Beauty and the Beast

Last weekend, Disney released their live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast. Some Christians and “Christians” have decided to forego watching this particular movie due to the controversial decision of the openly gay director to include a “gay moment.” Others have decided to go on a bit of an absurd crusade against the movie and/or Disney for the same reason. But I would like to focus on a third group – Christians and “Christians” who have both failed to distinguish between these groups and who have thrown all sense of decorum out the window in order to castigate their supposed brothers and sisters for having the audacity to choose not to watch a movie.

According to self-described Christian John Pavlovitz, “conservative Christians have crawled out of the church pew woodwork” to opportunistically and self-righteously squash joy and persecute “the LGBTQ community.” He lambastes evangelicals for this, claiming that their support of Donald Trump exposes this as hypocrisy.

Trumping Hypocrisy

Pavlovitz’ statements are not without merit.

Trump’s widespread support among socially conservative blocs is bewildering, given how well Trump exemplifies moral deficiency and crassness. However, this is only true of enthused support for Trump, of which there is admittedly entirely too much.

But not everyone who supported Trump in some fashion is exactly enamored with the man. We must remember that deciding whether or not to watch a particular movie and deciding whether or not to vote for a particular presidential candidate are two very different decisions. The latter is typically a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. The former is not. Right or wrong, many people voted for Trump because – and only because – they found him in some way preferable to Hillary Clinton. This author’s mother did precisely that. Her reasoning was that the media would generally operate as a propaganda machine under Clinton, but would fulfill its purpose as a government watchdog under Trump.

Therefore, people like this can “support” Trump and abstain from movies which promote homosexuality with clear consciences. Even if they are mistaken. To call them hypocrites is foolish. Only earnest supporters of Trump who should know better deserve that label.

Filming Hypocrisy

Pavolvitz’ article first came to my attention because a friend of mine shared it. This friend also pointed out that various other sins are rampant throughout film and television. This much is obvious. But this friend also reasons (though not in so many words) that we should afford positive portrayals of homosexuality the same acceptance we afford to positive, neutral, and negative portrayals of other sins. This is wrong.

If we assume that homosexual activity is no different from any other sin, then of course we should treat film portrayals of it just as we would portrayals of any other sin. However, in my opinion, any approach to modern media grounded in biblical teachings would result not in greater acceptance of positive portrayals of homosexuality, but in greater rejection of positive portrayals of other sins – particularly those to which we ourselves are susceptible. Glorification of violence, pervasive heterosexual sensuality, and profanity in various forms would all be prime candidates. I, like many, enjoyed the Bourne movies. But it should bother us that we find the violence appealing. It should even bother us if we do not and yet are willing to overlook it for the sake of our own entertainment.

Whatever movies we watch, we should always ask ourselves: is the entertainment value worth giving the creator substantial influence over my mind for two hours?

Clearly, there are other reasons to watch movies than entertainment, but entertainment is the dominant motivator for most consumption of films, particularly Disney films. This is applicable to all forms of media, but none more so than film and television.


Homosexual activity (as contrasted with homosexual attraction) is a sin. But in American discourse, it tends to receive disproportionate attention. There are both good and bad reasons for this.

Homosexuality is a current issue. We live in a time where acceptance in varying forms is rising. Some of this is good and some not so much. But the controversial issues – those topics which people are largely divided on – rightly garner greater attention. It is only fitting that we focus more on the sin of homosexual activity than that of murder, for instance, even though the latter produces much worse results. There is no point in discussing the morality of murder because virtually everyone agrees on that point.

Other reasons are not so reasonable. Among those abstaining from this movie, there are no doubt a great many who have failed to abstain from so many other sins – heterosexual immorality, alcohol abuse, or tax evasion to name a few (not to mention indulging in movies which glorify these things). This may be because they do not view such things as sin, which only shows how little effort they have put into actually learning what it means to be a Christian. Or they may know it, but refuse to deal with it because they enjoy it too much. This camp truly deserves the “hypocrite” label.

But most troubling to this author is a third crowd – those of us who know what constitutes sin and who avoid it for the most part but are unwilling to oppose such practices verbally for any number of reasons which usually boil down to some form of fear. However, by and large, the solution here is to cease the timidity with which we approach other issues and not necessarily to be less firm on this one.

Portrayal Matters

I have hinted at it already, but it bears further explanation. The portrayal of a sin matters in determining whether we should accept it in the media we consume. After all, any faithful adaptation of the Bible would necessarily include depictions of murder, rape, theft, sacrilege, idolatry, prostitution, greed, betrayal, and all manner of things. However, there are two major distinctions to be made.

First, these depictions may be intended to convey some meaning, rather than to titillate. A scene in which Bathsheba enters David’s chambers is all well and good. But an adaptation which shows the full act without restraint would, I think we can agree, cross the line. I don’t profess to know exactly where the line falls, but there is a line.

Second, depictions of sin can be positive, neutral, or negative. That is, they can glorify, merely convey, or condemn the actions they depict. Racism in the original Birth of a Nation (aka The Clansman) is an example of the former. A fair amount of profanity in football and war movies could constitute neutral depictions. Racism in Remember the Titans or Blazing Saddles exemplify the latter.

For this reason, I contend that there is no inconsistency, no hypocrisy in abstaining from Beauty and the Beast while watching, say, Saving Private Ryan.


It is not my intent to convince anyone to avoid Disney or Beauty and the Beast. I myself may watch it if it becomes available on some filtering service. To boycott Disney over a single moment in one movie is somewhat ridiculous; it is typical of the too-common tendency to treat massive organizations as though they are single-minded individuals with no internal diversity or disagreement. As for avoiding the film itself – well, by all accounts, the homosexuality has been overblown in the media. Even so, simply abstaining from the movie is not tantamount to a “boycott,” which usually has some effect on the object of the boycott as the goal.

But more importantly, the idea is not to create a comprehensive list of movies people “can” and “can’t” watch. My points are mainly these:

  1. It is absurd to criticize anyone for merely choosing not to watch a particular movie.
  2. We in America who call ourselves Christians need to seriously rethink both the quality and quantity of entertainment media we consume.

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Final Thoughts

In addition to Pavlovitz’ article, I also came across this photo:


This image is rife with inaccuracies, sarcasm notwithstanding, so let me briefly summarize:

  1. The woman falls in love with a person who merely has the form of an animal. Case in point: Beast is intelligent and capable of abstract thought and communication.
  2. The witchcraft is a pretty neutral depiction, and in any case is a mere hand-wave necessary for the plot (rather than some unnecessary add-in due to the director’s worldview).
  3. The depiction of homosexuality is not a neutral depiction merely “acknowledging that gay people exist” but an endorsement of homosexual attraction. We need no more proof than the openly, actively homosexual director describing the scene in question as “deliciously gay.”


  1. 2017-03-28 14:53 EST – Partially rewrote the Conclusions section for greater clarity.

“Women’s” Marches

(This regards the so-called Women’s Marches which took place on 2017-01-21.)

As Christians, we are called to love our neighbor (Matthew 22:39). In this Christian’s mind, this means that we should oppose (in love) the systematic slaughter of 1/6 of our neighbors (2013, source: CDC[1]), including 1/3 of our black neighbors. It means we should avoid giving our approval to any organization or movement which not only defends this practice, but actively celebrates it. (Secular side note: if a practice kills millions of women, it is dishonest to call supporting events “Women’s” anything.)

Similarly, the Bible is very clear on the distinction between a man and a woman. So to engage in activities which celebrate transexualism is also grossly un-biblical. (Secular side note: it is incongruous to call something a “Women’s March” when the supporters have no meaningful definition for the word “woman.”)

There are other examples, but these two are the more egregious incompatibilities between the “Women’s March” and Christianity. They are more than sufficient.

Now some might say that this is not about morals, but about people being free to live their lives how they choose. This is America, after all. Fair enough. That is adequate justification for homosexuals calling their unions “marriage” as long as private citizens aren’t forced to affirm this (etc. etc.). But there are two major problems with this argument.

First, abortion. The victims of abortion are not free to live their lives, thanks to movements, groups and events like these.

Second, these marches are not just about the alphabet soup[2] demographic being free to live their lives. They are about forcing affirmation of these lifestyles on private citizens (excluding the likes of Kim Davis) with serious moral/religious reservations. And, often, they’re about demanding public funds to subsidize these behaviors.

This is what you endorse when you participate in these events. That is not Christ-like.

If you’re not a Christian, fair enough. You certainly shouldn’t be held to a standard you never claimed to adhere to.

But if you call yourself a Christian and think such participation is compatible with that… read your Bible.

(Note: It’s possible someone participating is unaware what it is they are endorsing. Said participation should have been enough to change that. If not, just look for YouTube videos of the speeches given [and watch the total lack of media coverage at next week’s March for Life].)



2. LGB…


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, and (b) the First Amendment does not in any way prevent me from doing this.


  1. 2017-03-03 09:19 EST – Added Engagement section.

A Gay Gospel

Earlier today, Travis Hoewischer published A Modern Gospel in  cooperation with “Christian rock star” Trey Pearson to facilitate the latter publicly embracing his homosexuality. (Full disclosure: I’ve never heard of either of these guys before.) In the course of the article, a number of criticisms are leveled at the religious establishment. Many are valid, and none seem to contain the sort of vitriol common to this issue. That being said, the importance of substance and reason dwarf style in any controversial discussion. And in the context of Christian lives and doctrine, sound biblical basis is equally important. Christianity with no biblical basis is nonsensical; it does not derive truth from any objective source, and is reduced to meaningless babbling of inconclusive subjective opinions of those who are Christian only in culture and name. So let’s examine this article from that point of view – concerned with biblical teachings and their logical extensions.


But first, let’s get this topic out of the way. It is undoubtedly quickly dominating the thoughts of the reader more powerfully than the Empire at Hoth. Or possibly even Alderaan. Every post on this site has thus far been very political in nature – half the site title is even the name of a political philosophy. But I wish to deviate from your irregularly scheduled programming to ignore politics for once.

Discussion of homosexuality within the context of Christianity is related to, but entirely separate from a discussion of homosexuality-related laws. Christians can and should have a variety of opinions on that subject. I personally am of the opinion that government involvement in marriage (or “marriage”) should be minimal, whether that entails permitting homosexual couples to adopt whatever label they wish or permitting private citizens to abstain from gay weddings. Contrary to what many leftists and ultraconservatives may think, the purpose of Christianity is not to codify Christian beliefs into law. Nor is the purpose of our constitutional republic to arbitrarily enforce some form of morality (or lack thereof).

In any case, it is not the purpose of this post to attack or defend any particular political position or ideology. Rather, I simply wish to look at the moral and religious issue through a biblical, Christian lens to shed light on what someone who identifies as a Christian should believe in this area.

Nature Versus Nurture

Trey claims that he was taught that “sexual orientation [is] a matter of choice.” Perhaps he is misinterpreting what he was told, but we have no reason to doubt his honesty or intelligence, so we should assume this is accurate. Many have debated whether sexual orientation is as much a conscious choice as Android vs. Apple on the one hand, or as biologically determined as hand size on the other… hand. But there are two important points to put this debate in proper perspective.

First, there is a distinction to be made between “choice” and “sum total of experiences.” Few – if any – claim that people choose homosexuality (though oddly many opponents of this assertion claim that people choose their sex). Usually, this is a perversion (by the pro-homosexuality crowd) of the common belief that people become homosexual due to their past experiences, in addition to their (somewhat unrelated) inherent genetic predispositions. For example, childhood sexual abuse tends to yield deviant behavior later in life. That may take the form of promiscuity, general perversions, or basic homosexuality. Or conversely, perhaps some think that a very close relationship with one’s own parent (or even a total lack thereof) may push an individual towards same-sex attraction. There are a variety of hypothesis, and many of them will likely turn out to make no more sense than Waiting for Godot, but the point is that life experiences can influence a person’s lifestyle without them “choosing” anything.

Second, the Bible is silent on the issue. No verse anywhere in the 23,000 verses of the Protestant Bible makes any claim whatsoever regarding the overall source of homosexuality. Romans 1 comes the closest, and it merely identifies homosexuality as the “sinful desires” and “shameful lusts” without one word as to whether that desire is natural or not. It does claim that homosexual relations (that is, activity) is “unnatural,” but this too makes no claim on the origin of the tendency. Also noteworthy is that scientists have yet to discover a “gay gene,” meaning that science has not yet definitively answered the question any more than the Bible has.

In the end, this debate is actually academic. Whether homosexuality is determined at birth, or by life experiences, or is consciously chosen has no more bearing on whether the Bible permits such behavior than whether it is rabbit season or duck season.

Temptation Versus Indulgence

A more crucial point is the biblical distinction between temptation and indulgence. This is a distinction entirely ignored by Travis’ article and Trey’s letter. A man who is attracted to another man’s wife is entirely innocent. It is only when he indulges that attraction – in the form of lustful thoughts or overt physical sins – that the Bible condemns him. The same applies to male-to-male attraction. The Bible never prohibits same-sex attraction, only homosexual activity (Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9). (Some may claim that the Bible has been changed to add homosexuality to such verses, but the old KJV bans not homosexual activity, but even being effeminate.)

The effects of not understanding this distinction are evident in the article. They create a false dilemma that consists of only two options: completely ignoring homosexual attraction and forcing oneself into an actively heterosexual lifestyle, or fully embracing one’s homosexuality. Needless to say, reality and the Bible allow for a third option – chastity. Indeed, even in the context of heterosexuality, Paul says that it is “good […] to stay unmarried.” Nowhere does the Bible encourage the course Trey initially took – of forcing himself into a marriage devoid of physical attraction. In fact, 1 Corinthians 7 even phrases the permissibility of heterosexual marriage (read: marriage) as a concession, not as a command.

No Christian is biblically required to marry under any circumstances. That Trey chose such a path is clear evidence of a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of biblical Christian doctrine. Given the near-total abandonment of the Bible in determining the “modern gospel” in its many forms, it is unsurprising that distortions like this have become commonplace. I don’t doubt that many modern “Christians” have more knowledge of the Jedi Code or the beliefs of various celebrities than they do of God’s word. Apathy leads to apostasy. Apostasy leads to distraction. Distraction… leads to Kardashians.

The (Un)importance of Identity

A consistent theme amongst pro-homosexuality “Christians” in general and this article in particular is the importance of being “true to one’s self.” Putting aside questions of whether or not that is actually what Trey is doing, we can conclude from a combination of reading the Bible and basic literacy that being “true to one’s self” should be utterly unimportant to a Christian. True, we should be honest. We should not hide our characteristics. But there is a big leap of logic from “we should be honest about who we are” to “we should embrace who we are without reservation.”

In fact, being “true to one’s self” is in many ways the exact opposite of what a Christian should be. Jesus said disciples must “deny themselves” daily (Luke 9:23). Time and again “the flesh” is referenced negatively – even being called “the sinful flesh” in Romans 8. That chapter explicitly states that “the mind governed by the flesh is death” (emphasis mine) and “hostile to God”! Put simply, the whole point of being a Christian is to deny our nature; that is, our “identity.” This has apparently never occurred to Travis or Trey.

It is sad – even disheartening – to see someone negatively affected by one combination of confusion and unbiblical teaching jump so quickly and shortsightedly to a different yet equally unbiblical lifestyle. Trey may not be jumping, in the words of Bilbo Baggins, “out of the frying pan and into the fire,” but he is certainly jumping from the kettle into the pot.

Moving Forward

A terminal underdose of Scripture is again evident in Trey’s subsequent actions. Towards the end of the article, Travis quietly and tacitly acknowledges that Trey has divorced his wife (or is planning to). While I agree that Trey should probably never have married the mother of his children in the first place, the Bible is pretty clear on God’s feelings on the matter. “The Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce.” (Malachi 2:16 NKJV)

Even so, the proper Christian stance in this particular scenario is perhaps a bit murky. Does Trey’s homosexuality mean that the marriage was based on false pretenses and is therefore invalid? Some may make a good case for this, but I personally cannot see how “being true to one’s self” is sufficient reason to subject one’s children to the ordeals of a broken home.


Overall, it is clear that neither Trey nor Travis have made any effort to determine what God desires. The entire article is based on human perception and opinion, without a single relevant reference to the Bible. As is too often the case in modern “Christian” theology, personal desire is all-important, the desires of the Creator irrelevant. Self-denial is outdated, and self-indulgence paramount. As long as that is the approach we take, we will never be Christians, no matter what songs we sing. That is not obeying God’s command, and therefore it is not “loving God.” (1 John 5:3)


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, and (b) the First Amendment does not in any way prevent me from doing this.

Biblical Abortion

A man by the name of Curtis Fiers has written  an article titled “5 Verses that Prove the Bible Supports Abortion Rights.” As any amateur Biblical scholar might expect, it is very deceptive and lacks logical coherency. This post is a point-by-point response.


I cannot speak for Curtis, but my responses here directly relate only to the moral and religous question of abortion. The legal question is another subject – for another time – about which the Bible is less adamantly clear. In any case, this post is primarily aimed at debunking Curtis’ claims rather than making any  claims of my own.

Biblical Legality

It’s strange, though, that the Bible wouldn’t directly outlaw abortion if it was wrong. After all, each of the books of the New Testament were written in the Common Era (CE) — often referred to as A.D. Yet the earliest evidence of an induced abortion dates to 1550 BCE. This, of course, is around 1,545 years before Christ was even born.

It’s not at all strange that the Bible wouldn’t directly outlaw abortion. The New Testament doesn’t even “outlaw” conventional murder – or anything else for that matter. The only “outlawing” is in the Old Testament. This is primarily in Leviticus and other books of the Torah.

Joshua son of Nun lived around 1300 BCE[1]. This is a few hundred years after the “earliest evidence of induced abortion.” But proving that abortion existed during the Mosaic period and proving that it was practiced by Israelites (and, thus, needed to be addressed) are two completely different things.

Additionally, the Code of Assura provided for the death penalty if a woman got an abortion without her husband’s blessing. This was in 1075 BCE. It just seems weird, even with historical evidence that abortion was occurring over 1,500 years before Christ, that the Bible never specifically outlaws it.

Obviously, the Code of Assura was written hundreds of years after the Torah, and in any case every Bible novice knows that the Assyrians were dramatically different from the Israelites. It would be no surprise at all to find that abortion was partially outlawed in Assyria while God, Moses, David, or whoever saw no need to create a similar law in Israel. If it was not practiced, such a law would be comparable to a 2016 American law outlawing guillotine executions – it would not be ridiculous, but it would seem odd and unnecessary.

Biblical Silence

The main focus of the abortion debate is whether fetuses constitute living persons. If you believe that the Biblical authors thought so, then obviously abortion is prohibited by any verse prohibiting murder. It is only if you believe that the fetus is not a living person that you can make the case for Biblical silence. Even then, I personally find the utter lack of mention of abortions in the Bible to be indicative that it was not in practice (or at least was extremely rare).

The only instances where abortion could be considered to have been mentioned are verses like 2 Kings 8:12[2], where the death of the fetus is incidental to the death of the mother, or Hosea 13:16[3], where the fetus death is incidental and where a terrible judgement is being pronounced. These references invariably portray abortion as a horrible event and indicative of a time of great suffering. Beyond that, they usually portray it as evil [4].

Biblical Support

“When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

This Biblical verse lays out the penalty for accidentally causing a woman to miscarry, and it’s just a fine. If the woman herself is injured during the incident, however, the good old “eye for an eye” rule comes into play.

So if the mother dies, the person who caused the death dies. If only the unborn child dies, however, the at-fault party has to fork over a few shekels. If an unborn fetus is a human life, why is it not treated as such in this verse?

Here, Curtis takes Exodus 21:22-25 to mean that fetuses are not valued as human life. The core of his argument is that “eye for an eye” punishment applies to maternal injuries, but not the death of the fetus. There are a couple problems with this argument. First, how could “eye for an eye” possibly be applied to the man who caused the fetus to die? He is obviously not pregnant. Moreover, if the Bible supports the concept of fetal personhood, such a punishment would be unjust. Therefore, the fine is entirely consistent with pro-life sentiment.

Now some may argue that this verse’s failure to pronounce the death penalty implies that a fetus is not valued equal to an adult, since murder is a capital offense under Levitical law. But there are two glaring problems with this. The first is intentAccidental “murder” (i.e. manslaughter) is not a capital offense (a “perpetrator” may flee to a “city of refuge”). This verse deals with accidental fetal death.

The other, more crucial failure of this argument is that the verse does not relate to abortion. Curtis has cherry-picked the New American Bible version (the Bible used by American Catholics) which can be twisted to support his pro-abortion sentiments. Look at these translations:

  • American Standard Version: “hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow”
  • International Children’s Bible: “they might hit a pregnant woman so that the baby comes out”
  • English Standard Version: “hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out”
  • New International Version: “hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely”
  • New King James Version: “hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely”
  • New American Standard Bible: “strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely”

Clearly, this verse concerns itself primarily with premature birthnot abortion. Indeed, the “eye for an eye” punishment is concerning injuries suffered by the infant – or possibly both the infant and the mother –  not the mother alone. This means that if the fetus dies (i.e. is aborted), the offending man must be executed per “eye for an eye” sentencing! The very verse Curtis uses to support abortion actually partially bans the practice!

The only way to read this verse as supporting abortion is to [a] twist its meaning and [b] use a Catholic Bible. This is somewhat problematic, since the Catholic church is firmly anti-abortion. The current Pope Francis has changed the tone somewhat, yet he remains as morally opposed to abortion as his predecessors.

Unfulfilled Life

“If a man beget a hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.”

This text says that it is better for a person to suffer an “untimely birth,” meaning to die from miscarriage, than to live an unhappy life. That’s right: the Bible literally says it’s better to die in the womb than live an unhappy life. This flies directly into the face of all anti-choice believers.

I refuse to deign his Ecclesiastical reference with a thorough analysis. It is an insult to literate people everywhere. Curtis probably thinks that murder is justified if the victim first says “I wish I’d never been born.”


“The total number of Levites counted at the Lord’s command by Moses and Aaron according to their clans, including every male a month old or more, was 22,000. The Lord said to Moses, ‘Count all the firstborn Israelite males who are a month old or more and make a list of their names.’”

In these verses, God tells Moses to conduct a census of all Levite males, but he only tells him to count those who are at least one month old. It’s almost as if those younger than a month don’t hold human value.

Curtis infers that fetuses do not “count” (ba-dum-tsh) as humans because one month was the age cutoff for the Levitical and Israelite censuses of Numbers 3. Ignoring the fact that these censuses were likely intended to aid logistics and planning, Curtis’ interpretation implies that the following groups are not human:

  • Levite infants less than a month old
  • Male Israelites who are not firstborn
  • All female Israelites

Creation of Adam

“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.”

This verse talks about the creation of Adam. It specifically states that God formed Adam from dust, but he wasn’t yet a living soul. Not until God breathed life into this inhuman form did it become alive. If Adam, the first human to ever exist, had to take a breath before being considered a living soul, why is the same not true for unborn fetuses?

Again, Curtis has chosen a cherry-picked version of Genesis 2:7 to suit his purposes. And again, he insults every literate person reading his article. Anyone can plainly see that this verse is not intended to describe life’s criteria. The poetic use of “breath of life” to refer to “life force” hardly means that “breath must come first.”

Moreover, we can add doctors and scientists to the list of offended parties, since fetuses do breath prior to birth. Sure, it’s amniotic fluid rather than air, but it certainly still qualifies as “the breath of life.” Even a pro-abortion radical cannot deny that at some point fetuses are living, if not persons. To quote Mike Adams, “dead things don’t grow.”


“If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.”

This is a fun one. Earlier in Numbers, it’s stated that, if a man suspects his wife of sleeping with another man, he may bring her to a priest who will create some sort of magic potion with water and dirt. The woman is then made to drink said magic potion. If she has not cheated on her husband, nothing will happen.

If the woman has cheated and is carrying another man’s child, though, the mystical dirt water — we can call it magic mud — will cause her to immediately miscarry. This is a directive coming straight from God himself to Moses. So even if pro-lifers can dodge all these other verses, they can’t deny that this one essentially says, “Abortion is okay as long as it’s forced upon a woman, against her will, for cheating on her husband.”

Here we finally come across something resembling a logical argument. Numbers 5 does indeed indicate that abortion is acceptable if performed on a unfaithful wife by means of what Curtis terms a “magic potion.” However, as religious liberals like Curtis are so fond of reminding us, Old Covenant law is no longer in effect. This means we can wear mismatched clothing and eat bacon; and it means that this exception no longer has true Biblical support.


Curtis’ mocking tone towards the end confirms the suspicion I had throughout the article – this is no pro-abortion “Christian” earnestly seeking God’s will. This is a leftist[6] pro-abortion activist (who’s probably atheist) incompetently abusing Biblical interpretation (and, indeed, literary interpretation as a whole) as a means of attacking the analyses and conclusions of those who actually understand and value the Bible.


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, and (b) the First Amendment does not in any way prevent me from doing this.


  2. 2 Kings 8:12 (NIV) – “‘Why is my lord weeping?’ asked Hazael. ‘Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,’ [Elisha] answered. ‘You will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.'”
  3. Hosea 13:16 (NIV) – “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
  4. Arguable exceptions being ‘wrath of God’ verses


  1. 2016-05-12 13:27 EST – Added Disclaimer section.
  2. 2017-03-03 09:21 EST – Added Engagement section.