Sacred Rebuttals – Week Theme:

"What the Bible Actually Says About Abortion"

❌ CLAIM: "Abortion is killing an innocent, unborn baby."

✅ RESPONSE:

Not a single verse in the Bible supports this anti-abortion viewpoint. In fact, Hebrew law written in the Torah and expanded upon in the Talmud says quite the opposite.

• Exodus 21:22-23: If someone causes a woman to miscarry, the offender pays a fine. If the woman dies, the offender pays with their life. This clearly distinguishes between the legal status of a fetus and a living person.

• This aligns with the Jewish understanding that a fetus is potential life, but not yet soulish life.

85% of American Jews are pro-choice, not in spite of Scripture—but because of it.

In modern Israel (a nation built on Jewish legal and moral traditions):

• Abortion is legal.

• Abortion is government-funded.

• And yet the U.S. sends $3 billion+ in aid annually, ironically funding a policy that many American evangelicals claim is immoral.

❌ CLAIM: "The Bible is clear. Life begins at conception."

✅ RESPONSE:

That belief is not based on Scripture but on modern political theology. Let’s explore what the Bible actually says:

• Jeremiah 1:4-5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" — This implies pre-existence, not conception.

• Psalm 139 is poetic, not prescriptive law. The phrase "you knit me together in my mother’s womb" is metaphor, not biology.

• Luke 1:44: A fetus leaping is no more theological proof than trees clapping or rocks crying out. The Bible uses metaphor everywhere.

• Genesis 2 and Ezekiel 37 show that a body isn't alive until it receives breath (ruach), the Hebrew symbol of soul.

In Jewish law, the soul enters only after viability. Therefore, the writers of Psalms, Jeremiah, and the Torah would not have believed life began at conception.
To claim otherwise is to culturally appropriate Jewish Scripture for a modern political agenda.

❌ CLAIM: "But 'Thou shalt not kill' proves abortion is murder."

✅ RESPONSE:

That command (Exodus 20:13) is more accurately translated as:

"You shall not murder" (Hebrew: ratsach)

And yet, Exodus 21:22 shows that causing a miscarriage is not treated as murder. Scripture clearly does not equate a fetus with a legal person.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion. It means trusting people to make moral, complex decisions about their own bodies and futures.

Jesus never condemned abortion.
He did condemn:

• Hypocrisy

• Burdensome religion

• Failure to care for the vulnerable

❌ CLAIM: "Jesus would be pro-life."

✅ RESPONSE:

Jesus never mentions abortion, despite living in the Roman Empire where exposure of unwanted infants was common.

If abortion were central to the faith:

• Why didn’t Jesus condemn it?

• Why didn’t Paul or Peter mention it?

• Why didn’t early Christian texts focus on it?

What early Christians did do: Adopted exposed babies from Roman roads and cared for them.

That’s how change came: not through protests, but through presence.

❌ CLAIM: "Democrats are baby murderers."

✅ RESPONSE:

Jesus said:

“If you insult your brother, you’re in danger of hellfire.” (Matt. 5:22)

Calling someone a "baby murderer" while opposing:

• Contraceptive access

• Sex education

• Parental leave

• Healthcare

• Affordable childcare

...proves that this isn’t about babies.
It’s about control.

✨ FINAL THOUGHT:

What if the truly Christlike way to reduce abortion is not to criminalize it, but to render it unnecessary?

What if:

• No one feared being pregnant?

• No one lacked resources to raise a child?

• No one felt abandoned or shamed for their decisions?

What if Christians focused more on compassion, care, and prevention than on shame, power, and punishment?

Maybe then, the world would know what "pro-life" actually looks like.

CLAIM: “THE BIBLE IS CLEAR, THERE ARE VERSES THAT SAY LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!”

That’s a thoughtful and common question, and it deserves a respectful, honest answer.

• ❌ CLAIM: “But ‘Thou shalt not kill’—abortion is murder.”

  ✅ Response:

  • The command is better translated, “You shall not murder”—referring to unjust killing, not the complexities of pregnancy. The original Hebrew word (ratsach) refers specifically to unjust killing.

  • In Exodus 21, causing a miscarriage results in a fine, not a murder charge—indicating the fetus wasn’t considered a full legal person.

  • Pro-choice Christians value both life and autonomy, trusting people to make thoughtful moral decisions.

  • Jesus never shamed a vulnerable person for their choices. Neither should we.

• Scripture doesn’t equate a fetus with a full person under the law.
  In Exodus 21:22–25, if a pregnant woman is injured and miscarries, the offender pays a fine—unlike the “life for life” penalty for killing a person. This shows that even in biblical times, a fetus was not considered legally or morally equivalent to a born person.

• A pro-choice view honors life—including the life of the pregnant person.
  Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. It means trusting people to make moral, thoughtful decisions based on their health, their future, and their circumstances. It means acknowledging the complex realities people face, especially when pregnancy involves trauma, danger, or profound unpreparedness.

• Jesus centered love, compassion, and care—not control.
  Jesus never shamed or condemned people facing hard situations. If anything, he consistently sided with those whom society judged harshly—especially women. A Christ-like response to abortion is one rooted in grace and compassion, not shame and coercion.

  In short:

  “You shall not murder” is a call to justice and care for human life. That includes the lives of those already breathing, hurting, and making difficult choices. A truly moral and biblical ethic considers both context and compassion.

  ---

• JEREMIAH 1:4-5 - Now the word of the Lord came to me saying,

  “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you;
  I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

  • It says the creator knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was in the womb, not WHEN. The Bible claims often that each human was known AT THE CREATION OF THE EARTH, not at conception. Thus the catholic belief that contraception is as grievous a sin as abortion and that the evangelical viewpoint is hypocritical.

  • This verse is poetic prophecy (not theological liturgy) for Jeremiah, not a universal statement, otherwise everyone is the world is appointed a prophet to the nations and Jeremiah is nothing special.

• Psalm 139:13-16 (partial) - …you knit me together in my mother’s womb. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, before there was one.

  • Again the verse is poetic, not theology. There are many phrases in Psalms that Christians chose to see as poetic, rather than literal.

  • “Depths of the earth” could be analogous to the womb, but is just as likely a reference to creation when “the depths of the earth” were created from the void. This would, again, be another reference to the mind of the creator knowing every human before creation.

  • This is supported by the idea of the creator knowing all the days before there was one. If this is true, then the creator created the fetus knowing full well the abortion would occur. Did the creator make a mistake in creating the fetus? Was the creator unable to then stop the abortion? The anti-abortion extremist must explain why a kind god would create a being if he felt the most horrific thing that could happen would occur before even a chance to be born. Perhaps the creator believes as his chosen people do that this is not a soulish being?

• Luke 1:44 - as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy

  • The Bible ascribes many human characteristics to inanimate objects: Rocks cry out, trees clap their hands, donkeys talk. We also know fetuses respond to stimuli. Not, however, an incontrovertible proof of life beginning at conception and giving license to Christians to call a pregnant person a “murderer.”

  • Adam and Ezekiel’s army had fully formed bodies, but did not live until the Rhuach (breath or spirit) of God came into them

• As the Hebrew belief was that the creator would not place a soul into an unviable body (even a majority believing a baby must prove 8 days of viability out of the womb to prove that viability, then none of the writers of Jeremiah, Psalms, Mark or the recorder of the 10 commandments would have believed that life began at conception. For a Christian today to use their writings to say others, is to culturally appropriate Jewish holy text for political purposes.

“Jesus would be Pro-Life”

• Jesus never uttered a word about abortion, despite the common practice of a Roman father legally abandoning an unwanted newborn on the roadside to die of ‘exposure’ (the name of the practice.)

• How horrifying it must have been to hear these babies cry out, yet Jesus is never recorded alluding to it. No “that is why the Roman Empire will fall, right there.”

• None of Jesus’ close followers, like Peter, John or Paul, ever mentioned abortion or exposure as they also ministered in Israel and throughout the Roman. Does it not seem odd that the issue we believe to be seminal on God’s list doesn’t warrant a mention from his representative on earth.

• Perhaps a better plan to fight abortion is more human-centered. Christians in the third century began a routine of collecting ‘exposed’ Roman babies from the roadside, even while suffering persecution and having limited resources. This sacrificial routine caused exposure to become frowned upon and then completely outlawed in A.D. 374. Angry protests didn’t change the law, demonstrating a higher way to live did.

• What if our abortion beliefs compelled us to ensure there were no unwanted pregnancies, no unwanted babies and no unwanted people? What if we were more concerned about the root causes of abortion (poverty, income inequality, shame, hopelessness) than we were of the sin of it? Statistically abortion goes down in Democratic presidencies. Could the heart of our culture simply turn against the practice of abortion because the need no longer exists? It’s at least worth a try, isn’t it?

Sacred Rebuttals – Week Theme:

"Abortion, Hypocrisy, and the Myth of National Curses"

❌ CLAIM: "Nations that allow abortion are cursed."

✅ RESPONSE:

That’s not only theologically unfounded—it’s disproven by data.

• In 2019, South Korea overturned a 60-year abortion ban. Courts cited data showing that abortion per capita was higher than in the U.S.—and disproportionately dangerous for poorer people. Wealthier South Koreans accessed safe, illegal abortions; the poor did not.

• In Israel, abortion is not only legal but publicly funded by the government—a government backed by at least $3 billion/year in U.S. aid.

So if abortion brings a "curse," why are American Christians funding it abroad?

Criminalizing abortion doesn’t stop it. It just makes it more dangerous—especially for the economically disadvantaged.

❌ CLAIM: "Anti-abortion has always been Christianity’s stance."

✅ RESPONSE:

That’s historically false. Until the 1970s, most Protestant Christians did not view abortion as a central moral issue.

• In the 1960s and early '70s, many Protestants avoided politics, seeing it as "worldly."

• Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian, brought faith into public life.

• Paul Weyrich, a conservative operative, saw opportunity. He believed Christians should take political control—but democracy was an obstacle. He built parallel systems (Christian TV, schools, bookstores) and sought to galvanize white evangelicals.

• He joined forces with Jerry Falwell, who resented Carter for forcing Christian colleges to integrate. Their answer? The Moral Majority.

But evangelicals didn’t care about abortion—yet.

In 1973:

• Billy Graham called Roe v. Wade a "compassionate law."

• The Southern Baptist Convention supported it, calling abortion bans a "Catholic issue."

The Moral Majority needed a more palatable issue than segregation. They chose abortion. They wrote Sunday school curricula, launched media campaigns, and cultivated the single-issue voter.

By 2020, 81% of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump. In 1976, fewer than 50% voted at all.

This wasn’t spiritual revival. It was political strategy.

❌ CLAIM: "Democrats are baby murderers."

✅ RESPONSE:

Jesus warned:

"If you insult your brother or sister... you are in danger of hellfire." (Matt. 5:21–22)

So what do you think He would say about the phrase "baby murderer"?

And if saving babies is your true concern:

• Why oppose sex ed?

• Why oppose contraceptives?

• Why oppose affordable healthcare for pregnant people?

• Why oppose childcare, education, and economic support for single parents?

Data shows abortion rates decline most under Democratic policies.
So is this really about life—or political power?

Christians often cite the Bible to ban abortion, but there are zero verses requiring it, and thousands commanding us to care for:

• The poor

• The marginalized

• The foreigner

• The widow

You want small government—except when you want it in the bedrooms, bathrooms, and doctor’s offices of pregnant people.

✨ FINAL THOUGHT:

Maybe anti-abortion Christians are sincere. But as the story of Saul of Tarsus reminds us:

You can be sincere in study and still be sincerely wrong in practice.

Jesus never spoke a word about abortion. But He did speak many words against:

• Hypocrisy

• Religious control

• Condemnation

What if we stopped shouting "murderer" and started building a society where abortion isn't necessary?

What if we fought poverty, not pregnant people?
What if we honored complexity instead of enforcing shame?
What if we offered care, not control?

That would be pro-life.
That would be Christlike.

“SCIENTIST AGREE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION”

• Ok, first I must stop for a moment and just let the irony of a Christian referring to science when we’ve just come through COVID and hurricanes, etc where the eschewing of actual “science” by Christians has been absolutely maddening! Does the idea of shooting disinfectant into our veins ring a bell anyone? But, like so many things, I guess we suddenly care about science when believing it supports the political narrative.

• While biological science does says life begins at conception, it still recognizes that viability is far far down the line. Also, 800 leading scientists and hundreds more health professionals (68 pages of signatures in all) sent letters to SCOTUS warning of dire health consequences for our society if Roe v Wade were to be overturned. This being a fact, I find it hard to believe that science supports anti-abortion extremist views .

“I STILL BELIEVE THE DEMOCRATS ARE BABY MURDERS”

• Matthew 5:21-22 (partial) - You have heard that it said ‘You shall not murder, or be liable to judgment.’ But I say if you are angry and insult (say an angry term of abuse or put down), you will be liable to Gehenna fire.

• If Jesus feels this way of you calling someone a fool to satisfy your need to make yourself look better than them, what do you think he might say about “baby murderer?”

• Christians claim their anti-abortion stances are about “saving babies” yet they often oppose the policies that data shows often lessen the number of abortions: sex education, ease of access to contraceptives, health care accessibility for pregnant persons, affordable health care/daycare/education for single parents, access to economic opportunity and lowering of poverty levels. It is easy to believe this is more about political power than "saving babies" when faced with this reality.

• Christians claim biblical superiority despite there being ZERO biblical requirements to ban abortion and thousands of verses to care for the poor, foreigner, marginalized (outcast) & economically disadvantaged (widow.)

• Christians claim to want “freedom” and to get government out people’s lives, yet anti-abortionists want the government in the bedroom’s of women, in their bathrooms as they consider their life decisions and in their doctor’s offices discussing life choices and health care. This displays an incredible hypocrisy, a sin Jesus pointed out often, while never once mentioning abortion.

• Perhaps anti-abortion Christians are sincere, yet, like Saul of Tarsus might they be sincere in study; but sincerely wrong in interpretation and deed?

How to respond when someone uses the Bible to condemn LGBTQ+ people or uphold religious control over others

❌ CLAIM: “Romans 1 condemns gay people.”

✅ Response:

• Romans 1 critiques idol worship and exploitative temple sex rituals—not loving, consensual relationships.

• The actual “sin” described is exchanging God for idols (v. 23–24)—not being queer.

• Why do Christians cherry-pick this passage to condemn gay people, but ignore the rest of the list (greed, gossip, arrogance)?

• Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he constantly called out hypocrisy. That should tell us something.

❌ CLAIM: “Leviticus says ‘man shall not lie with man.’”

✅ Response:

• Christians ignore 600+ Levitical laws (e.g. no pork, no mixed fabrics). Why weaponize just one against gay people?

• The idea of separating “moral” from “ceremonial” laws is nowhere in Scripture—it's a theological invention.

• Lesbianism is never mentioned. If God hated same-sex love, the Bible forgot to say so clearly.

❌ CLAIM: “Paul said the sexually immoral won’t inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1).”

✅ Response:

• The Greek terms translated as “homosexuals” are ambiguous and contested - referring to exploitation and power differential, not orientation. In fact, the word homosexual was never used in an English translation of the Bible until 1946 (and those men later recanted that they were wrong) and not in a German translation until 1983.

• Quoting Paul to condemn queer people while ignoring sins listed in Romans 1, 1 Cor 6 and 1 Timothy 1 - like your own greed, gossip, or pride? That’s what Jesus actually condemned.

• Jesus never defined queer love as “immoral.” He did, however, say some people are “born eunuchs”—a broad category that included gender-diverse and non-procreative people.

❌ CLAIM: “Jesus affirms only heterosexual marriage in Matthew 19.”

✅ Response:

• Jesus was not teaching about “traditional marriage”—he was rebuking religious hypocrisy around divorce law.

• If “God hates divorce,” why are divorced people welcome in churches, but queer people are treated like threats?

• In Matthew 19, Jesus says some eunuchs are born that way—a difficult teaching that challenges gender binaries.

• Jesus never condemned queer people—but he did say that for religious hypocrites, “it will be more bearable for Sodom than for you.” (Matt 11:24)

❌ CLAIM: “Sanctity of marriage!”

✅ Response:

• The phrase “sanctity of marriage” doesn’t appear in Scripture. It’s a political talking point, not a biblical mandate.

• The biblical model of marriage was often polygamous, patriarchal, and property-based—not “one man, one woman.”

• If you really want to defend “biblical marriage,” start with Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Tamar, and Judah.

• The “sanctity” Jesus cared about was honesty, compassion, and justice—not control over people’s relationships.

❌ CLAIM: “Jesus would be proud I condemned all those sinful lifestyles.”

✅ Response:

• Be careful. Jesus warned of those who cry, “Lord, Lord” yet never lived his love (Matthew 7:21–23). He says to some: “I never knew you.”

• Jesus didn’t come to make people into judges of others. He came to show a radical way of mercy and inclusion.

• If your “faithfulness” causes you to condemn rather than love, it may be time to reexamine who you’re truly following.

❌ CLAIM: “Traditional family is God’s design.”

✅ Response:

• Jesus likely never saw a “traditional family” in his entire lifetime. That concept didn’t exist.

• The modern "traditional family" was invented by 20th-century white evangelicals like James Dobson—who pushed eugenicist ideals to increase white Christian birthrates.

• Jesus created a new family defined not by bloodline or patriarchy, but by doing the will of God in love (Matthew 12:50).

• Clinging to “traditional family” values while ignoring the poor, the marginalized, and the foreigner is the opposite of Christ’s way.

❌ CLAIM: “Gay people are living in sin.”

✅ Response:

• Don’t confuse bad theology about “lifestyles” with real people—people made in God’s image and worthy of love.

• The early church was known for its radical welcome, not its purity tests.

• Jesus said the Kingdom belongs to those who feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, and love their neighbor—not those who judge sexual identity.

❓ FINAL THOUGHT:

If you’ve been taught that following Jesus means condemning gay people, weaponizing Scripture, or controlling others’ choices—

it might not be Jesus you’re following, but a version of religion that he himself would rebuke.

Have Transgender People Always Existed?

Short answer: Yes — across cultures, religions, and centuries. Transgender, gender-expansive, and third-gender people are part of the sacred fabric of human history. The idea that gender diversity is “new” is not just wrong — it’s colonial, ahistorical, and spiritually lazy.

🔮 Global Sacred Traditions Recognizing Gender Diversity

• Hijra – South Asia
  Recognized as a third gender in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Hijra people have served for centuries as spiritual leaders, offering blessings at births and weddings. Ancient texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata reference them as part of divine stories.

• Koekchuch – Siberia
  In Chukchi culture, koekchuch were individuals assigned male at birth who lived in female roles and were often shamans or spiritual mediators. Their gender variance was not just accepted — it was respected.

• Bugis – Indonesia
  The Bugis people recognize five genders, including:

  • Calalai (AFAB, masculine role)

  • Calabai (AMAB, feminine role)

  • Bissu — priests who embody all genders as one.
    The bissu are seen as sacred vessels of balance and harmony.

• Galli Priests – Ancient Greece & Rome
  Devotees of the goddess Cybele, the Galli rejected traditional male identity, wore feminine clothing, and sometimes underwent ritual castration. Their femininity was a sacred expression of devotion.

• Enarees – Scythia (Eurasian Steppe)
  Enarees were priest-healers who wore women’s clothing and were said to receive divine visions. They were believed to be gifted by the gods with the ability to diagnose and heal illness.

• Khanith – Islamic History (Oman)
  Khanith were assigned male at birth but lived in gender-nonconforming ways, taking on feminine dress and roles. They existed openly in pre-modern Islamic society, often in liminal and socially important roles.

📖 Gender Diversity in Jewish and Christian Traditions

• Eunuchs in the Bible
  Jesus said:

  “Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, and some choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:12)
  In ancient times, eunuch referred to a wide spectrum: intersex people, queer men, celibate spiritual seekers, and those who lived outside cis-hetero norms. Jesus honored them, not erased them.

• Six Gender Categories – Ancient Jewish Thought
  The Talmud identifies at least six sex/gender categories, including:

  • Androgynos (both male and female traits)

  • Saris (AMAB with no male traits, some post-pubescent or by choice)

  • Ay’lonit (AFAB with no female traits)
    Debates included transition, identity, and religious roles. It was complex — and deeply human.

• Joseph’s Feminine Robe
  The famous “coat of many colors” (Genesis 37:3) is more accurately translated as kethoneth passim — the same phrase used to describe royal women’s gowns in 2 Samuel.
  Some ancient rabbis believed Joseph was gender-nonconforming — and divinely favored.

• David and Jonathan’s Love
  David’s lament:

  “Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26)
  Their relationship has been interpreted by many scholars — and queer theologians — as a deeply intimate, possibly romantic bond.

🏰 Historical Trans Lives in Europe & the West

• Emperor Elagabalus (3rd Century CE, Rome)
  Elagabalus reportedly:

  • Requested to be addressed as a woman

  • Wore feminine clothes

  • Married men

  • Sought surgeries to affirm gender identity
    Many modern scholars recognize Elagabalus as a likely transgender person — centuries before “transgender” existed as a term.

• Eleanor Rykener (14th Century England) Arrested in 1394 while living as a woman named Eleanor, this trans feminine sex worker and seamstress was assigned male at birth and had romantic/sexual relationships with both men and women. Her court record survives as a rare window into medieval gender variance.

• May Wilson (20th Century UK)
  Born Clement Mitchell, May Wilson transitioned after serving in the British military. She's one of many documented cases of gender transition long before today’s visibility.

💥 What About “There Were Never Trans People Before”?

Let’s just say: Edison, honey… no.

If someone insists trans people didn’t exist before 2010, what they really mean is:

• “I wasn’t taught about this in school.”

• “I’m uncomfortable with ambiguity.”

• “My worldview can’t handle diversity.”

That’s not history. That’s denial.
We have always been here. You just weren’t told.

✨ Spiritual Reflection

Trans and gender-expansive people are not a fad.
We are not new.
We are not broken.

We are a living testament to the divine’s creativity.

To be transgender is not to be in rebellion against God — it is to be in relationship with the God who made the stars, the sea, and you — uniquely and beautifully.