See
I asked about god not exactly being pro-life, and many responders complained I had taken the quotes out of context. So tell me, how would they be any different in context?
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.”
Pretty clear to me.
2007-06-04 11:55:50 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Previous question -
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgIVcayDW4BHNGG9R2GSHqXAFQx.?qid=20070604152706AAbhE4y
2007-06-04 11:56:32 · update #1
I have always found it ironic that abortion is actually condoned in the bible. It also condones the horrible practice of slinging babies againt rocks.
Lawrence R, when Moses ordered his army to kill all women (Including those pregnant), men and young boys. what do you think he was condoning?
2007-06-04 12:00:44 · answer #1 · answered by Shawn B 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Here is the whole of what that Scripture says:
"Hos 9:11 As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.
Hos 9:12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!
Hos 9:13 Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer.
Hos 9:14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hos 9:15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.
Hos 9:16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."
To put it in context, it refers to the time when Israel had turned away from God and followed after the false gods that the Canaanites, and all the other "ites" had followed before the Israelites had enter the Promised Land.
To honor the false gods required the sacrifice of their children on the altar fires of the idols, the younger the children the better. This is the shedding of innocent blood and it angered God. He pronounced His judgment against those who would do such a thing. They brought it on themselves by killing their children. The shedding of innocent blood, then as now, requires that the perpetrators blood be shed, in other words, that they be executed.
Shawn B's claim to the contrary, abortion is not condoned in the Bible.
2007-06-04 19:15:15 · answer #2 · answered by †Lawrence R† 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I will give you props for a more compelling argument than "woman's rights." If a woman cannot keep her legs crossed I think her choice was clear.
But, you have me off topic. I am sure some will say this nature of God changed with the coming of Jesus. Perhaps this weak seeming argument is valid, perhaps not.
What if I say only God can condone the act of infanticide and even genocide. For I know that he called for genocide and saw to it himself one time. So, while life is sacred it is not life but the life God deems sacred.
I will also say some of your text was out of context. Some from what I remember was simply God removing his hand of protection and allowing punishment to fall to the wayward tribes.
We should not be quick to step into Gods role of saying children should die. I find it funny how the far left wish to give homosexuals rights, let murderers go, criminals get a slap and unborn children (the only true innocents) the chair.
2007-06-04 19:23:28 · answer #3 · answered by crimthann69 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bible is full of stuff like that. Devotee's will tell you that you are interrupting it wrong or that some word has a different translation or you need to read the whole book in detail. But you are right - there are parts of the bible that are clear as day and not very nice.
My favorite is Deut. 13:7-11
2007-06-04 19:00:25 · answer #4 · answered by Alan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i suggest you read "a catholic guide to the bible" by fr. oscar lukefahr c.m
the human authors of the bible were able to record their own accounts and their own somewhat tainted theology and perceptions on god,such as cause and effect of sin amongst others,despite this god was able to divinly inspire them to record the important truths of god ie the religious truths contained in the bible. therefore one must try learn something of the culture and time period the author wrote in and it also helps to find out a little about the author. you'll likely see this as a lame excuse but it is reason why christians hold fast to the truth(for us) of the bible. take it as you will.
2007-06-04 19:16:35 · answer #5 · answered by fenian1916 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The real problem here is that you're assuming the christian Bible is the literal authority on God.
That makes any quest at true understanding automatically doomed.
2007-06-04 19:01:07 · answer #6 · answered by Elmer R 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
God's justice is fair and guaranteed. Call it what you will: The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
2007-06-04 19:14:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The word of God is true, and every man a lie!
2007-06-04 19:09:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋