Verhey, Allen. Reading the Bible in the Strange World of Medicine. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2003. Print.

The topic of my final paper is how pro-life and pro-choice activists inappropriately use biblical literature to back their claims because they lack an interpretive lens. My search for a book that I would eventually use as a reference for my final paper began with a simple search in the online card catalog. I searched “Bible, Abortion.” From this I was led to a variety of different text sources regarding this topic. “Reading the Bible in the Strange World of Medicine” drew my attention because I believe it allowed for an interesting perspective on the issues surrounding abortion. I found this book on the top floor of the library and the books surrounding it mainly considered medical ethics, mainly the topic of euthanasia. I did not look into any of the other books in this section, as I believed “Reading the Bible in the Strange World of Medicine” was the most relevant.

“Reading the Bible in the Strange World of Medicine” is a collection of essays that analyzes scripture of the Christian bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, in regards to medical ethics. Further, this work of literature applies this lens of medical ethics to controversial issues within the Christian community such as assisted suicide and the topic of my paper, abortion. This book turned out to be useful for my paper as it did reference how the Bible was written in a time that was medically different. In addition, this book discussed how the bible was tough to interpret based off its strangeness, difficulty, and diversity of scripture. Both of these points I emphasize to back my topic mentioned earlier.

This post is in response to the reading we had to do earlier this semester about how the film Noah was “whitewashed.” The newest biblical epic Exodus: Gods and Kings, which is due to be out in December is facing much of the same backlash that was faced by Noah. In Exodus: Gods and Kings, the major characters are once again not accurately portrayed in terms of racial identity. In addition, the leading cast is all Caucasian whereas the supporting cast of servants, thieves, and slaves are primarily played by actors of color. This “whitewash” of Exodus: Gods and Kings is not even strictly limited to the actors as even the set designers are being accused of making Egyptian monuments such as the Great Sphinx look more white. As a result, a movement has been started primarily through twitter to boycott this film.

Attached is a link if you would like to read further into this topic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/05/exodus-gods-kings-whitewash-boycott_n_5652499.html

Diamant, A. (1997). The red tent / Anita Diamant. New York : A Wyatt Book for St. Martin’s Press, 1997.

A few weeks ago, Prof. Carr mentioned in class about a book called the Red Tent, in regards to the story of Dinah we were discussing in class.  Based on the summary and a little of what Prof. Carr said on the book, The Red Tent attempts to re-imagine the narrative of Dinah, in efforts to give her a voice on the occurrence of events that describe her presence in the Bible.

By reading a few pages, I feel as though this could go for a cool paper topic because the book serves as another interpretation of a story that doesn’t include much explicit details. By adding the missing details, the author attempts to look at the story from the female perspective, which I feel would be something worth looking at and because the interpretation itself generates it’s own set of questions worth answering as well.  Dinah is only give one line but the author creates a whole novel about her, so I’m pretty excited to read how she writes Dinah’s story.

To find this book. I went on the online library category and searched for the name of the book. It took me upstairs where most of the other books centered on the topic of religion were located. Eager to find more information surrounding the book, I did a brief search online. I found out that Lifetime is actually doing a TV mini series on the book, scheduled to air December 7 & 8. It’ll be interesting to see how this story is portrayed on the screen. Best believe I’ll be watching!

There have been many arguments surrounding the issue of women’s ordination across many Christian denominations. Although there has been opposition towards women being ordained as pastors, priests, and ministers, it wasn’t until recently that women are now being considered for these roles. Many have cited the New Testament as a way to argue for and against this issue and the Old Testament has been cited a well.

Seventh – day Adventists Church 

1. “So God created man [humankind] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen 1:27).  Many members of this church have used this verse to argue that the Bible supports the ordination of women.  Because this verse doesn’t portray a divine human order, men and women are considered equals. Their argument was that the individuals who are against the ordination of women usually use Genesis 1-3 to create the argument that  creation headship over women is the reason why they cannot be ordained.

Judges 4 and 5, Exod 15:20-21,  2 Kgs 22:13-14; 2 Chr 34:22-28)  Exod 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22; 2 Kings 8:1-6; Ps 68:11; Jer 31:22) All of these verses describe the variety of women who held leadership roles over men as a way of supporting their view on women’s ordination as well. Miriam, Esther, Huldah, Deborah, and other Israelite women are used as examples of women who had high priestly positions.

http://spectrummagazine.org/node/2305

The Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC)

This is a group of Catholic women who believe that women should be ordained  as priests, deacons and bishops into the Roman Catholic Church.

Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them, female and male, God made them.” — Genesis 1:27

They also used Genesis 1:27 as a way to argue how the Bible supports their view. Because God created man and woman in His image, both genders can be priests.

http://www.womensordination.org/resources/top-ten-reasons-to-ordain-women/

The Catholic Church 

When it comes to the ordination of women, they haven’t always been supportive of the issue. They use biblical verses in the New Testament to back up their arguments.

1 Tim. 2:11–14: ¹¹ A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[ she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

1 Cor. 14:34–38: ⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. ³⁵ If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.[c]

Because the two verses forbade women to engage in two important functions of clergy, teaching or having authority over man and questioning or challenging clergy in public , it was concluded that this prohibited them from being clergy members.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

Abortion (Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice)

Craig Strand

(Pro-Choice)Arthur, J. (n.d.). Anti-Choicers Don’t Have a Biblical Leg to Stand On. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/bible.shtml

(Pro-Life)Pavone, F. (2008, April 8). The Bible’s Teaching Against Abortion. Retrieved November 3, 2014, from http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/4376-the-bibles-teaching-against-abortion

The pro-life article uses bible verses to back up its claims that abortion is murder and that birth is a blessing. The article states that “children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3). God has given the gift of life and to take that away is unholy and sinful. The article also argues that everything god does has a purpose and that god’s actions are holy so therefore; “we really reflect an eternal God who knew us from before we were made, and purposely called us into being.” This article also uses a literary method of arguing by appealing to the reader’s emotions, or Pathos. The article claims “if you believe the Bible, you have to believe that human life is sacred, more sacred than we have ever imagined!” The article calls into question the reader’s strength of belief in god. Questioning ones religion can often have drastic responses and in this case the article aims to direct that response into acceptance “that the deliberate destruction of a child in the womb, is very wrong.”

The pro-choice article uses bible verses to both counter pro-life claims and to make their own arguments. In the article it is argued that life does not actually begain until the person breathes. In Genesis 2:7, God: “…breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.” The article argues that one must be breathing to be considered alive thus rendering pro-life’s argument that life begins within the womb. The article also uses some literary criticism to support its claims, “[t]he Hebrew word for human being or living soul is nephesh, which is also the word for “breathing.”… fetuses do not breath and therefore cannot be considered as human beings according to the Bible.” This article uses more then just an interpretation of the bible to back up its points. This use of literary criticism shows in-depth analysis of the bible and developed understanding of the complexity with in the bible. The article also understands that within the complexity of the bible there is room for interpretation and that “Bible can be, and is, interpreted in many different ways by other believers.” There is no one correct way to interpret the bible but there are strategies that can be used to make a well informed interpretation. This article believes many pro-life supporters use irrelevant or misinterpret the bible passages that they choice to backup their claims.

The pro life and pro choice articles both use direct quotes and interpretation to support its argument. However, the articles use different methods and techniques of arguing that determine the effectiveness and creditably of their argument. Interpretation of the bible is an ongoing struggle and often a clash of opinions and views can cause major social conflicts.

Incest within the Bible.

Throughout reading the Bible we have seen various accounts and quotes about incest and incestuous relationships between brother and sister, daughters and father as well as son and mother. The Bible says nothing wrong about incest until the time of Moses where God commanded against it. We see a couple of situations in Genesis alone.

“Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.”                        (Genesis 20:12)

Before God had commanded against it, it was not considered incest. For instance, in Genesis 4, the story of Adam and Eve and their two sons Cain and Abel. If Cain and or Abel (not stated in the Bible) didn’t lay with Eve, there wouldn’t have been a human race or any humans today because the Bible clearly states that Cain, Abel and Seth were the only children of Adam and Eve. The second generation would have to marry their cousins just like after the flood in the story of Noah. Incest wasn’t a problem back then because it was free of defects. In modern day, it has such a high risk of causing abnormalities in the children. Since this was not an issue in the early centuries of humanity, what occurred between Adam and Eve’s children and Abraham and Sarah should not be viewed as incest. It did not become “incest” until God commanded against it when he realized that the genetic pool had become polluted enough that it was no longer safe to have intermarriage. Just like Abraham and his half sister, their marriage and relationship wasn’t considered incest, for God had not commanded against it at that time.

http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html

We also see another situation in Genesis where incest occurs between daughters and father:

” Now Lot went up out of Zoar and mlived in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to live in Zoar. So he lived in a cave with his two daughters.  And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.  Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.”  So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. He did not know when she lay down or when she arose. The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.”  So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.  The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day.” (Genesis 19:30-38)

The raping of Lot by his daughters occurred right after their home town of Sodom was destroyed by God. The turning of Sodom’s wife into a salt pillar left only Sodom and his two daughters locked away in a cave. The daughters were worried they were the last people left in the world and were unmarried and had no children. They planned to get their father drunk in order to get pregnant from him so they could have children. In the first five verses of Deuteronomy, it describes three types of individuals who were allowed to live in the land of Israel but who were forbidden to participate “in the gathering of the nation for religious purposes…:” and one of these three types was an Ammonite or a Moabite. According to the liberal theologians and their interpretation of this story was that it was no actually true, but it served as a way to discredit the Ammonites and Moabites because they were idol worshippers. This was a way of casting shame upon them.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm

For my internet issue I decided to look into biblical interpretations regarding the use of contraception.  Each of the articles I found point to the story of Onan in Genesis 38, as well as other texts in their interpretations of this issue.

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/biblical-birth-control-surprisingly-contraception-friendly-old-testament

This article looks at the arguments regarding contraception in the Old Testament, and comes to the conclusion that the text does not forbid the use of contraception. It points to Song of Solomon, claiming that the young man seduces the young woman with a number of plants that were used as contraceptives during that time, such as pomegranates, myrrh, and cinnamon. This supposedly would have allowed the two to have sex without the risk of pregnancy. The article also looks into the book of Esther, in which Esther intervenes through seduction to save the Jews, as well as Numbers 5, which describes a ritual “when a husband, who suspects that his wife has cheated on him, can force her to swallow a special concoction prepared by a priest.” The text says that if she has been unfaithful, the LORD will her belly swell and her thigh to fall away. In other words, this will cause her to abort her fetus if she has in fact conceived through another man.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/biblical-evidence-against.html#

This article believes that the Bible prohibits contraception, pointing to the passage in Genesis 38 in which Judah commands Onan to sleep with Tamar to give his brother offspring. Onan “spills his seed on the ground” instead of obeying his father, and as a result is killed by God. The article acknowledges that this incident involved levirate law, the duty to produce offspring with the wife of a deceased brother, but states that God did not punish Onan for failing to fulfill this duty, stating that the punishment for such a crime was public humiliation, not death. Therefore, the author argues, the punishment must have been for his act of contraception. The previous article from AlterNet argues the opposite, that God’s anger resulted from Onan’s failure to carry out his duty of giving his brother offspring.

http://www.equip.org/articles/should-christians-use-birth-control/#christian-books-1

A section of this article specifically looks at birth control in biblical teaching. The author states that the Old Testament expresses God’s desire that His people not be barren (Deut. 7:4), that God rejected the common practice of sterilizing males (Deut. 23:1), as well as the sexual abstinence in Israel (Exod. 21:10). This article also touches on the story of Onan, and argues that it is not a condemnation of contraception, rather a punishment of Onan’s unwillingness to bear children for his brother. Whereas the previous two articles focused strictly on the Old Testament, this article touches briefly on the New Testament, though the author argues that nowhere in the New Testament is birth control prohibited. He cites 1 Corinthians 7:5 as a verse in which Paul cautions against refraining from sexual relations with one’s spouse except during periods of religious devotion, which may be related to the topic, but does not touch on the issue of contraception.

For my internet issue, I chose to do some research on same-sex marriage in the Bible. Those who identified as Christian believed that God had a specific plan for sexuality and marriage.

Genesis 2:24- Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.

Genesis 1:27- And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Since there is no mention of God creating another man, Christians believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Christians believe that the union between male and female is godly, and couldn’t be recreated with two men or two women. They believe that God created Eve instead of another Adam because the so called “perfect partnership” requires a significant amount of difference between the two, but still has to share some similarities. Christians also mention that sex between a man and a woman is the normal method because that is the way that children are created. They argue that if God wanted homosexual marriages, he would make it so that men would be able to reproduce with men, and women would be able to reproduce with women.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

Alternatively, there are people that believe that the Bible is being misinterpreted, and that there is never anything said about homosexuality being a sin. One man, Adam Hamilton, a senior pastor at The United Methodist Church, uses the story of Sodom as his example. He explains that God doesn’t want to destroy Sodom because the men there are homosexual, but instead he wants to destroy it because the people are wicked. The men in Sodom do not want to rape the travelers because they are homosexual or for pleasure, they want to rape them for a sense of power, and to humiliate these foreign people.

Genesis 19:4-8- They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old-all the people to the last man-gathered about the house. And they shouted to Lot and said to him, “where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them.” So Lot went out to them to the entrance, shut the door behind him, and said, “I beg you, my friends, do not commit such a wrong. Look, I have two daughters wo have not konwn a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please; but do not anything to these men, since they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/12stop_twisting_the_bible_there_is_no_message_against_same_sex_marriage/

I also found a Jewish opinion on same-sex marriage. He claims that there are two ways to look at the Bible. You can either look at the text literally which causes a lot of problems with contradictions in the Bible, or you can drastically reinterpret the Bible. The author states that people who believe that homosexuality is a sin are simply picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they believe. The Bible also says that all men should be circumcised, Jews should abstain from pork or prawns, and they shouldn’t wear clothing with wool and linen mixed. These are practices that are not typically practiced by all Jews, so why should strictly heterosexual relationships be practiced? The author of the article uses Genesis 1.27 to defend his point. God creates both males and females, but he also creates both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike were created by God as part of his divine plan.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-jewish-perspective-on-samesex-marriage-8203886.html

Alaina Ungarini

Internet Issue

Homosexuailty in the Bible

Passages in the Bible have often been used to prove a point of a certain group. In many strict Christian denominations such as Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, biblical passages are used to promote their beliefs on homosexuality. Perhaps the most well known passage is the story of Sodom.

“The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.” Genesis 19:1-38

As we have read, the story of Sodom ends with the city being destroyed. Certain Christian groups use this passage and the events that occur in it to their advantage proving the sinfulness of homosexuality. The Sodomites attempt to rape the male angels who they perceive as unwelcome guests that need to be punished. These groups believe that the city was destroyed by God because of the sinful acts of homosexuality between the Sodomites and guests of the city.

Another passage used to promote their beliefs can be found in Leviticus:

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13

This straightforward passage plainly says that homosexual acts are detestable which can easily be used to the advantage of a person or group trying to portray homosexuality as sinful. There is no other interpretation that can be taken out of this short passage because there is no surrounding context. This is how Christian groups manipulate the Bible to their own advantage.

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:27

This passage talks about procreating with women as natural and relations between men and other men are formed out of lust, which is also sinful.

Christian groups like Evangelicals use these and many other passages to prove the point that they believe homosexuality is sinful. These groups take the word of the Bible literally and don’t analyze other possible meanings that could be found when read into deeper. Even the sources that I found these passages from are bias by only showing a short excerpt of a passage and not the context of the book. Their strong opinions have possibly been based on false understanding of what the actual meaning of the passages are. By looking past what the words literally say, one can read into the real meaning that these passages are trying to convey.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_homosexuality.htm

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Homosexuality/

Same-sex Marriage

1) In the article titled “What does the Bible say about same-sex marriage?” the author discusses specific passages found in the biblical text that provide reasoning to believe that God intended for man’s companion and reproductive partner to be a woman.

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:27

The author states that when God created a partner for Adam he created a female, not another male. The author states that this provides reason to believe God intended for humanity to be heterosexual.

This author also uses Romans 1:27, where the text states,

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

The author interprets this “error” as being homosexual behavior and the recompence to be STD’s based on the fact that homosexual intercourse leads to greater chance of contracting an STD.

Because the website is titled “Christian answers” I inferred that these passages are used for Christians. I also came to this conclusion by reading further where Jesus is discussed. Because Jews focus on the Old Testament I assumed that this information pertained more to Christians.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

2) What does the Bible say about gay marriage/same-sex marriage?

This article uses Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27 and First Corinthians 6:9 to state that although the Bible does mention homosexuality as an unnatural and immoral sin, it does not directly talk about same-sex marriage. However, the author of this piece goes onto infer that because the Bible does state that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God and that they are unrighteous, marrying the same sex goes against God’s will.

Next, this article then uses Genesis 2:24, Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33 to explain that the biblical text shows that marriage is intended for man and woman and its purpose is to serve as a union that plans to reproduce and build a family.

This article again mentions directly that it is written by and for Christians.

http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

3) Christians proclaiming their belief in full LGBT equality

This article opposes the first two by stating that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality. This article takes a different approach by stating that the New Testament insists that humans are fair, equitable, loving and compassionate. Therefore these LGBT advocates claim that it would be more important in God’s perspective to love and treat someone equitably, even if they are homosexual. This source uses Romans 13:8-10, Colossians 3:11-13 and Matthew 23:23-24 to show that it is more important to act compassionately and caringly towards others because in the end we were born sinners.

http://notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/