A proposal by Green MP Mehreen Faruqi in the NSW parliament to decriminalise abortion has been voted down 25 to 14.

Thank God this murderous Bill has been voted down. It allowed killing the baby even during delivery. Still a large part of our society have no moral conscience.

No, no, ttbn. Don’t trouble yourself. I’ve got it…

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/decriminalise-abortion-debate-set-for-nsw/news-story/1373a3c732baaaff86a522e995d72ba5

(Google the actual link and click on it in the results to get around the paywall if you hit it.)

Apparently there were pro-choice members of the NSW parliament who only voted it down because they were concerned that the went bill too far in some respects.

Either way, the current laws are absurd and are completely out-of-step with public opinion. A maximum of 10 years in prison is archaic and just downright bizarre in the 21st century. It's just as well these laws, like most archaic laws, are not observed or enforced.

Sure, there are ways around the laws, but they are open to the interpretation of judges and some abortions may not withstand legal scrutiny. The methods of circumvention are also of little use to poor and disadvantaged women.

I’d like to see the actual bill, though. Josephus’s claim seems a little far-fetched. Either that or he’s omitting important caveats.

The Bill put forward by Dr. Mahreen Farqui is similar to a Bill rejected in QLD in February. It, "would allow the killing of an unborn baby for any reason, by any method, at any stage of pregnancy up until term, including during labour."

Similarly there would not be any criminal charges laid for such an abortion. However any person objecting to the abortion or offering alternate procedure; could be criminally charged if found within proximity to the abortion clinic.

Josephus,

After reading the proposed changes (thanks for the link, leoj), I could see how the scenario you it put forth would technically be possible. It was foolish for this Mahreen Farqui to not replace Division 12 with at least some provisions protecting late term foetuses in at least a limited number of circumstances.

<<However any person objecting to the abortion or offering alternate procedure; could be criminally charged if found within proximity to the abortion clinic.>>

That’s fair enough. No one has the right to harass or shame a person for exercising their right to bodily autonomy. Especially when they are likely already in an emotionally fragile state. There is a time and a place for everything, and within proximity of an abortion clinic is never the place for busybody nutjobs, who think that foetuses should have more rights than people who have already been born, to be harassing women.

--

My local State MP is a member of the Palaszczuk government. He’s been boasting on Facebook about his government’s achievement in finally repealing the ‘gay panic’ defence (How the hell did that take so long?). I think I’ll query him about what his government intends to do to bring Queensland’s abortion laws into the 21st century. The current setup is reprehensible and indefensible.

Josephus,

Your use of the word 'killing' is well-advised, because that's what abortion is. The fact that the unwanted child is not actually grasped by the ankles and it's skull smashed against a rock but surgically aborted, doesn't alter the fact.

ttbn,

That’s what they call a fallacious appeal to emotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

What your emotive and gory language fails to consider is the impact that forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies has on both individuals and societies.

Unfortunately gory language doesn't address such issues.

Would you like to give it another crack?

What gets me about the whole question of abortion is 'why the need?'

I see the need for abortion on genuine medical grounds, but with so many differing contraceptive methods available one would think there is little need for so many abortions. I believe it is estimated that there are some 82000 abortions annually in Aus.

With that sort of number it can only be that some women are using abortion as a birth control method. Why this is so is a good question. Is it easier to get an abortion than to take a pill daily or get an injection each few months. Even if she is really slack, she can get a 'morning after' pill.

while I admit that the oral pill is not as simple as I once believed, it still should not be so onerous that one would prefer having an abortion. There must be solutions.

Banjo,

An abortion costs around $800, requires a couple of days off work, and a couple of days to arrange. So to suggest that abortion is a lazy form of contraception for some is insane. Particularly given how frequently a sexually active woman would need to go through one.

In fact, suggesting that it is being used as a form of contraception at all is absurd. It would be far more rational to assume that a lot of people are just being careless.

Either way, this is a side issue. Society simply cannot force women to go through pregnancies they don’t want. We already know how devastating consequences of that are. It doesn’t matter how awful the thought of an abortion is.

AJ,
I looked back, the subject of abortion was discussed a few months ago. I did not see your name there so you may have missed it.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7613&page=1

Some interesting views there which you may wish to consider before saying that it is absurd to think some women would use abortion as a means of contraception,

I do not know about the cost of abortion, but maybe some can arrange it that Medicare covers the costs. In any case it appears it will be an ongoing issue.

I notice that you did not put forward a reason as to why there are so many abortions.

Banjo,

I don't have the time to read through an entire thread, sorry.

But I do vaguely remember that discussion, and I certainly don't remember anyone providing a rational reason to suspect that some women are spending hundreds of dollars and skipping a couple of days of work, every month or so, simply because they're too lazy to use contraception.

Now that WOULD be something that I would have thought I'd remember, if they did. After all, using abortion as a means of contraception would be anything but lazy. Such a person would have to be pretty rich too.

<<I notice that you did not put forward a reason as to why there are so many abortions.>>

I did, actually: carelessness.

Either way, I don't need to because it's a side issue. I mean, it's interesting, and certainly worth looking into, but ultimately it's irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion should be allowed outside of medical reasons and in cases of rape. At least until it can be shown how stripping women of their bodily autonomy is the lesser of the two evils.

I did see one report that it was often male pressure and breakup of a relationship that was a large cause of the women aborting. It was not always the woman's moral choice as is so often claimed. The removal of a pregnancy is never forgotten by the mother as her body changes to accommodate a healthy foetus; unlike a natural abortion, a surgical abortion causes trauma to her body.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote "unlike a natural abortion, a surgical abortion causes trauma to her body."

I think that is nonsense & anti-abortion propaganda. Can you cite a medical study to back up that statement?

I suspected it was anti-abortion propaganda, too, david f. Like the unfounded claims from Eric Abetz a couple of years ago regarding the supposed link with breast cancer.

https://www.glowm.com/section_view/heading/Long-Term%20Risks%20of%20Surgical%20Abortion/item/440

http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-side-effects/

http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html

"Since the 1970s, there has been a marked increase in North America in the number of abortions and repeat abortions, which may explain the significant increases in pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), uterine hemorrhage, sepsis, pain due to endometritis, retained fetal or placental tissue".

Dear Josephus,

I looked up the links you mentioned and saw absolutely nothing to substantiate your comparison of the difference between the after effects of abortions and miscarriages. Apparently it was a comparison that you made up.

However, it does not stand to reason that a woman terminating an unwanted pregnancy should be worse off than a woman who wanted a baby and had a miscarriage.

Any invasive medical procedure carries a risk. An interrupted pregnancy whether it is a miscarriage or an abortion has effects.
However, to evaluate the after effects useful comparisons would be:

After effects of miscarriages vs. Abortions

You claimed a difference, but your references didn’t substantiate your claim.

After effects of illegal vs. legal abortions.

If you make abortion illegal you are going to resurrect the backyard butcher and the knitting needle. Making abortion illegal will not get rid of abortion. Rich women can find a doctor to do it. Poorer women or desperate women will use desperate means or commit suicide as my cousin did during WW2 when she heard her boyfriend was killed in action and she found herself pregnant. If she had access to legal abortion she could have lived out her life and had babies later if she wanted them. I think of her when I hear those who inveigh against legal abortions.

After effects of giving birth when abortion has been recommended but not done vs. Abortions

After effects of giving birth vs. Abortions

Giving birth is not a risk-free procedure.

You (I assume you are one of the many men who would deny women a choice.) and I are never going to get pregnant. I think it best to let those people who can become pregnant decide what they want to do about it. They should decide for themselves whether they want to carry the pregnancy to term and if they decide not to should have a good medical option to terminate that pregnancy.

https://www.earlyabortion.com/abortion-information/surgical-abortion/

Killing the foetus in the womb in early pregnancy is similar to a natural abortion, compared to surgical abortion.

ttbn:

“the unwanted child”

You argue as if it is a fact that it is a child but you cannot prove that it is a child and proof is what we need before legislating against abortion. Opinion is not good enough.

No woman who does not want to be pregnant has any facts to guide her any more than you do but she has to actually make a decision that will have life-changing effects. If she goes ahead with the pregnancy then it will have life-changing effects for at least several months from the time of her decision. If she keeps the child after birth it could affect her for many years and limit her choices.

How would you accept other people telling you how to behave and what choices to make when they are no better informed of the facts than you are especially when you are the only one it impinges on? You wouldn’t like it all. The only logical person to make the decision is you.

You might say the decision impinges on the foetus but the foetus is not in a position to decide or to reason. The only logical person who will both be affected and can decide is the pregnant woman.

She cannot afford the luxury of theorising about abortion because she has to make a decision one way or the other because there are no half measures.

It is easy for men to tell women what they should do when pregnant because they know it is an issue they will never have to confront. Their integrity will never be on the line. They will never have to wrestle with the consequences of that particular decision. Abortion is not an intellectual problem. It is a deeply complex choice and your image equating the smashing of a ‘child’ against the wall with a surgical abortion shows how utterly insensitive you are to the woman’s plight.

there is a myriad of women who down the track suffer mental and emotional issues after having their unborn babies killed. Of course you have unrepentant murderers whether that murder is committed inside or outside the womb. Secularism/feminism is a barbaric irrational belief system.

Runner:

And there is a myriad of men who have suffered their whole lives by constantly being told by their mothers that they regret ever having them.

Some go on to be absolutely obsessed with the issue of abortion.

' And there is a myriad of men who have suffered their whole lives by constantly being told by their mothers that they regret ever having them.'

really Phanto? Most mothers I know even of criminals love their sons dearly. So you think these men you speak of would be better off being snuffed out in their mother's womb?

phanto,
A large part of pressure on a pregnant woman for an abortion comes from the male in her life. It is not always purely the woman's choice. The child is either from a casual relationship or a now broken relationship.

I've been on the jury of a case where a woman fell pregnant in a casual lover affair while her husband was away for three months. She claimed to her husband it was rape, but obviously in the evidence it was not. The husband was putting pressure to abort the child, which she was embarrassed about. She was also claiming expenses for an abortion against her secret lover.

Josephus:

No one can put pressure on you to have an abortion. It is a private medical procedure to which you have to give consent. Forcing women to attend a clinic cannot be done without violence and the violence would be dealt with by police. Women have to take responsibility for every decision they make just like men do.

Dear Runner,

«Most mothers I know even of criminals love their sons dearly. So you think these men you speak of would be better off being snuffed out in their mother's womb?»

If it were up to me, then indeed I would prefer to be snuffed out in my mother's womb over being born in a criminal environment.

As a Christian you may believe otherwise, but as a Hindu I believe that life is a curse rather than a blessing.

This doesn't make it wise to terminate your life: so long as the sting, the root of your curse (which is your own desires) is intact, you would be born again and again without salvation - no easy way to cheat your way out.

But if without any wilful effort one is killed in the womb, then it means that their life-sentence was light, that they were only required to serve a short while on earth and have now been absolved - Hallelujah!

Great news for the baby - so why should we not abort all the time? Because typically the mother/parents abort for their own selfish motives rather than out of genuine love and compassion for their unborn baby. While the baby may benefit from being aborted, the mother/parents gets deeper into sin.

It's all about the true motive, this is what counts rather than the external physical action - and God sees to the heart. The rule should be Hillel's Golden Rule: what you hate being done unto yourself - do not do unto others. Thus so long as you believe that life is a great thing, you should not kill others, including your babies.

But think again: is life growing up within a criminal family and being educated into a sinful lifestyle, indeed a great thing?

Yuyutsu

'If it were up to me, then indeed I would prefer to be snuffed out in my mother's womb over being born in a criminal environment.'

I take it as a Hindu Yuyutsu that you would also allow an untouchable to starve rather than kill a cow or is your brand of Hinduism a little more humane to humans. I take it you believe the child will be re incarnated which actually shows why India is the hell hole it is in many areas.

Also seen all people are born to parents who have somewhat of a corrupt nature like you and me I wonder where you draw the line in murdering the child for 'its own good'.

Yuyutsu touches on a point I’ve made a couple of times now, for those anti-abortionists whose position is grounded Christian theology.

According to Christianity, repeatedly falling pregnant and having abortions would ultimately be a good thing to do. After all, you’re creating more souls and sending them straight to heaven with no chance of them using the brain they were blessed with and going to hell for it.

Like a parent who is initially disappointed with their teenage daughter’s untimely pregnancy, but falls in love with their new grandchild when they’re born anyway, how could our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ, not be happy in the end with more souls to love?

As disturbing as it is, Andrea Yates’ killing of her five children, to prevent them ever running the risk of going to hell, was a theologically sound thing to do.

http://youtu.be/dCp-U_MkSXc

' As disturbing as it is, Andrea Yates’ killing of her five children, to prevent them ever running the risk of going to hell, was a theologically sound thing to do.'

wow AJ the theologian now. I wish I could say stick to science but you also fall short there.

Ah, the Courtier’s Reply fallacy. Thanks for that, runner.

<<wow AJ the theologian now.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

No, I’ve never claimed to be a theologian. However, as with science, I do know a damn sight more about Christian theology than you. Islamic theology, too, as we recently found out.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18988&page=0#338648

Is there any topic that you're actually competent with? I mean, if a religious fundamentalist like youself can't even get their own theology right...

Sheesh.

'Is there any topic that you're actually competent with? I mean, if a religious fundamentalist like youself can't even get their own theology right...'

maybe not AJ but very easy to detect a fraud like you.

Dear Runner,

It would not cross my mind to kill a cow in order to prevent myself or anyone else from starving, just like it would not cross your mind to kill your mother for food, but if someone else did it, then who am I to judge them?

This whole "untouchable" thing was a distortion of scripture, it was a social phenomena rather than a religious issue, it was shameful and anyway, it was fortunately cancelled by Mahatma Gandhi. While one should indeed keep away from bad company, one needs to be very stupid to deem another as "bad company" only because they happened to be born to particular parents or clan.

Yes, the child might have to reincarnate regardless where s/he was going to be born, so what has India's admittedly-serious social problems to do with it?

Now to your main and very intelligent question:

«I wonder where you draw the line in murdering the child for 'its own good'.»

Well, I have already drawn the first line - the Golden Rule: If you, imagining you were in that child's place, would have hated to be killed there and then, then you should not do it. Period. It's not about theorising and intellectualising: even when scripture says that killing the child would be for their own good, if your own gut feeling is otherwise then you should not kill.

There is also a second line: you must be very honest with yourself and if you sense the slightest selfish motivation in you to abort a child, then don't do it.

So as you can see, in today's society there are very few cases where killing babies is the correct thing to do. However, there was a famous exception: Ganga drowned her first seven sons as soon as they were born. This was done for their own good and without a hint of selfishness. Ganga was aware that her eight sons are incarnations of the eight Vasus (a class of angels) who sinned and were punished to be born as humans on earth. Drowning them shortened their sentence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClRyHq2309c

runner,

No, I didn’t think there was anything you knew much about. It comes through in your posts.

<<maybe not AJ but very easy to detect a fraud like you.>>

People like you often become or remain both religious and/or conservative due to an intolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and a heightened fear of perceived threats.

Feel free to demonstrate my alleged fraudulence, by the way. I suspect you have about as much evidence for that as you’ve had in the past for my supposed misrepresentation of the Bible.

Squat.

--

Yuyutsu,

Your analogy is false. Killing a cow is not the same a killing a fellow human being.

<<It would not cross my mind to kill a cow in order to prevent myself or anyone else from starving, just like it would not cross your mind to kill your mother for food, but if someone else did it, then who am I to judge them?>>

A human being who themselves doesn’t want to be eaten just because someone else is starving, and so condemns those who would do such a thing. That’s who.

But thank you for demonstrating how religion can skew one’s moral compass. Especially with that story about how a woman suffering from severe mental illness and delusions drowned her eight sons. It reminds me of a guy in the Bible who nearly killed his son because a voice in his head told him to.

' It reminds me of a guy in the Bible who nearly killed his son because a voice in his head told him to.'

it actually reminds me of the putried doctrine of secularist who insist its a womans right to have thier babies murdered. This is far more common than another one of AJ's fantasies made up by distorting the biblical account of Abraham/Isaac.

Dear runner,

Exactly how did AJ distort the account of the Biblical Abraham? Abraham according to the account was a superstitious nut who heard a voice telling him to kill his son and was willing to do so. When I was a child I heard that story and got scared. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to kill me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. That probably was the beginning of my awareness on just how rotten, stupid and wrong a lot of the Bible is. My faith in my father increased, but any faith in the Bible started to go.

A few years ago two Mormon missionaries showed up at my door. I asked one of them if he would kill his son if he heard a voice from God telling him to do it. He said, "Of course." Another superstitious nut.

Two JW teenage girls came up to my door. I told them my feelings about the Abraham/Isaac story. The cute one said that it was a test of faith. I asked her what she would do if a boy asked her to go to bed with him to prove her love for him. That would be a test of faith. She blinked, swallowed, gulped and said, "I'll have to think about that."

Apparently that hit home. She was able to question what was obviously nonsense. I can hope for you also. You really don't have to swallow nonsense and defend it.

Please state exactly how AJ distorted anything. You call him a fraud, but you never specify any way in which he is fraudulent. It is easy to call people names, but that does not constitute a reasonable argument.

Posted by AJ Philips, "It reminds me of a guy in the Bible who nearly killed his son because a voice in his head told him to".

A dishonest representation of the events of Abraham's conversion. Abraham was raised by Terah his father to worship many gods, It was the practise in Ur to sacrifice their firstborn to the fertility gods. Initially Abraham was following the religion of his father and ancestors. However he had conviction during this event that this was morally wrong, a young ram was grazing nearby in the thicket which he sacrificed as prescribed under the Adamic covenant. There are two religions here in conflict the plural gods of Elohim [polytheism] and the God of monotheism. Abraham converted at that time to Monotheism from the religion of his parents, and was part of the reason he left the area.

Dear Josephus,

The change from polytheism to monotheism is the replacement of several imaginary gods by one imaginary god. One can do without any of that superstition.

david f,
You demonstrate your inability to perceive others reality, only your own. The facts presented indicate a shift in the thinking of Abraham, that was his reality.

The universe though diverse and complex operates as a unity, even what appears to be chaos operates within the perimeters of a unit. There is only one intelligence, and the human mind can understand that intelligence as it reflects that ultimate intelligence. So what the human intelligence uncovers as fact is his reality.

That we start sacrificing children to the god of fertility, is a pagan belief. Just because someone falls pregnant is no reason to sacrifice the child.

Persons should prepare and prepare before casual sexual indulgence. To have a baby to save a failing marriage is not a responsible move if later the child is to be aborted as the sacrifice.

runner,

I think you might need to elaborate on this.

<<[Yuyutsu’s fable] actually reminds me of the [putrid] doctrine of secularist[s] who insist [it’s] a [woman’s] right to have [their] babies murdered.>>

After all, in Yuyutsu’s terrible tale, the woman was clearly severely mentally ill. When a woman has an abortion, she is exercising her right to bodily autonomy and her rights must necessarily override those of the unborn human child, so sweet and innocent.

How the two are analogous remains questionable.

<<This is far more common than another one of AJ's fantasies made up by distorting the biblical account of Abraham/Isaac.>>

http://i.imgur.com/cMpdzeK.png

--

Josephus,

My representation of the binding of Isaac was simply a more educated one.

<<A dishonest representation of the events of Abraham's conversion.>>

If Abraham had lived now, he’d be committed and we’d all write him off as mentally ill. The story’s background, that you have so kindly provided us with, is irrelevant to that.

As for the story itself, it is yet another example of Biblical immorality. The only response that an omnibenevolent god could accept as a satisfactory response to such a test would be, “No, you cannot be the god I worship. The god I worship would not ask me to do such a thing.”

Your god’s test of obedience fails a test of morality.

That aside, a god would have known the extent of Abraham’s fear and devotion and wouldn’t have needed to test him in the first place. So none of it makes sense anyway.

AJ Philips,
God was not testing Abraham as some imagine. This was the conflict Abraham was having. Should I follow what I have been taught to sacrifice my only child to become more fertile, or do I follow my conviction and sacrifice for my sin [pay a price for my sin]. The price for sin was to sacrifice a ram. That is the basis of Orthodox Judaism. Christianity does not except either as we believe Christ put an end to sacrifice. Christianity believes in genuine repentance for sin.

Josephus,

I’ve heard quite a bit of apologia attempting to justify why such a hideous test were necessary, but never any which denied that it were a test at all, until now.

I think Genesis 22 is pretty clear about what was happening:

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

…

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. 12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22 (Titled: Abraham Tested)

That looks like a test to me.

Dear Josephus,

There is no such thing as my reality and other's reality. There is only one reality. Just because you think something is true doesn't make it true. The fact you believe in certain improvable propositions does not make those propositions real or true. My reality is your reality and everybody else's reality.

There are many intelligences. In the brain of every entity that can think is an intelligence. To have the idea that there is another intelligence outside of the intelligence in every thinking being's brain is superstition. It is an idea created by superstitious humans which has no foundation.

Apparently it is easier for humans to believe in polytheism than monotheism. In the midst of polytheistic believers some humans created the idea that there is only one god. However, many humans rejected monotheism. Poor lonely god needs a sidekick. Normally a god would need a goddess, but the monotheistic male god doesn't have the instincts of a normal male. So humans created a male sidekick named Jesus. There you have a pattern for same sex, incestuous marriage. Incestuous because Jesus is supposedly son of god. Apparently two gods were not enough so Christians invented a trinity. Hooboy! Back to polytheism with male gods. Troilism!

Dear David,

Are you aware that Judaism never denied the existence of other gods?

We all know that Judaism (and its offshoots, Christianity and Islam) is adamant that one should not worship those other gods, but while religion is occupied with what ought to be done and what ought to be avoided, it has no interest in questions of existence. Such questions are relatively new and only arise in the minds of modern men. As far as I am concerned, questions of existence are just time-wasters.

Regarding reality, there is indeed only one reality (i.e. God), but our perception of it is indirect because it arrives via our limited senses and our limited minds, thus is badly distorted. The delusion of an "objective" reality of which we can know and understand quite a bit, only arises from the fact that human senses and minds (in other words, brains) are quite similar to each other, thus make similar errors.

Yuyutsu,

This is a non sequitur…

<<… but our perception of [reality] is indirect because it arrives via our limited senses and our limited minds, thus is badly distorted.>>

Just because our perception of reality is limited by our senses, it does not follow that what we perceive is “badly” distorted. It may not be distorted much at all.

<<The delusion of an "objective" reality of which we can know and understand quite a bit, only arises from the fact that human senses and minds … are quite similar to each other, thus make similar errors.>>

There is no evidence for this. You are making it up.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You made three erroneous statements in your post of Friday, 19 May 2017 4:30:18 PM.

1. “Are you aware that Judaism never denied the existence of other gods?”

In the past Judaism maintained there were other gods. “Thou shall have no other gods before me”. I’m the big enchilada. However, current Judaism denies there are other gods.

2. “it has no interest in questions of existence. Such questions are relatively new and only arise in the minds of modern men."

Questions of the existence of deity extend back to antiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

“Protagoras (c. 490 BCE – c. 420 BCE) also was a proponent of agnosticism. Reportedly, in his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not, nor of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life."

3. “Regarding reality, there is indeed only one reality (i. e. God)."

Here you deny reality by asserting that a creation of the human imagination is the only reality.

AJ Philips,
Read the original text in Hebrew identifying who is speaking.
Genesis 22: 1. After these things Elohim [plural]God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” ....V7. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” V9. When they came to the place of which Elohim had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. V10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. V11 But YHVH [Singular]spoke to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” V13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. V15 And YHVH called to Abraham a second time from heaven V16 and said,“By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, V17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore.

NOTE A CLEAR DISTINCTION IS GIVEN OF ELOHIM [plural] AND YHVH [Single]. Indicating who Abraham was listening to. English translations have failed to identify there are two speakers to Abraham. The plural gods of his father or the One true God of Israel.

I note the atheists here have become obsessed over the rescue of one child from death that happened over 3,000 years ago. But they fail to speak out against the 82,000 abortions that took the life of a potential Australian child last year.

Dear David,

1. If that was the case, then why haven't the modern Jews (or Christians for that matter) revised Psalm 95 verse 3: "For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods."? This remains the opening psalm of the Friday-night service.

2. Sure, there were pioneer "modern" individuals before, but socially they were the exception rather than the rule.

3. The creations of human imagination aside, I was referring to God, not to the ways different people imagine Him, which are obviously not one. The ultimate reality is one, just as you stated yourself: "My reality is your reality and everybody else's reality".

The idea as if we can use sensual/mental perception/deduction to experience the ultimate reality is absurd: our brain has evolved to serve the rest of our bodies - to find food and shelter, to protect from predators, to procreate. It never evolved to experience reality because that has no material/evolutionary advantages.

Yuyutsu,
Sometimes the word god means a ruling power. Kings and Emperors were also considered gods. God is King over all kings and emperors. persons were subject to their rulings, and must bow down in homage to them.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Scripture does not get revised whether or not it reflects reality. The Bible cites the death penalty for violating the Sabbath along with many other obsolete injunctions.

Your statement that Jews never denied the existence of other gods is false.

You stated that questioning the deity is a modern notion. All that is needed is one example to show that it is not a modern notion. Your statement was, “it has no interest in questions of existence. Such questions are relatively new and only arise in the minds of modern men."

That statement is false.

God remains a figment of the human imagination.

Repetition of nonsense remains nonsense. I see no point in continuing.

Dear Josephus,

Pharaoh was indeed considered a god, but Judaism rejected and opposed any such notions. It would be very uncharacteristic of Judaism to refer to kings/emperors as gods. Judaism often refers to God as the "King of the kings of Kings", not just "King of Kings".

In your earlier post you seem to have omitted verse 12:

"And He said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."

The word translated to English as 'God' in this verse, is originally 'Elohim'.

So here YHVH declares that He ("from me") is Elohim.

'Elohim' is an unusual word, since it suggests plural, but used grammatically in the singular. 'YHVH' also suggest a trinity: "Will-be/Is/Was", but is grammatically singular.

One way to think of 'Elohim' is as the personal aspect of God: the one who keepeth me, the one who keepeth you, the one who keepeth him, the one who keepeth her,... it's different functions of the same one, "the keeper".

Man is unable to describe God, hence it's only natural to use many names: though they all fall short, they help directing our attention towards God. Not only different names, but Abram's family also used different physical images. This practice was no longer appropriate for Abram and so he left and started using the more abstract mental image of the trinity of tenses (which you could also think of as 'Time' with a capital T). His descendants were not as evolved as him and so they felt the need for something more concrete which they could relate to easier... and built the golden calf.

Josephus,

Yes, those 82,000 deaths a year are all very regrettable, and we need to do what we can to reduce those numbers as much as possible.

<<... they fail to speak out against the 82,000 abortions that took the life of a potential Australian child last year.>>

But unfortunately the pregnant woman's rights need to take precedence. There is no other way it can work in a civilised society. If you don’t like that, then you need to ask your god why he made us in a way such that abortions would be inevitable and necessary.

I don't think he cares too much, though. After all, with miscarriages out-numbering abortions by a long shot, he's the biggest abortionist of all (Isaiah 45:7).

As for the binding of Isaac, all I can say is that there are many translations done by professional translators (with the New Living Translation being the most literal), and they all disagree with your interpretation.

One could cut down on the number of abortions by having obligatory sex education in schools including instructions in contraceptive methods along with the availability of contraceptives. Unfortunately many who oppose abortion are more horrified by the thought of teenagers having sex than they are by abortion. Thinking back on my virginal teenage years I regret that they were virginal.

AJ Philips,
Said,"As for the binding of Isaac, all I can say is that there are many translations done by professional translators (with the New Living Translation being the most literal), and they all disagree with your interpretation".

AJ Most English translations are taken from the Greek Septuagint where all terms for God are Theos, as the translators recognised there was in reality only one God. The exceptions were where the name of the god was mentioned such as Molech to whom children were sacrificed or Baal etc.

Yuyutsu, It is assumed Moses is writing the Torah account and he is indicating the conflict of Abraham's conversion from polytheism to monotheism. It was Elohim originally in the account that asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was Elohim to whom the homage was made. YHVH would never ask anyone to sacrifice their child as it is an abomination to YHVH. This is clearly identified as an act of abomination by Moses.

To be killing children is equivalent to ancient paganism if we believe it will make our lives more prosperous. This is an abomination to the Lord.

davidf

your dogma like that of AJ totally blinds you. Kids these days have more education on sex than ever before. Baby killing is still our national sport. Just think for once before blabbing god denier doctrine. I suspect teaching a few absolutes to our kids would have a much more beneficial effect on children than more immoral education which the secularist specialise in.

Dear Josephus,

I don't think that I need to convince you that there are no two gods - Elohim and YHVH are the same and only One, or rather, two aspects of the One as viewed from different angles, the former being personal and the latter grand-cosmic-impersonal. In verse 12, YHVH declares His identity with Elohim.

One can be critical of certain forms of worship, but no matter the external action and how it is seen by others, if done with pure heart and intention, then it is loved and accepted by God.

The intent to become more prosperous, which you mentioned, is NOT a pure intent - it is selfish, same as the intent of Muslims who desire to gain heaven with its 72 virgins. Such worship is not accepted by God: killing another so that you can prosper, is wrong, no matter which god you are trying to please.

Genesis 22 does not directly disclose Abraham's motive, good or bad, so the only way we could perhaps learn about it is from God's judgement in verse 12. However, the translation of verse 12 is poor: "for now I know that thou fearest God". Almost all translations use "fear/afraid", except Good News Translation that uses "Now I know that you honor and obey God".

The original Hebrew word is "Yare", a unique word that includes three different levels of relating to God in one. The lowest is indeed 'fear', the middle is 'awe' and the highest is 'seeing'. Had Abraham's motive been of fear, then he should be condemned as selfish. Had he been in awe, then it is difficult to decide whether he was right; but had he been seeing God eye-to-eye and consciously participated in His divine play, then no blame could be attached to Abraham even had he ended up killing his son. I can see no further hints as to which case it was, so perhaps the bible chose to keep us in mystery.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote: "To be killing children is equivalent to ancient paganism if we believe it will make our lives more prosperous. This is an abomination to the Lord."

A foetus is not a child. Abortion is not killing a child. To equate abortion with killing a child is a false equation. Possibly you have never masturbated and destroyed all those living sacred sperm. A sperm is not a child. An ovum is not a child. A fertilised ovum is not a child. To be a child one has to be born.

Actually I don't think most pagans were into sacrificing children. As far as I know no pagans burned anybody at the stake although some did go in for human sacrifices. Considering the witch hunts, the Wars of the Reformation, the fifth century conflicts which decided the particular Christian doctrines that were adopted, the martyrdom of scientists like Hypatia, Servetus, Bruno and Vanini, putting millions into slavery, the massacre of heretics, Jews, Albigenses and others, the suppression of native peoples and Christian imperialism I think Christianity with its intolerance is a step backward from paganism.

Possibly we should abominate the Lord and return to paganism. Maybe it's better to have many imaginary deities than one. Actually with its Trinity Christianity is an abomination to the lord since it is polytheism. Worse than an abomination to the lord who like all deities doesn't exist Christianity is an abomination to humanity. I think it better to get rid of all deities and the mumbojumbo associated with them and live by compassion and reason.

david F,
Neither ovum or sperm of themselves have all the genes that identify one as human. This a foetus does have to identify them as a living human.

I note you still love to quote a Roman' States view of Christianity, which is equally pagan and barberous.

If you are debating with me it fails to register as valid teachings as Christ taught.

So you are happy to have death applied to living humans in the womb, and justify it because those that oppose abortion of healthy foetus as killing; are equally murderous because they murdered in the name of God. Stop justifying murder of the unborn because Roman Catholics and the Church of England murdered heretics

Dear Josephus,

You sound prejudiced against the Church of England and Roman Catholicism. Protestants in the tyranny of John Calvin in Geneva executed Servetus and other heretics. Protestants are guilty of many Christian atrocities. They played their part in the War of the Reformation. Most of the Lutheran Church in Germany supported Hitler and participated in carrying out atrocities during WW2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is a Christian denomination based in the United States. It is the world's largest Baptist denomination and the largest Protestant body in the United States.

Maybe you should examine your prejudices against the Church of England and Roman Catholicism. You are like many prejudiced people. The group they belong to is somehow better than other groups. You have made more than one comment against the Church of England and Roman Catholicism.

Jesus is cited on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam

Matthew 7:5 KJV Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Curb your hate for your fellow Christians. Maybe show some love for the unfortunate woman who needs an abortion. Put her above the foetus.

Dear Josephus,

The Southern Baptists that I mentioned in my last post broke off the other Baptists before the American Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

"The word Southern in Southern Baptist Convention stems from it having been founded and rooted in the Southern United States, following a split from northern Baptists over the issue of slavery; the immediate issue was whether slave owners could serve as missionaries."

Curb your self-righteousness and show some love. I will try to love you. At least I do not hate you.

david f,
I happen to worship in a community where Catholics, Anglicans, United, Salvation Army, Adventists, Baptists and others are united in Christian activities. I stand against violence done by any person in the name of Christian. The two denominations previously mentioned have a very poor history of love of neighbour, along with others.

Your preaching unfortunately fails to identify any log.

Dear Josephus,

I believe anyone, even a Christian, no matter what nonsense they are supposed to believe can also be a decent person.

A woman's choice?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaBuyQ2ieeY

Josephus,

That video was one big, fat fallacious appeal to emotion. Nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

If the woman in the video wanted to keep the baby so desperately, then her partner could have simply signed his parental rights and responsibilities away with a court order.

I was pleased to see how easy an abortion was to access, though. Learning of that, in combination with the emotive music of course, was what put the lump in my throat.