Sunday, October 29, 2017

Abortion: The Three Main Lies





[updated November 16th, 2017]

Some say the issue of abortion is "impossible to answer," and/or "both sides are right." But is this really an insolvable "gray area," a conundrum that humanity can never solve? The issue of abortion being an infinite abyss of moral confusion? Some say abortion is an acceptable medical procedure, others say it is infanticide (i.e. baby-killing). Who is right? They can't both be right, can they? Perhaps they can both be right in that abortion is acceptable up to a certain point of embryonic development, perhaps before the first trimester of pregnancy is over (the first trimester = from time of conception to about the third month of pregnancy), but not after, after being infanticide?

Shouldn't we be able to come to a clear answer of whether it is morally defensible at some point or not, when enough facts are combined with solid moral principles?

Up until very recently, I had not given much thought to the issue of abortion. My position was that "As long as it's before the point that the fetus can live on it's own outside the woman's body, cared for by other people, it's a part of the woman's body, and so it's her choice what to do with it." If you had asked me "When exactly is that point?" I would not have been able to give you a clear answer (and after extensive research, I still can't).  I would have also had no answers for the questions "When can the fetus begin to feel pain?" or "Why is the fetus not an individual just because she or he is  dependent on someone else?"  No one ever asked me those questions though, so I never thought about it, until recently, after the issue was brought to my attention via some reading I was doing.  I then realized I should being thinking more critically about the issue, realizing that I never sought out the truth as I should have about such an important issue, namely the question of whether abortion is equivalent with baby-killing, or not. Like with other ethical issues that involve the question of massive violence, e.g. eating animal products, and supporting politics, when a very destructive activity is normal in the society you're born into, it can be easy to just accept it without much or any thought, as I did with those issues as well for most of my life, trusting in the "wisdom" of the collective. One thing I have been learning repeatedly over the years is that the collective is often very wrong, on issues that are very important (e.g. Veganism, Anarchism, and Human Origins). I doubt this is a coincidence; I believe it's the devil's spirit of confusion, or in secular terms, it's toxic propaganda, at work in the world. Toxic propaganda that is purposely focused on the issues of the greatest moral consequence (and also the most empowering or disempowering), because the nefarious powers-that-be (spiritual and/or human) want people to be morally corrupted and disempowered, because people are more easily controlled when they are disempowered and morally corrupted.

Waking up from the collective confusion concerning abortion can happen once you have a strong handle on some key truths; that's when it happened for me. These truths stand on the other side of the main moral defenses to abortion, defenses that turn out to be based on lies.

Lie #1: "The in-utero baby is not really a baby, it's just part of the woman's body."

The reason I say this is a lie is because of the technical biological facts, and also because even if it was just uncertain whether we are talking about an individual or not, that uncertainty means that to claim certainty by saying "It is not an individual," or "it is just a part of the woman's body" is still untrue as well, it's still a lie.

I've heard abortion described as "somewhere between a woman washing her hands, killing some skin cells while doing so, and a woman killing her three year-old child." Somewhere? The spirit of confusion is strong concerning this facet of the abortion issue, and it takes some hard critical thinking to try and sort through it. Is this skin-cell vs. embryo conundrum insolvable, or is it an example of an association fallacy? Because an embryo has cells and skin is composed of cells, are they basically the same thing? Is the embryo really just a part of the woman's body, just protoplasm, just an unconscious cluster of cells, up until a certain point? If so, at what point exactly?  At about 12 weeks of development the in-utero baby certainly looks like a baby, is clearly a girl or boy, and can start to make fists, etc., so is it scientific to say when the baby does that, then it's really a baby?  But the baby's heart begins to beat at about 8 weeks, so maybe that's when they are an individual?

First, in the interest of clarity, here are dictionary definitions of terms that come up in discussions concerning abortion, starting with the term abortion itself:

abortion: the intentional killing of an in-utero (i..e. in the womb) human being, at any stage of her/his development.

protoplasm: a jellylike substance that forms the living matter in all plant and animal cells.

zygote: the very first stage of human development, the genetically distinct cell that forms at the moment of conception (when the female's egg is fertilized by the male's sperm).

embryo: the second stage of human development, usually defined as continuing to the point of eight weeks.

fetus: an unborn human baby after her/his eighth week of development.

baby/infant: the terms baby and infant are synonymous, referring to the period of life of a child up to about two years of age.

So right away one thing that is cleared up by understanding what protoplasm is, and what a zygote is, is that they are not equivalent; it is not biologically accurate to call a zygote "just protoplasm" or "just a cluster of cells." The second thing discovered is that there is no clear time period differentiating a zygote and an embryo, and this points to an important fact concerning all these terms: they are not exact (because there is no scientific way to make them exact), they are somewhat loose designations for different stages of human development. Each stage does not have a clear beginning or end, accept for the beginning of the zygote stage, which begins at conception, and the end of the fetus stage, which ends at birth (which is generally around nine months, but of course many babies are born prematurely too; so the difference between a "fetus" and a "baby" is really just a matter of whether the baby is still inside the mother's womb or not, it's not a matter of the actual point of development of the fetus/baby). So it's important to keep in mind that these are just terms to help understand around what time of human development is being referred to, they are not distinct entities, but rather speak to the same entity at different periods of her/his development.

Here's a relevant quote from an article I also recommend reading in full.  

"It is a well-established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both mother and father. The newly conceived individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and nourishment. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely “part of the mother’s body.” ...

A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not that of the body in which he resides. ... It is a clear scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person, and the child is another.

The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live, proving they are two separate individuals. The child-guest is a temporary resident of the mother-host. He will leave on his own as long as he is not prematurely evicted. There are many cases where a mother has been fatally injured, after which a doctor has delivered her child safely. The mother’s body dies, the baby lives. Unmistakably, the baby was not merely a part of his mother’s body, or he would have died with her. ... Obviously they must be two distinct individuals prior to the child’s birth, or one could not die while the other goes on living."


Are babies that are born very prematurely (and many surviving, like my cousin Liam), not real babies? At what point is the baby supposedly not a baby, and "just a cluster of cells"? There is no way to adequately say some post-conception time, like two months, is the time when the early human begins to "really" be a human. The question of when a baby is really a baby/individual, I now see, is flawed from the start, it's another moral fallacy, this time a false dilemma, in this case creating a false dilemma about when a human is really a human, when in fact she or he always was one, just at different stages of development. After conception, there is a new human individual right away, it's a new human in development (called a zygote/embryo), a separate biological entity with her or his own distinct genetic code, biologically distinct from the woman who is carrying her/him in her womb. So this clears up the confusion as to when the human is really a human, it's technically a human from day one. When a fetus is birthed and "becomes a baby," she/he hasn't changed physically in any way, it's the same human, going from inside to outside the mother's womb. Saying that the baby is not a developing human one second before birth, but she/he is one second after birth, doesn't make biological sense, it's not a scientific perspective. The same is true for one minute before birth, or one month, or nine months; she or he is a developing human individual from the moment of conception on. To pick some post-conception time as the moment when the developing human "really" exists is, ultimately, arbitrary and inaccurate.

Turning to the definition of abortion, for a moment, since even this is something people react negatively to, it's important to recognize that yes, irrespective of whatever stage at which the killing may possibly be done, from zygote to 8-month old unborn baby, the verb "to kill" is accurate, because it's a life-form having her/his life terminated, so we can't accurately say "it's not really killing" at some early point, like at the zygote/embryo stage. That does not answer the question of whether the killing is justifiable or not, just that the use of the word "killing" is technically appropriate.

So with the issues of what killing is, and the capacities and type of an in-utero human being cleared up (the former being irrelevant and the latter being fundamentally uniform), the next question is: "Does a human only have the right to not be killed after a certain point of their in-utero development, or instead, only after birth?" It's clearly wrong to kill a baby after she or he is born. Yet, a six month-old in-utero baby is also clearly a baby girl or boy, since if they are born prematurely at that point they are recognized as a baby. So, killing a baby at six months or later of development is clearly wrong too. But what about at five months? 4? 2? 1? When can we be certain that the killing is not of another individual? In other words. when does a developing human (i.e. zygote/embryo/fetus) become an individual, and when, if ever, is the woman justified in making the choice to kill that developing human?

I know for many of you of a progressive/liberal mindset taking such a "hard-line" perspective on abortion will seem unreasonable at first. Perhaps you agree that abortion past the first trimester of development is wrong, but that if it's done more quickly, say in the first 2 - 4 weeks, then "it's just a tiny bunch of cells," so it's not really hurting anyone. I understand that perspective, I really do, and it has been very tempting for me to revert back to that perspective. But if we are going to have a completely rational and consistent morality, then this perspective does not work; there is no way to show without a doubt that even very early stage abortion is not the murder of a human being. And so, a sound and consistent morality errs in favor of not committing murder when that is a possibility, rather than going ahead with it because of concerns of a lesser moral value than the right to life. I admit the conclusion can seem harsh, but it's not really harsh, it's overall compassionate.


Now, if a women is certain that prior to some point in time, e.g. one month, the embryo is definitely not a person, then I can see why that could be a reasonable choice to make if the woman does not want to be pregnant, but I don't see what that certainty is based on, even pro-abortion people say it is uncertain. So I am forced to follow the principle that uncertainty is not a sound basis for the action of potential murder. But again if you are certain, then okay, but I have yet to hear a good explanation of that certainty. I don't see the specific facts and reasoning that can lead to such certainty, and it doesn't seem like it can ever be scientifically verified. Therefore I find that such certainty, expressed as "The zygote/embryo is just a bunch of cells," as more a guess than a scientific fact.  And so that forces me as a moral agent to err on the side of caution.  If somehow someday someone proves without any doubt that at a certain point a developing human is definitely not an individual, then I suppose I would then revert to my past position on abortion, adding specific orientation around that scientifically exact information.  But again, I don't see how that will ever be possible.

This leads us to Lie #2.

Lie #2: "Abortions are a matter of the personal choice of the woman."


In order for a choice to be just "personal," as the word personal is meant in the above statement, it can't involve the life or death of someone else. So the question is when, if ever, during the unborn baby's development, is the choice to "terminate the pregnancy" a personal choice, and when is it not. A "woman's right to choose" is concerning the right to choose to abort/kill a human zygote/fetus/embryo/baby, so the moral question is about when this killing, if ever, is morally acceptable. Feminism is about equal rights, but men don't have the right to kill people (unless out of self-defense), so abortion really isn't about equal rights with men, since a woman can't equally have a right that men don't also have; so, in fact one could argue instead that not having the moral right to have an abortion is actually maintaining equality of the sexes in that respect. This is not just a theoretical point; there have been fathers that wanted to raise the baby, but the mother decided to abort/kill the baby anyway, she had a right to do something that he didn't, she had a "license to kill" that he didn't have, and he also didn't have any legal means to stop its use; the system is actually granting the woman more rights than the man in this case.

Also concerning women, we can consider the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are what she will have to deal with, not the man, and I know it can be easy to think that a new human at the zygote stage is not really a person yet, so killing that zygote is harmless. But how can we be certain that it is? In fact, as doctors, scientists and activists on both side of the issue agree, we can't ever be certain. And so, if there is no certainty about when consciousness/individuality really begins, then picking any moment after conception is actually an arbitrary choice. If we really think about it carefully, saying "Well, the first few weeks is fine," doesn't have any scientific basis. And if it doesn't have a scientific basis, and is concerning possible homicide, then we shouldn't be flippant with our moral conclusions, as I used to be. Doing so is a "slippery slope" that, because of the ambiguity, will inevitably be misused (and expanded, as it has with the practice of euthanasia). If it's unclear when killing an embryo is really killing an individual, isn't it very likely that those that kill embryos of various ages will certainly guess wrong at times? Wouldn't then the rational moral stance be to not take that chance in the first place?

I've heard pro-abortion advocates say that "we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights." Yet how does this logic work? Because the baby may or not be a baby, the benefit of the doubt goes to the person that wants to kill who may be a baby? This pro-abortion argument says that because it is uncertain, then the choice should go to the woman, who is certainly a human being, but this argument doesn't make sense to me. A premise is an idea on which an argument is based, and the premise here is that an undisputed human can do whatever they like to another human of disputed or unclear existence. But if this premise were acceptable, then it would be okay for a person to bomb a house that may have people in it, if it would be convenient for the person doing the demolition. That's clearly wrong. Uncertainty does not weigh in the favor of the person wishing to destroy, it weighs in favor of those who may be killed in that destruction. The uncertainty of when an individual is really an individual, in the context of abortion, should logically go in favor of the baby; the idea that the uncertainty of life's presence is a valid justification for violence that may kill someone, is not a sound premise. What is a sound premise, or more accurately to say here now, a sound principle, is that when it is unclear as to whether you might kill someone or not, you should err on the side of caution and not do what might kill someone; I will hereafter refer to that sound principle concerning uncertainty in this essay as the Uncertainty Principle (UP), of course not to be confused here with the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics. The UP is fundamentally the same as the Non-Aggression Principle, a principle used in a lot of writing and discussion concerning personal and social ethics, and is central to my own philosophical world-view.

The most basic human right is the Right to Life, i.e. the right to not be murdered. The question of whether abortion is acceptable or not is fundamentally a question of whether, after we accept the UP, there are any other possible justifications to kill that would override the UP.  Now let's look at scenarios that may override the UP; to do so they would have to have more moral weight than the UP itself.

Of course, pregnancy and childbirth can be very difficult (the latter especially in western hospitals with their insane birth protocols that unnecessarily stress and harm both mother and baby). The developing baby is of course dependent on the mother's body for survival (at least during the through the first and second trimesters, if not into the third), through the automatic (and incredible) processes designed into human biology.
Also the pregnancy may have been  unplanned (e.g. a broken condom, or the result of a rape). Another possibility is that the mother is very poor, and does not think she can afford to raise the baby.  But we need to analyze the details here, to see if there is sound principles and reasoning that support the idea that any of those scenarios qualify as a good excuses to take away the future of someone who is innocent of any wrong-doing.

Addressing each of these possible excuses/justifications in turn, firstly the baby can not be blamed for being initially dependent on the woman's body, and there are many cases wherein a non-voluntary dependency may manifest between two individuals, but in none of those scenarios is the murder of the dependent justifiable just because of their dependency.  Being unplanned because lack of caution during sex or because of birth control that didn't work, does not have moral power to override the UP.  As for the possible discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth, those again are not the fault of the baby, and again can't be said to have more moral weight than the possible killing an innocent human being. As for poverty, if the woman can find no support to help raise the baby (though support does exist for this very thing in many places), she could still put the baby up for adoption, so that doesn't override the UP either.  Uncompromising reasoning like this can seem "harsh," but that is that uncompromising nature is actually very beneficial, it cuts through emotions, lies, and irrationality, and gives us sound rational truth, for those that really want to know.  And concerning such a morally heavy issue as abortion, we should want to know, even if the conclusions go against our previous position on the issue, even if it will result in many negative reactions from others.

The final possible excuse/justification in the group, rape, is more complicated, and needs deeper analysis.  I know bringing up rape is very "triggering;" of course rape is horrible and wrong, and so just the word alone can incite very strong negative emotions, especially by women who get upset and say it is inappropriate for a man to even discuss the issue in the first place (as if moral issues that involve women are somehow wrong for men to even contemplate or write about). The problem with negative emotions is that they diminish critical thinking ability. It's easy to just say "Well abortion should be allowed in the case of rape," as I used to say too, but what is the reasoning behind that exactly? Why, exactly, is that a valid statement? When someone gives more explanation, they usually say something like "The woman shouldn't be forced to go through with a pregnancy that she doesn't want to have, especially if it was the result of a rape." I agree that the woman shouldn't be forced to do anything, it's her choice as to what to do. But I am saying we should investigate the morality of that choice, to make sure it really is sound, to make sure that the choice is based on truth, rationality and kindness, rather than lies, irrationality and unkindness. To follow my reasoning here you have to have already understood my previous reasoning on the issue of uncertainty of person-hood concerning the in-utero zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. So not suddenly ignoring the UP in the context of rape, but maintaining it as a part of the moral investigation, we can then move forward to whether abortion is morally justifiable in the context of rape. Please try to follow this reasoning, I imagine negative thoughts and emotions may be distracting you at this point. If it's not okay to kill a possible human (the UP), does the UP have an exception in the context of a rape? If we are to say that it is okay to kill a possible human if the woman was harmed by another human, what is the new premise in operation there? That new premise would be: "The right to life of a possible human is overridden by the violent act of another person." But that is not a sound moral premise. I can't blow up a house that may or may not have humans within it (the UP), because someone else did something violent to me.  The violence of someone else does not make for a valid exception to the UP.  Two wrongs do not make a right; if abortion is immoral, then the immoral act of rape doesn't somehow make the former moral.  This is actually the same perspective of women who were raped and decided to not have an abortion.  In fact, as that article I just linked to states: "Statistics about rape victims and abortion are surprising to many people. There have been two studies done about pregnant rape victims. In each study, 70% of the women chose to keep their babies. This defies the stereotype that all raped women want abortions."   Here is another good quote on the topic from a different article:

"Nobody should minimize or ignore the pain of a rape victim. We want to show her love. Will an abortion help her? First of all, the abortion will not un-rape the woman. The tragedy has happened and nothing can change the past. Second, abortion brings a trauma of its own. To see abortion as a magic wand that brings relief but no pain is to ignore the pain of countless women who suffer for years and decades after abortion. Such groups as WEBA (Women Exploited By Abortion), American Victims of Abortion, and Victims of Choice provide ample proof that abortion hurts women. I know of women who have been raped and then had abortions, and are in counseling not for the rape but for the abortion! In rape, the trauma is "Someone hurt me." In abortion, the trauma is "I hurt and killed someone else -- my child." That brings even more grief.

Why is rape wrong? Because someone attacks the body of an innocent person. Why is abortion wrong? Because someone attacks the body of an innocent person. That is why both rape and abortion should be rejected.

... Furthermore, most rape victims who become pregnant want to keep their babies. The pressure to abort often comes from someone else. Of all the abortions performed in America, fewer than 1% are because of rape."


Abortion can be, and often is (as is well documented), a very traumatic experience for women, if not immediately, then afterward.  So adding another possible trauma to the trauma of rape would be doubly harmful to the woman, yet the trauma of abortion is something I've never heard pro-abortion "pro-women" people talk about, as if it doesn't happen a lot, when it definitely does.  So this is certainly not just an issue that involves harming/killing the developing human, it can and does harm the woman in severe ways too.  The idea that abortion is "empowering" to women is oftentimes (if not always) untrue, as the many women in counseling for their abortions can testify, and it is probably not empowering at all on a spiritual level either; I believe it is always the complete opposite on that level.  Although the knee-jerk visceral emotional reaction would have us agree that rape should be an exception for abortion, after analyzing all the details, I can no longer concur.  As usual, the devil can be in the details that are ignored.

It's really important to understand what the premise is behind a statement, because if you accept the statement you also accept the premise, and if that premise is irrational and immoral, it can be (and undoubtedly will be) utilized in other destructive ways, on a personal and global scale (the "slippery slope" we should be careful to avoid).  Slippery slopes, i.e. an exception that leads to more and more exceptions that are increasingly destructive, is a phenomenon that happens often, despite those that absurdly discount it as a "fallacy."  For an example of this phenomenon occurring, you can listen to this excellent podcast episode on what happened recently concerning the acceptance of euthanasia in the USA.  On a different level, an anecdote that I find relevant as well is that wherein someone is asking the devil about his "toolbox" that he uses against humanity, and discovers that his most used tool was actually an innocuous seeming wedge.

The wedge of an exception to a rule, including the fundamental rule "Thou shall not kill," will undoubtedly be exploited by dishonest or misguided people, and expanded over time, so that it occurs more and more. For example, this is what we observe with the supposed exceptions to the rule that preemptive attack is wrong, as I talked about in my post on police brutality.

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion, was actually centered on the rape argument. Norma McCorvey, the real name of "Jane Roe," claimed that she had been raped and so wanted an abortion, but it was illegal then in Texas, and so district attorney Wade was defending that law.  Years later she actually admitted that the rape story was false, made up in order to garner sympathy for the pro-abortion cause. (But she never actually had the abortion, she gave the baby up for adoption).

The justification of rape was the original wedge that was used for abortion to be acceptable, but immediately the door of acceptable justifications opened much wider, actually it became wide-open, a woman didn't have to justify the abortion at all.  Since then, in a survey of women who had an abortion, most gave the reasons of "I wasn't ready," "I couldn't afford to raise a baby," and "I'm done having children."  So the wedge of one reason, seemingly justifiable, served as the opening for other reasons that are not as persuasive at all.  As I explained in police brutality post, this is the same problem with the premise of justifiable preemptive attack: when we accept the seemingly reasonable (e.g. a ticket for jaywalking) then we open the door for more and more preemptive attacks, less and less reasonable (e.g. military operations that kill thousands of innocent people). And like with the impossible quest to find a type of justifiable preemptive attack, trying to find a justifiable abortion turns up morally empty, because they are ultimately all unreasonable/immoral justifications, there are in fact no sound exceptions whatsoever.  Life and ethics are made to be more complicated than they are sometimes; slavery is always wrong, as is aggression. The problem is people accept exceptions for slavery and aggression, and/or irrationally exclude the act they're condoning from those categories.  Preemptive attack is really just aggression, and aggression is always wrong.  Abortion advocates say that abortion is not an act of aggression, even though it clearly is past the first trimester of pregnancy, and before that time, can't be conclusively said to not still be aggression/violence.

So to return to Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey later became an outspoken opponent of abortion and actually tried to get her case reversed, but was ignored by the court. "I'm 100 percent pro-life. I don't believe in abortion even in an extreme situation. If the woman is impregnated by a rapist, it's still a child. You're not to act as your own God," she told The Associated Press in 1998.  She deeply regretted the consequences of her participation in that trial (though the details of her involvement, and lack thereof, show that she was more being used to push forward an agenda than to be helped personally, in what could rightly be called a "show trial.")  Let's focus on a specific real-life consequence of that trial based on a lie about being raped: abortions well past the first trimester were said to be acceptable, and so countless indisputable babies were killed in horrific ways.  That's not my opinion, that's what happened, and is still happening.  Five to seven month in-utero babies were killed because of ambiguity over right and wrong on a "wedge" scenario.  This is the same fundamental problem humanity has faced from the beginning, namely people following seemingly reasonable lies about what's good and evil, and then "fall" into wickedness, even to the extent of killing babies. 

Again I'm not advocating forcing a woman to do anything, but I am advocating sound critical thinking, I am advocating consistent and rational ethics, because without that we just keep putting wedges in the door for the devil to wreck more and more havoc in the world. In fact, the acceptance of abortion has probably already acted as such a wedge, beyond the harm done to countless millions of unborn babies. It's likely been a factor in other acts of violence, seemingly completely unrelated; the lack of respect for the right to life of the baby being an influence, whether consciously or subconsciously, on the violent person's own lack of respect for the life others they take away. (The same has occurred with the acceptance of the Darwinian "pond-scum" theory on human origins, as I documented in my Front-Line Thought post on the topic, the theory directly influencing people to kill others because of the lack of respect that theory engendered in their minds toward others).

Returning to Lie #2, another reason abortion is not a "personal choice" is because it involves taking away the future of another individual. A murder of a child or an adult is wrong because you're taking away their future life as a human. The same holds true for the killing of an zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn baby. This "future-like-ours" argument holds true post-birth and pre-birth. The fact that an in-utero human being in an early stage of development has a future ahead is not debatable like the issue of personhood is. So even if you don't find the issue of possible personhood to be a problem for abortion, then this problem of eliminating a human being's future remains as a moral problem.  I will now give another quote that discusses this particular argument, explains the severity of the act of taking away a human's future, and that points to what few justifications for it might possibly exist:

"[T]his value of a future-like-ours argument, if sound, shows only that abortion is prima facie wrong, not that it is wrong in any and all circumstances. Since the loss of the future to a standard fetus, if killed, is, however, at least as great a loss as the of the future to a standard adult human being who is killed, abortion, like ordinary killing, could be justified only by the most compelling reasons. The loss of one's life is almost the greatest misfortune that could happen to one. Presumably abortion could be justified in some circumstances, only if the loss consequent on failing to abort would be at least as great. Accordingly, morally permissible abortions will be rare indeed, unless, perhaps, they occur so early in pregnancy that a fetus is not yet definitely an individual. Hence this argument should be taken as showing that abortion is presumptively very seriously wrong, where the presumption is very strong--as strong as the presumption that killing another adult human being is wrong." - "Why Abortion is Immoral," by Don Marquis, (The Journal of Philosophy, vol 86, 1989).

The article actually ends there with those last words, the author leaving the question of these possible morally permissible abortions unanswered. So I will complete the analysis that he came close to completing but did not. For the consequence to not abort to be at least as great as taking away a human future, this would have to involve someone else losing their life, namely the mother. But as I've already covered, abortion is never actually necessary in order to preserve the life of the mother. This leaves the other possibility left by that author, that if perhaps the abortion occurs so early in pregnancy that a fetus is not yet definitely an individual. But this too I have analyzed, and after doing so concluded that this certainty of when a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is "definitely" an individual does not exist, so it can't be used as a justification for abortion either (the UP). So once again, there are no other possibilities left; through a process of elimination we are left with abortion being an immoral act.

This is especially apparent with unborn babies past a month of development, who have been stabbed, crushed, or torn to pieces until they are dead and thrown away (or, even worse, their body parts used for profit, a documented fact). Those actions are hidden under the name "abortion," but this actually does not change the horror of it; it's actually one of the most sadistic thing imaginable if it was done after birth, and it doesn't somehow magically become not sadistic if it takes place before birth. The extremely gory and sad details of abortions (especially late-term ones) are beyond horrible and should be condoned by no one but understood by everyone. Again, murder is clearly not just a personal choice, because it involves the life and death of another person (or animal).  A new baby is not a woman's enemy; she or he is a completely innocent individual that should not be killed because of the mistakes of other humans; punishing innocent people for the sins of others is another form of false morality, it's another form of the bunk Biblical "inherited sin" idea that was pushed by the so-called "saint" Paul.  (more on that here: https://frontlinethought.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-false-apostle-paul.html)

Lie #3: "Abortions are necessary to protect the health and safety of women."

I am grateful to have discovered an excellent article by Matt Walsh that explains exactly why that's never actually true, and since I can't say it better, I'll quote from the article here, but I highly recommend reading the entire article.

"[A]bortion has never saved a life. It has only destroyed lives. Abortion is, by definition, the destruction of human life. Despite the propaganda you hear from the abortion industry, Abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. Abortion is the direct killing of an unborn child. There is never a scenario, and never could be a scenario, where a woman’s life will be saved by directly killing her child. In an abortion, a child is stabbed, poisoned, decapitated, or ripped to shreds. No mother has ever derived a physical benefit from her unborn son or daughter being torn apart or stabbed in the skull. Many women — in fact, all — have suffered physical, emotional, or psychological trauma because of abortion, but none have ever been spared such trauma through it.

As the over 1,000 obstetricians, neonatologists, pediatricians, and midwives who signed the DublinDeclaration have testified, there is never any medical justification for abortion. Now, it may indeed be necessary in some rare circumstances to deliver a baby early in order to save the mother. But the additional step of killing the child is not necessary, even if the child ultimately does not survive outside the womb. ... Unfortunately, there are cases where an unborn child has to be delivered so early that he most likely will not survive. This is tragic and terrible, but it’s not an abortion. If labor is induced because both mother and child will die otherwise, and the child dies anyway despite every effort to save him, an abortion has not occurred. The intention was not to directly take life but to save it. If those efforts fail, the doctors no more “aborted” the child than they abort a patient who dies during emergency heart surgery. Abortion has never saved a life. It is not designed to. It is designed, instead, to preserve the lifestyle of the mother."


Additionally, pro-abortion advocates say if there weren't doctors to do abortions, then more women would die from non-professional procedure; this argument is once again skipping past the UP, and says that if women couldn't pay doctors to kill the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby in their womb, then they might get hurt or die for paying someone else to kill, or get hurt if they killed the baby themselves. I know this is another emotionally triggering scenario, but once again we have to know what premise is in operation behind a statement, rather than just blurt out "Doctor access is a right!" without keeping the debate within the context of abortion (Doctor access to what, exactly?), and without unearthing what that underlying premise is, just looking at the situation at a surface level. The problem with the doctor-access to abortion argument is, that by that logic, one could argue that it's okay to hire a professional hit-man to kill someone (or possibly someone, e.g. "I'm not sure if that's him or not, but shoot anyway"), because if you had to do it yourself, you might hurt yourself in the attempt. If you're killing someone and get hurt in the process, the latter is not the main issue at hand; you shouldn't ever be killing anyone, or possibly anyone, in the first place (unless it's completely unavoidable in self-defense).

So, these final possible justifications for abortion concerning health and well-being, don't hold up to scrutiny either.

~~~

Pro-abortion advocates like to divert from the above facts and reasoning, and instead focus on religious fundamentalism, "zealots," "extremism." [Not coincidentally, those that say we shouldn't murder animals unnecessarily are also regularly called "zealots" and "extremists."] Going on about the religious beliefs of people is a distraction from the issue at hand, the killing of babies. If the topic is the morality of abortion, one should stay on that issue rather than diverting from it constantly. Rather than diversion, we need to zero-in on some key logic, the logic based on an understanding of the aforementioned three main lies.

In conclusion, what it comes down to for me is the Non-Aggression Principle (and the related UP), coupled with the moral weight of taking away a human's future.  I now don't think it is right to think, as I used to, that pregnancy is "no big deal" because there's this "fix" of abortion that we can turn to without batting an eyelash. I think this is part of the reason why some conservative Christians promote having no sex until marriage so much, to avoid the possibility of a woman ever having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place; but I don't agree that marriage (especially State-sanctioned marriage) is the only acceptable time for a man and woman to have consensual sex, nor do I agree that State laws against abortion are the answer. I do agree with the conservatives though that abortion is morally wrong, not because of what a church told me, but because of what the truth of the matter is, especially the truth on the other side of the main three lies I highlight in this essay. The devil, as usual, is in the details, details that should not be overlooked no matter how unpopular or non-"progressive" it is to point them out.

Again, I am not advocating a woman be forced to do anything, especially by the State, because statism is an ideology of coercion and slavery that is not legitimate. The answer is not with State laws against abortion (relying on an evil institution as our defense against evil in the world), the answer is in individuals knowing the truth and making moral choices based on that truth. Most people wouldn't make evil choices if they knew the choice was evil, and that's why, I believe, the aforementioned spirit of confusion has come so strong on people concerning this issue (and human carnism), because lack of moral clarity on it will lead to extreme harm being committed, it will lead to a more evil world, and the devil is certainly pleased with that. Lies and propaganda remain the devil's main tool for misleading humanity, because if we all had a solid morality and understanding of the truth he couldn't maintain his dominant influence. Whether someone thinks talk of the devil is just superstition or not, people that do want to do the right thing need to get their ethical reasoning straight and consistent, in order to move away from lies that will mislead them into supporting and committing immoral actions.

Friday, July 7, 2017

Human & Animal Domestication: A Shared Evil Foundation

by Colin Denny Donoghue

[revised July 28th, 2017]

There is truth to the idea that beliefs create our reality, for better or worse; thankfully the modern vegan movement is strongly challenging a common and long-standing belief that has definitely had effects for the worse. This belief, that the murder and enslavement of animals by humans is a beneficial and necessary element to our existence on the Earth, is a lie. The domestication & exploitation of animals is actually a leading cause of health and environmental damage today. If you're already a vegan you are probably already aware of this, but something you may not have considered is whether humans have also been domesticated, and whether this domestication has been the other root cause of massive violence, suffering and destruction in our world. In this short essay I'm going to share a radical perspective on how the false beliefs on the benefits of animal domestication relate to the belief in the goodness of a human social-system, which I will argue equates to a system of human domestication, that is just as unprincipled and destructive as animal domestication has been.

The foundational ethic of veganism is that violence and slavery are bad. Simple and true. Yet many people would say that concerning animal domestication, confinement and murder, this violence and slavery is not really violence and slavery, because it is “necessary and natural behavior;” “we are simply acting out our natural part as omnivores in this ecosystem.” A seemingly rational perspective at first, if you're unfamiliar with certain facts, like: a) eating animal products is not necessary for optimum health, b) human physiology and instinct match that of an herbivore, and c) this activity is certainly not harmonious with the rest of Nature, being a leading cause of desertification, deforestation and climate change. And so, truth be told, that seemingly rational perspective is actually ignorant and uncaring nonsense. The massive violence toward and enslavement of animals for food and beverage products is completely unjustifiable and unethical. The same goes for animal testing, the fur and leather industries, etc.. i.e. for all animal products and exploitation. All of it isn't necessary for human survival or betterment, yet many still try to justify this human behavior operating on the belief that it is “a necessary evil.” The interesting thing I'd like to point out is that is the exact same belief that is used to defend and uphold human domestication. One often hears of how governance is “a necessary evil,” and that social-systems may be very faulty, but things would be worse without them (the fear thy neighbor doctrine). We are indoctrinated with the belief that being domesticated is for our own good, and that being forced to pay taxes is not really force, but a service by “superior authorities” (to use the language of the false apostle of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus, who has instilled this belief in billions of people who believe his words come directly from the Creator). Hence most people believe having to earn money for survival rather than live naturally is not really enslavement, but a “natural and necessary part of human existence.” Just like with anti-veganism argumentation, we are told there are valid exceptions to the baseline moral rule against aggression and involuntary servitude. But is that belief really true? An informed vegan knows it isn't true concerning the treatment of other species by humans--could it also be true concerning human-to-human relations? To find the answer lets return to the animal realm and look at what makes up the phenomenon of animal domestication.

Domesticated animals are animals whose wild ancestors were taken from their natural habitat and forcibly made (through trapping, confinement, beatings and breeding) to change their wild characteristics for domesticated ones whereby they become dependent on humans (humans now deemed their “owners”), for various human uses (like companionship, hunting wild animals, or sources of meat and milk); in this process these animals mostly lose their ability to survive in the wild. It's defined as the process wherein humans “tame” animals or “cultivate them for human use.” So with this in mind, consider: Have we been tamed into consumers rather than producers? Are we being cultivated for the use and profit of someone else? Have we been made dependent on others who “own” us? Another way to contemplate this is: Would you consider yourself a free human on the Earth? Can you do things natural to humans, like forage for food, plant seeds, build a shelter, etc., without other humans putting demands on you? Perhaps some of you would respond with something like: “Well, I have a small garden in my backyard, I went on a foraging walk through the woods last weekend with some friends, and I built a great tree house for my kids.” Well, if that is the case, that's great, you're living better than many people nowadays; but to prove my point, let's say such a fortunate person that responded in this way is actually typical of most humans on the planet. And let's complete this lucky ultra-green personality by having them also be able to walk to work, get their food from farmer's markets, and buy organic fair-trade clothing and various other nice natural products at an upscale natural supermarket. Again, this is economically not a possibility for most people in the world, but what I'm getting at is that even the ideal of what we can achieve in modern industrial society is still compromised, the person is still unable to live a truly independent and natural life wherein they could have all those good things for free, produced in natural (and autonomous) homestead communities. Lets look a bit deeper into this imaginary “ideal” person's life. That garden they mentioned, can they grow enough food for their family to live off of? Can they just do natural homesteading work and enjoy other creative and spiritual pursuits with the rest of their free time? Unless they are a millionaire, they'd probably respond with something like: “Well, no, I have to go to work of course to pay the mortgage, property taxes, school for my kids, utilities and hospital bills and so on, and that doesn’t leave me much time to do gardening, artwork, or communing with Nature and the Creator.” And that foraging walk, could they have foraged enough to provide meals for their family as people did centuries ago? Or is that wilderness area under threat of (or already) contaminated and lessened in size by government-backed corporatization/industrialization? Since natural areas have been mostly decimated by such action, wild foraging nowadays for most people is symbolic, something neat to do, but no longer a viable way of survival (veganic homesteading however, is still viable). And that tree house, will their children be able to renovate it for their own children? One might reply, “Well that depends on whether we still live here, we may have to sell the country house and move to an apartment in the city actually, since my partner just got laid-off at work.”

Many other examples of the compromised-by-domestication-life could be given, but they all point to the same conclusion: we are not truly free and natural humans while subject to the demands of social-systems (mainly land & water costs, and property taxes), we are forced to have a relationship with money rather than the Earth and each other in a pure way, i.e. we have been domesticated. The effects of this have been and continue to be very destructive, just as with animal domestication, and so both should be brought to an end (ideally through voluntary communities of sovereign veganic homesteads). Another parallel to consider: dogs & cats get all kinds of illnesses and attract fleas & ticks so much because Nature is rejecting them as a foreign body, like an ecological immune system. Could we being seeing the same with domesticated humans who have lost their proper ecological role here on Earth?

Some may find the call to end human domestication “too extreme,” or “too different from tradition.”  But aren't those the same principle-lacking common rebuttals to the call for veganism?  Aren't the principled reasons for ending both human and animal domestication exactly the same?

Both forms of domestication are based on violence, slavery, and the false beliefs that “It is necessary for the greater good that this control and domination exists.” The truth is both forms of domestication constitute an abusive relationship that cannot be rationally justified. Both disrupt ecological, social and personal balance; both cause toxic environments and toxic relationships; both need to end. The way that can be achieved is for people to claim their natural birthright of their fair share of water and land (about two arable acres per individual or small family), and establish sovereign veganic homesteads, making up voluntary vegan anarchist (a.k.a. veganarchist) communities.

Maybe you still have hopes of really principled/saintly/benevolent/angelic government that will bring peace, justice and ecological harmony to the world. If so, I understand, I used to think that way too; but I was mistaken back then, and so are you now if you're thinking that way. If you observe and analyze our reality (and all of history) more carefully and objectively, the truth is inescapable: social-systems have been a complete disaster for humanity, usually based on the lie of “representation.” True representative governance is actually an impossibility, you can only represent yourself in reality; governments always force the will of a few (who tend to be the power and wealth-crazed) on the masses. Furthermore, nations-states, on top of all the destruction they visibly bring (war, for example) are by their very existence unprincipled; they forcibly disconnect us from the Earth which is our birthright as humans, irrespective of whatever country we are told we were born into (because of some lines drawn on a map one day by politicians). Nation-states are truly nothing more than human farms, operating under the guise of “advanced civilization.” What good exists within them (like wonderful Arts from different cultures) exist despite of them, not because of them (in fact cultural diversity is decreasing globally for more of a corporate/globalist mono-culture spread by social-systems).

So coming full circle, we can see that animal domestication, which is the vehicle for the most massive violence most humans participate in, was an unprincipled mistake by humanity, and until they end that practice it is unlikely they will escape their own domestication. Until humans acknowledge the domination they condone and participate in, (namely the exploitation and violence towards animals that's unnecessary and unjustifiable), it is unlikely that they will recognize and resist the same towards themselves. Domestication was founded on unethical actions, and so it keeps producing karmic disturbances, and will never stop doing so. The solution is clear: end the breeding and increase the utilization of domestic animal sanctuaries. Animal sanctuaries are a win-win; they get the disturbances out of our homes, neighborhoods and communities, while giving the animal a more enjoyable place to be than on the street or in a city animal shelter. Likewise the means to end our own domestication/slavery is also clear: sovereign veganic homesteads, making up voluntary gift-economy communities.

Unnatural and unprincipled social norms based on violence and slavery (towards other humans and animals) is what's really “too extreme,” and all you have to do is note all the destructive and disturbing everyday events in the world happening now, and throughout “civilized” history, to see the truth of that. The modern “liberal” compromise with our own domestication, deemed by many as the most reasonable perspective to have, is just as intellectually and morally flawed as the majority's current view on the compromise of “humane” domestication and slaughter of animals. The “at least it's not Hitler” political stance and “veganish” lifestyle both demonstrate lacking human intelligence and morality, not the advanced and well-educated perspective those adherents believe they have. Is occasional rape, murder or slavery ever okay? News-flash: It never is. Veganarchism will be the moral baseline for humanity if it ever can wake up from the delusion, no doubt planted by the Devil himself, that there are “necessary evils” in the world. You don't actually have to support and participate in slavery and murder; a “crazy extremist” idea, I know, I know... Might as well forget about all this and just go and see another new movie (<cough> entertainment vehicle for propaganda <cough>) right? It's not like morality actually matters, or that you can make any difference anyway right?

Monday, May 1, 2017

The False Apostle Paul



"Christianity is being expounded by someone who never spent any extended time with Jesus, never trained under him, and whose writings are devoid of utterances of Jesus except a small unique aphorism and only one inaccurate quote from the Lord’s supper account. Other respected thinkers have been astonished by Paul’s lack of mentioning any lessons of Jesus. Albert Schweitzer once said: "Where possible, he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the ‘Our Father.’ Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord. A modern Christian scholar, Hans van Campenhausen, agrees this deficiency in Paul’s writings is a striking and glaring problem: "The most striking feature is that the words of the Lord, which must have been collected and handed on in the primitive community and elsewhere from the earliest days, played no, or at least no vital, part in Paul’s basic instruction of his churches." Peter’s point in the Clementine Homilies is likewise that Paul’s failure to teach what Jesus teaches is the clearest proof that Paul is not following Jesus. It is a point well-taken."

~ Jesus' Words Only or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas Del Tonto, p. 328-330


[updated October 19th, 2017]

This post will discuss the problems with the Biblical writings of the man called Paul, whose original name was Saul of Tarsus.  The more I research, observe the effects of, and contemplate his writings, the more I find that Paul (who I will refer to as Saul from now on) was indeed a false apostle (i.e. not a true follower of Jesus), who has very badly misled Christians for centuries.  In fact I see now that he was a master propagandist, he has managed to mislead billions of people over centuries with ideas that are so detrimental to one's well-being and the well-being of the world, that they actually deserve to be called satanic.  This will seem ridiculous at first to many Christians who have been taught by a church that Saul was a saint, and they will probably immediately think of many nice/good things Paul said; but what they need to wake up to is that, in classic propaganda fashion, he also said some things that were not just a little off, but so wrong that they overpower whatever good he also said, like deadly poison put in otherwise healthy food.  I'm speaking especially of his ideas of "Inherited Sin," "Easy Grace," and Blood-sacrifice Atonement, among other ideas that are the complete opposite of crucial truths humanity desperately needs.  These toxic ideas have become central in the minds of most Christians, and so, very unfortunately, these religious people believing in and following these toxic ideas have gone very far from the true Way that was taught by Jesus and the prophets, in fact they have joined Saul in opposing that true Way.  Most of the Christians I meet actually have their entire spiritual life centered in toxic teachings of Saul, the most critical things for salvation all corrupted by those teachings.  They don't see just how toxic those teachings are, and so they never support or have real revolutionary positive change in their lives. 

I will be highlighting some of the most major examples of Saul's toxic teachings, but if you delve into the resources below you will be shown many more.  The key thing to keep in mind is that if certain very destructive lies are sandwiched in with some good truths, the overall effect of ingesting it all-together will be harmful to you, just like a little bit of a very toxic poison in a healthy salad would be so.  The books, videos and websites listed below present this overwhelming evidence, and I will share more of my own perspective as well on why rejecting Saul's doctrines is such an important issue that needs much more clarity in the world. This is not an issue of an author making some minor mistakes, but overall his message remains good and true; the problem with Saul is that his teachings spread extremely destructive lies that have an overall very negative effect on humanity.  

Ingesting/following/accepting Saul's destructive lies leads one to be "loving and practicing lies" (Revelation 22:15) that prevent us from aligning with the will of the perfectly good Creator, and His/Her (?) representative, the man usually called by the name Jesus Christ.  Speaking of the name Jesus Christ, his original name is said to be "Yehoshua," or Joshua in English.  Others say "Yeshua" is correct too, I can't say with absolute certainty which is more accurate, but the point of not using the name Jesus Christ is that it's important to give some effort to use his real name out of respect for him, rather than a clear mistranslation.  "Christ" is Greek for "the anointed one," which meant a chosen person/king by God, specifically the Messiah/Savior when speaking of Yehoshua.  So altogether it would be more accurate to say "Yehoshua the Messiah" than to say Jesus Christ, but even more important than getting his name just right is getting his teachings right, and a crucial part of doing that is rejecting the opposing teachings of Saul. 
---

Before I discuss the writings of Saul further, it's first necessary to address the issue of the Bible being perfect, a.k.a. "Biblical inerrancy," the idea that everything in the Bible is "the Word of God," i.e. it's all accurate and inspired wisdom direct from the Creator, somehow avoiding any corruption or distortion through the centuries.  This must be dealt with first, because if you believe in Biblical inerrancy, you're never going to analyze the writings of Saul objectively.  Saul apparently anticipated this dynamic, and so he is also the one that said "all Scripture is inspired of God," of course meaning including his own writings; this is self-supporting propaganda, like a social-system that gives us the "givens" of needing to pay other humans to live on this planet, and needing "authorities" to keep us safe, to enable and justify their existence.  Whenever I point out the faults of Saul's writings to Christians, they usually point me to Saul's writing in 2 Timothy 3:16 wherein he says everything he says comes directly from God, as if that is a rational defense of his writings!  It's like saying "Well, it doesn't matter if he said things that are blasphemous, satanic or against the teachings of Yehoshua, because he also said everything he says is inspired of God."  Thinking everything he said must somehow be good, they change the meaning of those toxic teachings (or otherwise rationalize away the toxicity) so that it fits Saul's own claim of purity.  Beyond the illegitimacy of Biblical inerrancy being based on this dumbfoundingly amoral and unintelligent "Saul said so" rationale, this idea that everything in the Bible, which is available in hundreds of different versions, in hundreds of different languages, is the perfect teaching of the Creator, is irrational in multiple other respects as well, one being those hundreds of different versions, with no rational means by which to determine/declare which is the most, or only, correct one.  Another irrational element is that it ignores all of the history of the Bible, it ignores what Scripture was accepted by the Church, which was rejected, and why.  And in fact, it is a form of idol-worship, making a book written by men equal to the Most High.  Yes there is crucial wisdom still in the Bible that was certainly inspired by the Creator, but it is also certain that not all of it is true wisdom, and that other Scripture, like The Gospel of the Ebionites, contains crucial truth worthy of study as well. (By the way, "The Ebionites rejected the epistles of Paul of Tarsus, whom they regarded as an apostate from the Law.")  If you really believe in the perfect goodness of our Creator, and in the constant attacks by The Devil/Satan, to think that the Bible would somehow remain completely free from corruption is also not rational; of course it would be attacked/distorted/corrupted, because it did (and still does) contain crucial truth about our Creator, Yehoshua, ourselves, and the path to liberation from Satan's bondage.  Many believe, including myself, that the prophets and Yehoshua knew this corruption was going to happen; this may be in fact in large part why Yehoshua taught so much in parables, to preserve crucial wisdom for the future generations from "the lying pen of the scribes" (Jeremiah 8:8).  And, also ignored by Pauline Christians, John spoke directly about the possibility of people altering his writing in Revelation 22:18-19, so obviously he was not a believer in "biblical inerrancy" either.

Additionally repeatedly calling the Bible "the Word of God" distorts the truth about what/who that Word really is (Yehoshua, the "Word that became flesh," and the Holy Spirit).  Also the New Testament of course didn't exist at the time of Yehoshua, he never gave his stamp of approval to any translation.  Again, to think the most popular/official version of Scriptures has always been perfect and forever would be, just because, of all people, Saul of Tarsus said so, is irrational and a form of idol-worship.  The Bible is definitely worth daily study, but certain things Saul said in particular are so clearly false (e.g. all governments come from God and slaves obeying their masters are doing God's will!), and against what Yehoshua taught (e.g. as shown in part in the below image collection), that you really have to be in denial to ignore all of it, and many Christians are in denial because of their false beliefs, namely the false beliefs that a) the Bible is the completely perfect message from the Creator, and/or b) we can't discern what is true and what isn't within it, if some part isn't true then the whole Bible is worthless.

Problems with Saul's Teachings

Saul gave some key toxic teachings that have become fundamental to Christianity, all of which were not what Yehoshua taught, and are actually the opposite of what he taught.  In addition to the doctrines I'm about to expound on, Saul was also very pro-statism and pro-carnism, and, in case you never noticed, government and the violence of humans toward animals are, and have always been, the top sources of violence and slavery in the world.  Most of you reading this probably don't see the truth of this veganarchist philosophy yet though because of indoctrination/conditioning, which is perhaps the biggest indicator that the world is indeed mostly misled by the Devil, since advocating the end of all unnecessary slavery and violence, which is what veganarchism is fundamentally, should be a baseline morality for humanity, but in this backwards lie-believing world/society it's called "dangerous extremism."  Likewise in classic propagandist fashion, Saul actually calls the call to abstain from the murder of animals "a doctrine of demons," which is the exact opposite of the truth and is an example of projection, i.e. he his projecting his own behavior onto others, which is something toxic personalities always do.  It is in fact his teachings, like that you can't stop sinning, and that unnecessary murder and slavery are fine, that are the true doctrines of demons.  The Devil wants us to keep sinning and supporting sin, and that's exactly what Saul's propaganda supports.  Additionally Paul gives blanket endorsement to all governments of the world, saying that they all come from God, which is absurd and blasphemous.  If you are still believing in the "representation" and "overall goodness" of social-systems, and the "necessity" of consuming animal products, feel free to ignore this element like most people do, and move on to the following other points about Saul's teaching below.

What's important with this concerning Saul for me is that the more I analyze the teachings of Saul, the more evil I realize they are, in fact I can't imagine how they could be more evil, in that they impart maximum harm in content, and scope, through deceptiveness.  And what makes it so deceptive?  Like with any well-crafted propaganda, it uses the method of combining really crucial truth alongside very destructive lies, the former being the bait that gets you to swallow the hook of the latter.  I myself had a hard time seeing and accepting the truth about Saul because of the crucial truth he did say, particularly in verses like Ephesians 5:10-11, 15-17 and 2 Timothy 1:7, which are crucial truths by themselves.  But again one must remember the fundamental method of propaganda, and so such wonderful verses of crucial truth should be expected by someone who is also delivering extremely destructive lies to humanity, lies so destructive that the overall effect is evil, just as a hook ultimately kills the fish, even though the bait was good.  Additionally it is just irrational and unintelligent to ignore lies because they happen to be on the same page as truth.  So that all said, let's get into those very toxic lies Saul pushed on believers:
  • Saul said: We are irremediably imperfect because of "inherited sin" from Adam & Eve; this is also known as the "total depravity" doctrine, i.e. the idea that there is nothing good in you, you are actually a terrible being at your core.  Here is what Saul said exactly:  "For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out" (Romans 7:18).  I could write a whole book on just how toxic and evil this idea alone is; I hope to get the main important points across clearly to you below.  This toxic idea is usually adopted by Pauline Christians with the sentiment that it is good because "it keeps us humble," i.e. avoiding pride by very regularly saying and praying that we're imperfect.  And they do often mention this idea, it's practically a mantra for them, included in almost every prayer!  This toxic and blasphemous idea actually corrupts the prayer.  Yes it's true that pride is not good, but you don't have to believe in some irreparable genetic and moral flaw in order to not be prideful; "inherited-sin" is an idea that, I hope you will realize, is actually satanic poison to your mind.  And this poison has spread beyond Pauline Christians, it's become a belief for believers and non-believers alike, the latter often repeating the similar mantras "I'm only human" and "Nobody's perfect," the implication being the same, that humans are inherently flawed.  Yehoshua called us to be perfect like our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), and so to say we can't do that is blasphemy against Yehoshua, and the Creator who directed him, who, don't forget, made us in His image (Genesis 1:27).  Yehoshua came to set the captives of sin free, through teaching them the way out of that bondage, namely the Greatest Commandments (read Matthew 22:36-40). Any person that tells you that you can't become free from sin is in direct opposition to Yehoshua, whether they realize it or not.  This idea of "inherent imperfection," that there is "nothing good in us," that "our inherent nature is sinful," is blasphemous too because it suggests that the Creator created evil (just as the Old Testament often seems to say, due to the same name, YHWH, being used both for the Creator and for Satan), which is a completely satanic idea; remember Satan was the accuser of God from the very beginning, accusing Him of doing evil when He had not done so.  (Which is the same behavior of toxic/possessed people to this day, who slander good people while supporting bad people). 

    Saul/Paul's teaching of "inherited sin," which most Christians translate to the extremely self-destructive belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, completely contradicts that we were made in the image of the perfectly good Creator.  "Inherited sin" doctrine is false and blasphemous, saying that each baby is inherently flawed, that the Creator is making evil in the world, and that the Creator is unjust, putting the blame on children for the sins of their parents. (This is also plainly refuted in Ezekiel 18:20).  And since who we are is fundamentally a Holy Spirit made in God's image, "inherited sin" doctrine is also blasphemy against this Holy Spirit, and Jesus said that was an unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31 & Mark 3:29).  We can see the truth of that being "unforgivable" in that when we are believing in the lie of "inherited sin" we can never follow the Greatest Commandments and align with God's will and grace fully, because we don't believe we can do it (as Saul/Paul also taught wrongly, the Commandments are just there to show our imperfection that we can't overcome).  Inherited-sin doctrine sabotages (and ignores) Jesus' call to be perfect whereby we can receive the Creator's full forgiveness and grace.  Those who believe the lie that they can't stop sinning never will stop sinning, because of that belief/self-fulfilling prophecy.  Hence Saul can say other good and true things alongside this critically destructive lie, but the overall effect is evil, the overall effect is sabotaging your salvation.  While we are still "loving and practicing the lie" of inherited-sin, we are kept "outside the gates."

    It's crucial to understand that to believe this lie about ourselves is against healthy self-love, which is integral to the Greatest Commandments of Yehoshua.  And the self-love of the Greatest Commandments is absolutely necessary to fulfill the Creator's calling for us, to fulfill His opportunities of grace (Kairos Moments) given to all of us, because those Divine opportunities require courage and boldness from us (Hebrews 4:16, Matthew 14:27 & Mark 6:50); and guess who tends to always lack courage and boldness?  Those that believe the lie that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, just as Saul taught them; therefore believing in Saul's teaching completely sabotages the Creator's grace, and the Devil must certainly be very happy with that.

    Additionally this doctrine is just clearly false and irrational on a common-sense basis: If you can follow the Greatest Commandments perfectly for 10 minutes, than why not for 1 hour?  And if for 1 hour, why not 5 hours?  One whole day?  When I bring this point up to Pauline Christians they have no real response, and just usually revert back to why pride is a bad thing.  The clear falsity and irrationality of "inherited sin/irreparable defect" is apparent too whenever we look at a newborn infant, their inherent innocence and goodness is clear as day; it is only with time, and the abuse and lies that usually come with it here in this satanically-influenced world, that that innocence and goodness is lost and corrupted.
  • Saul said: Our sins are wiped clean by the blood-sacrifice of the death of Yehoshua; this is known as the doctrine of "atonement."  This doctrine is completely immoral and against everything Yehoshua stood for.  Yehoshua came to do away with the animal sacrifices at the temple, explaining that they were worthless for the purpose of forgiving sins, in fact being more of a satanic practice than anything the Creator ever wanted.  Many scholars and believers, including myself, believe that the original law given to Moses did not include animal sacrifice, but it was allowed for by Moses because the people were so resistant to simply leaving the animals alone!  So this blood-sacrifice of Yehoshua, as "the perfect payment" for our sins, in a cosmic "legal proceeding" (as some Pauline Christians describe it), is not only against what the will of the Creator is, it's against what Yehoshua taught as well, which is that it is obedience to the Commandments that brings us salvation, not murdering animals, or the murder of himself.  Of course it would be correct to say that Yehoshua sacrificed his life for us in that he accepted persecution and death as the Father's will for the betterment of humanity, but that doesn't  mean that his blood canceled out our sins.  He sacrificed his own life to show others the way of salvation, his torture and murder not being the means of salvation itselfThere's a big difference there, a difference that "easy grace" doctrine lovers unfortunately ignore.

  • Saul said: We simply need to proclaim faith, rather than follow the Commandments; this is known as the doctrine of "justification."  This doctrine says that we are "justified for all [wicked] things," simply by belief in Yehoshua, i.e. that we are not guilty for the sins we commit because of the blood-sacrifice atonement of Yehoshua's death.  "Oh sure, do your best to do good," say the Pauline Christians, "but it's not crucial, because you can't obey the commandments perfectly anyway, because of the inherited sin Paul says we have. You just have to proclaim your faith in Jesus and his coming Kingdom."  And of course millions of people have run with this idea, avoiding Yehoshua's call to be perfect and "sin no more" (John 5:14, 8:11).  Pauline Christians ignore a lot of Scripture that contradicts this "easy grace" theology, another example being 1 John 3:6, that says "Whoever abides in Him does not sin; whoever sins has neither seen Him nor know Him."  The call to perfect adherence to the Greatest Commandments is put aside, Saul even saying it's impossible and "a curse," which is again making Yehoshua out to be a false teacher! 
    Here's a typical example of what modern Christians say on the matter: 
"In fact, it’s impossible to keep all the commandments all the time.  None of us is perfect, and each one of us ‘sins’ (we go against God’s wishes).  Paul says that what the commandments do is tell us that we have sinned: “because no one can be made right with God by following the law.  The law only shows us our sin.” (Romans 3:20)" 
Yet this is devilish misdirection of humanity.  The truth is the opposite: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.  And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).  John shows himself to be a true disciple of Yehoshua, while Saul completely opposes and contradicts Yehoshua. 
  • This faith-without-works-is-sufficient doctrine is actually a form of moral-relativism, and moral relativism is arguably the #1 psychological/spiritual problem in the world, being behind justifications and rationalizations for all kinds of immoral behavior, now, and throughout history.  Following moral relativism is the true "original sin" that led to the "fall of humanity," so this doctrine promoted by Saul has actually been serving the main evil that has been misleading humanity since the beginning, causing massive suffering for many centuries.  No small thing!  Paul's moral relativism, to do what is "expedient" and feels best to you (Romans 14:23), not tied to any set rules, is actually at its root satanic, repeating what the Devil did in the Garden of Eden, and what modern new-age "do what you feel/ I'm against all isms" spirituality and urban educated fool philosophy promote, side-by-side with what satanism teaches.  "Do what thou wilt" was the main doctrine of the infamous Aleister Crowley, a self-professed satanist.  The following quotes from the above/below-linked to book Jesus Words Only, speaks to this problem well:
"It’s all relative to how you feel about it. Paul thus clearly identifies a new moral law divorced from the written precepts of the Law. Paul made the new morality depend on the circumstances. It also depended on its expediency. There are no strict moral rules to follow. Paul’s doctrines are what traditionally we would call antinomianism. If your conscience “led by the Spirit” is your guide, and you reject the Law of Moses in its express moral precepts, then you are antinomian. You are using your own decisions “led by the Spirit” of when and how to comply, if at all, with any of the express commands in the Law of Moses. This aspect of Paul is what makes him so attractive to the world. Paul gave flexible guidelines about what is sin." (p. 82)
"Paul is much easier, and far more attractive. For Paul, by contrast [to Jesus], when you sin against the Law, the issue is whether your conscience can allow you to live with it. “Happy is he who does not condemn himself in that thing which he allows.” (Rom. 14:22.) Most of those in the world coming to Christ opt to follow the message of Paul. They can even boast of their lack of perfection and bask in the feeling of being forgiven. Based on Paul, they are confident they are destined for heaven regardless... Paul has become a magnet for the modern Christian. Jesus’ message of righteousness in action, obedience to the Law, and severe repentance after failure has lost all its appeal." (p. 83)
Also worth mentioning about Saul's teachings:

1)  Paul was pro-slavery.

Paul: "Slaves are to be under the control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction..." (Titus 2:9)

Paul: "Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of the God from the heart..." (Ephesians 6:5-6.; This statement is also blatant blasphemy, implying it's God's will for people to be enslaved.)

Those words have undoubtedly been used countless times over hundreds of years by slave-masters to justify their enslavement and horrific abuse of other men and women. Don't bother, as some in denial do, with the absurd and lame excuse for Paul that "He was just speaking to the realities of his time." Jesus never said anything pro-slavery, he spoke in favor of freedom, as an abolitionist. Jesus said forthrightly that he came to free the captives (Luke 4:18), and freed the captive/enslaved animals that were going to be murdered at the temple as well (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15). Think twice before slanderously presuming "Jesus said he came to free captives only in a spiritual sense," putting apathetic evil on Jesus in foolish defense of Paul. Here's some pointed logic to hopefully break through the Pauline Christianity indoctrination:
a) Slavery is evil.
b) Someone who is pro-slavery is therefore pro-evil.
c) Paul was clearly pro-slavery, therefore Paul promoted evil.

"But he also said good things!" say the Pauline Christians, as if that cancels-out the evil; it doesn't. Those who defend the toxic words of Paul, words that are nothing at all like those of Jesus (actually in opposition to Jesus' teachings), are defending evil. Pointing to other lines of Paul that sound better is morally weak, unintelligent and irrational, ignorant of what a toxic propaganda sandwich looks like, having eaten it blindly for years.

2)  Jesus had no problem offending people by speaking crucial and blunt truth, but Saul said we should change our behavior depending on whether it would offend the other person or not, he promoted moral-relativism in that way too.

3)  Paulinists dismissively say that following the Commandments is "legalistic," while also saying that Jesus's death was a "legal proceeding" that paid for the sins we inherited from Adam. This is ignorant and hypocritical.

4)  Paul's writings are known to have inspired Nazis, and thereby the Holocaust, by saying Jews were the "enemy of the whole world" (1 Thessalonians 2:16) and that all governments are divine (Romans 13:1) and should be obeyed without question.

5)  Blatant sexism exists in Paul's writings, saying that women should submit to their husbands as if the men were God (Ephesians 5:22), which has inspired/supported countless acts of domestic oppression and violence.

Here are more contradictions between what Yehoshua and Saul taught:





All of the rationalizations I hear in defense of Saul never really make sense, they usually end up ignoring what he actually said and putting some other meaning on his words; they try to change it into something more rational, moral and true, just as I heard people doing in defense of Mark Passio's toxic propagandistic teachings (as I explained in my last post).  For example when I point to a clearly false and blasphemous verse like when Saul said all governments come from God, Pauline Christians say "Paul didn't really mean that (destructive lie), what he meant was..." and then change the wording and meaning until it is much more reasonable, and then I say "Well that's reasonable, but that's not what Paul said."  Or when I ask why he admittedly lied to others when spreading the so-called gospel, they reply "He said lies to attract more people to the Gospel," as if destructive lies are ever a good way of spreading crucial truth!  Pauline Christians tell me I don't understand Saul's teaching, yet the truth is it is they that don't understand what he was doing, having been heavily indoctrinated to ignore the truth that is right in front of them.  They ignore the toxic doctrines of Saul because they believe in him 100%, because their church says to, and because they believe the modern Bible is 100% accurate truth.  As I pointed out in my previous post, if you don't understand how satanic propaganda works, i.e. saying some crucial truths (e.g. "For the Spirit which God has given us is not a spirit of cowardice, but one of strength and of love and of sound judgment."), and then mixing in some very detrimental lies (e.g. Inherited Sin, Divine Politicians and Blood-Sacrifice Atonement), then you will remain too naive to see the truth.





  • "Martin Luther thought he had discovered Christ in Paul (in Paulo reperi), and made the Pauline doctrine of man's inability to keep the law (Romans 9:2 et seq.) the center of Reformation theology. That was a double fatality within Christianity... First then, there was the work of a usurper and the split he caused at the time of Christianity's origin; second, Luther's fatal mistake (and the mistake of his Christian successors) in finding the truth where in reality there was error. ... It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh--the disciples and the original community--were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was 'theologically camouflaged'.

    Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus' life. The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. ... The most essential and effective alteration of Jesus' message carried out by Paul was in the denying the Law's power of salvation and replacing the idea of the Covenant, the objective principle of the Jewish religion, with faith in Christ and in the atoning power of his sacrificial death... Here the Cause of God was robbed of its proper center and transformed into a mixture of Judaism, Christianity and paganism. The original community sent teachers ('false brethren', Paul called them) to the new communities founded by Paul; they taught the true doctrine to the believers only just won for the Faith and opposed the doctrine taught by Paul. Paul was such a controversial figure that Tertullian, in his pamphlet attacking Marcion, called him 'Apostle to the Heretics', and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies declared him a false teacher, even indeed the anti-Christ.

    This was the 'Fall' of Christianity: that Paul with his 'Gospel', which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as 'Ebionites'. [The Ebionites] continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into [abandoning Jesus's teachings]... The Church took Paul as its spiritual guide, thereby becoming involved down the centuries in conflicts and schisms, enmity, persecution and blood-shed, as Christians wrestled with the implications and interpretation of Pauline doctrines. This is even admitted by some Catholics: 'Christianity today mostly means Paul.' ... 'Christianity is the religion founded by Paul which replaces the Gospel of Jesus..." ... [T]he Pauline doctrine of Justification, the doctrine of Original Sin... these are a deformation of Jesus' teaching. Some critical theological scholars have confirmed that these deformations in Christianity started very early, in fact with Paul, and that the arch-apostle, without whom Marcion would not have been possible, was the arch-heretic in Christianity..."


    ~ The Light Shineth in Darkness by Udo Schaefer (George Ronald, Oxford, 1980), p. 80-83, 85, 87.  There are many references footnoted in those passages of the book.)

Books

    Links
      Videos

       
      ---

       
      ---

       
      ---


      ---

      Video Playlist: "Apostle Paul is a Ravening Wolf"

      ---

      Video Playlist: "What's up with Galatians?" (on Paul)


      ---


      ---

       

      ---


      ---


      ---