Most everyone know's the Christian Bible is fucked up. Let us hear about the perfect and morally superior Jewish Talmud.

@1 You just did. The Mishnah is part of the Talmud.

You missed the part where Judah forces Tamar to have an abortion and the part in the new testament where priests give husbands potions to give to wives in cases of suspected infidelity.

There's another part of the Bible that might deal with abortion.

The ordeal of the bitter water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotah

However, the thing about that is that if it's about abortion (there's a little bit of vagueness there) it's about a priest GIVING an abortion. To a woman who might not even want one!

The abortion interpretation is that if a woman is pregnant and the husband suspects it's not his, the priest can whip up some bitter water, invoke God's name and have her drink it. And if she is truly a cheatin' woman, she'll miscarry.

But then again, the conservative can point out that what they really want to do is control women's bodies, and the ordeal of the bitter water doesn't contradict that at all.

I really like this provocative discussions about the Bible. However, you cannot keep using the King James Version as the version you cite. First of all, 40% of the vocabulary in that version has changed meaning since it was first published (e.g., "mischief" then meant "harm" or "injury" and not "monkey business" as it does now). So you're pre-empting any intelligent discussion of the meaning of the passage by intentionally using a nearly 400-year-old archaic translation that few people can readily understand (and I doubt you can, either). The Bible is silly enough without your having to resort to an opaque translation of what it says. Secondly, the KJV is full of translation errors. There is a revised 21st century KJV you could easily cite instead that corrects most of these problems, but you don't even do that.

But why not cite the New Revised Standard Version? It's one of the most widely used modern translations, and it has the benefit of not being full of translation errors and using accessible vocabulary.

In that version, this passage reads:

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

@2 thanks, my bad. As you might imagine, the headline and first couple of paragraphs got me on the defensive. Too quick with a response, sorry. Do they teach you the Mishnah in Hebrew School?

I think many would cite the commandment "thou shalt not kill" as the biblical basis for prohibiting abortion. Never mind that it makes as much sense as citing the Onan story from the Old Testament as the basis for prohibiting contraception.

@5 I provide links to Bible Gateway, which allows you to seamlessly flip through various translations.

@7:

Except even that simple phrase is mired in controversy, as there doesn't seem to be any clear agreement as to whether the 6th Commandment is an admonition against murder (as a literal translation from the Hebrew would seem to indicate) or a more broad restriction on killing altogether.

Certainly contemporary fundamentalists don't seem to be all that firm about killing in general, as they apparently have no issue with killing abortion doctors, Iraqi insurgents, or convicted murderers, for example. But things get a little sticker if they go with the former, more literal translation, because, in the case of abortion at least, they then have to establish that murder has in fact been committed, which of course necessitates granting a fetus the equivalent status of a living, breathing person in order to make their case.

But you assume the right wing needs an excuse for their myths and superstitions. They have museums that have people walking with dinosaurs forchristsake! They're fanatics. They only go by what they feel. They don't care about how much harm they cause others. They only care about what they "know". Which is nothing at all!

@7 You can't murder something that isn't a human life.

I find it bizarre how progressives try to combat the fundies' biblical arguments "on their own terms" by themselves using the bible. For instance, making claims that the bible doesn't really condemn homosexuality. Or that the bible condemns so much other stuff as to render that particular proscription meaningless. It's all an interesting look into the crazy relationship these people have with their sky-friends, but should be completely irrelevant to how our society makes laws.

Similarly, progressives make a big deal that homosexuality is not a choice, but an in-born trait, attempting to refute the notion that it violates "natural law". Much biology is discussed by people who no little of biology.

Who cares? I reject any moral guidance based on the holy texts of murderous dessert tribes. And I couldn't care less whether homosexuality is in-born, or a choice. People should be free to do anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Making Jesus cry doesn't count. We (should) live in a society that takes its moral guidance from the inherent dignity and right to liberty of all humans. So conservatives should go fuck themselves, not because they are wrong about the bible, but because the bible should be irrelevant.They should mind their own fucking business, and pursue their own happiness as best they can, and leave us to pursue ours.

Fucking autocorrect:
*know not no
*desert not dessert

Though I would like to see what delicious treats a murderous dessert tribe would whip up.

Pro-life types have, based on some blurry semantics, claimed that Exodus 21:22-25 actually refers to a premature birth, not a miscarriage, and that the tit-for-tat retribution refers to harm that may have been inflicted on the child. However, the "burning for burning" and "stripe for stripe" bits imply that "mischief" refers to a post-natal victim.

@7: The commandment is actually written "Thou shalt not murder." Just a little Jewish hairsplitting here.

I have nothing to contribute to the discussion of what the Bible or Jewish scholars have determined on this question. Just two things - first, a thanks to Goldy for putting this in one handy place, and second, a prediction that resident anti-choice crusader Seattleblues will not directly address these observations if he even participates at all on this thread.

@12 You have a good point, and it does seem to be a waste of time. However, the overall goal is to demonstrate that the ontological basis for their beliefs is flawed, is hypocritical, and doesn't stand up to reason. What you're doing is essentially showing them that what they believe is just that: a belief. A belief that has no basis in reason. Since reason is valued in our culture, this has weight.

I've described here before how until the 70s evangelical Christians were as often as not PRO-abortion. The Southern Baptists approved of Roe v. Wade.

What happened? Phyllis Schafly happened. She led the march of ultra-conservative Catholics into an alliance with conservative Protestants. The Catholics were fleeing the liberalizations of Vatican II; the Southern Protestants were fleeing the implications of civil rights. Before then, Catholics were "Papists", as anathema to Evangelicals as nig-nogs and pinkos and faggots. One of the ideas she brought with her was opposition to abortion, which has always been a strong idea amongst conservative Catholics (but not most Catholics).

Schafly is probably the most potent conservative force in American history. She's been fighting on behalf of evil for more than sixty years. Neither Goldwater nor Reagan could have happened without her.

Ref: Rick Perlstein's "Before The Storm", and Fred Clark's blog post here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist…

Well, of course it's treated as a property crime. In those days, women were property. And today, in the minds of the xtian Taliban they are, as well.

@ 12, unlike 16 I don't think you have a good point. Because as much as law shouldn't be made based on what the Bible says, it's exactly what millions of Americans vote for every election cycle.

If it's pointless to point out that there's no Biblical basis for opposing abortion, it's because Christian theology doesn't care. Christians have decided that abortion is murder, and demonstrations that this position (among many) isn't supported by the Bible won't change their minds.

Regarding homosexuality, you can downplay its nature if you like, but the fact that it is a truly natural phenomenon has proven to be the factor that has changed minds all over the globe about its morality. You can only downplay that at the expense of your own credibility.

@12 What do believe modern moral guidance is based on?

@15 and The Troll has also been silent in this thread. Nary a single 'Skipping to Gomorrah' out of him. Or her. It. Definitely It.

What happened? Phyllis Schafly happened

That woman was my first nemesis. I was still in elementary school, but I knew evil when I saw it.

@19 Coming up with biblical arguments condoning homosexuality is pointless because for progressives it is just a particularly laborious form of preaching to the converted. Bigots don't *really* believe homosexuality is wrong because of the bible; they believe it is wrong first, then find the justification later. Taking a reasoned approach on their own terms is wasted effort, and requires way more nuance than they can understand. Convincing them through biblical arguments is sisyphean. I do, however, think they can understand, "you do your thing, I'll do mine, now get the fuck out of my face". Some might even respect it.

@20 The inherent goodness of people, and our unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The basic principle that everyone should be free to maximize their own happiness to the extent it doesn't impinge on others. Don't believe people are inherently good? Hang out with a child for a couple of days.

@ 23, I'm unaware of anyone who is actively trying to "come up with biblical arguments condoning homosexuality." Proof of the biological nature of homosexuality isn't coming from the Bible. Nor are they trying to persuade the bigots. It isn't the bigots who will decide this, it's the people who have believed the same thing as the bigots, without being hardcore bigots themselves.

That's what has changed in the last 10-15 years, and it's why gay marriage is becoming reality.

@21: Obviously, the troll finds Slog as boring as most of the rest of us do any more. Yawn.

@24
I don't think "condone" means what you think it means:

1)Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
2)Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.

For an example of someone who is making a case for condoning (which we just learned means to reluctantly allow) see this:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

There are many, many more examples with even a little bit of googling.

As the Bible supports all-out infanticide, the point is moot anyway.

@25:

Thanks for another in our series of "I'm SOOOOO bored with this site, I just couldn't resist the compulsion to come back and tell you-all just how bored I am."

Goldy, the problem with discussing the Bible as a static document, is that it is not. The Bible like the Talmud was a dynamic document, written over hundreds of years, by many different people and communities. It is a story of evolution, growth, a struggle for understanding of man's place in the universe, a chronicle of grasping at an answer to "what does it all mean?" and how do we strive towards justice and the good.

Fundamentalist fail to comprehend that basic truth of the text they profess to worship. Our journey home to God is just that a journey, we are still on it, this book, the bible, is just our tale our struggle towards that goal. Stay calm and carry on, the story is still evolving.

Not fair. Everybody knows real Christians let their pastors read and interpret their Bibles for them.

@ ohthetrees, are you even reading my comments? I don't use the word "condone" everywhere. Why the strawman?

@17,

Doesn't Schlaffly have a gay son? Wonder how she felt about yesterday's SCOTUS rulings.

She's a nasty piece of work.

@35 Are you a crazy person? Let me quote you (quoting me):

"I'm unaware of anyone who is actively trying to "come up with biblical arguments condoning homosexuality.""

Just because it is a different tense doesn't mean it isn't there. And it still counts, even though you are quoting me.

Also, I'm assuming you mean "anywhere" not "everywhere" otherwise your comment doesn't even make sense.

@31: Hi, Siddha.

I suppose it would be churlish of me to assert the whole separation-of-church-and-state-as-fundamental-precept-of-our-country thing here. I know the point of this is a practical admonishment to Christians who misquote and misread scripture as they vote hard right but hell, the Troll just said it didn't matter what the Bible said on these hot-button issues. We're making MORAL arguments here. Apparently, natural phenomena are beside the point too, in case anybody's trying to sneak the gays in.
So I suppose it would be even more churlish of me to point out the whole belief-in-the-teachings-of-Jesus-and-the-Bible-as-fundamental-precepts-of-being-a-Christian thing and wonder how that whole Bible-doesn't-matter-to-a-Christian thing works. Not to mention the whole science-is-fundamentally-the-study-of-natural-phenomena thing, seeing as how it would be even more churlish still to ask exactly what that leaves as the linchpin of modern morality to the modern hard-right Christian in these modern times?

I suppose asserting that the answer seems to be arbitrary judgment and prejudice would be downright unpleasant of me.

It's true. The Bible says nothing about abortion or birth control. Jesus spoke on two sex-related issues: adultery and divorce. (It's worth mentioning that, for a woman, getting divorced back then was like getting fired today.)

The rest of the Bible does explicitly condemn homosexuality. Much of the New Testament condemns sexuality in general. Paul didn't like the gay sex but he didn't like the straight sex either.

The ancient metaphorical poetry that most evangelicals cite is:

Jeremiah 1:5

New International Version (NIV)

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”