On Genesis 6:6-7 and Political Claims that God is “Pro-life”

Verse of the Day: Genesis 6:6-7:

Gen. 6:6 And the LORD regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Gen. 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

The Hebrew word מחה translated as “blot out” above means “to wipe out, annihilate, destroy”. Thus, according to the passage above, God regretted that he had created humans, contemplated it, grieved about it, and then after considering the matter thoughtfully with his divine omniscience, came to the decision to annihilate humans (save, of course, for Noah and his family and some animals). He regretted that he had made them. He was sorry that he had created humans because they wouldn’t obey him.

THAT IS IN THE BIBLE! THAT IS SCRIPTURE!

According to Genesis 6:6-7, God admits that he deliberately drowned every human on earth. He INTENTIONALLY KILLED EVERY PERSON ON EARTH (except Noah and his family). He killed children, and babies, and even the unborn. According to his own claim, he killed them all - because he said they were 'evil'. Unborn children and 6-month old babies DELIBERATELY DROWNED because they were 'evil' (according to the Bible).

According to Genesis 6:6-7, God admits that he deliberately drowned every human on earth. He INTENTIONALLY KILLED EVERY PERSON ON EARTH (except Noah and his family). He killed children, and babies, and even the unborn. According to his own claim, he killed them all – because he said they were ‘only evil every day’ (רק רע כל-היום). Unborn children and 6-month old babies DELIBERATELY DROWNED because they were ‘evil’ (according to the Bible).

So here’s my question – and let’s set aside the question of whether mass genocide is ever the answer to disobedience or not being praised enough. (Remember: it doesn’t get more “inhuman” than committing mass genocide and drowning all humans.)

But again, here’s my question:

I’m wondering whether God considered all of the unborn children being carried in their mothers’ wombs when he decided to murder all humans.

I’m wondering how some can claim that God is “pro life”, when God not only committed mass genocide – by his own admission AND after careful consideration of the matter – but when he also destroyed all of those unborn children that necessarily would have been carried around by their mothers as a natural part of daily life on earth.

Again, this is not what some atheist claims about God; this is what God claims about himself. He admits he did this.


People of faith must put their faith – and the claims made about their faith – in a real, modern context. Rather than rushing to regurgitate some worn out apologetic claiming, “God cannot tolerate evil,” or “It’s not genocide if God does it,” people of faith must consider that the one they consider to be the “objective moral foundation” for all things ethical at one point in history killed everyone on earth because he regretted creating them! Imagine this same death sentence on the world’s population today. It is nothing less than genocide.

Likewise, people of faith must THINK about the political claims they are making when they attempt to invoke God for their political causes. How can one claim that God is “pro-life” when he admits that he is personally responsible for the destruction of untold thousands of unborn children…because he regretted he had made them (כי נחמתי כי עשׂיתם)! There is no airbrushing this. This is what he claims he did after thoughtful consideration. God regretted that he had conceived and created life, so he destroyed it! And yet some claim that God is “pro life”??

BY ALL MEANS, let’s have the debate about abortion. Let’s talk about how no one wants abortion, how we should be making every effort to reduce the number of abortions that take place each year, and let’s consider a number of different solutions that will place children in the homes of those who want them.

But for the love of all that is and will be – PLEASE STOP INVOKING THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IN THIS ARGUMENT.

God is NOT the one you want to hold up as an example of a “pro life” advocate when his documented solution to regretting the creation of human life was to destroy itboth the born and the unborn.

We can have a sensible discussion and debate about reducing the number of abortions in this country and around the world without making it a religious argument.

Let’s celebrate life. Let’s talk about health of both mother and child. Let’s talk about birth control and adoption. Let’s talk about sex education and the merits of promoting healthy relationships, rather than the continued sensationalization of sex and continued commercial sexual exploitation of both boys and girls in adolescent culture.

But let’s have this conversation without introducing religious claims into the mix. On both sides of this issue, religious claims only muddy the waters and get in the way of actual progress and real solutions.

About these ads

35 Responses

  1. The abortion statistics under the Yahweh administration are staggering. Perhaps Obama’s not so bad after all. ;-)

  2. BC, I QUESTION THAT YOU REALLY TAKE THAT SCRIPTURE AS GODS WORDS. IS IT NOT RATHER, AN OLD TRADITION PASSED DOWN FROM OTHER CULTURES AND PICKED UP BY THE JEWS WHEN THEY WERE IN BABYLON??? YOURE THE SCHOLAR.
    BARBARA SINGER

  3. Barbara,

    It is certainly a collection of traditions that precede Israel and Judah, that were adopted into what would become “Jewish” history. But parts of the Bible are also original accounts of claims made by ancient Israel and Judah. Whether those words are considered “God’s Word” is up to the community that venerates them, as people ascribe holiness (that is, some people find some things “holy”, while others do not).

    Regarding this argument, it works whether you think the flood historical or not. IF you believe the flood to be historical (which I do not), then one must account for why God did what he did. However, IF one does not think the flood to be historical, and that the flood narrative is rather a story adopted by ancient Israel into their primordial history, then one must ask why they want to invoke this deity into any discussion about abortion.

  4. In a perfect world, people would stop to think before they had procreative sex; but they don’t. I think having an abortion should be a difficult decision made between the mother, father and the doctor. Abortion should not be difficult because of know-nothing, headline grabbing, election seeking idiot politicians.

  5. You obviously dont believe the Bible at all . What about the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that their was a worldwide flood that the sediments with billions of encased killed animals including humans testify to. As a theologian you are making up your own God as you want him to be rather than relying on His truth.- His Word.

  6. Thank you for connecting with your readers/fans and providing enlightening reading. Wish more followed your example.

  7. Of course I believe in the Bible. I’ve seen one. (-Mark Twain)

  8. I agree. Religion should stay out of politics and social conflicts- point very well proven. Although, I believe it to be only scholarly to observe both sides of the argument. To even use a Biblical reference, one would have to accept the rest of the Bible as genuine or historically accurate. So for this resolution, neither side could really use the Bible as a resource for argumentative purposes. Here’s why: it is impossible for God to contradict himself (logically speaking, this can be proven. The whole boulder too heavy for God analogy is faulty. I’ll elaborate if necessary.), which means one of two things: he is either evil or good. If he is good, he wouldn’t have killed all those people, would he? Or maybe there is some justifiable divine cause. If he is evil, he would have killed all those people. A justification is not necessary for such an act. The Bible repeatedly says that God is good. Furthermore, one cannot argue that God is evil based off of a Biblical reference, because it would contradict the very premise that one would have to believe in order to make such an argument. Ergo, if the Bible is true- God can’t be evil and there was some unknown justification to his actions. If the Bible is false, this wouldn’t matter anyway- an argument deriving from scripture would be irrelevant to begin with. Sorry if I was all over the place, I just think we need to be careful where we apply our logic when discussing theology.

  9. Have you seen a picture of a butchered baby ??

  10. Sorry, let me clarify. You made your argument by using a verse from the Bible. It’s only logical to assume that you believe the rest of the Bible to be valid and true. I’m saying that its impossible to argue that God is evil by assuming the flood story to be true, because it would contradict your premise. If you assume it as false, then your premise is irrelevant. The verse proves nothing. Do you see?

  11. -based on the fact that the Bible repeatedly mentions that God is good.

  12. “Have I seen a picture of a butchered baby?”

    Yes!

    Psalm 137:9 (Babylonian babies: “a blessing on him who seizes your babies and dashes them against the rocks!”)
    1 Samuel 15:3 (Amalakites: “kill both man and woman, child and infant”
    2 Sam 12:14 (David’s child: “the child that is born to you shall die”)
    2 Kings 2:23-24 (Elisha to small boys: “When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”)
    Isaiah 14:21 (children: “Prepare a slaughtering block for his sons, because of the guilt of their father.”)
    Hosea 9:11-16 (especially v. 16: “Even though they give birth, I will kill the cherished offspring of their womb.”)
    Exodus 12:29-30 (all firstborn children: “At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt.”)
    Jeremiah 51:22 (“with you I smash man and woman; with you I smash the old man and the boy; with you I smash the young man and the girl”)
    Isaiah 13:15-18 (“Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished.”)
    Ezekiel 9:5-7 (“Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children”)
    and on.
    and on.

    So, yeah, I’ve seen images of children butchered, AT THE COMMAND OF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, DESCRIBED IN DETAIL!

    How many BIBLICAL accounts of GOD killing BABIES are necessary to convince you that he should NOT be invoked in a debate about modern abortion or the “sanctity of life”?

    I don’t like abortion. I think we need to reduce the number of abortions that are taking place. But invoking God in support of a “pro life” agenda doesn’t help.

  13. Let me stop you there. This is False. Mentioning a verse of the Bible does NOT lead to the “logical” “assumption” that I “believe the rest of the Bible to be valid and true.”
    It means that IF one going to argue that God is “pro-life”, THEY have to deal with multiple verses where God kills children.

    Your logic is based on a false assumption from the outset.

  14. [...] Bob Cargill shared an interesting verse this morning from Genesis 6, which portrays a frustrated god that so regretted his creation (man) that he sent a flood across the world that swallowed all life–all life, except a remnant that could fit on a relatively small ship comparatively (based on the measurements in Genesis, it would translate to roughly 500 feet long; smaller than the Titanic).  But I think that Bob’s apt point is that if God is ‘pro-life’ then why would he wipe it clean?  It is important to recognize that  those who take the genesis account seriously, those who take the biblical narratives literally, must believe that we’re not just talking about grown men and women with exceptional cognitive abilities to choose right from wrong, we’re talking about infants and disabled individuals who can not always make decisions on their own due to their limitations (you know, since babies really can’t decide where they are born or who their parents are, let alone make any sort of vital cognitive decision beyond whether or not to poop themselves).  Not to mention the perhaps thousands of women who might have been pregnant at that exact moment god decided to wash away the sins of the world (by quite literally washing away everything that had the potential to sin). [...]

  15. You don’t think an ancient text can claim that something is good and then contradict itself?
    You are falsely assuming that the text doesn’t contradict itself.

    Besides, god claims responsibility for both evil and good:
    Is. 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

  16. For the record, I agree with you. So there’s no need for emotion, just observing the full spectrum. Yes, you are correct. Which is why I don’t believe that you can argue for God as pro-life. In the same way, you can’t argue him pro-choice either. You can’t use part of a reference and then dismiss the rest of it. It is a fundamental rule of debate- a straw man fallacy, I think. Killing all those people was an evil thing for God to do, right? God can only be completely good or completely evil. There are many examples in the Bible where God demonstrates goodness. Do you see where I’m getting at? You can argue for neither side when it comes to abortion. Otherwise it contradicts the original premise.

  17. It’s not impossible for the an ancient text to contradict itself, but it is impossible for a truly omniscient, omnipotent God.

  18. So you’ve just answered your own question ;-).

  19. So you agree with me that your assumption was false?

  20. My assumption was that your claim about God being pro-choice, your argument- it’s no more bias than a dogmatic, close minded religious person arguing for the contrary (who would be using the same book to prove their point). Simply because the Bible cannot be a valid resource for this social debate. It would have been more rational to elaborate on this fact, than to attempt to prove that God is pro-choice.

    But on a different note, I disagree with abortion as well. But I don’t disagree with the freedom of choice.

  21. In somewhat of a funny coincidence (?), Anne Kilmer has argued very persuasively – in a vastly unrecognized article – that the author(s)/redactor of the flood narrative has modeled it on a _pregnancy_, replete with many ANE motifs of gestation/childbirth (and correlating the length of the flood proper with the average length of human gestation (270-280 days), etc.).

    :P

  22. Who said anything about God being pro-choice? You’re giving me lessons on logical fallacies while assuming (falsely) quite a bit…

    The point is that we shouldn’t rely on the Bible or God to offer opinions on abortion. Because if he does exist, and the Bible were an accurate reflection of his deeds, he doesn’t have the best track record on the matter…

  23. …and I just spent too long considering whether מחה in Gen 6.7 could possibly be correlated with terminology for abortion in the ANE.

  24. it’s also the word for ‘erase’, like a text, is it not?

  25. Well, you’re argument seemed to reflect that it was your belief that he was pro-choice. If I read into it wrongly, I apologize. At least, now we have observed it from a broader spectrum. I’m happy that we agree on your second point in your last post. I will say though, I’ve never thought of this example as a means of bashing Biblical pro-life ignorance. Way to go! I think the religious populous should stop using the Bible to determine/judge the natural progression and evolution of society. It would not only be sensible, but ethical.

  26. Indeed – ‘wipe, wipe away; to strike’.

    And I guess considering whether it could be correlated with _infanticide_ would be more logical, rather than abortion. Although the action of (what seems to be) abortifacients was described in 1 Enoch (69) using a very similar word to מָחָה: ዝብጠ (zabaṭa), ‘strike, smite, beat’ – cf. šabāṭu, ‘to strike, hit; blow; sweep’.

    …this is getting ridiculous.

  27. So the human race can decide to murder children in and out of the womb – but God who created all living flesh is forbidden to do this action which you all seem to say is evil.
    Remember the Canaanites used to make their children walk into the flames of molech and after 500 years of warning God gave the land to the Israelites.
    Plus we know that children can come to Jesus and if they live in eternity they will have bliss. Your reasonings are typical of evolutionary athiests

  28. agreed. but then again, i’d question what any proposed reference to abortion as we know it today meant, especially to cultures who practiced infanticide and/or exposure of infants.

  29. Charles,

    1) you’re making no sense. you’re now arguing that god should be able to murder because humans commit the evil crime of murder. how does making god a murderer help your argument?
    2) humans have decided in some places that abortion is ok, but at a certain point of development, it is not. and that killing of children is not ok. and yet you want god to be able to murder children? seriously?
    your logic is so twisted i thought i was reading a pretzel.
    3) the canaanites used to sacrifice their children. but so too did the israelites. abraham and isaac? jephthah? exodus 13:2 “Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal.” remember that? num. 8:17 “Every firstborn male in Israel, whether man or animal, is mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set them apart for myself.” Israel practiced child sacrifice, and then later banned it. note the added line in exod 13:13: “Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.” They practiced it. They weren’t supposed to do it later on, but they continued, which is why the prophets were always condemning it.
    4) “we know that children can come to jesus”? does that count for the ones that god killed? good grief! what kind of theology is that? ‘It’s OK for god to kill babies because they’ll go to eternal bliss.”???!!!

    And what does any of this have to do with evolution or atheism???? That’s your comeback? “Oh yeah, well you’re an atheist”??? How intellectually compelling.

    You still haven’t answered my question about all of the instances in the Bible where god murders (or orders murdered) little kids. Is that OK? For God to murder babies? That’s OK with you?

    sigh.

  30. Since God has decreed that we all die sometime due to one sin of Eve
    and this is what actually happens – if you have noticed – then yes God can kill but since He is so kind does not want anyone to perish eternally and gives us chance after chance to stop sinning. Since Noah preached righteousness for a hundred years to an evil generation – they had plenty of warning. It seems to be OK to murder babies for the abortion industry. The Israelites were not told to sacrifice their children. Atheists do not believe in God’s Word therefore make up their own rules. The wages of sin is death – this is why we all suffer death – but by accepting Jesus and following His Words we can have eternal life.
    Any peoples that the Lord commanded the Jews to kill were themselves doing the very same thing to each other and their children.

    If you think that God does not exist then you will not be able to accept teachings from scripture.

  31. Perhaps if we could do away with the concept of God as a male debates like this one could be streamlined. If I had the ability to be a newly forming galaxy, a new born baby, an ocean breeze, a blade of grass a bird and all of creation simultaneously why would I limit myself by assuming a gender?
    It just seems awful convenient to have God be defined as a male. Isn’t it possible that what we call God could actually be gender-less, comprising both male and female but being neither exclusively?

  32. Mr. Cargill,
    We, the commentators on the Exploring Our Matrix blog, have had a debate on the nature of your religious beliefs that has already spanned ten comments. Please help us determine the truth of the matter!
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/04/jim-wests-inconsistent-christianity.html
    -Enopoletus Harding, who is pithom

  33. sure. i’ll head over to the link now.

  34. [...] just ask me. So one of the individuals making comments (named “pithom”) did just that: invited me to answer the question once and for [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,839 other followers

%d bloggers like this: