The Bible Isn't Convincing
You should ask Bible-believers quoting Genesis 9:3: "I would like to sell
my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age,
what do you think would be a fair price for her?"
Saying, "the Bible permits us to kill animals" isn't convincing. The Bible
permits killing the unborn, slavery and the subjugation of women, too.
Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after
conception. This was proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a
widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her
father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.
If Tamar's fetuses had any value whatsoever, her execution would have been
delayed until after their birth.
There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.
Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman
and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of
injury inflicted upon *her*, and not the fetus.
Born-again author Brian McKinley comments:
"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death
sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is
considered murder and is punished by death."
This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic
Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage,
which kills the fetus.
If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's
husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This
indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a
person.
The New Testament is more permissive than the Old!
Paul not only claims Mosaic Law has been abolished and refers to his
previous adherence to the law as "so much garbage", but claims the risen
Jesus said to him three times, "...my grace is sufficient for thee..." (II
Corinthians 12:8-9).
Some Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they
please -- ignoring the rest of the moral instructions Paul gives throughout
his epistles!
The late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933-2007), author of God's Covenant
with Animals, told me Christians who cite "three times..." are quoting Paul
out of context.
Paul, she observed, was very strict with himself:
"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any
means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I
Corinthians 9:27)
Regina Hyland said this verse indicates it's possible for one to lose one's
salvation (a serious point of contention among born agains!).
These Christians MUST be quoting Paul out of context, because otherwise it
doesn't make any sense:
On the one hand, Paul gives moral instructions throughout his epistles,
often warning that those who fail to observe them will not receive the
kingdom of God. (e.g., I Corinthians 6:9-10)
On the other hand, "three times...'my grace is sufficient for thee'..."
means you can do whatever you want?!
("Choice. Choice. Choice.")
Why then did Paul give the moral instructions in the first place?
I'm surprised LGBTs aren't citing "three times..." to justify same-sex
relations!
Can't pro-choice Christians cite "three times" to justify their right to
abortion, to say they don't have to protect the unborn, and dismiss any
meager concern given to the unborn in the Old Testament as unnecessary
"work" or "so much garbage"?
If this were three hundred years ago, couldn't Christian slaveholders resist
the abolition of slavery as unnecessary "work", citing "three times...",
etc.?
No intelligent person is going to take the "three times..." argument
seriously. On FaceBook, when the heavenly and very pro-life Michelle Renee
Bean posted a statement with a word or phrase appearing three times, I asked
her:
"Doesn't 'three times...' justify 'choice' ?"
"Absolutely," responded Michelle.
And she then proceeded to give a *secular* argument distinguishing
sterilization from abortion.
As Robert Ingersoll, the 19th century agnostic, noted, Americans have come
to believe more in the Periodic Table of Elements than in anything in the
Bible!
Secular arguments are religion-neutral and thus applicable to * everyone*,
including atheists and agnostics.
The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion.
Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion,
pro-lifers should focus on embryology and prenatal development, DNA, RNA,
etc. to make their case to mainstream American secular society.
****
The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil.
The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern
states actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.
Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a
moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in
right."
The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane
principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."
New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of
slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25)
and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often
cited in order to justify human slavery.
Some of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle to Philemon
concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.
The Quakers were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn
human slavery.
"Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment
to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word
of God," wrote Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik in his 1986 book,
The Vegetarianism of Jesus Christ: the Pacifism, Communalism, and
Vegetarianism of Primitive Christianity. "Without a doubt, the American
slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold
slaves.
"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-biblical sources
to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not
turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become
the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle
Paul.
"Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his
efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave
who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15) What a pittance of
material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of
God."
In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed
blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in
1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden... was a beast, a talking beast...
the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family,
he must have been a beast.
"Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast,
and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."
The status of animals in contemporary human society is like that of human
slaves in centuries past.
Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28 or any other biblical
passages merely suggesting liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in
the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the kind of response
animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of
ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.
****
The early American feminist and vegetarian Elizabeth Cady Stanton similarly
observed that "the Bible… does not exalt and dignify women." Husbands are to
rule over wives (Genesis 3:16), young girls are to be stoned (and not with
marijuana, either!) for losing their virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), women
are subordinate to men (Ephesians 5:22-24), women must remain silent in the
churches (I Corinthians 14:34-35), women are not allowed to teach or hold
authority over men (I Timothy 2:11-14).
St. Augustine said, "Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give
birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that
many murders."
Martin Luther wrote: "God created Adam lord of all living creatures, but Eve
spoiled it all. Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house and bear
children. And if a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing,
it matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it."
Even Pope John Paul II instructed women to go back to their traditional
roles as "obedient and serving companions to their husbands," and refused to
have an audience with anyone advocating the ordination of women in the
Catholic Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia still declares that women are
inferior to the male sex, "both as regards body and soul."
Return to: Articles
