Social Question

soulin's avatar

Does the bible allow one to abort a homosexual fetus?

Asked by soulin (30 points ) June 15th, 2011

I know that the bible doesn’t allow abortions, but the bible does condemn homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”)

So if the fetus is genetically screened and found to be a homosexual fetus, does the bible allow one to abort the homosexual fetus?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

83 Answers

Coloma's avatar

What in the WORLD are you talking about?
And HOW would you KNOW if a fetus is destined to be homosexual, and WHY would you even entertain such an idea?

Get some help!

MilkyWay's avatar

Do you mean you can tell if someone grows up to be homosexual or not before they are even born? I’d say that’s a load of crap.
There might be a chance of the fetus being homosexual due to genetics but you cannot say it will for sure.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Shakes head again, walks away.

soulin's avatar

Well there is a lot of science that finds homosexuality to be genetic. So, if it’s genetic, then it can be genetically screened for.

So you would know if the fetus is homosexual.

thorninmud's avatar

If I were a Christian (and I’m not), I’d point out that the bible condemns the homosexual act, not the persuasion.

FutureMemory's avatar

My guess is it would still not allow the abortion of a homosexual fetus, because the fetus should be allowed the chance to repent first…?

manolla's avatar

The bible does not allow abortion, full stop!!

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

This is a good question, actually. I think @FutureMemory nailed it. Just a guess, of course. Obviously it isn’t actually discussed in the Bible, so any answer would have to be a guess to some degree.

JLeslie's avatar

Why are you all jumping all over those question? People ask questions about whether being gay is genetic or not all of the time. If we found the marker, like we have for Cystic Fibrosis, and could tell with amnio someone is going to be genetically homosexual, the question has merit.

I think the bible has all sorts of bullshit contradictions and full of killings that in present day we would find archaic and abhorrent, and so who gives a FF what the bible might say or how clergy might interpret it regading this. Each religion would interpret it differently anyway.

I think it would be regarded in the same way most Christians look at it. It is ok to have the inclination to be gay, just not ok to act on it, and so the fetus would be allowed to be born,

DancingMind's avatar

Genetics aren’t that simple. There’s isn’t a “gay gene.” Genetics are involved—but it’s immensely complicated, and dealing with something that’s on a spectrum, not definites.

The thought of…—it’s disgusting; genocide. Nothing less than horrifying, even entertaining that as an idea.

(And, in the context of the Bible—foremost, it teaches acceptance and love of all. That was Jesus’ message. Isn’t it a tiny bit more likely that people managed to squeeze in their hate as they passed along the words of God, rather than that actually being God’s word, condemning people for how He himself made them.)

@JLeslie I understand what you’re saying, the point your making… but human sexuality isn’t the same as CF

jaytkay's avatar

the fetus should be allowed the chance to repent first…?

Not all Christians believe there is such a chance, they believe in predestination.

JLeslie's avatar

@DancingMind Of course it isn’t. But, we are talking the bible. They will use that book to rationalize whatever hateful thing they want if they are hateful.

AdamF's avatar

Where does it say in the bible that abortions aren’t allowed?

Coloma's avatar

Seems like a no brainer to me.
IMO, if there is a God that so loathes homosexuality, and he, it, she, is the creator of all things, well then…seems to me this God would simply not create homosexual individuals. End of story.

I can just see this tiny fetus doing hail marys and repenting in utero
Maybe there is a secret confessional booth in every uterus for just this sort of thing lol

poisonedantidote's avatar

Yes, the bible will allow you to abort anyone.

The bible is super silent on the topic of abortion, in no part of the bible does it say “thou shall not abort”. There are some parts of the bible, such as in the old testament, that talk of punishments for abortion. But the punishment is only a fine, and only under certain circumstances.

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” – Exodus 21:22

As I mention before, the bible does not refference abortion, any concept that the bible does not allow for abortion is via interpretation, not scripture.

It goes something like this….

In several parts of the bible, god forbids killing, and those who say abortion is murder and therefore against the bible, are doing so by interpreting a fetus to be a human being.

The bible does say that life begins in the womb, but it does not say at what exact moment. god’s standard for murder seems to be “spilling blood”. So, by my interpretation, it is fine by the bible to abort any fetus that has not developed a heart and circulatory system, as they wold have no blood to spill.

So, to answer your question, the bible will allow you to abort anyone for any reason, so long as they are no more developed than 20 or so days (when the heart forms).

EDIT: I forgot to mention how Exosus 21:22 shows that killing a fetus does not carry the same life for life penalty, and therefore the bible does not really consider a fetus to be a proper life yet.

JLeslie's avatar

@Coloma That is completely rational and logical. Meanwhile there are Christians all over the world condemning homosexuals, even though God created them.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

@AdamF it doesn’t specifically discuss “abortion,” but the concept is that the Bible condemns the killing of innocent people combined with the idea that we are all created in god’s image – starting in the womb.
Obviously much of the Bible is open to interpretation, or we wouldn’t have so many variations of Christianity.

A side note: clearly this is a hypothetical discussion, since we can’t actually screen for homosexuality in a fetus.

Jude's avatar

I don’t know why people are jumping all over this question, as well. I agree with @JLeslie here..

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Jude It’s because of the implied hypocracy and doube standard, as christianity is usually so closely associated with both pro-life and anti-homosexuality.

EDIT: “is it ok to bend the rules when convenient?” is implied

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

Also, I forgot to add, that it was recently explained to me that the punishments for breaking the laws in the old testament were eliminated after Jesus came and was ultimately crucified. He replaced the laws and punishments in the old testament with the new covenant. The old testament is mostly where you’ll find the consequences to be more barbaric, and the new testament takes a different approach. You are not supposed to kill sinners according to the new covenant, rather you are supposed to approach them with kindness and try to help them to get away from a life of sin.

So, ultimately the answer is still no. You can’t abort a homosexual fetus, even if you could prove that it will be homosexual.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Ltryptophan's avatar

The old testament is defunct. There is a new covenant. It is wrong to destroy life, and all sin deserves the death penalty.

Through Jesus our sins are forgiven!!!

But in a technical sense since the baby only has a propensity for a sin it is not guilty of that sin yet.

Noone should be born if the entrance exam will be their capability of living a sin free life! Fortunately for those who believe it there was a Man designed to pass that test, and then conquer death permanently!

They tried to kill Him too! They eventually succeeded! He allowed Himself to die so all the little gay babies could be saved!

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

@Ltryptophan brings up a good point. I could be wrong about this, but isn’t it only technically “illegal” to act on your homosexuality? The Bible says not to lay with a man as you lay with a woman, but I think all references to homosexuality require action. Is that incorrect?

JLeslie's avatar

Let’s remember we have no idea what the OP’s opinion is. They could be trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy, make the prejudiced Christian think.

poisonedantidote's avatar

Side thought:

Deuteronomy 27:25a – Cursed is he who accepts a bribe to strike down an innocent person.

Proverbs 6:16–19 – There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.

All this talk of “innocent persons” ... what ever happened to original sin? Surely any law that talks of killing the innocent is logically redundant.

.

@ Those trying to pull a “the old testament can be ignored when convenient” manuver, there is too much information in the old testament for you to be able to discard it each time a contradiction or problem shows up.

The 10 commandments are in the old testament, are they also defunct now? or are they special?. because if we are going to discard the old testament, you start to have very little scripture left. or will we pick and choose from the old testament when convenient, and discard the bits that contradict?

“thou shall not kill” the very core of this argument, is in the old testament. The old testament is either valid or not.

EDIT: the bits about life starting in the womb…“Did not He who made me in the womb make him” ... “Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb” ...yup it’s all old testament.

_zen_'s avatar

It’s like in Minority Report. Just as the Precogs can pre-determine if someone is going to commit a murder, they can also detect whether a fetus is homosexual – thus alerting Tom Cruise and NEVER MIND

AdamF's avatar

I think if I were a Christian I’d be far more concerned about those important wrongdoings that the biblical writers actually made the effort to write with absolute clarity about….like not wearing mixed fibers.

josie's avatar

I read somewhere that when Moses received the words in Leviticus, he was sleep deprived and may have gotten some of the text wrong. Thus, we may never know just what God was trying to tell us.

JLeslie's avatar

On almost every question about homosexuality being genetic or choice, I always say it doesn’t matter. This question is another reason why it doesn’t matter. I think people use the “born gay” to fight back the religious, hateful people, but the religious can still twist it and look at it as a defect. They pick and choose verses that suit their desire at the time. My deal has always been to not give a shit about what they think or look for their approval. I see nothing wrong with spending some time asking them to not judge, but to try and explain why homosexuals should be treated as equals to straight people, I mean to have to explain all people deserve equality in life and under the law? Really, it is incredible to me as a human being and as an American.

ragingloli's avatar

not directly, but it does demand forced miscarriage(a.k.a. abortion) as a test of fidelity.

derekfnord's avatar

As far as I know, the goat herders of 4000 years ago were strangely silent on the nuances of how genetic screening altered their rules regarding pregnancies… ;-)

But it doesn’t really matter that much what the Bible does or doesn’t say on a given topic. People will see what they want to see in its pages, they’ll believe what they want to believe, and do what they want to do.

Most people use the Bible the way a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.

koanhead's avatar

No, the Bible requires that the child be born and subsequently stoned to death.

Actually the Bible requires nothing of anyone. It’s just a book, and not a particularly good book at that. It’s people that require such things of others- ignorant people who feel entitled to pry into the private lives of others on behalf of their own benighted and half-baked ideas of morality or the “good of society”.

Jellie's avatar

Okay I’m assuming that @soulin is talking about a hypothetical situation like we often do here so it doesn’t really matter whether it’s possible or not to test for a gay foetus.

To answer the question: the bible would implode.

Okay seriously though: I assume that the bible would not allow for it to be aborted because it probably believes it can “save” the child once it’s born.

lillycoyote's avatar

And, just for the record, Jesus is absolutely silent on the issue of homosexuality. He had a lot to say about a lot of things but not word one, nothing, about homosexuality. Curious, eh? You would think that if god though homosexuality was such a terrible, horrible abomination Jesus might have thought it worth mentioning but he doesn’t discuss, preach, talk about or even mention homosexuality even once.

syz's avatar

This crap again?

If you’re going to claim to take the bible literally, then don’t cherry-pick just the parts that make you feel better about your bigotry.

soulin's avatar

The way I understood it was that since God commands one to put a homosexual to death, you would be allowed to abort (destroy) the homosexual fetus at anytime in the womb, but here, I found a compilation of verses from the bible on abortion As you can see, you won’t find the word abortion, but it’s teaching the value of life starting from the womb. However, as was pointed out, it’s not detailed at what point in time life begins in the womb, therefore, it’s up for interpretation. So it would seem that one is allowed to abort a homosexual fetus as long as it’s not considered life yet, but again, you’re commanded to put a homosexual to death, so it seems any point in time you would be allowed to put a homosexual to death.

Although, as was pointed out, you’re only punished for the sinful act, and since a homosexual fetus didn’t have a chance to act, it would seem you wouldn’t be allowed to abort it. This would mean there are no exceptions to any type of abortion.

As for being born that way, choice and equality, who do you think a religious person is going to listen to, an atheist or the word of God? An atheist saying the bible is not the word of God doesn’t mean anything to a religious person. Homosexuality is a sin, it doesn’t matter if you’re born that way, or it’s a choice, as long as God says the act is an abomination and should be put to death, you will never have equality. God’s wisdom supersedes man’s. If man contradicts the bible, then it’s man who’s lacking wisdom. This is why when one cherry picks a verse that contradicts science, it’s not actually contradictory, it’s simply man’s lack of wisdom of proper interpretation (that’s the general perspective of a religious person).

Jesus not mentioning homosexuality doesn’t change the clearly written versus in Leviticus and elsewhere on putting a homosexual to death. Christianity doesn’t reject the Old Testament, it just adds to it.

Side point; scientific studies find homosexuality to be at least 50% genetic. If this is true, then you should be able to test at least the genetics of the fetus. If you can’t, then it seems it’s not really genetic. It’s not too complex to indentify the genes, but too complex to test them? Meh.

As for the hypocrisy, it would be of a pro-choice advocate. If one demands choice in abortion, then one cannot say you’re not allowed to abort a homosexual fetus.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Afos22's avatar

A fetus has no sexual attraction.

cheebdragon's avatar

Probably…
God can be a pretty mean mother fucker.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
incendiary_dan's avatar

Not sure, but I think some people are mixing up genetic and congenital. Just a thought.

JLeslie's avatar

@incendiary_dan I think it is almost the same thing in this case. I agree it is not synonomous, but if it is genetic it would be detected in genetic testing, if it is simply congenital it is not necessarily genetic.

lillycoyote's avatar

@incendiary_dan How are people mixing up congenital and genetic?

Congenital can mean:

1. Of or relating to a condition that is present at birth, as a result of either heredity or environmental influences

and/or (the medical usage)

1. (Medicine / Pathology) denoting or relating to any nonhereditary condition, esp an abnormal condition, existing at birth

or

Existing at or before birth, as a defect or medical condition.

definitions from here

Which definition are you thinking of?

JLeslie's avatar

@soulin You can only test for the gene if you know which gene it is.

Sodomy is a no no in the bible from what I understand and every heterosexual man I know partakes. They all want head and most I have met want or like anal. For some reason Christian men who are homophobic do the same acts just with women and it makes it ok in their minds.

And, yes a mother can abort for any reason she wants. We might see homosexuality as an awful reason, but she can do it.

JLeslie's avatar

@lillycoyote A child can be born with a congenital problem not caused by genes but possibly by lack of nutrition for instance, or some other problem with the environment in the womb.

soulin's avatar

@JLeslie,

Scientific studies claim they found specific genes. So if they really did, then they would be able to gentically test. If they can’t, then they didn’t. If they didn’t, then it’s not genetic.

So what point are you trying to make with heterosexual men? If they practice sodomy, then they’re sinning as well. Who cares if they think it’s right. If you read the scripture, it’s obviously wrong.

As for mothers aborting, she can do whatever she wants, but most pro-choice supporters find aborting a homosexual fetus to be immoral, so there lies the hypocrisy.

JLeslie's avatar

@soulin My point with the heterosexual men is simply the hypocrisy, the inconsistency in what sins count and what ones don’t. And, that particular sin is so similar really. Homophobes almost always talk about the “type” of sex, which always drives me crazy.

I don’t think they have determined for sure genes. Something like CF, Huntington’s, taysachs, Down’s is a definite. Other genetics show predisposition.

I think pro-choice are more likely to be bothered by hate towards homosexuals period. I have never seen a discussion regarding how people feel about aborting for a specific reason like homsexuality. This discussion has the bible brought into it, so it is different than a straight discussion about bringing a baby into the world that won’t be loved by its’ parents because it is homosexual. In my opinion if the parent is going to be hateful towards a homosexual child, and if we could tell the embryo will be homosexual, I am fine with aborting it.

soulin's avatar

But there isn’t a hypocrisy. According the bible, heterosexual men who practice sodomy with the opposite sex is equally guilty as a homosexual act. The hypocrisy would be of the individual who claims homosexual acts are wrong but justifies opposite sex sodomy. Individual hypocrisy is not the same as bible hypocrisy.

You claim homophobia, another claims heterophobia, both are nonsense.

JLeslie's avatar

@soulin I meant individual hypocrisy. When you speak of a prochoice person being against aborting a homosexual fetus isn’t that individual hypocrisy? I don’t think any prolife Christians are going to go along with aborting a homosexual fetus no matter what bible verse you pull out.

AshLeigh's avatar

Umm… What? Haha. A fetus doesn’t have a sexuality yet… I think.

lillycoyote's avatar

@JLeslie Yes, I fully understand the difference between congenital and genetic, but thanks anyway. I posted the definitions in an attempt to get @incendiary_dan to clarify why he thought people were getting congenital and genetic mixed up.

LostInParadise's avatar

I think this is a good question, and I say this as an atheist. If you are going to answer then you have to take as a given, or at least accept as a hypothetical, the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and murder.

There are a lot of factors that make this question difficult to answer, First off is the question of when a fetus becomes human. As far as I know, there is no strict statement in Bible on this. For the sake of the question, let us suppose that the fetus is beyond the point of becoming human, whether you think this occurs on inception or some later point.

Then there is the question of whether homosexuality is genetically determined. My feeling is that it may be a factor but is not completely deterministic. What if it can be determined that there is a 75% chance that the child will be homosexual? Is that sufficient cause for abortion?

Finally, there is the distinction between inclination and act. It is my understanding that Christianity condemns the thought, as when Jimmy Carter confessed that he had lusted in his heart. This has historically been a major difference between Christianity and Judaism. In Judaism, the Bible is law and you follow it, period. How you feel about it does not matter. Jesus said this is rather harsh and that intent had to be taken into account, but the downside is if you are inclined by nature and nurture to have impure thoughts.

tko7800's avatar

@lillycoyote Jesus may not have mentioned homosexuality but I thought it was pretty much accepted that in Matthew 5:17 (Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill) he pretty much is saying everything in the Old Testament still stands. And even if you do believe that homosexuality is now ok, doesn’t it rub you the wrong way that at one point God had such a harsh law imposed on it? I mean death by stoning for being gay – really?!

ml3269's avatar

I am without any religion. But dear Christians, Jews and Moslems if your God is a perfect, higher, greater being than we are, why did and does HE made such “errors” like homosexuality and these awful sex-things… and why do we like that all so much… (sex).
Questions over questions.
And I must say to the opening question: It is a kind of… ahm… ill… and to ask the old testament about sexuality… wow… I would like to say to those: Better you wake up and live your life in the 21st century. ;)

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
Russell_D_SpacePoet's avatar

How in the world did 13 people think this is a good question? Ridiculous. Let me put it this way to the person who ask this. This can be answered with a little common sense. In the time of the bible they had no way to genetically screen anyone. It is not in the bible anywhere about a homosexual fetus. I think this question is flame bait. Too bad they don’t have a screening for bigots…..

linguaphile's avatar

Abortion wasn’t considered a sin until the microscope was invented, so abortion as a sin is a pretty modern concept. Before that, it was called quickening. So abortion’s a new sin, while homosexuality IS mentioned in the bible. Interesting…
As I understand it, the Jews were cautioned against spilling their seed (masturbating) and laying down with the same sex because it didn’t promote procreation.
So, if the bible bans unnecessary spilling of seed, bans cutting of hair, bans eating pork, bans paying for entertainment, bans makeup, then maybe we all should have been aborted before birth?
My point is, the bible bans many things—so this question really doesn’t have an answer that could withstand scrutiny. Funny… the bible bans many specific things, except abortion!

soulin's avatar

@linguaphile,

A religious person who is fearful of sin will always seek guidance in the bible, and since modern technological advancements are not mentioned in the bible, one will ask a local religious scholar who’s an expert of properly interpreting verses in the bible that provide an answer for modern times. Hence why abortion is a modern sin. The laws of the bible were applied to the present case.

The problem with your argument is that none of the things you listed can be genetically screened for while the fetus is in the womb.

If Homosexuality is genetic, then it can be screened for, hence the point of the question.

In any case, the question has been answered already by various members, so just scroll up and see.

linguaphile's avatar

@soulin It sounds to me like you already had your mind made up before you asked the question…
Actually, we don’t know yet what all can be screened by genetics. I bet you in a few years, the tendency to be highly sexed, or promiscuous will be identified as genetic, as well as the tendency to favor certain foods over others (i.e. pork), or maybe the tendency towards sociopathy (not honoring thy father and mother?) We haven’t even touched the iceberg of what can be genetically identified. So let’s abort every baby on the way because. I bet you, every one of us has a genetic “sin” somewhere in our blueprint.

soulin's avatar

Exactly, so if homosexuality can’t be screened for, then it only makes sense that it’s not genetic.

Also, if you had read the thread, a few members already mentioned a good point, that you’re punished for the act, and since a fetus can’t act, it cannot be aborted.

linguaphile's avatar

Awesome examples of red herring, ad hominem, appeal to authority and circular reasoning. I think I’ll use this in my analytical writing classes. Thanks!

JLeslie's avatar

It can only be screened for if they find the responsible gene if indeed it is genetic. There are many genetic diseases and traits we know are genetic and we still have no idea how to screen for them, because we have not located the marker/genetic sequence. This is why there is a genetic project happening in Iceland, where the population is extremely closely related and have very similar genes.

soulin's avatar

@linguaphile,

I see accusations, yet no explanation. Enjoy.

DancingMind's avatar

Being able to screen for something, and it being genetically present, are separate entities. We don’t understand all the complexities of the genome yet, and we know that. But we also know that they’re there, and they affect us.

(Oh, basically what @JLeslie said.)

Again, I think aborting based on prejudice is unjustifiably wrong, hypothetically included. And in an entirely separate category from either abortion rights or homosexuality-and-genetics discussions.
GATTACA comes to mind…

soulin's avatar

@JLeslie,

They claim they found the marker/genetic sequence in homosexuals.

Here are some.
Xq28
7q36
8p12
10q26

So if they’re not lying, then you would be able to genetically test.

soulin's avatar

@DancingMind

You can’t really have it both ways. Either you allow women the right to choose, or you don’t.

If you’re going to dictate what kind of abortions are allowed and what are not, then obviously they don’t have much rights.

sliceswiththings's avatar

I don’t see the problem with this question. It’s hypothetical, challenges users, and promotes discussion. It’s in the social section. Cool off, those of you attacking the asker!

noly's avatar

great question !!!

JLeslie's avatar

@soulin I don’t think @DancingMind is dictating or making any laws.

The genes probably are not 100% determiners. I don’t know enough about it. They have found a couple of the breast cancer genes, about 85% you will get breast cancer if you jave the gene. Not 100%. And, over 80% of breast cancer cases are negative for the genes we have figured out for breast cancer. The science is still rather poor in so many ways, and environment still matters.

soulin's avatar

So that brings up the point @LostInParadise made, if the genes are 85% determiners, is it enough to abort?

plethora's avatar

@jaytkay Predestination has nothing to do with the opportunity to repent…..just sayin’

Qingu's avatar

@soulin, your understanding of genetics needs work. For certain traits (namely those that correspond to the proteins that the genes encode), the genes are for all intents and purposes determinant.

For a lot of traits? Not at all. Genes encode proteins which create structures which may have a tendency to respond in certain ways to environmental pressures. As others have pointed out, we can test people’s genetics to see if they have a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, but this is not the same as saying they will definitely get breast cancer. The situation is even more complicated for behavioral traits like homosexuality, because the brain is a pretty damn complicated place.

So while the question might be interesting if anyone seriously thought there was a chance that homosexuality could be all genetic, nobody really does. Also, there’s a large distinction between saying something is genetic and saying something is not a choice. My fear of insects is probably not genetic, but it’s still not a choice on my part. Even if the genetic component of homosexuality is minimal, it’s not like homosexuals consciously choose to feel attracted to their own sex.

cheebdragon's avatar

If god is a baby killer, i think ill just take my chances in hell.

Qingu's avatar

The god of the Bible is a verifiable baby-killer. In addition to the countless babies he personally killed in the flood, the plagues, and various other supernatural disasters, he commands his followers to kill Canaanite babies and pregnant women (along with everyone else) in Deuteronomy 20:16.

bkcunningham's avatar

Sin has consequence @Qingu

Qingu's avatar

I’m confused as to what sin you believe the Canaanite infants and the unborn fetuses inside the pregnant Canaanite women committed.

bkcunningham's avatar

I think the thing you have a hard time wrapping your head around is that not everyone is meant to be saved @Qingu.

Qingu's avatar

I see. By “consequences” of sin, you didn’t mean the personal committing of sin, but rather the “imputation” of Adam’s sin of disobedience onto all of his descendants, polluting all human souls innately with this magical evil force and dooming everyone by default into God’s judgment of torture and oblivion.

Yeah, I can’t wrap my head around it—because it’s a nonsensical concept that makes less sense than horcruxes from Harry Potter.

bkcunningham's avatar

I’ve never read Harry Potter, so I’ll take your word for the nonsensical concept of the books. Yes, and some people were perhaps created to fulfull a purpose other than salvation.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

@Russell_D_SpacePoet The number of GQs is now up to 15. I would like to add to your response. If I understand correctly, when the Old Testament was written, there essentially was a drive to grow the Jewish community through procreation. This might address issues with both homosexuality and abortion.

If requested, I’ll search for the source tomorrow. Right now, it is way past my bedtime.

AdamF's avatar

@bkcunningham What concerns me is what motivates people to believe in, let alone worship, a supernatural entity possessing the psycopathic personality traits you’re acknowledging.

anartist's avatar

@poisonedantidote

Proverbs 6:16–19 – There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.

???? that only adds up to five. Can’t God count?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther