn’t do this most of the time. (ie couldn’t he have done this when the Israelites first got there because they were already wicked and this would save multiple generations of people from being born, rebelling against him, and then going to hell for it)

[@knightofgod5368]

It seems to me that none of these verses have anything to do with the modern practice of abortion. They don't talk about the idea of a woman going to a doctor in private and having a fetus forcibly removed from her body because pregnancy is an inconvenience to her. Instead, it talks about God issuing a divine judgment on a person or nation. The key point is that God is the one taking or commanding others to take life, not man doing it for convenience's sake. These verses seem to make it clear, at least to me, that God is the one with the right and authority over life, not man; and he's the one who gets to set the boundaries and laws on when it's ok for humans to take life. Whether or not you like God's methods is irrelevant to the topic.

[@stimmar143]

This might be flawed, but in my understanding God had made a Covenant with the Israelites, meaning they had to obey Him as their God and He'd lead them and protect them. Therefore, they were held to a higher standard by Him, leading to punishments for things for which He did not punish other peoples. In return, He protected them from their enemies, which in some cases meant destroying whole cities. He did not have a Covenant with them. With the coming of Christ, God made a Covenant with all of mankind. Now everyone can become His, and now He will not punish peoples in this way since at least some of them can become His.

[@jeremiahcastro9700]

Okay this guy is simplistic...he foolishly concluded that because he could expose the error in your syllogism that he *"exposed an error in God".*

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Which Guy, Eric is not simplistic he really goes into detail with his stuff.

[@Delgen1951]

The Amalekites and menbers of the Anakin Giant Clain, and were undr the Sentence of Death for that very resion, They were desinded form the Nephilim, the childern of the forbidden marrage of Anegels and human women. And as souch they are an abomination unto God.

[@benclark4823]

So…god is racist??? 😫

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

Yahweh IS pro choice. That is why we have free will. All humans have the free will to make their own decisions on this life. However, in the next, those people will be judged accordingly, as says the LORD…

[@jesussaves6625]

So God is also "pro murder" and "pro theft" and "pro adultery" even though He specifically commanded His people not to do those things? Just because we have the free will to be disobedient, that doesn't mean that God agrees with the sin in question. Just like with abortion (murder).

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

@@jesussaves6625 Pro choice =/= pro murder. It simply means the women should have the right to choose whether or not to murder her child. To contrast this, pro life means that women should not have the right to murder their children. In terms of God, does God not allow murder? He could prevent all murder, but he chooses not to because the murdered will have their reward in Heaven while the murderer will have their punishment due. Im not making a moral statement. Simply a theological one on the nature of why evil exists on God’s earth.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@DANtheMANofSIPA I think John MacArthur me a great point when he said we must separate the emotional problems evil, and the intellectual problem of evil.

[@lordscrewtape2897]

oh goody...the good ol " missing context" box..... they're just making stuff up at this point....🙄

[@suesmith9665]

I knew it

[@Bushido1274]

Erik is not a literalist

[@TestifyApologetics]

He definitely seems to using the term pejoratively for sure.

[@chodeshadar18]

Why don't you ask the Jewish rabbis who are experts in this law?

[@paru-chinbaka5214]

There is not one opinion and the opinions have evolved over time, but it's still great to ask 🥰

[@BrotherInChristDK]

They are not if they were they wouldn’t support abortion

[@jeremiahcastro9700]

@Testify Brother Eric there is no need for you to defend yourself against such nonsense and foolishness spewing from this ignorant man's mouth...all he did was take the one flaw in your syllogism and create a whole case against it to make you look bad and this leaves him and others to remain unbelievers, and have the added bonus of causing doubt in the minds of those not strong in the faith.

[@johns3927]

So you basically just water down the argument to "unjustified killing of innocent people is wrong". The pro choice person would then just argue that it's justified, the Judith Jarvis Thomson argument being one example. Now you can then argue against this, but now we're just back to arguing whether it's justified, and repeating syllogisms isn't really going to get you anywhere on that.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Google Guttmacher Institute "top reasons women choose an abortion" and let me know if the top three reasons they give are justifiable reasons to abort an unborn child.

[@paru-chinbaka5214]

Judith Thomson's argument confuses killing someone with not saving them, in my opinion.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@paru-chinbaka5214 exactly.

[@joshuadunford3171]

8:44 your argument is completely flawed. You are arguing that these children would grow up to be evil and want to kill the Jews therefore it is ok to kill them, but by that logic it would be reasonable for the Allies to slaughter German children from the Hitler youth during wwii to stop nay nazi resurgence. It would also be possible to adopt and raise those children to become Jewish. You may counter with “but then they would find out and get revenge” if you do think that then convincer you found out that your parent is actually a secret government and not your real parent, in truth you are the son of a terrorist who your parent killed then adopted you and raised you to reject terrorism. Would you then kill your parent who raised you because your birth parent was actually a terrorist? For further reasons why that passage is problematic is recommend reading The Human Faces of Go But over all respect your “I don’t know answer” you nailed it very well. I’m not pro life (I’m neutral on this topic) but over all you did amazing and made a lot of good points

[@TestifyApologetics]

I said I don't know the answer, it's just the standard apologist reply

[@joshuadunford3171]

Testify yes you did I made the mistake of being too implosive and responded too early. My sincerest apologies. Over all I found your “I don’t know answer” to be a very good one and I think you hit the nail on the head. I’m not pro life (I’m neutral on the topic) but I found your argument to be well sounded. I really love your rebuttal to the old “you are pro life because you are Christian” argument by bringing up Christopher Hitchens. I still do however recommend The Human Faces of God since it is not apologetic and looks at these passages with the will to condemn them even if I don’t agree with the book 100%

[@jaserader6107]

@@joshuadunford3171 no he didn't you are just an edgy athiesm who is mad at god

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@joshuadunford3171 thanks. I'll have to perhaps check that out sometime. Part of why I wanted to respond to this was to show Christians don't necessarily need cognitive closure for all their questions.

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

Extremely rare Testify L

[@jackbarman7063]

When the defense of your ethical position involves a reference on how to treat slaves and a justification for genocide, I think your argument has lost a lot of its moral force. Especially when taking about how an all powerful god has to resort to genocide because it knows the beings that it created with free will will turn out so evil they need to be murdered as children (while keeping the little girls for themselves, for perfectly moral reasons I assume). The answer to anything that appears really bad is “I’m sure god (an all powerful being who can do anything with whatever means he wants) had a good reason for it” and then you don’t have to think about it any more.

[@TestifyApologetics]

This again is not a lot different than saying "well, if your ethical foundation is that the world is not here for a reason - If unintended nature is all there is - then there simply is no way that things were meant to be. Natural facts are facts about what is, not facts about the way things should be. We observe animals killing and eating each other and we don’t regard it as a moral atrocity because it is merely a fact of nature. It is that way. But if natural facts are the only kinds of facts, then the same is true of human beings, surely. People maim and torture each other, they rape, exploit and terrorise each other, and that is they way it is. There just is no ethical foundation for the atheist" While most atheist philosophers are also moral realists and have defended moral realism admirably (like Erik Weilenberg, for example) other non-realists like Michael Ruse are not convinced by their arguments. The point is that I'm saying that both sides face some tension in their worldviews and pointing out a tension is just a distraction from the issue. Arguing that one side can't make any moral claims or give ethical arguments because "but naturalism has no basis to ground morality" or "but muh Canaanites" are just distractions from allowing any real discourse to happen. Are you really gonna bring up the Canaanites to every Christian and say they're not acting consistently if say, they become foster parents, or adopt, or don't stone their wife if she commits adultery, or if they wear a shirt made of mixed fabrics, or don't observe the Sabbath, etc, etc? C'mon.

[@benclark4823]

"Imagine you are God. You’re all-powerful, nothing is beyond you. You’re all-loving. So it is really, really important to you that humans are left in no doubt about your existence and your loving nature, and exactly what they need to do in order to get to heaven and avoid eternity in the fires of hell. It’s really important to you to get that across. So what do you do? Well, if you’re Jehovah, apparently this is what you do. You talk in riddles. You tell stories which on the surface have a different message from the one you apparently want us to understand. You expect us to hear X, and instinctively understand that it needs to be interpreted in the light of Y, which you happen to have said in the course of a completely different story 500-1,000 years earlier. Instead of speaking directly into our heads - which God has presumed the capability of doing so - simply, clearly and straightforwardly in terms which the particular individual being addressed will immediately understand and respond to positively - you steep your messages in symbols, in metaphors. In fact, you choose to convey the most important message in the history of creation in code, as if you aspired to be Umberto Eco or Dan Brown. Anyone would think your top priority was to keep generation after generation after generation of theologians in meaningless employment, rather than communicate an urgent life-or-death message to the creatures you love more than any other."

[@evanwilson9021]

Eric, murder is not wrong because it takes a life. It is wrong by the standard of hate. If you hate your brother in your heart you are guilty of murder according to Christ.

[@naysneedle5707]

I wish Christians could understand how sick and evil they sound to non-believers when they say that it's okay for God to kill innocent children. There is a very simple explanation for these 'difficult' (horrific) passages.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

I used to be an atheist so I do understand.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yes I understand, but you need to do more than just a blanket reading of the passage.

[@benclark4823]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 reading the entire context just makes your “god” look even MORE EVIL 👿

[@particube]

What happens if you make a currently pregnant woman unable to bear children? Also I like how the fact that the penalty for the death of an unborn child being equivalent to property damage is just brushed over.

[@paru-chinbaka5214]

Did...did you watch the video Senjogahara?! 1) Read about the Ordeal of Bitter Water on MyJewishLearning, unborn kids are not considered in this scenario. 2) The word for child used in Exodus 21 never ever refers to a dead child anywhere in the Old Testament, but even if it did, read a few verses above (v.14) and you see that actions leading to accidental death are punished much more lightly than other instances of homicide.

[@particube]

@@paru-chinbaka5214 Exactly, the possibility of an unborn child isn't even considered important enough to warrant so much as a mention. The Bible authors evidently didn't care about the possibility. All that would have needed to be added is a "and if the woman is pregnant, then the child shall not be harmed" or something to that effect, but we get nothing. You should look at the Greek Septuagint translation of the Exodus passage, it clarifies a lot. "Harm following" = a fully formed baby coming out "Harm not following" = a non fully formed baby. In other words the crime of killing a not fully developed child is only worthy of a fine, not murder.

[@paru-chinbaka5214]

@@particube What is the basis for your first paragraph if many rabbinical writings indicate the life and importance of an unborn child? This kind of interpretation falls flat on two counts: In numbers, only infants older than a month are counted as citizens. Are they not persons, Biblically? Can we abort them since the Bible's authors don't seem to care about them? Also, if the Biblical authors don't care about unborn children, why mention God knowing us before forming us in the womb, or John the Baptist and Jesus recognizing each other in the womb? Was Jesus not fully man and fully God in the womb? Edit: I understand now, your first paragraph refers to Numbers. There are some Jewish idioms badly translated in that passage that say a child born in adultery is the rotten fruit of her womb but a woman who is faithful will have many children, as the article I referenced explains. Abortion couldn't have happened during such an ordeal, because I have found no evidence that Ancient Isrealites practiced abortion (Even Second Temple Jews, who are closer to us, didn't seem to)

[@particube]

@@paru-chinbaka5214 The vast majority of ancient history is an enigma to us modern people. We have very little way of knowing whether or not particular ancient people groups happened to practice abortion. It wouldn't surprise me if the bitter water ritual never actually happened, yet it's still important because it shows that the bible authors don't place great value on the lives of unborn children. If a woman's reproductive system is destroyed, like in this ritual, then it absolutely follows that any baby she is carrying will die. The silence on whether or not the woman is pregnant or not should be deafening to pro life Christians. "Also, if the Biblical authors don't care about unborn children, why mention God knowing us before forming us in the womb" One, that's a different book with a different author. Two, that passage is referring specifically to Jeremiah, not all humans. Even granting your interpretation, billions of unborn babies have been "known by god" only to be snuffed out by natural bodily processes completely out of the control of humans, miscarriage. Doesn't exactly mesh well with the idea of an all loving god who cares deeply about the life of every unborn child.

[@paru-chinbaka5214]

@@particube I feel like you just skipped over a large part of my response. Your whole argument is based on the poorly founded assumption that the author of Numbers didn't care about the possibility of an unborn child, but many Jewish and sources seem to disagree. So I urge you again to look up the Ordeal of Bitter Water on MyJewishLearning or any other source where Hebrew readers could give you some perspective. Take Jeremiah out of the picture, and you still must reckon with a lot of Biblical authors affirming that human beings are alive in the womb. Feticide is not allowed by any beit din largely because of this.

[@2l84me8]

Abortion isn’t anyone’s business other than the pregnant woman in question and her doctor. It’s not up to religious people and their violent gods to dictate what a woman keeps in her own body. You can’t even legally take organs off of a corpse without prior written consent, but a woman should have less rights than that for being pregnant?