Posted on 12/01/2010 8:25:32 AM PST by markomalley
November 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Every once in a while, one stumbles upon a terrifying level of honesty among abortion supporters. Normally, the truth is something that refreshes us when we come upon it - not so in this realm.
Such is the nomenclature of what appears to be a moderately successful group dedicated solely to providing low-income women with abortion money, called the Lilith Fund.
The Texas-based group explains its name on its website as follows: “Lilith was the first woman created by God, as Adam’s wife and equal. Because Lilith refused to be subservient or submissive, she was sent away from Eden.”
This is a somewhat accurate presentation of Lilith’s bio; however, it’s certainly not the whole story. Here’s how the Hebrew legend, as first described in the Alphabet of Ben Sira of the 8th-10th century, ends: after Lilith flew away (and was not sent) from Eden, God punished her by dictating that one hundred of her own demon children would be killed each day. She responds by asserting her perpetual desire to sicken and kill newborn infants.
The abortion industry’s poster girl if ever there was one.
In fact, the primordial population control expert bears a significance far beyond Hebrew culture. The recognition of Lilith, Lilit, or Lilitu as a demoness of night or wind traces an etymological path through the earliest civilizations, believed first to appear as early as 4000 BC in Sumer. “Lilith” may even be mentioned in the Bible, Isaiah 34:14: after God has reduced Edom to an uninhabitable waste, “the lilith … find[s] for herself a place to rest” there. In Assyrian, Babylonian, and Greek mythology, Lilith emerged as a strong symbol of perverse barrenness, a desert-dwelling monster with breasts devoid of milk, that terrified nearby mothers by strangling and devouring their children.
Unsurprisingly, as Adam’s supposed original wife, Lilith is touted in Wiccan and occult circles to this day as the “first Eve” or “first mother” over and above Eve herself and the New Eve, Mary, whose selfless openness to life represents Lilith’s pure inverse.
In her Greco-Roman incarnation, Lilith (Lamia in Latin) was an even more fascinating - and insightful - symbol of the total corruption of female fertility. There we learn the child-eating Lamia actually suffers unbearable grief from the sight of her own dead babies, a grief made eternal because Zeus had forced her eyes to remain open permanently. In a gesture of pity, Zeus allowed Lamia occasionally to find relief by pulling her eyeballs out of their sockets. (Well, that was nice.)
The bizarre myth, an uncanny portrait of post-abortive grief, echoes in testimonies from the women of Silent No More Awareness depicting decades of being torn with obsessive anguish over their lost little ones.
One might wonder what would possess the Lilith Fund to follow through with such a cheery mascot. On its Facebook page earlier this year, the group eerily invited fans to express their devotion to abortion by posting the phrase “I am meeting Lilith” as their status, “if you have had an abortion or know someone who’s had an abortion.”
The Fund notes that old Lil is today “the feminist icon of the free-spirited strong woman” - and in fact, the revoltingly barren, sex-crazed, child-killing monster has found favor in modern “feminist theology” as a symbol of rebellion against patriarchal repression. Other pro-abortion feminist organizations have snapped up the name as well. (One of several such blogs, The Lilith Plan, helps women self-abort and even provides gruesome instructions for an illegal do-it-yourself D&C abortion.)
It seems some abortioneers are at least honest enough to openly associate with the child-killing demon who is even more well-fed in our modern world than she was 6000 years ago. Even if relatively few, it’s a good reminder that some know exactly what it means to be “pro-choice.”
That's because it isn't there. It's extra-canonical Jewish mythology.
And the name "Lilith" is thought to be related to the word for night. It does look similar.
You miss my point. The name “Jesus” is not anywhere in any Scripture until it was inserted in the newly printed text in the 1500’s.
Yahuweh is the name of God in the Tanach and occurs 7000 times. Any current version of the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures is errant in so many places that “the Bible” is a spurious resource for God's Word at best. That His Word has been altered and purposely changed (from the Hebrew version that it was original constructed in)is a very serious crime against the Set Apart Spirit for which He specifically warned folks NOT to do.
This in turn makes for a weak position in using it for a solid and reliable source.
That the history of the Bibles’ translations are of such an unreliable nature should give all Chrestaunous pause and provoke some serious research but that is not the situation at present.
Darn it, a car chase would have been cool.
Then I guess that Paul, or Saul, was wrong when he said in II Timothy 3:16-17:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
This, by a student of Gamaliel, one of the Sanhedrin,intimately schooled in the Tanach, Torah, Old Testament and a man who hunted Christians with zeal, was converted directly by Jesus, and spent the rest of his life as an itinerant tent maker starting churches in Asia Minor and Greece and being persecuted himself, finally meeting a martyr’s death in Rome.
Yet you speak of the “Set Apart Spirit”—is that a reference to the Holy Spirit? The one found in the New Testament? But if the Scriptures are so errant, how can the entire concept be trusted at all that there is a “Set Apart Spirit”?
Thus,you have no solid basis for declaring ANYTHING to be God’s inerrant Word to mankind, because all written Scriptures in our hands are in error to some unfathomable degree in your view.
This, in spite of source texts going back to the first century AD for both Testaments that still exist and are not in error with the texts of today’s translations.
You appear adrift in the sea of the belief that only with superior knowledge can we know “The Truth” about God’s word, because there is no reliable existing text that we can trust fully to tell us God’s true Word.
Somehow, you, in your great study, know the way through the Scriptural minefield of what is true and what is false.
The first century Christians that went to their deaths with the name of their Messiah Jesus on their lips were uneducated former heathens. Guess they didn’t get the memo, and neither did the millions of Christians from then to the present day.
After all, how could they possibly know that what they were taught, lived and experienced was real, when the Scripture texts they believed were and are so in error?
As for the “Apostolic Scriptures” as you refer to them, are they riddled with errors as well?
Was John delusional when he wrote Revelation?
Did Jesus really die and rise again?
Did the Apostles have nothing better to do with their lives then spend them teaching and dying for a God whose name they got wrong and couldn’t keep a story straight about?
Can God not protect His Word and transmit it from generation to generation wiothout error? Or is that too hard for Him?
Can Yahweh, Jehovah, or God not use sinful man to convey His message without fault? If not, that would be news to Balaam’s donkey. Even a lowly animal got the message right.
I agree. I just happen to believe that each of us has an ultimate standard given to us by God at our creation and you don’t. It is this standard that I base my beliefs on.
Has the specific prophecy which you use for proof been fulfilled yet? If so, is there proof of this fulfillment?
???
???
Do you understand if there are more than one ultimate standard and they differ that one or more of them are wrong? And that if those standards differ they can not be the objective ultimate standard?
To deny the logic of this is to deny logic itself in favor of some gobbledegook philosophy.
Yes, specific prophecies have been fulfilled.
There are over 300 specific Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Again, the time that these prophecies were written is known.
The fulfillment of the prophecies was recorded by eyewitnesses in the time of other eyewitnesses who would have refuted them if they didn’t happen.
Why ??, you don’t take anything literal anyways.
I don’t think they are the same thing. I would describe their attitude as typically human. Some people like it, some don’t, some only like parts of it.
1 Corinthian
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]
One of your sentences jumped out at me -
about a human mind determining what is true and what is false in the bible.
When one does so, he is setting himself up as a standard above that which is being judged. (as I said earlier, you don’t hold a stick up to a ruler and declare the ruler to be in error)
In effect, duplicating the original sin of desiring to be a god unto himself.
The message of God’s Word is also foolishness to those who prefer to be god themselves, to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and to decide which parts of the Word that are true and which are not.
“you will be as gods, knowing good and evil”
I believe we all are our own ultimate standards of truth. Obviously, I believe that God is capable of handling multiple truths. If you consider this irrational, ok. I personally don’t think God is constrained by what you consider rational.
Judging by some of your responses and that you’ve taken a course on how to win these sort of discussions, it’s obvious that winning is what matters to you. You want to be right and win, so you don’t really want to discuss anything, just tell people they are wrong. You’ve got your faith, I’ve got mine, and others theirs. I’m not here to win anything, tell anyone they are wrong, or convince anyone I am right. I ask questions to get responses. You don’t respond, you denigrate. I’m sure we will have this discussion again, as I will continue to ask and you will continue to tell people they are wrong, and, like in many of your responses, you will tell people all about what God wants, thinks, and feels...using your interpretation of the bible as your reference of course. That way, you can just say it’s not you saying it, it’s what God said. Of course no one can argue with God, so you get to feel like a winner. If you feel you’ve won, great, consider it a Christmas gift.
So what are non-things?
God is the definition of rational.
God is the definition of truth,
and he has only one nature and therefor there is only one objective truth, by definition.
The “god” of which you speak is actually closer to “Allah”, one who is faithless and cannot be considered to be consistent or constant.
“Winning” isn’t the objective. Standing up for the truth is.
Defining truth for yourself might be handy, especially if the actual truth points out something you don’t want to change.
But, at this point, I’m going to take the advice given in the revealed Truth, the Word of God, and shake the dust from my sandles and move on.
Would you mind putting the quotes in a more modern, easily readable way? I have a hard time understanding what people want me to, from bible verses.
Sounds good, until next time.
Try to not use win and arguement so much in your responses.
Standing up for truth is better, but not as good as saying ‘win’ and ‘God said it’.
You have me confused with another.
I gave the biblical reference so you can check your preferred translation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.