Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Disarray · 10-18-2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anders

I wonder why the linked article didn't mention the instructions in Num. 5.

The reason might be that the KJV uses a rather veiled language for the Hebrew words in Num. 5:21: "make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell". The Revised English Bible takes a clear stance : "bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth".

Hey thanks for the passage, great great passage. The difference between the KJV and REB is pretty astounding in it; I'm assuming here that your quote is accurate for the REB -- more research to come. Anyone have ideas as to what the general American evangelical christian's feelings are to the REB?

Especially, if I showed the passage to one, and said it was evidence that it's not a sin to vote for Kerry, would they consider its validity, or would they say that this version of the bible is the work of Satan?

Toto, thanks for finding those links for me, and is it possible for me to edit my original post? -- my apostrophies seem to have atrophied.

Lugubert · 10-18-2004, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Pallant

I must admit to being curious. How does Num. 5:21: "make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell" lead to a translation of "bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth"? And the conclusion that it is directions on abortion and sterilization?

Wrong question. You should rather ask why the KJV doesn't understand that nopelet 'fall, a dropped being' is a euphemism for 'miscarriage' and that bisnek tsabah 'swollen womb' implies applied sterility.

<edit:> References: BHS, Gesenius: H�br. u. Aram. Handw�rterbuch, Koehler-Baumgartner: Lexicon in Vet. Testam. Libros and a couple of Bibles in other languages.

IamMoose · 10-18-2004, 10:44 AM

Hya Disarray, welcome.

I am interested in the idea that early Christians didn't believe that life begins at conception, because I've never seen support for that idea in the bible myself (ie that life DOES begin at conception, not that it doesn't). Can anyone shed further light?

Sorry for sounding inarticulate, am tired.

Toto · 10-18-2004, 11:02 AM

From here

Quote:

St. Augustine 354-430 CE, considered greatest of the Latin Fathers and one of the most eminent Western Doctors of the Church, accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. An abortion in early pregnancy was not murder because no soul was destroyed. To this extent, Roman Catholic Popes condoned abortion and were Pro-Choice for almost 1,200 years.

Then Papal Infallibility suffered some ethically challenged flip-flops. In 1588, Pope Sixtus forbid all abortions. A short time later in 1591, Pope Gregory XIV rescinded Pope Sixtus� edict against abortion. In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation" gained acceptance in the church. This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at the time of conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church had previously taught. In 1869, Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus", to forbid all abortions in exchange for Napoleon III of France acknowledging papal infallibility. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus."

Pope Pius XI's 1930 document "Casti connubii" taught that abortion was condemned even when the life of the mother was at stake. Its underlying postulate is that performing an abortion to save the mother's life is not permitted.

Magdlyn · 10-19-2004, 07:32 AM

Toto,

I posted your link on another bd where the same conversation is going on. A Catholic fired back with this:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM

Of course, it absolutely vilifes people who would kill the "pre-born babies."

But what about Augustine? Where did he say he believed in the Platonic idea of delayed ensoulment, which allowed abortion until later in preganancy?

Toto · 10-19-2004, 11:34 AM

I am not an expert on this issue, but my understanding is that the early Catholic Church was opposed to all forms of birth control and abortion - but not necessarily because the believed as a matter of doctrine that ensoulment happened at conception, or because abortion was the same as murder.

Abortions through most of history before the 19th century have been dangerous to the woman involved, and were often forced on the woman by male relatives or strict social conventions that led her to risk death rather than bear a child. The sociologist Rodney Stark attributes the growth of Christianity in part to the early Christians' pro-natalist policies, including oppostion to abortion and birth control.

ReligiousTolerance.org has a more balanced history of the development of Christian doctrine.

Early Christians in the Roman Empire often compared abortion to murder. Augstine reversed this.

Quote:

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote ["On Exodus", (21, 80)] that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). . . . . Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

. . .

St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" ["Epistle" (121, 4)]

. . .

Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. . . . . Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; abortion required only 120 days.

Pope Stephen V (served 885-891) wrote in 887 CE: "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old." "Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz."

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16� weeks).

Huon · 10-19-2004, 12:14 PM

I do not understand very well your discussion about the Bible being "pro-life" or not.

First, if you accept the expression "pro-life", you have already lost the war. The persons who call themselves pompously "pro-life" are only "anti-abortion" for other people than themselves. If they were really"pro-life", they would support public health programs for poor children and poor old persons. Do they ? Are they "pro-life" for the thousand soldiers fallen in Iraq ? Were they "pro-life" when one of them killed a doctor in a clinic a few years ago ?

Second, if you look into the Bible to find arguments pro or con, you have already lost a battle. You are right to do that only if you consider that the Bible is a sacred book, containing all the possible truth, and that nothing can be added or cut out in it. The Old Testament was written by jewish priests who wanted to comfort their fidels in their faith to Jahweh, at an epoch which was very dark for them. Little jewish children were always welcome ! Boys would become glorious warriors, and girls would become mothers of warriors� (Same thing presently in the palestinian camps.) And since a great proportion(30 % or so) of those children would die in infancy, abortion was not a solution to the problem.

Third, the problems of our epoch must be solved with solutions of our epoch. Did Henry Ford get a biblical authorization when he began ? However, motor cars are not always "pro-life"...

Fourth, the catholic church is not going to change their policy on that subject. I have heard of a case of nuns having been raped in equatorial Africa, Congo, Rwanda or Burundi, and aborted when necessary, but this was only a rumour, and what is it worth ? There are certainly no traces, an no testimony for that. The catholic church is not in a position to teach morality to anybody, there have been too many sexual scandals in their ranks, not only in the USA, but also in France, and at least Austria. :angel:

Disarray · 10-19-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

You are right to do that only if you consider that the Bible is a sacred book, containing all the possible truth, and that nothing can be added or cut out in it.

Oh Huon, if only it could be so simple. It's important to understand that the number of people who consider the bible to be a sacred book in America, and would look to it for advice on morality, probably is greater then the number who wouldn't.

Bush would not get elected this year or four years ago, without his pro-life stance. I'm very close to four people personally, family and family in law, who will not vote for Kerry because he is pro-choice.

It really appears that the bible has nothing to say on the morality of abortion, and I want to know whether thats true. If it is, then Christians don't have to believe that it would be a sin to vote for Kerry. Which in this country, is a big deal right now; the pro-life -- pro-choice thing in politics I mean.

Other then that I totally agree with your points though, and if others would also, it wouldn't be an issue I would be concerned about.

If only it were so.

*sigh*

Magdlyn · 10-20-2004, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disarray

It really appears that the bible has nothing to say on the morality of abortion, and I want to know whether thats true. If it is, then Christians don't have to believe that it would be a sin to vote for Kerry. Which in this country, is a big deal right now; the pro-life -- pro-choice thing in politics I mean.

Except Catholics, who have "tradition" as well as the bible.

Toto · 10-20-2004, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Except Catholics, who have "tradition" as well as the bible.

Catholics have the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The Pope said it was so, therefore it is, ignore the Bible.

But most Christians who debate the issue seem to concede that the Bible does not say much of anything about abortion, and try to construct a case based on pseudo-scientific arguments about when Life begins.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2004, 10:44 AM	#13
IamMoose Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: On the fringes of the Lake District, UK Posts: 9,528	Hya Disarray, welcome. I am interested in the idea that early Christians didn't believe that life begins at conception, because I've never seen support for that idea in the bible myself (ie that life DOES begin at conception, not that it doesn't). Can anyone shed further light? Sorry for sounding inarticulate, am tired.

10-19-2004, 07:32 AM	#15
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Toto, I posted your link on another bd where the same conversation is going on. A Catholic fired back with this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM Of course, it absolutely vilifes people who would kill the "pre-born babies." But what about Augustine? Where did he say he believed in the Platonic idea of delayed ensoulment, which allowed abortion until later in preganancy?

10-19-2004, 12:14 PM	#17
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	I do not understand very well your discussion about the Bible being "pro-life" or not. First, if you accept the expression "pro-life", you have already lost the war. The persons who call themselves pompously "pro-life" are only "anti-abortion" for other people than themselves. If they were really"pro-life", they would support public health programs for poor children and poor old persons. Do they ? Are they "pro-life" for the thousand soldiers fallen in Iraq ? Were they "pro-life" when one of them killed a doctor in a clinic a few years ago ? Second, if you look into the Bible to find arguments pro or con, you have already lost a battle. You are right to do that only if you consider that the Bible is a sacred book, containing all the possible truth, and that nothing can be added or cut out in it. The Old Testament was written by jewish priests who wanted to comfort their fidels in their faith to Jahweh, at an epoch which was very dark for them. Little jewish children were always welcome ! Boys would become glorious warriors, and girls would become mothers of warriors� (Same thing presently in the palestinian camps.) And since a great proportion(30 % or so) of those children would die in infancy, abortion was not a solution to the problem. Third, the problems of our epoch must be solved with solutions of our epoch. Did Henry Ford get a biblical authorization when he began ? However, motor cars are not always "pro-life"... Fourth, the catholic church is not going to change their policy on that subject. I have heard of a case of nuns having been raped in equatorial Africa, Congo, Rwanda or Burundi, and aborted when necessary, but this was only a rumour, and what is it worth ? There are certainly no traces, an no testimony for that. The catholic church is not in a position to teach morality to anybody, there have been too many sexual scandals in their ranks, not only in the USA, but also in France, and at least Austria. :angel:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.