(2.2) Timperator's Fisking of the CPC Bible Study

Jan 13, 2018
(2.2) Timperator's Fisking of the CPC Bible Study
  • Timperator went through what appears to be damned near all of the Bible verses in the blue pages (2.0) and discovered that not one single one of them actually does what the Christians presenting this Bible study want to accomplish. From his extensive comment on the blog (where he quotes me, my words from the original blog post are in green italics; the quoted material from the CPC manual is indented and italicized in red):

    Anti-Abortion Clobber Verses
    I guess that was what they meant by "true, accurate information."

    And I doubt anyone will be shocked to learn that it is a six-page-long Bible study regurgitating all the most popular Christian talking points against abortion.
    Never mind the Bible doesn't explicitly define when ensoulment happens and actually recommends abortifacients for testing virginity.

    "The fact that the word 'abortion' does not appear in the Bible does not mean God is silent on the true value of life."
    Given how the Bible generally leads and what happens in the universe the Mad Blood God ostensibly created, I'm pretty sure life is truly valued rather low.

    In the negative thirty-first century, life is cheap but tabernacles are not.

    "God knew David as a person before he was born"
    The Mad Blood God is, by their fandom, omniscient. He knows everything: past, present, and future. Of course he knew David before he was born. That's not a comment on ensoulment.

    "Jer. 1:4,5"
    Exactly the same as above; that the Mad Blood God is addressing Jeremiah exactly adds nothing to the argument... and it's worth noting on the above that Psalmist David is not the Mad Blood God and his words can't be treated as a direct quote.

    "The entity in the womb is a baby [linguistic tomfoolery follows]"
    So "abortion" not being in the Bible doesn't break their argument, but the fact that Aramaic and Ancient Greek didn't have separate words for "zygote" breaks ours? Cool story, bro.

    "Luke 1:15"
    The Holy Spirit isn't a person's soul, either. Being filled with the Holy Spirit isn't the same as ensoulment.

    "God knows the personalities of the unborn"
    The Mad Blood God knows everything and isn't bound by chronology or causality! This is their freakin' ideology and fandom, why are they so bad at it?

    (Because, like Trekkies that complain about SJWs, the actual details of their fandom's source materials is really irrelevant to their actual collective ideology.)

    "Gal. 1:15:"
    It's really bad when almost every single quote they pull can be negated by the exact same counter-argument. The Mad Blood God having a plan since time immemorial has nothing to do with when ensoulment happens.

    Clearly the foes of legalized abortion see fetuses as weeping and oppressed, and they see themselves as stepping into the breach to comfort those fetuses by rescuing them from their own mothers.
    While themselves not only doing nothing to succor the weeping of the women they oppress, but actually being the boot that stomps on their faces forever (to turn the metaphor towards something more apropos).

    "But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
    Huh, I'd not made that connection with that particular line. I like it. I now have Biblical backing to be childfree, not that it matters to me... I can use it to shut up fundamentalists, though.

    Ecclesiastes 4:3.
    Nice.

    "In these passages God is dealing with the unborn."
    In a planning or prepatory sense, yes, but not in a way that means what they make it to mean. If I sign off an engineering drawing on an environmental control and life support secondary heat exchanger duct, I'm doing jack-all having to do with armaments or electrical subsystems or fuel piping. I dealt with the T-X before it was made, but what I was doing didn't change when it legally became an aircraft.

    "Heb. 2:17" ... "Is there any question of Jesus' personhood before birth?"
    There is now, since the first could be used to argue that Jesus was only ensouled only when everyone else was--thus suggesting he was specially created by the Father, while the second is obviously "no" because the orthodoxy is that Jesus is eternal and existed back since Creation (suggesting that Jesus wasn't eternal back to Creation is heresy of the Arian and Psilanthropic varieties). One could get around it by suggesting that Jesus' body was base but ensouled with divinity, but that gets dangerously close to the Apollinarian heresy, or by suggesting that the Mad Blood God created all human souls at the same time Jesus' personhood/soul appeared, but that falls apart because 1) the Treasury of Souls is Jewish mythology that modern Christianity fails to share, 2) even invoking the Treasury doesn't solve the problem as the souls themselves are the produce of the Tree of Life which happen /after/ the Creation, and 3) it still conflicts with the chronology that Jesus is an eternal un-created facetindependent persona (suggesting that Jesus is a facet is the Monothelitist heresy) of the Mad Blood God. Everyone else would have to be equivalently eternal backwards in time too.

    Really, this whole Trinity nonsense and its assertion that A == B, A == C, A == D, B != C, C != D, D != B has only done more harm than good. So many of the heretics had much more logically defensible positions that wouldn't have harmed the ideology in any meaningful way...

    "From the moment of conception to the day he dies on the cross, He lived"
    [emphasis mine]
    Having trouble with tenses there, it looks.

    "Prov. 24:11,12" ... "Can these be the unborn children who have no defense except our Christian conscience?"
    Probably not, because in the Proverbist's culture the Ancient Israelites--and most everyone else, really--didn't consider babies to be people until they could talk or even later, depending on the breaks, much less the unborn. Compare the penalties for inducing miscarriage by aggression to the penalties for murder and it's pretty obvious that "crimes against the unborn" were analogous to crimes against property rather than crimes against persons.

    "Where do the unborn come from?" ... [series of Bible verses suggesting "God"]
    I know this is an anachronistic application of memetics, but they're basically setting up the Mad Blood God as the ultimate alpha cucker.

    "How does God sa[y] we should treat his children?"
    "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people." ~Numbers 31:1-2

    "And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." ~ Deuteronomy 20:12-14

    "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God." ~ Deuteronomy 20:16-18

    (Meanwhile, verse 19 goes "When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them" so, Biblically, fruit-producing trees have more protections than the MBG's living children, much less the unborn.)

    "last year in this state alone, over 200,000 babies were sacrificed by their parents?"
    These phrases are a crime against the concept of words having meaning. Fetuses aren't babies and abortion, even if one considers it murder, isn't sacrifice in its religious meaning as 'something given up, usually ritualistically.'

    "The results are the same. They were all very innocent. They are all very dead."
    Unpacking:

    1) The results are not the same, not from an ideological standpoint: Biblical child-sacrificers were worshipping idols or false gods and elevating them before the Mad Blood God with their sacrifice. "Thou shalt not kill" is a different commandment for a reason.

    2) Christian orthodoxy since Augustine is that there is no such thing as an innocent human being. All partake of original sin and so are not only damned but deserving of it, per the orthodox understanding of the Mad Blood God.

    3) "Very dead" is less informative than it sounds; they're as dead as they would've been had their zygote failed to implant on the uterine wall, naturally failed and aborted without incident in the early stages of pregnancy, or been miscarried (the forced-birthers aren't the only one who can argue based on potential consequences). Having lacked any cognition, consciousness, or personality they had none of these to lose. No matter how modern rent-seekers may think, making a decision that means I don't get a dollar in the future doesn't mean I've lost that dollar; it was never mine to begin with because it literally hasn't happened yet.

    "Matt. 5:17"
    *galactic-level eye-rolling

    SIGH.

    [standard issue rejoinder of "do you eat shellfish? do you wear mixed fabrics? do you eat bacon cheeseburgers?" goes here]

    Fundamentalists, stop using Matthew 5:17. Just stop.

    "Matt. 5:21"
    Hum.

    That's a quote for vigilantes blowing up abortion clinics and assassinating doctors, not for people who are 'just' supposed to talk mothers out of abortions.

    But to hear Christians talking about abortion, you’d easily think that it is literally the most important thing in the entire world to them and their imaginary friend, and yet the Bible is 100% silent regarding the idea of forbidding women from choosing abortion care for themselves.As per the above, tree care whilst besieging an enemy city is more important to the Mad Blood God than abortion, given that the MBG actually bothers to mention "hey, bros, don't cut down trees that can produce food you can eat (you fucking morons)" but says nothing like "if she gets preggo, she's gotta pop out the spawnling."

    TRUE CHRISTIANS™ of the Crisis Pregnancy Center now move on to what they view as the real center of their culture war: personhood.
    A legal concept, not a theological one. Corporations are legal persons... but they can't emphasize ensoulment, even in an internal-eyes-only document, because their ideology is only served by conflating the entirely different concepts of "personhood" and "ensoulment."

    And *puts on the Assigned Leftist hat* since this meme has the convenient effect of subconsciously establishing that all persons have souls, legal persons like corporations used by capital are also souled entities, which fits in with the human tendency to anthropomorphize and is only encouraged by marketing that establishes corporate personalities... *takes hat off*

    The term indicates some inner spark of humanity in a fetus that instantly grants it the exact same status as an actual real person the moment sperm meets eggAs pointed out above, their theological arguments would tend to better support that ensoulment happens before conception, with souls pre-packaged into the little homonculi inside each spermatazoan.

    Every sperm is sacred, indeed.

    Culture warriors will say that a fetus’ rights equal that of a real actual person, but in reality the actual setup they want to bring about gives fetuses not only more rights than the women bearing them
    Hmm, good point. Wards generally have more rights than guardians; if a ward runs away it's a minor annoyance and no crime but if a guardian runs away it's abandonment... and we want it that way when real breathing children are involved because otherwise we get Rothbardian madness like "parents have no ethical obligation to feed their children and it should be legal to permit them to starve." There's still distinct qualitative and quantitative differences between independently breathing babies and clumps of tissue that can't breathe on their own, and there's also distinct differences between freshly breathing babies and communicative human beings who cogitate and use language in ways we associate with being human.

    The line's a bit arbitrary, is what I'm saying. Abortion and even infanticide aren't really big deals when infant mortality and miscarriage rates are high, because if all one's children keep dying before the age of three one starts devaluing life before the age of three. Hell, wasn't there a time when christening actually happened well after birth because there was no point in naming babies that may as well die in the next few months?

    "Lord hates hand that shed innocent blood" ... "Gen. 9:6"[sic]
    *glances up at Deuteronomy above*

    Sure thing. Y'all keep telling yourselves that.

    Does anyone here actually wonder why I keep talking about how doublethink and crimestop are so important to ideological Christianity?

    "Amos 1:13"
    They are seriously heavily dependent on no one checking their references, are they? This is the full quote:

    "Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:"

    Not only is it a very specific statement about a very specific people, but it's basically agitprop: the actual problem is their expansionism; that they killed pregnant mothers is a detail emphasized to evoke rage.

    "What about the soul?"...what does this section have to do with the price of rice in Peoria?

    "I Cor. 6:19"
    How many of these people smoke? Eat fatty foods? Don't exercise?

    "What does God say about the unfortunate who are deformed, sick, etc.?"
    And the quotes they pull are literally the equivalent of 'sit down and shut up, I made you' and 'I might have become prideful at some point so the Mad Blood God hit me with affliction.'

    Seriously, let's parse that: "God was afraid I might be puffed up so I was given a sickness... 'My power shows up best in weak people.'" [emphasis mine] We're talking about the theoretically omnimax creator of the universe who is scared that some pissant in the armpit of the Mediterranean might get thoughts above his station, so some stupid affliction gets ginned up? The use of passive voice allows one to conveniently glaze over that the Mad Blood God preemptively smote someone with sickness to prevent the existential threat of someone maybe being a bit of a prick at worst, and the Mad Blood God of the Desert needs and prefers weak people because he can show off best with them?!

    "unborn child"
    I think we should start referring to living, breathing human beings as "undied [sic] corpses" and see how that plays out.
  • Loading...
  • Loading...