Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)

kpete

(71,900 posts)
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 11:09 AM Mar 2012

The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal [View all]

The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal
By Fred Clark, February 18, 2012 7:04 pm

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.


.................

That year, Christianity Today — edited by Harold Lindsell, champion of “inerrancy” and author of The Battle for the Bible — published a special issue devoted to the topics of contraception and abortion. That issue included many articles that today would get their authors, editors — probably even their readers — fired from almost any evangelical institution. For example, one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.


Christianity Today would not publish that article in 2012. They might not even let you write that in comments on their website. If you applied for a job in 2012 with Christianity Today or Dallas Theological Seminary and they found out that you had written something like that, ever, you would not be hired.

At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different. That’s interesting.

The Rest:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/
31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
du rec. nt xchrom Mar 2012 #1
The original Biblical interpretation is consistent with both Judaism and Islam CJCRANE Mar 2012 #2
Religious books always say what the religious leaders need them to say. obxhead Mar 2012 #3
That's a human universal - it's not restricted to religion saras Mar 2012 #15
No it's not restricted to religion, but obxhead Mar 2012 #30
K & R for making a salient point Cirque du So-What Mar 2012 #4
2 out of 3 versions I read Ilsa Mar 2012 #5
text of all versions kristopher Mar 2012 #6
I think you are cutting the texts short... whopis01 Mar 2012 #28
Sometimes when you talk to God, He straightens these things out.... Scuba Mar 2012 #7
"God" being ineffable, you could look to our teacher Lord Jesus who showed us that YOU CHOOSE and patrice Mar 2012 #10
Speaking of God speaking, if you look to Jesus you might ask why he said "Eli Eli lama sabachthani!" patrice Mar 2012 #11
Do only those with whom we agree acquire Luther's primacy of individual conscience? patrice Mar 2012 #12
And being pro-War isn't? Are we that selective? nt patrice Mar 2012 #13
Fred Clark always has sensible things to say starroute Mar 2012 #8
Would be interesting to corelate the rise of Robert P. George at Princeton with this timeline. nt patrice Mar 2012 #9
it is also interesting to corelate the GOP-conservative wooing of fundies with this timeline... JHB Mar 2012 #27
Here's the Catholic intellectual piece that goes with Weyrich, Dolan, Viguerie. patrice Mar 2012 #31
Speaking of jobs > Yes, what you say about religion CAN get you fired. At will employment is legal patrice Mar 2012 #14
If the fetus has a soul at conception, then some people have 1/2 a soul and some have 2. TPaine7 Mar 2012 #16
More examples of how "natural law" doesn't work very well at all. nt patrice Mar 2012 #18
Oh crap, my apologies, all. That's the rhetorical "you" of course. patrice Mar 2012 #17
A lot of these issues strike me as umbilical. swimboy Mar 2012 #19
I wish I could recall the exact source, but "the soul enters the body with the first breath" bhikkhu Mar 2012 #20
Don't spirit and aspiration share some root? annabanana Mar 2012 #21
Genesis2:7 StarsInHerHair Mar 2012 #24
Well OK then! annabanana Mar 2012 #25
According to Jewish tradition ... surrealAmerican Mar 2012 #22
That's just as absurd as the view in the OP _ed_ Mar 2012 #26
The point I was hinting at ... surrealAmerican Mar 2012 #29
k and r--I would point this out to the fundies around here, but I do my best never to have to niyad Mar 2012 #23
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The ‘biblical view’ that’...»Reply #0