God is Pro-life?
Farrell
Till
Re-posted
from
The
Skeptical Review
The
longer I live, the more puzzled
I am by the way that people will
cling to beliefs that are
clearly disputed by the
realities that they see around
them each day. These could be
social, political, or just any
kind of testable beliefs, but
religious beliefs are the most
tenacious of all. With
earthquakes, volcanoes,
hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,
mudslides, tsunamis, avalanches,
famines, epidemics, and other
natural disasters killing
thousands of us each year,
people will still believe that a
benevolent, loving deity watches
over us, and some will believe
that this deity even assigns
personal guardian angels to
protect us. When disasters such
as those just mentioned create a
cognitive dissonance between
personal beliefs and the
realities of the disasters,
those who desperately wish to
believe in a benevolent, caring
deity will close their eyes to
reality and continue to believe
what they want to believe.
This
was recently brought home to me
with vivid clarity during a
morning walk. As part of the
therapy recommended to help me
recover from an ischemic stroke
that I had in early 2005, I walk
three miles each day. A few
weeks ago, I passed a pickup
truck parked on the street that
had a bumpersticker on it
proclaiming that "God Is
Pro-Life." I am sure that
the "God" referred to
in this slogan was the god of
the Bible, but I am even more
sure that the owner of this
truck is either ignorant of what
the Bible says about this god
that he thinks is pro-life or
else he has made an
accommodation with cognitive
dissonance and chosen to believe
what he wants to believe about
this god despite how
barbarically he was presented in
the Bible. Those who don't allow
cognitive dissonance to
influence their understanding of
the Bible, however, know that
about the last thing that could
be said of the "God"
depicted in it is that he is
"pro-life."
In "The
evolution of God,"
I showed how much of the
barbarism attributed to
"God" in the Old
Testament was toned down by New
Testament times, but all though
Hebrew "history"
Yawheh was depicted as a god who
would kill at the blink of an
eye if anyone crossed him, and
the people in those days seemed
to think that this was the way
that any self-respecting god
should act, but one of the most
disgraceful things of our time
is that people living now, who
should be enlightened enough to
know better, still cling to
those ancient, superstitious
concepts of God. The pro-life
slogan on the bumpersticker
mentioned above epitomizes that
ignorance.
This
god, who the truck owner
apparently thinks is
"pro-life," showed
very early in the Bible that he
has little respect for human
life. Even though he is
presumably omniscient and
should, therefore, have known
how his creation would turn out,
he decided to destroy the entire
earth because he saw that
"the wickedness of man was
great in the earth and that
every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually (Gen.
6:5). This sounds
like a bit of biblical
exaggeration to me, but let's
assume that it is an accurate
statement of conditions at that
time. Why didn't the omniscient,
omnipotent deity who created the
world and then humans as his
crowning achievement know that
they would turn out that way?
I
guess that doesn't bother people
who are determined to believe in
their omniscient, omnipotent,
benevolent god, but have they
ever stopped for just a moment
to think about what would have
necessarily entailed if this god
did indeed send a flood to cover
the entire earth to destroy all
life on it except for the eight
humans and their menagerie
aboard the ark? Let's just
suppose that the population of
the earth at that time was only,
say, a hundred thousand. Even
with a population that small,
there would have necessarily
been children and babies and,
yes, unborn children still in
their mothers' wombs who were
killed in the flood. If
"God" is indeed
pro-life, as the bumper sticker
claimed, how does the truck
owner explain the drowning of so
many children, who, even if
their parents were wicked to the
core, had not the intellectual
maturity to know the difference
in good and evil (Deut.
1:39)? I personally
can't see much benevolence in a
deity that would send a flood
upon the earth to destroy all of
the elephants, giraffes,
antelopes, squirrels, rabbits,
etc., etc., etc.--except, of
course, for the few that were on
the ark--but children, babies,
and the unborn--there is
certainly no benevolence in a
deity who could perpetrate such
an act. Certainly, a god that
would do such a deed as this
cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be called pro-life.
A
universal flood that destroyed
all life on earth except for the
occupants of the ark would
disqualify the god who sent it
from ever being described as
pro-life, even if he had forever
after shown boundless love for
humanity, but, according to the
Bible, which was no doubt where
the truck owner had learned of
the "pro-life" god he
worships, this deity continued
to show that he has no respect
for human life.
·
He
rained fire and brimstone down
on Sodom and Gomorrah to wipe
them and the people living there
off the face of the earth (Gen.
19:23-28).
Well,
yes, worshipers of this god will
say, but the people living there
were wicked and deserved to die,
but again they forget about the
children, babies, and the
unborn. In the cities of the
plains that God destroyed on
that day, there were surely
children, infants, and unborn
babies still in their mothers'
wombs. If "God" is
indeed pro-life, as the
bumpersticker proclaimed, then
how could he have brought
destruction upon innocent
children and infants and unborn
babies? Talk about abortion on a
mass scale--it happened that day
if the biblical story of Sodom
and Gomorrah is historically
accurate.
·
He
sent a plague on Egypt that
killed all of their firstborn.
Those
who worship this god will again
say, "Well, yes, but they
were wicked people who had
enslaved the Israelites,"
but, as before, they keep
forgetting about the children.
As this story is told in the
Bible, every firstborn in Egypt,
from the firstborn of Pharaoh to
the firstborn of the captives in
dungeons, died that night (Ex.
12:29), and he even
threw in the firstborn of the
cattle for good measure. How
many of those firstborn were
children and babies, who were in
no way responsible for the
enslavement of the Israelites?
Census figures in the book of
Numbers require biblical in-errantists to believe that the
Israelite population that left
Egypt was somewhere between 2.5
and 3 million people.
A nation that could have held
this many in slavery for 430
years would have had to have
been more numerous than its
three million slaves, so the
plague against the firstborn in
Egypt would have necessarily
killed thousands, many of whom
would have been children. How
could a god who is
"pro-life" have
perpetrated a deed like this
against children?
There
is a veritable treasure trove of
examples in the Bible that I
could cite to show that this
allegedly "pro-life"
god showed little respect for
human life throughout the Old
Testament, but I intend to
restrict myself to examples,
like those above, where deeds
attributed to this god would
have necessarily killed
children, infants, and unborn
babies. The Israelite blitzkrieg
through the land of Canaan is
another prime example. Before
they crossed the Jordan,
Yahweh--the "pro-life"
god of the truck owner--had
ordered them to take no captives
but to "leave nothing alive
to breathe."
Deuteronomy
20:16
But as for the towns of these
peoples that Yahweh your God is
giving you as an inheritance, you
must not let anything that
breathes remain alive. 17 You
shall annihilate them--the
Hittites and the Amorites, the
Canaanites and the Perizzites,
the Hivites and the Jebusites--just
as Yahweh your God has
commanded....
Notice
that this passage clearly says
that Yahweh, the god of the
Israelites, ordered them not
"to let anything that
breathes remain alive," and
the book of Joshua, which
recorded the conquest of Canaan,
claimed that this commandment
was obeyed.
Joshua
10:40
So Joshua defeated the whole
land, the hill country and the
Negeb and the lowland and the
slopes, and all their kings; he
left no one remaining, but
utterly destroyed all that
breathed, as Yahweh God of
Israel commanded.
Joshua
11:10
Joshua turned back at that time,
and took Hazor, and struck its
king down with the sword. Before
that time Hazor was the head of
all those kingdoms. 11 And
they put to the sword all who
were in it, utterly destroying
them; there was no one left who
breathed, and he burned
Hazor with fire. 12 And all the
towns of those kings, and all
their kings, Joshua took, and
struck them with the edge of the
sword, utterly destroying
them, as Moses the servant of
Yahweh had commanded.
Joshua
11:14
All the spoil of these towns,
and the livestock, the
Israelites took for their booty;
but all the people they
struck down with the edge of the
sword, until they had destroyed
them, and they did not leave any
who breathed. 15 As Yahweh
had commanded his servant Moses,
so Moses commanded Joshua, and
so Joshua did; he left
nothing undone of all that
Yahweh had commanded Moses.
What
was described in Joshua's
conquest of Canaan would be
somewhat as if the U. S. Army in
its invasion of Iraq--to rid it
of weapons of mass
destruction--had completely
annihilated the civilian
populations in all the towns and
cities of that country,
including women, children,
infants, and unborn babies. If
this had been done even the
staunchest political and
religious conservatives here and
around the world--with the
probable exception of Ann
Coulter--would have cried in
outrage, but many of those same
conservatives will read about
Old Testament atrocities ordered
by the god they believe in and
apparently think nothing about
it. The words go in one ear and
out the other, like water being
poured onto a duck's back. They
apparently give no thought at
all to what would have
necessarily happened if these
"conquests" had
happened as claimed in the
Bible. In the first place, the
seven nations inhabiting Canaan
before the Israelite invasion
were said to be "greater
and mightier" than the
Israelites (Deut.
7:2). As noted above,
the Israelite population at this
time numbered somewhere between
2.5 and 3 million people, so if
the seven nations in Canaan were
"greater and mightier"
than the Israelites, they would
have numbered even more than 3
million. In a population of
three million, there would be
many pregnant women at any given
time, so if the Israelites
killed everyone and left no
one alive to breathe, they
would have necessarily killed
hundreds of pregnant women.
Bible
believers grappling with
cognitive dissonance, of course,
will try to rationalize away
biblical atrocities like those
identified above. When the Bible
says that the Israelites left no
one alive to breathe, they will
say, that means that they left
no one alive to breathe in the
Canaanite armies, but they would
not have killed children and
unborn babies.
Oh,
no? Well, those who so
rationalize will have to think
again, because the example of
the worldwide flood that I cited
above either involved the
killing of children, infants,
and unborn babies, or else the
Bible is incorrect in its
description of the consequences
of that flood.
·
The
flood waters rose 15 cubits
[about 25 feet] above the
highest mountains on earth (Gen.
7:18-19).
·
All
flesh, animal and human, upon
the earth died (Gen.
7:21).
·
All
in whose nostrils was the
"breath of the spirit of
life" died (Gen.
7:22).
·
Every
living thing, both animal and
human, creeping things, and
birds "were destroyed from
the earth" (Gen.
7:23).
·
Only
Noah "and they who were
with him on the ark" were
left (Gen.
7:23).
So
the language of the Bible is
clear enough for all who want to
see what it teaches in this
matter to understand: The
"pro-life" God of the
truck owner once sent a flood
upon the entire earth that
killed all children, infants,
and unborn babies on the entire
earth at that time. I said all
children, infants, and unborn
babies on the entire
earth, because there were no
children in Noah's family at
this time, and the birth of
Noah's first grandson didn't
occur until two years after the
flood (Gen.
11:10). So if only
adults were aboard the ark, all
children, infants, and unborn
babies at that time would have
been killed in the flood sent by
the truck owner's
"pro-life" God. Why
would he have done this if he is
as vehemently pro-life as the bumper sticker proclaimed?
Those
who think that God's command for
the Israelites to "leave no
one alive to breathe" in
Canaan didn't include children
need to read again and pay more
attention to details this time.
The story of the Israelite
invasion of the Midianites
clearly shows that the
Israelites included little
children in their massacres.
Numbers
31:1
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 2
"Avenge the Israelites on
the Midianites; afterward you
shall be gathered to your
people." 3 So Moses said to
the people, "Arm some of
your number for the war, so that
they may go against Midian, to
execute the Lord's vengeance on
Midian. 4 You shall send a
thousand from each of the tribes
of Israel to the war." 5 So
out of the thousands of Israel,
a thousand from each tribe were
conscripted, twelve thousand
armed for battle. 6 Moses sent
them to the war, a thousand from
each tribe, along with Phinehas
son of Eleazar the priest, with
the vessels of the sanctuary and
the trumpets for sounding the
alarm in his hand. 7 They did
battle against Midian, as Yahweh
had commanded Moses, and
killed every male.
"Aha,"
those looking for just any way
to come to terms with their
cognitive dissonance will no
doubt exult, "this says
that they killed every male, so
women and children were
excluded." Before they
rejoice too much, those who so
rationalize should read on.
9
The Israelites took the women
of Midian and their little ones
captive; and they took all
their cattle, their flocks, and
all their goods as booty. 10 All
their towns where they had
settled, and all their
encampments, they burned, 11 but
they took all the spoil and all
the booty, both people and
animals. 12 Then they brought
the captives and the booty and
the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar
the priest, and to the
congregation of the Israelites,
at the camp on the plains of
Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest,
and all the leaders of the
congregation went to meet them
outside the camp. 14 Moses
became angry with the officers
of the army, the commanders
of thousands and the commanders
of hundreds, who had come from
service in the war. 15 Moses
said to them, "Have you
allowed all the women to live?
16 These women here, on Balaam's
advice, made the Israelites act
treacherously against Yahweh in
the affair of Peor, so that the
plague came among the
congregation of Yahweh. 17 Now
therefore, kill every male among
the little ones, and kill every
woman who has known a man by
sleeping with him. 18 But all
the young girls who have not
known a man by sleeping with
him, keep alive for yourselves.
On
this occasion, the Israelite
army did indeed spare women and
children, but before the
rationalizers get too excited
about this, they should notice
that the sparing of these
Midianite civilians greatly
angered Yahweh's chosen
emissary, who then gave the
orders in the passage quoted
above. The nonvirgin women and
male children were killed, and
the virgin girls were left alive
for the soldiers who had taken
them captive. Anyone who sees
reason to rejoice in this is
really desperate for straws to
grasp.
The
rationalizers will even go so
far as to say that Moses
commanded the massacre of the
male children and the nonvirgin
women captives, but Yahweh would
never have commanded such a
horrible deed.
Oh,
no? Well, let's look at another
biblical account of the
Israelite massacre of an entire
nation of people.
1
Samuel 15:1
Samuel said to Saul,
"Yahweh sent me to anoint
you king over his people Israel;
now therefore listen to the
words of Yahweh. 2 Thus says
Yahweh of hosts, 'I will
punish the Amalekites for what
they did in opposing the
Israelites when they came up out
of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack
Amalek, and utterly destroy
all that they have; do not spare
them, but kill both man and
woman, child and infant, ox
and sheep, camel and
donkey.'" 4 So Saul
summoned the people, and
numbered them in Telaim, two
hundred thousand foot soldiers,
and ten thousand soldiers of
Judah.... 7 Saul defeated the
Amalekites, from Havilah as far
as Shur, which is east of Egypt.
8 He took King Agag of the
Amalekites alive, but utterly
destroyed all the people with
the edge of the sword.
This
text is clear enough for anyone
to understand. It claims that
the Israelite god Yahweh ordered
Saul to go and utterly destroy
an entire nation of people, and
the command even stipulated that
women, children, and infants
were to be included in the
massacre. The final verse quoted
above claims that Saul killed
all of the Amalekites except for
their king, so this brings us
back to the problem already
discussed above. If an entire
nation of people was massacred
as claimed in this text, unborn
babies, as well as children and
infants, would have died when
their mothers were killed. How
can anyone who knows that this
story and many others like it
are in the Bible possibly
believe that "God,"
meaning, of course, the god of
the Bible, is pro-life?"
For
those who still want to believe
that "God" is
pro-life, there are other
biblical passages to consider
that clearly dispute this view
of the biblical god. Consider,
for example, the curse that this
god pronounced on Samaria.
Hosea
13:15
Although he [Ephraim] may
flourish among rushes, the east
wind shall come, a blast from
Yahweh, rising from the
wilderness; and his fountain
shall dry up, his spring shall
be parched. It shall strip his
treasury of every precious
thing. 16 Samaria shall bear her
guilt, because she has rebelled
against her God; they shall fall
by the sword, their little
ones shall be dashed in pieces,
and their pregnant women ripped
open.
That's
rather clear, isn't it?
Samaria's "little
ones," i. e., its
babies, would be dashed in
pieces, and the pregnant women
of Samaria would be ripped open.
How could a "pro-life"
God pronounce a curse against a
people that would include
dashing their "little
ones" to pieces and
"ripping open"
pregnant women? Just what would
this god have to do to convince
people like the truck owner that
he is not "pro-life"?
In
previous articles, I have cited
biblical passages to show that
the god of the Israelites was
everything but pro-life. In "Abortion
and the God of the Bible,"
I quoted the entire context of
the "trial by ordeal"
that Israelite women, by direct
command from Yahweh, were
required to submit to. This was
an ordeal that would cause the
uterus "to drop" and
the womb "to
discharge" (Num.
5:21-22). In other
words, this "pro-life"
God of the truck owner actually
ordered Israelite women to
submit to a trial by ordeal that
would have caused them to
miscarry if they were pregnant.
That is "pro-life"?
In
the article just linked to, I
also quoted Exodus
21:22 to show that
Yahweh, who had decreed the
death penalty for the killing of
another person, even if the
killing was unintentional (Deut.
4:41-43; Deut.
19:7-10), required
only the payment of a fine for
an injury that caused a pregnant
woman to miscarry. I personally
find abortion to be very
deplorable, as I explained in "Does
a Person Exist at the Moment of
Conception?" but
to say that the god of the Bible
is pro-life and therefore
opposed to abortion is to claim
something that is not taught in
the Bible.
There
are sensible, logical reasons
why a person could be against
abortion, but to oppose it on
the grounds that the Bible
condemns it is not a viable
reason. When someone opposes
abortion on biblical grounds,
the only thing he proves is that
he is not very knowledgeable in
biblical matters.
posted
by Brian
Worley Ex-Minister.org
All
rights reserved