"Jesus wouldn't condemn abortion"

[victrolatim]

I have an acquaintance (we share a common hobby) who is a very well rounded intellectual individual. He is also an atheist borderline on anti-theist. He frequently spouts these wordy intellectual style arguments when confronted with a religious point. Someone else called into question the morality of abortion (They were of a Christian background). I have relayed his exact response below. How would one counter this argument? If I am ever personally confronted with this reasoning I’d like to know. In this case, I don’t feel like jumping in some Facebook scrum because all the other militant atheist/liberals will come out in force:

From what we know about history of Ancient Middle East and early development of Christianity, it MUST be said that Christianity is not the religion of historical figure named Jesus, but a religion ABOUT “Jesus”. The historical Jesus, at best, could be described as a Aramaic-speaking working class individual from lower Galilee region - itself a dustbowl of the Roman empire - who was most probably illiterate and believed in this very common ancient beliefs of his time - apocalypticism - which was a pessimistic and hardcore dualistic belief about the universe. His beliefs simply couldn’t be compatible with our modern worldview - in short, it was a bronze age superstition.

The big inherent problem of “following Jesus” is that this version of Jesus in Christianity is an amalgam of several different individuals besides Jesus himself. Some of these individuals - whoever they were - heavily distorted the original teachings of Jesus, or sometimes made the entire thing up to fit their own theological standings and other more earthly purposes. As a result, it is a near impossibility to reconstruct what the man Jesus actually had said and taught to his disciples. Therefore, the whole “What Would Jesus Do?” argument simply falls apart by default.

You also claimed that Jesus had prohibited his disciples not to have an abortion. This clearly shows you never read your bible. Why would Jesus tell his disciples - all male, nonetheless - not to have an abortion in the first place? In fact, it is nowhere in the bible, both in the Old and the New Testament. I challenge you to find me a verse from the New Testament in which Jesus (or anyone who has the same authority as him in the bible) himself explicitly say about abortion.

If we can argue, again, about historical Jesus, Jesus would certainly haven’t had talked about abortion, because, given by the fact he was an apocalypticist, he probably raised objections against any sort of human sexual intimacy whatsoever. This is because the act of procreation itself was viewed as a sin and a cause of suffering in the ancient apocalyptic worldview.

Last but not least, you failed to realize that abortion, infanticide and child abandonment were permitted and sometimes even encouraged, under Roman law at the time of Jesus (and in fact, throughout much of human history). None of these actions were considered as immoral behavior in those days. I think Jesus probably didn’t object to any of these activities.

Again, I rest my case here. If you have further questions and arguments, feel free to write me back via my email. However, I think I wouldn’t be convinced at all about your so-called “Pro-life” argument, because it lacks any sufficient understanding of history, medical science, sociology, etc.

 

[Rosebud77]

Just ignore him and those like him.

Reminds me of the part in Alice in Wonderland where she is advised to ignore him “When he sneezes. He only does it to annoy, Because he knows it teases”

Do not please rise to this kind of evil bailing… You are worth more than that.

 

[brian_custer]

smug atheists keep thinking that Jesus “passed down” the new testamennt as a “manual” or text book

when jesus ascended; he left a “church”; not a “book”

the church has a Magisterium" ie a “teaching authority”

the Magisterium states that the taking of innocent life via abortion is an horrific mortal sin

 

[brian_custer]

and where is it “said” in the new testament that every word Jesus ever said is written down?

maybe Jesus preached about abortion; maybe he didn’t;

that is why Jesus established a “church” w/ the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit to correctly guide us through the ages to this very day and beyond

 

[Estevao]

Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century rabbi. Pretty much every thing this internet atheist said about Jesus is false. The idea that he would support crushing a baby’s skull, shopping it up into bits, and vacuuming it into a sink is laughable. And honestly I would discontinue talking with this person. A person who supports doing that to a defenseless, innocent baby is not an open-minded person who cares about truth. It appears he’s read a smattering of Bart Ehrman (the most notable adherent these days of the “apocalyptist” theory he’s talking about (that was first publicized by Albert Schweitzer one century ago) and who is not even a bible scholar but a textual critic by trade) and thinks he knows everything there is to know on the subject. It seems his main “argument” is simply asserting the theories of Bart Ehrman as fact. Look up “ehrman project” on youtube for a response to him by actual bible scholars.

youtube.com/user/ehrmanproject/videos

 

[1neophyte]

I have an acquaintance (we share a common hobby) who is a very well rounded intellectual individual. He is also an atheist borderline on anti-theist. He frequently spouts these wordy intellectual style arguments when confronted with a religious point. Someone else called into question the morality of abortion (They were of a Christian background). I have relayed his exact response below. How would one counter this argument? If I am ever personally confronted with this reasoning I’d like to know. In this case, I don’t feel like jumping in some Facebook scrum because all the other militant atheist/liberals will come out in force:

Why would you call him “a very well rounded intellectual individual”? There is nothing remotely intellectual about the response you quoted; on the contrary, it is the epitome of ignorance and confusion. There really is no way to counter this sort of “reasoning.” Cut your losses and let him live in his confusion.

 

[Swisscath]

I would pray for him. He may be intelligent etc but his mind is closed to God. Beseech the Holy Spirit to open his mind. And be careful that his ideas do not affect you.

 

[Autumn_Smoke]

(from your quote)

‘‘You also claimed that Jesus had prohibited his disciples not to have an abortion. This clearly shows you never read your bible. Why would Jesus tell his disciples - all male, nonetheless - not to have an abortion in the first place? In fact, it is nowhere in the bible, both in the Old and the New Testament. I challenge you to find me a verse from the New Testament in which Jesus (or anyone who has the same authority as him in the bible) himself explicitly say about abortion.’’

The commandment ‘‘Thou shalt not kill’’ comes to mind.

 

[Rau]

…If I am ever personally confronted with this reasoning…:

What would be the point, or the need, to counter an argument of speculation, such as:

“Last but not least, you failed to realize that abortion, infanticide and child abandonment were permitted and sometimes even encouraged, under Roman law at the time of Jesus (and in fact, throughout much of human history). None of these actions were considered as immoral behavior in those days. I think Jesus probably didn’t object to any of these activities”.

Did Jesus reject the 10 commandments?

 

[Crusaderbear]

Nothing like a pseudo-intellectual…ignore him.

 

[Lion_IRC]

victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…From what we know about history of Ancient Middle East and early development of Christianity

We? Who is we?
I’m wary of folks who invoke the third person plural immediately before declaring unanimous agreement with their own first person singular opinion on a contentious topic.
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…it MUST be said that Christianity is not the religion of historical figure named Jesus, but a religion ABOUT “Jesus”.

What an irrelevant non-sequitur.
About Jesus.
Of Jesus.
Concerning Jesus.
In relation to Jesus.

Why MUST this be said? Why the pedantry?
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…The historical Jesus, at best, could be described as a Aramaic-speaking working class individual

Citation needed.
I don’t see any historical texts who report Jesus working for an employer - for a wage.
This is just a highly contentious and unsupported opinion.
And that which is asserted without evidence can be equally rejected without the need for (counter) evidence.
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…from lower Galilee region - itself a dustbowl of the Roman Empire

So what?
This is a disdainful logical fallacy. (And kinda bigoted against Galileans.)
If Albert Einstein was from “a dust bowl” of some place what logical relevance is that?
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

… [Jesus] was most probably illiterate

WUT?
This is such an ignorant canard.
Male Jews learned to read from the Torah in their synagogues.
Why do atheist counter-apologists persist with this trope?
They call Abraham an illiterate goat herd yet Abraham’s family was from Ur - probably the largest city in the world during that era and Mesopotamia was the birthplace of writing. (Cuneiform) Abrahams family was running what we would call an agribusiness. They would have been regularly engaging in commerce with countless (meat) traders feeding a hungry population. Jesus’ father Joseph was likely the owner-operator of a carpentry business. Self-employed business owners hardly strike me as illiterate or innumerate.

 

[Lion_IRC]

victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…[Jesus] believed in this very common ancient beliefs of his time - apocalypticism - which was a pessimistic and hardcore dualistic belief about the universe.

This is false.
Jesus preached the GOOD News.
victrolatim’s acquaintance needs to read the bible.
victrolatim's not-so-well well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…His beliefs simply couldn’t be compatible with our modern worldview - in short, it was a bronze age superstition.

This is a gross logical falllacy.
Ideas aren’t better or worse depending on when they originate.
Neither does it help your argument to “special plead” that your opponents view is “merely superstition”.
If we want to fight fire with fire, let us say that atheism is the superstitious belief that God isn’t real which is held by folks who are afraid of such a thing and so they use atheism as a blocking defence. (Ostrich head in the sand.)
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…The big inherent problem of “following Jesus” is that this version of Jesus in Christianity is an amalgam of several different individuals besides Jesus himself.

No He isn’t.
Which Christians assert this heretical view?
You can’t build a strawman Jesus and think that knocking it down amounts to an argument against the Jesus Christians worship.
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…
Some of these individuals - whoever they were -

WHOAH!!
You just confidently asserted that strawman Jesus was an amalgam of many characters but you now admit you cant actually NAME any of those other amalgam Jesus lookalikes.
Make up your mind.
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…As a result, it is a near impossibility to reconstruct what the man Jesus actually had said and taught to his disciples. Therefore, the whole “What Would Jesus Do?” argument simply falls apart by default.

No - your argument falls apart when you can’t support your claim that Jesus is the sum of many non-Jesus characters. You’re just making it up.
You pretend you confidently know stuff about who Jesus actually was, yet you simultaneously dismiss the Gospels and New Testament as anonymous fabrications.
Aren’t YOU the one making stuff up about Jesus? #pot_kettle
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…Why would Jesus tell his disciples - all male, nonetheless - not to have an abortion in the first place?

For exactly the same reason male abortion 'doctors" would be told not to perform abortions.
It’s OK. We all know the dirty little secret of the abortion industry.
It’s MEN not women who push for the woman they got to have an abortion.
Her choice? You must be JOKING!
Liberal abortion laws helped more men than women.
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…In fact, it is nowhere in the bible, both in the Old and the New Testament. I challenge you to find me a verse from the New Testament in which Jesus (or anyone who has the same authority as him in the bible) himself explicitly say about abortion.

The bible says thou shalt not kill.
Nuff said!
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

… the act of procreation itself was viewed as a sin

victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…abortion, infanticide and child abandonment were permitted and sometimes even encouraged, under Roman law at the time of Jesus (and in fact, throughout much of human history). None of these actions were considered as immoral behavior in those days.

Oh, so if lots of people think something it must be OK?
WOW - you really need to learn about logical fallacies.
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…I think Jesus probably didn’t object to any of these activities.

Yeah, sure. And John the Baptist didn’t mind Herod commiting adultery/incest.
victrolatim's very well rounded intellectual acquaintance:

…Again, I rest my case here. If you have further questions and arguments, feel free to write me back via my email.

Um, no. emails are private.
I’d rather refute your false reasoning out in the public square where everyone can see.

 

[Memaw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by victrolatim’s very well rounded intellectual acquaintance

…From what we know about history of Ancient Middle East and early development of Christianity

Lion’s quote;

We? Who is we?
I’m wary of folks who invoke the third person plural immediately before declaring unanimous agreement with their own first person singular opinion on a contentious topic.
QUOTE:
I agree with you Loin, and WE can say anything WE want but who is WE??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[edwest2]

Yes, the “we” part implies universal acceptance or that “we” are to be held accountable for this or that.

I know very well read, intelligent people who profess some things that are, in fact, just elaborate arguments that sound temporarily compelling but fail upon close examination. One friend of mine has decided that there is a right way, a wrong way, and his way. His way is often backed up by lengthy arguments that also fail on close examination, but he continues his life like this anyway.

I pray for him.

Ed

 

[Wesrock]

Well, for one, he starts his argument by assuming that religion is false and that “historical Jesus” is not the Jesus of the Bible. Since those aren’t even argued but simply his starting premises, it’s hard to proceed from there.

It’s also disturbing how he thinks Judaism was okay with infanticide because it was common in Rome. Not only is that condemned, but extant Jewish writings from the period condemn it, and some also condemn abortion, too.

 

[fastenatingguy]

Google is your friend. Check out:

Pro life humanists

Pro life Atheists

Pro life secularists

The40film.com

He won’t listen to you because of your faith. He lives in a small world and won’t let in anything disruptive. These approach the issue from a non religious basis.

 

[Faithdancer]

Because Jesus isn’t on record as proscribing it, He would also approve of:
homosexual activity
same sex “marriage”
“transgender” as normal and healthy
bestiality
necrophilia
orgies
fill in the blank

 

[SuperLuigi]

Just ignore him and those like him.

Reminds me of the part in Alice in Wonderland where she is advised to ignore him “When he sneezes. He only does it to annoy, Because he knows it teases”

Do not please rise to this kind of evil bailing… You are worth more than that.

:clapping:

 

[Whalljim]

“However, I think I wouldn’t be convinced at all about your so-called “Pro-life” argument, because it lacks any sufficient understanding of history, medical science, sociology, etc.”

Well, I guess he’s made his point clear. He’s not going to be open minded.

I guess I find that the ‘pro life argument’ (maybe he’s saying just yours??) ‘lacks sufficient understanding of history, medical science…’ etc. to me misses the point. There are plenty of fine, logical arguments that have nothing to do with religion as to why we shouldn’t abort children. The key point is whether the child is a person or not. If the child is a person, abortion is horrific. If the fetus isn’t a person, it doesn’t matter.

Honestly, he doesn’t sound like a skeptic looking to have a good debate. He looks like a cynic looking to win argumentative points. He may be an excellent person at arguing but his arguing style neither seems open minded or respectful. Pray for him. Don’t get sucked into arguments where he’s going to try to win points. Just be steadfast in your support of the life of the unborn.

Many abolitionists had to face fiery opposition from pro-slavery people. You don’t have to win, you just have to endure. We are called to fight, not win.

 

[Rau]

Define “person”, if that’s the key factor. That we are considering aborting our own offspring should be sufficient to identify the nature of the act.