Manuscript discovery supports anti-abortion position.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

Alexandria, Egypt (AP)- August 5, 2013

Archaeologists from the University of Munich have announced the discovery of an earlier version of the bible which could have controversial theological ramifications. The manuscript was found in an archaeological site where the ancient Alexandrian library was located. The point of controversy in the discovered bible is a palimpsest located in the Book of Matthew. A palimpsest is an instance where a scribe would scratch a word or phrase and substitute another. The verse in question is the famous quote by Christ at Matthew 19:14: “But Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of heaven.” In the earlier version, it appears the word “fetuses” rather than “children” was used. Because of this discovery some biblical scholars are surmising that in this verse Jesus was beckoning to visibly pregnant women, rather than children.

Ralph Reed, former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, a pro-life group, responded later on the same day of the announcement of the discovery. At a press conference he stated “Christians all over the world feel further vindicated in their uncompromising defense of the unborn. Our scriptural basis in this movement is stronger than ever. Jesus didn't say 'suffer the little children' he said 'suffer the little fetuses.'”

Many critics of the movement have pointed out that pro-life support of the Republican Party seems contrary to Christ's teachings on the poor and marginalized, given the GOP's repeated attempts to cut social programs aiding women, children and the impoverished. Critics have gone so far as to suggest implementing greater restrictions on abortion while cutting such aid programs is hypocritical.


When questioned on that point, Mr. Reed responded with a smile. “I wouldn't go so far as to say 'God loves fetuses, but once you're born, you're on your own' ... but we now know there is a scriptural basis for such a statement.”

[Scuba]

1. No one should be forced to have an abortion.

Oh wait, no one's trying to force anyone to have an abortion.

[JaneyVee]

2. The word fetus didn't exist then. Link?

[dipsydoodle]

7. They didn't speak English then either.

Would be whatever the Greek ? word for foetus was then or a synonym - unborn baby whatever.

[Daemonaquila]

8. Thank you.

I was about to say that.

There was no concept or word for "fetus" at that time. Early church beliefs didn't touch on unborns either. Death and miscarriage was so common that everybody understood that the soul entered the body at birth. It would be ridiculous to believe that an omniscient god would ensoul a body he knew would die before birth.

This is a cockamamie stunt by forced-birthers.

[Recursion]

11. Women were still pregnant back then and the fetuses kicked. Hence the idea of the "quickening"

the thought back then was that the fetus was ensouled when the mother could start feeling it move.

[theHandpuppet]

3. Link?

Link please? I assume this is from the Onion?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

4. I'm flattered.

I actually did this myself, but didn't know how to create a satire emoticon.

[theHandpuppet]

5. I'm impressed

You should have your own blog.

[winter is coming]

6. I suggest using :sarcasm:

[Zorra]

19. I was going to ask if it was from the Onion.

Well done.

[egold2604]

9. Imagine the uproar when it is found that the original word in the bible iss celebrate not celibate

[TexasProgresive]

10. Sorry to ruin your pun

Latin caelibtus, from caelebs, caelib-, unmarried.

Words are being striped of their meaning. Priests, nuns and brothers take vows of celibacy meaning that they do not marry. They are to be chaste according to their state in life, married have sex, celibates which is everyone who is not married are supposed to abstain.

I know that idea of chastity is old fashioned and don't really care- it is the destruction of words that sends me over the cliff. It's too late for celibacy and I mourn its passing.

[Recursion]

12. That's not really what a palimpsest is, incidentally

It's more when a scribe takes an old book, scrapes the ink off, and writes a new one on the parchment.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

15. You got me there.

I think there is another scholarly term (also from ancient Greek) which means something like "written over" to denominate what I was describing.

[Ohio Joe]

13. Made up right wing religious nuttery... Why is this here?

Are we supposed to think it's funny?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

14. Yes we are.

I tried to give it some verisimilitude to make it funnier. I guess my invented Reed quotes weren't over-the-top enough.

[Sgent]

16. Explain this....

In Leviticus, the punishment for taking a life is death.

The punishment for intentionally damaging a pregnant lady causing a spontaneous abortion is a payment of shekels.

How do they then equate abortion = murder?

[rhiannon55]

17. I knew it was satire, but just barely

Good job!

time for more dancing....

[Admiral Loinpresser]

23. Girl, you are an inspiration to me!

n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

18. A serious response to a joke OP.

Exodus 21:22-24



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021&version=CEB

^snip^


22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a bruise for a bruise, a wound for a wound.






Looks to me as if "God's Law" demands that ending a pregnancy is not the same as ending a life, and that the penalty for it should be no more than a fine.

It also looks to me that the woman's husband could force the miscarriage and then demand no fine. Wouldn't that be a pro-choice law? The only problem here is that the woman isn't the one who gets to make the choice.



Jesus himself referred to this passage in the Bible/Torah and didn't bother to correct this whole thing about ending a pregnancy not being the same as ending a life. He did however have something to say about giving to those who ask. Lots of stuff about helping the poor, if you bother to look for it.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=CEB

^snip^

38 “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you that you must not oppose those who want to hurt you. If people slap you on your right cheek, you must turn the left cheek to them as well. 40 When they wish to haul you to court and take your shirt, let them have your coat too. 41 When they force you to go one mile, go with them two. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t refuse those who wish to borrow from you.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

21. Serious reply.

I don't think the laws codified in Leviticus have much relevance for an ethical discussion in the 21st century. I think the question of abortion is ethically complex, but as a legal matter I support Roe v. Wade and politically I am pro-choice along the lines of Roe.

I do think the teachings of Christ (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount) do have ethical relevance for the treatment of the poor and both parties are failing miserably in that regard. I would go so far as to say the US is not a Christian nation in practice (although a super-majority identifies as Christian) because of its shameful treatment of the poor.

I believe until the Democratic Party is led by someone much more like FDR and much less by someone like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, it cannot undo the shame and pragmatic failure of the Reagan Revolution. And it is not a party worth supporting at the national level.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. It may have escaped your notice, but we are living in bizarro world and what we would have correctly

identified as absurd, over-the-top comedy or sarcasm 15 or 20 years ago, is today often presented and accepted as reasonable opinion or even fact.

In a world where significant numbers of people literally believe that a few thousand years ago people were saddling up brontosauruses to ride across the flat earth, the use of smilies or labels is no longer optional.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

22. I hope that

getting taken in by satire may help someone to consider the dangers of knee-jerk tribalism.