Obama Tries To Appease Both Sides On Abortion Debate

While reading Rob Stein's story headlined "Obama Tries To Appease Both Sides On Abortion Debate" in The Washington Post today I noticed from the comments that the Religionists are in full bray as usual, and I use the words Religionist and bray purposefully: Religionist meaning one excessively affecting religious zeal and Bray meaning to utter the loud, harsh cry of a donkey.

What has those of the loudly affected holiness looking like donkeys? Their unerring ability, in discussions over abortion, to prove to all that they have not even bothered to read the Bible, let alone understand or bring it to bear in their daily lives.

These Religionists bray on about the sanctity of life of an the unborn but applaud the culture of neglect and death dished out to the born by poverty, crime and war.

They gaze into the womb with the aid of science, a discipline they regularly denounce as something akin to the works of the devil, to further their argument against abortion and overlook the words of guidance given to them in the fountainhead of their faith, they believe, called the Holy Bible.

Which is it with the Religionists? Is science the new "Rock of Ages" to lean on, to guide them in their hours of need? Is it a newly discovered chapter to be set side by side with Deuteronomy and Genesis: The Book of Einstein?

What does the book of the Religionists say that might help them in this matter? There is something there but the Religionists who have never bothered to read the Bible do not want you to bring it up because it might cause them to curb their absolutism, might cause them to pause and think.

One need not read very far into the Bible, a book that consistently contradicts itself, before you come to some material that could be helpful in this matter.

It is found in the very first book and only the second chapter and seventh verse:

"Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Did you get that? The Breath of Life blown into the Nostrils! First there was the aggregation of dust (mud or, as science informs us, cells) then the breath of life into the nostrils.

And make no mistake, it is the SOUL that differentiates living human beings from the lilies in the fields, the trees in the forest, the lioness in her pride, the sheep in their herds, and yes, a collection of cells in the womb, no matter how well defined and viewed by the machines of modern science.

To further aid you here is the interpretation of that passage, a fairly commonsense and literal one from Adam Clarke the British Methodist theologian who took forty years to write his Bible commentaries in the early 17th century, a period long before science was so religiously relied upon by men of faith:

"God formed man of the dust - In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being, having a body and soul distinctly, and separately created; the body out of the dust of the earth, the soul immediately breathed from God himself. Does not this strongly mark that the soul and body are not the same thing? The body derives its origin from the earth, the dust; hence because it is earthly it is decomposable and perishable. Of the soul it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; the breath of Lives, i.e., animal and intellectual. While this breath of God expanded the lungs and set them in play, his inspiration gave both spirit and understanding."

Let me repeat "having a body and soul distinctly, and separately created". Notice that the body and SOUL were NOT simultaneously created! They were created at different and separate times!

And remember it is the SOUL that set humans apart from the dumb animals and the birds and the bees over whom we have been granted, not ownership, but stewardship.

Why is it the braying Religionists are never called to follow the guiding principles of their own religion, or, at the least, called upon to explain their angry public stance when it is at variance with THEIR written principles? Why is the discussion from the Religionists backed by science and not by the words of their own faith? How is it that THEY have not been called to task for their shunning of the words of their own Bible?

It may be explained by the fact that the Curia and priest of every denomination have roused them up in anger over their misinterpretation, based on science not faith, for wholly unholy purposes.

But to them all I say "Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's (science and the body); and unto God the things that are God's (faith and the soul).