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.”
So, you are the ultimate standard of truth.
You’ve finally arrived there.
I “grasp the notion” that you reject the bible as the ultimate standard in favor of your own understanding as the ultimate standard.
I “accept” that. I’m telling you, though, that if it is based on nothing, it is irrational, which is where this all started. Now, if you agree that your belief system is irrational, then I won’t tell you you’re not thinking clearly (or are “wrong” as you put it).
If we each have our own definition of ultimate standard of truth, that means that it isn’t the ultimate standard. The Ultimate Standard exists, and it’s not defined by you or I, it objectively IS. That’s axiomatic with the existance of God.
Objectively, if two standards are in conflict, one or both is wrong. To state otherwise is irrational.
Now, as for the divine inspiration of the Word, far more has been written on that than what I can explain here, but:
In summary, specific prophecies were written in a verifiable time frame, with copies being disseminated to locations which would make “after the fact” editing impossible.
These specific prophesies were fulfilled and recorded by eyewitnesses within the lifetime of other eyewitnesses who could have refuted the claims of these prophecy fulfilments.
If you want a good, short, phd researched explanation in video format, search for “Voddie Baucham why I believe the bible”.
If modern “liberated” moms still took time to stop and sing a “lullaby” to their babies, they might be shocked to learn the name for this harmless little rime possibly stems from a contraction of “Lillith abi” or (you guessed it) “Lillith begone.”
To keep from going bonkers thinking about it, I guess I’ll just quit or my head will explode...:O)
Medically, for a man to pass a kidney stone is a little worse that childbirth...That stone has to go a longer way than if a woman passes a stone....Ihave seen grown men cry and I have nothing but compassion for them...I would be the one giving them the narcotics....its amazing that something as small as a grain of sand can cause such pain....
I don’t reject the United States Constitution, I just don’t believe some of what’s in it.
How would you describe their attitude toward the Constitution and the government it describes?
In addition to the logical contradiction you point out, her theory contradicts what is explicitly speeld out in Genesis 1-3. To say He sent them away for their own good so they could "grow up" is to make God out as a liar.
True. If it ever happens to me, I hope they knock me out. I’ll take pain for a good purpose, but that ain’t a good purpose!
That is the kind of nonsense that pervades “modern” Christianity. It’s part and parcel with the rationalization that everything is OK to do as long as it makes you feel good, regardless of what may be written to the contrary.
Or a eunuch.
btt
All things are possible with God. Not all non-things.
That’s right.
The old argument about why can’t God make a rock so big even he can’t lift it is an argument which defeats itself. Like the square circle, etc.
Leftist materialists have always defeated themselves with their own arguments. David Hume comes to mind.
Yes, it means leftists are only about 55% as intelligent as they think they are.
I think you’re reading something other than the Bible.
And they didn't even add a car chase scene.
Whether it is a correct understanding of the situation is not so much the matter. However it was - and it does seem reasonable - it does NOT negate the desire of Yahuweh to present again His physical self - Yahushua ([the term 'Jesus' appears nowhere in the Apostolic scriptures]) to us in 1BC-33AD for the purpose of providing the Way back to observing and embodying His Covenant as established with Abraham and recorded in the Torah.
'Jesus' is a 16th century term created by the errant German printers/Catholic monk translators of the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures.
That most "Christian" groups ([again an incorrect translation from the Apostolic Scriptures AND Roman writings of the time, should read "Chrestaunous", the 2 terms do NOT have the same meaning]) gets this matter wrong is the core of the present problem within the "Ekklesia".
That the various "Ekklesia" do not use His correct name is also why Satan has such an easy effort to corrupt and mislead the "Yahudym" [in Hebrew it means members of Yah's family] of today.
That Adam and Chawuh (another intentional errant translation from the original text as Eve is the name of a pagan sun goddess) were driven out of Eden is because they took it upon their self to decide what was the correct set of instructions to follow.
At that point in our history The Covenant was not explicitly defined - as the relationship a parent has with the young child is not spelled out to the child but the child is instructed to do or do not certain behaviors.
Guess "Jesus" was wrong about "the New Covenant".
Actually, “the Bible” is a construct of the Catholic Church and its’ Protestant variations follow along.
The current editions are as errant as it is possible to be and still resemble the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures.
This understanding is a historical fact with much arguments abounding and is well known in the most if not all various sect's seminaries .
See my other post on this thread for more info about said “errantness” of the Bible.
“Guess “Jesus” was wrong about “the New Covenant”.”
No “Jesus” was not wrong as “Jesus” never said anything to anyone since he was never around.
Yahshua however said much as He is Yahuweh in the flesh.
And the term He used is “Renewed Covenant” which makes perfect sense as He was re-establishing the connection to the Covenant from Abraham’s time.
No, Jesus did not renew anything.
He said it was “new”, not just “renewed”.
The need for an animal sacrifice was no longer required—the sacrifice of Jesus was enough.
And Jesus had many names and titles in both the Old and the New Testament, so let’s not play word games on which one is “correct”.
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.