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).

A Question for The Con Men of Religion

Well Obama's gone and done it. With the unheralded stroke of a pen on a presidential executive order he has opened himself up to that sharpest of wedge issues: abortion.

But of all the things that The Con Men (Conservatives) conned America about this issue on abortion may be the most devilish.

Here, the The Con Men of the Religionist variety truly are at their best or worst, depending on your view. Out one side of their mouths comes "science is hokum and bunkum when it comes to Evolution" but it is their "Rock of Ages" that they lean upon (or more likely hurl at all those who disagree with them) when discussing abortion. Which is it? Is science hokum and bunkum or the Rock of Ages?

What prompts this question is another question that never seems to get asked of the radically religious or the religious of any sort on the question of abortion. So I'll ask it here and now.

When does the soul enter the human body? It is the soul that religion is concerned with. It is the soul that separates us, makes us better than, in the minds of the religious, all other living things, and it is the soul that the religious never think about when discussing the abortion.

I will put only one restriction on the answer, but it should not offend the Religionists since they hold science in such low esteem, view it as an instrument of Beelzebub. That single restriction? You can NOT rely on science to answer the question.

I can see where this question may have The Con Men of the Religionist variety rapping their cudgels against their hollow heads since they give little to no indication that they have read the Bible at all or having read it without the jaundiced eye of someone who would use the loving word of God as an a blunt and battering instrument.

Let us unroll the holly scroll. Does it offer any insights into this debate that might help the Religionsists answer the all important question about the soul? Yes, it does, and it doesn't take long to get to a most instructive passage. It's in the very FIRST book of the Bible (King James Version) called Genesis, and, lo and behold, we only have to wade through the philosophical underpinnings of Catholicism to the second chapter and only its 7th 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 [here is the important part] a living soul.

Even unto the hands of God the dust, the clay, formed precisely by an omnipotent God was just dust, just clay,(just a collections of cells?) UNTIL the breath of life.

There has been much parsing of the bible, much commentary over the centuries but I'll offer up the words of Adam Clarke, a British Methodist theologian who took 40 years to write his commentaries on the Bible over 200 years ago, to flush out the fairly clear meaning of Genesis:

"Gen 2:7
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?"

I guess when a Religionist is hell bound on pouring hellfire and brimstone on others, casting the first stone, so to speak, it is little wonder that they overlook their own teachings.

How is it that the discussion of the timing of the entry of the soul into the body is left out of the discussion of the timing of abortions? It is the Religionists and their very own teachings that are never brought out. Instead, the Religionists play the hypocrite and march into battle not with the sword of God but the test tube of science.

Perhaps the Religionsits need to be reminded of something else from their Bible: (Mathew 22:21) "Render therefore unto Caesar [science] the things which are Caesar's; and unto God [faith] the things that are God's.