Nonsense #7: Abortion and the Bible (Part 3)
Two previous articles have been primarily filled with nonsense propaganda put out by The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (FFRFI). Their writing in favor of abortion they call Nontract #7. Presumably, Nontracts #1 - #6 are filled with just as much gibberish as this one is. They call themselves a nontheistic institution, which means they rely on human wisdom alone, which partially explains the reason their analyses are woefully lacking. Although dedicated to nontheism, they somehow fancy themselves to be experts on a theistic book hat has has been and will continue to be shown as false.
They next accuse God of killing babies, which has occurred—but not in the abortion sense. Some babies undoubtedly perished in the Flood, and surely some of the firstborn of Egypt were of a tender age as well. Unfortunately, when the guilty are punished, the innocent may suffer as well. In the world God created, no hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, or tsunamis appeared to have existed. Murder was not once named—until Adam and Eve allowed sin to enter the world. In bringing sin into the world, everything changed, including the nature of the world. Since we have all chosen to sin, in a sense we are all to blame for its consequences.
God is just, which means that He must punish sin. He first warns against it and the penalties it merits, but He does bring judgment to pass eventually. Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), warning the world of its impending doom. Except for his family, no one listened. Bringing the Flood upon all the ungodly also meant that their children would die. Did they deserve it? No, but it is often the case that the innocent inherit the consequences of the guilty. Some may object to what God did here, but there are various facts that enter into it.
God is the Creator of life. He generally bestows blessings upon the obedient and renders judgment upon the ungodly. But He may terminate the life of anyone at any time. He does not do so arbitrarily, but we may not always know the reason. He has not given the right to terminate life to man (except for a civil government to render justice).
Evil was so pervasive at the time of the Flood that all of the children growing up in that society would have been lost eternally. Which is better—to die physically or spiritually? This is a no-brainer for nontheists. They don’t believe in God; so physical life for them is all there is; naturally they would object to what God did here.
But God can determine to allow death to come to an innocent when it means he will not be lost spiritually. Of course, Calvinists believe that children are born depraved; so their explanation for the Flood is, “Those wicked children deserved it.” However, the Bible teaches that children are innocent, which means that when they die, they are safe. An instance of this principle can be found in 1 Kings 14. God had given Jeroboam ten of the twelve tribes to rule over, but rather than be appreciative, he brought in false worship, which made the people commit a great sin (1 Kings 12:25-33; 2 Kings 17:21).
Therefore, God would bring judgment upon him and his house. Before that day arrived, one of the king’s young sons became ill, and he sent his wife in disguise to ask Abijah the prophet what would become of the child. God gave him a message to give to the child’s mother to give to her husband who had corrupted the entire nation:
“…I will bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam…. The dogs shall eat whoever belongs to Jeroboam and dies in the city, and the birds of the air shall eat whoever dies in the field; for the Lord has spoken it!”
“Arise therefore, go to your own house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he is the only one of Jeroboam who shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something good toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam” (1 Kings 14:10-11, 12-13).
Could God have spared the lad’s life? Yes, but in so doing, he might have grown up to be as evil as his father. God showed compassion on him, as well as respect, for he would be the only one to receive a decent burial. His brothers were so evil that, even though they heard this prophecy, they would ignore it, thus coming to an ignominious end. Only this son who died at a young age departed from this world spiritually safe.
The above text brings up another important point. God knows what will happen in the future. Jeroboam’s other sons would be eaten by either dogs or birds. God also knew what would happen to those children who died in the Flood or in Egypt. He cannot be blamed for allowing children to die physically in a spiritually safe condition.
One other point should be considered. On what basis can nontheists decide what is right or wrong? Since they reject God, they also reject His Book. So, from where do they get their morality? And what kind of certainty do they possess? Many of them believe that abortion is right, but some think it is wrong. Which nontheists are correct? They admittedly have no objective standard to appeal to, yet they try to sit in judgment on theists?
The List of Examples
FFRFI protests God bringing the Flood on the world, even though every imagination of the thoughts of men’s hearts was only evil continually and the earth was filled with violence (Gen. 6:5, 11). They neglect to mention such details. They didn’t like fire and brimstone descending on Sodom and Gomorrah, either (they probably lost a lot of kindred spirits). Apparently, they root for the slave masters of Egypt as well and think the death of the firstborn was too harsh. One wonders, if children had not been involved in any of these events, would their position be any different?
What other examples do they provide? Here is another complaint: “The bible is not pro-child. Why did God set a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)?” Here is an excellent example of the way that the nontract distorts what occurred. The King James uses the word children. If they had spent as much as 60 seconds, they would have learned that no translation in the past 150 years has agreed with the King James on that word choice. Others use “youths, young lads,” or some other equivalent. They were not children who were three or four years of age.
Is it fair to use the word “teasing” for what the lads were doing? Most translations use mocked. They were not playing a game where someone was teased; they were mocking God’s holy prophet and therefore also showing disrespect to God. They were old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. They had joined those who rejected God and His prophets, and they received their just recompense of reward.
The first example of God’s alleged bloodthirstiness toward children cited is: ”’Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.’—Psalm 137:9.” All they did to come up with this criticism was to ignore the context. This is not a commandment to Israel from God, nor is He telling them to be happy while killing children—as some politicians and abortion doctors are. The psalmist is describing the way Babylon will be destroyed, along with the attitude of those who will destroy her. Anyone with even a little knowledge knows that Babylon was destroyed—not by Israel—but by the Medo-Persians. Apparently, the FFRFIans don’t have “even a little knowledge.”
They similarly cite two verses from Isaiah 13 (16 and 18) which also describe the attack of the Medo-Persians on Babylon. Another reference cited concerns what Hazael would do to the children of Israel when he became King of Syria (2 Kings 8:12; cf. Hosea 13:16). God neither authorized nor commanded Hazael to do these actions, but because He knows the future, He could say in advance what the man would do. One king of Israel, Menahem, did attack a town and rip up women with children, but he acted on his own, rather than God’s, authority (2 Kings 15:16).
In instances such as those where God does authorize one nation to punish another, two facts must be kept in mind. The first is that God allows one nation to conquer another; the second is that they are free to do so in any manner they choose. God does not necessarily approve of extreme brutality or excesses. For example, God authorized Jehu to take vengeance on Ahab and Jezebel, which he did. He may have gone too far. He had all of Ahab’s sons put to death, as well as others. “So Jehu killed all who remained in the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men and his close acquaintances and his priests, until he left him none remaining” (2 Kings 10:11). Later, God said, “…I will avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu…” (Hosea 1:4). Thus, although God wanted vengeance on Ahab, He did not approve of the degree that Jehu exercised.
Although FFRFI’s list contains much that does not apply, they do have occasions on which God authorized the killing of children (although none of the grotesque descriptions are given). The Moabite women who enticed the Israelite men (resulting in the deaths of 24,000 Israelites) were put to death along with the male “little ones” (Num. 31:17). God considered this punishment just; the five reasons provided previously cover any objections. Men, women, and children were put to death by God’s authority when Sihon came out to oppose Israel (Deut. 2:32-34). God commanded Saul to so treat the Amalekites as well (1 Sam. 15:3). Ezekiel 9:6 is also a legitimate instance of killing women and children along with the males. However, these four are the only ones out of the thirteen mentioned that are.
Two of the verses attempting to prove that the Bible is not pro-life talk about cannibalism (Deut. 28:53; Lam. 2:20). God warned that His people would experience famine so great that they might eat the flesh of their children. In no way, however, does God sanction such an action.
The prophet Hosea, in light of the intense suffering ahead for Israel writes: “Give them, O Lord—What will You give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts!” (Hosea 9:14). The purpose for the request is that the parents might not have to endure seeing their children suffer at the hands of the enemy. This nontract also finds fault with Jesus, along those same lines, when He told those leading Him out to be crucified that the days would come when people would say, “Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, and the breasts which never nursed” (Luke 23:29). This is a common lament spoken of those enduring great calamities. Jesus was speaking of the time period of the destruction of Jerusalem.
God gave these warnings so that people can avoid them, but like the nontheists, people always think that they know better than the Lord. Instead of repenting of their sins and practicing righteousness, they choose to continue in or even increase their rebellion against God. The fact that people ignore the warnings has never yet stopped punishment from coming. God is just in giving people an abundance of time to repent.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: