Christianity and abortion: where do you stand?


Closed Thread
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
ANDR3W is offline ANDR3W Post #21  August 15,2011, 10:12pm
ANDR3W's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Dec 2008

South Florida

Posts: 734

See profile

AZJoe wrote :
This is in your regular pattern of mocking of religious beliefs and I believe against the TOS here. It's not funny - please stop.

While accidents happen and there are legitimate cases of self-defense Life is not a thing anyone has a right to take by their own free choice.


What you call mocking is actually just mundane sarcasm. Either way, criticizing your beliefs is not against the TOS and i reserve that right. Your personal religious views should never interfere with women's right to choose.
 
 
AudioDad is offline AudioDad Post #22  August 16,2011, 10:15am
AudioDad's Avatar

...has left the building

Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 800

See profile

AZJoe wrote :
I am having difficulty posting for some reason. Maybe I timed out - so let me try again....
Same here. Had a reply all crafted, hit Submit and eHA-ha dumped me out multiple times.

AZJoe wrote :
The most recent estimated total number of uncontested abortions is over 46 million.

Source: Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001 and 2002, Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2005 [PDF], accessed May 17, 2005.

There are currently 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States.

Source: Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001 and 2002, Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2005 [PDF], accessed May 17, 2005.
Yes, I've seen some of those same figures as well. Regardless, by virtue of higher math, 46 million does not equal 53 million. I know, I know....

AZJoe wrote :
As for my reference to population of Canada - I meant to say the numbers aborted EXCEEED the population of Canda - not match it. So I am surprised you took this as a nit pick.The concept of scale here is staggering. Yes it is pedantic to belabor this further.
Sorry to have to point out the inconvenient, but that's not what you originally posted (so why were you surprised to get called on it???). I gave up my ability to read minds when I became mortal so there's probably no way I would have know what you meant to say......doncha think?

You've clearly demonstrated a talent for hyperbole but the rest will have to wait for later.
 
 
myusernamehere is online now myusernamehere Post #23  August 16,2011, 12:49pm
myusernameher…'s Avatar

is awesome

Veteran

Joined: May 2010

Posts: 1,408

See profile

I'm not a Christian but I see no reason why someone being a Christian means that they can't support reproductive freedom.
Last edited by myusernamehere; August 16,2011 at 1:57pm.
 
 
AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #24  August 24,2011, 3:04pm
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
...
Still, from a strictly secular standpoint, killing each other is not generally condusive to a productive, cooperative society. It need not be grounded in a particular religious text or faith - it simply makes good sense...
... my choice would be the same as dropdeadredtx's or some variant on that......i.e., carried to term and given up for adoption.
I lost a lot of my original reply when the site went into some kind of strange endless loop due to a redirect problem. So my reply is about 4 or so days tardy... Let's see if this goes through.

Ok, very good. But the problem is AD that even if you are the biological father society sees you as nothing more than a DNA donor in this matter. Under current ridiculous law we men have absolutely no voice in this decision or any rights. Your spouse or "significant other" can just elect to quietly abort your child without even consulting with you or even informing you or asking you for your choice or opinion.

In a spurious instance of contempt your partner can even elect to abort your child to vicariously punish you for any real or imagined alienation of affection; or do so just because she had a change of plans about having a child with you in particular; or do so just because she found a superior DNA donor from a "generic male" who's genetic material (blue eyes?) she prefers to bring to term over yours (in an ironic new twist to the old proverbial "milkman" or "poolboy").

I personally know of a specific case where an emotionally deranged woman vengefully aborted a man's child out of severe contempt arising out of a suspicion that he "cheated" with another woman. He was very religious and pleaded with her not to do it for the sake of the child and its eternal soul. But she taunted him for weeks just to inflict cruel emotional trauma and to empower herself by making him feel guilty; then did it just to spite him; telling him that she hoped some day he'd meet "his" child in hell.

So apart from having some remaining ability to speak out in public forums like this and to petition our political representatives we men have no rights (currently). Some feminists groups would say men should not even exercise our right of free speech to even comment on a "private" matter that men should have no legitimate concern in. So for now it seems society only wants men to be responsible for paying for child's medical & living expenses (for 18 years) if it is brought to term.

I am encouraged though that you do seem to have a rational attitude about respecting the sanctity of life (as a species?). On this topic, people should really ponder just how rare life is in the entire universe. So far, amidst the known hundreds of billions of galaxies, planets and stars, planet-earth is thus-far the only flyspeck in the cosmos that is known to have life on it. Thus, on a cosmological scale - life in the universe seems to be exceedingly rare and therefor precious by that aspect alone. Abortion should be unthinkable.

Apart from any spiritual and morality perspectives, it seems clear to me that permitting nature to take its course to bring a child all the way to term really is the only rational and consistent philosophical position that can stand up over time to rigorous examination and sound reasoning. Society can not rationally have it both ways with laws on the books that make accidental killing of a pregnant woman's unborn child a case of manslaughter (or even murder for deliberate attempts to kill it [without the mother's permission in an approved abortion facility]). Philosophically this duplicity is corrupt as it means the unborn infant is only conditionally a human being that is entitled to its individual "right to life" only for as long as the mother herself continues to choose to not kill it in the womb (in specifically approved ways). But the ill-conceived philosophy would hold that once the mother-to-be decides to abort her child it suddenly becomes mere equal to "genetic material" that can be excised and cut off like one might do to any ordinary tumor or wart even though this one kicks back.

Eventually this unjust insanity and sociopolitically induced dysfunction of current law must yield to a consistent framework of reason that extends the "benefit of the doubt" that errs on the presumption of life. If society does not remedy this defect it will suffer ever increasing loss of its own humanity. and lose what remaining social beauty it retains. It will fall into ever increasing levels of anarchy and indifferentism; then eventually lose even the ability to recognize its own humanity in any member of its society old or young alike.

I was considering putting up a link to sonogram images taken of a baby being aborted after only 11 weeks from pegnancy. It shows what happens in the womb as the child with arms, legs, head and torso vanely tries to push and move away to escape from the abortionist's suction device. But its exceedingly heart wrenching. People can Google "Silent Scream" and go look if they have the fortitude to see an innocent and defenseless infant fight to live as it is being pulled alive from its mother's womb.

I will comment on other "theological" aspects on the balance of your post subsequently since this is too long already...
 
 
AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #25  August 24,2011, 4:09pm
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
That commandment was never intended to apply beyond one's own tribe or, at best, fellow Hebrews. The OT is chock full of murder/genocide committed in the name of God - many of those victims were in fact children, both born and unborn (depending of course on how much veracity one ascribes to the related biblical stories).
Rebuttal Part 1

I must ask here somewhat rhetorically: "Is it really rational for an avowed atheist to on one hand deny God and on the other claim to know God's mind and intentions with respect to His commandments? . Sorry, but it's just plain weird to me for an atheist to be "dividing" & "interpreting" scripture and preaching about what God's intentions are.

Sorry - utterly wrong. I'll elaborate but it will take a multi-post rebuttal to be even reasonable thorough...

Whether you hold scripture as divinely inspired or a mere work of human fiction, if you read with reasonable comprehension and holistically there's in evidence a much different thing going on than what you assert. In fact there's an oft repeating message throughout that God has "a Plan" for making it possible to redeem all of humanity from the full consequences of it's fallen nature. This is hinted at the onset of Genesis and in it's later chapters and in other bible books. The Plan is not only to restore to grace those who elect to cooperate with God's Plan (through the facility of freewill in cooperation with grace) but to actually elevate man's very human nature. God intentions to give man the facilities to know and love Him more authentically in a way that is closer to God's own Divine nature (from the cooperative divine-human prototype of Christ - New Adam). Scripture clearly shows that God fully intends to repatriate those who elect to heed His call into the eternal joy of friendship and beatitude with Himself. In other words the gift of life is given forever - both here in this limited time and material space of the universe as we find ourselves in; but continuing forever both in the time and space to come in the new creation; and as well in the supernatural spiritually glorified-body state of existence outside the limits of time and space (Like Christ after He was resurrected into His glorified body and could pass through material walls, bi-locate and be in heaven all at will).

So my friend please try to read the bible more holistically if you want to cite, teach and opine on bible passages. What should be obvious to even an objective-skeptic that clings to a presumption of "fiction" is that there is in the bible at least this consistent, timeless and rational salvation message (to Christians, a divine fingerprint/hallmark) woven like a golden thread all through scripture. "The Author" (all 40 +/- of the human instruments God spoke through at different clock-ticks in human history) spent nearly 2,000 years composing the progressively revealed message in many varied ways and literary styles. In that interval to these current times scripture was preserved and protected from pagan influences and corruption. The accounts portray to us in current times how God elected to use the most unlikely people to serve as a living metaphor to exemplify the truth of His Word so that all nations might be blessed through the Jews and the original faith of Abraham. How else except by God or unfathomable "luck" can we account for how a small beleaguered Jewish nation prevailed for 2,000 years against so many determined enemies set on its destruction?

No, I must rebut your faulty conclusions that the Commandments were only meant for the tribes of "the Jews". This is only partially true in the sense that Moses (as a prefigurement for Christ) as "Law Giver" brings "God's Commandments" first to the Jews - as first fruits of God's ancient promise given to Abraham to bless all nations through his lineage. The truth is, the promise was prefigured way back in even earlier Genesis accounts at Adam's banishment from Eden. The various commandments such as the Decalogue are ultimately meant for the benefit of all of humanity. Like a seed being planted, God's Law is to be cultivated within the humus of a chosen human people (humus - from the soil - thus the very term "Human") & protected from hostile influences all around it. Henceforth it might take root, flourish, and spread its seeds as if by a supernatural wind all over the earth to all peoples. Whether you read the bible as truth or fiction you really have to go well out of your way to not see the profound and consistent evidence of the author(s)' concept of a "divine plan" for all of humanity.

Here's some of that specific scriptural evidence:Immediately in the very first book of the bible, Genesis, in a number of places we see it. The first hint is the banishment of the progenitors of the entire human-race (i.e. Adam & Eve) from Eden before there's even any notion of sub-categories of races and "peoples" such as "Jews" and "Gentiles":
Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity Between you [Satan] and the woman [Eve {& we later in the NT learn of a new Eve Mary - Christ's mother}], And between your seed [followers of evil/Satan] and her Seed [followers of the new Adam - Christ]; He [Christ & His followers] shall bruise your head, And you [Satan & his brood of followers] shall bruise His heel."
This huge hint of a divine plan for all of humanity rapidly unfolds a few chapters later in Genesis 18:18 : "...ALL nations on earth will be blessed through [Abraham]." Note that this is DIRECT scriptural evidence that God has a plan for redeeming ALL nations - not just the Jews (but the Jews are certainly chosen to be instrumental in this plan). The same message is repeated time and time again in the bible as more revelation is received over the centuries up to the climax at Christ's Great Commission to His disciples around 33 AD: "...go and make disciples of all nations." Mat 28:19.

So unless you have some contradictory credible personal revelation there you have some handy compelling evidence that the commandments were meant for all people. It just took some 40 centuries for God to carve out & cultivate His garden from the human bracken and tares and to progress His seed of truth to all the rest of the nations (still ongoing now).

I have quite a bit more yet to say subsequently about the murder/genocide "committed in the name of God" complaint of yours. Hopefully that will be a logical terminus to this tangent discussion to the original topic OP...
 
 
AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #26  August 24,2011, 4:16pm
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
...
The OT is chock full of murder/genocide committed in the name of God - many of those victims were in fact children, both born and unborn (depending of course on how much veracity one ascribes to the related biblical stories).
Rebuttal Part II

To others following this thread I apologize in advance for what is going to be a long muti-part reply as AD has opened up fairly complex sub-topic that requires conveyance of much relevant contextual background to answer and rebut the charge.

AD, I'm presuming the essence of your complaint here about 'God commanding the Jews to kill' is principally with regard to the account of the Jews dealings with the Canaanites? If so, there's really a much more holistic and deeper message that plays into a larger theme if you care to consider it. I will have to give an exposition on some theology & history though to get there and it can take a bit of text to do it. Bear with me please...

Initially let me say this - some of the OT accounts contain poetic and hyperbola styles of writing - no Jew would "ravish" a woman as a spoil of war and soil his self dignity by having intercourse with a heathen and expect to remain in camp as a Jew (though some fell away of course). God had already commanded the Jews to hold to sexual purity and not intermarry among the heathen races - why God wanted the evil extricated from the promised land in the first place so Jewish men would not seek peace by intermarrying into pagan cultures as was common practice in the day!

Let me also say that war was even more common in OT times than it is even today (just not as massively or efficiently as lethal). There was little concept of mercy in these times - times were harsh. Conquering enemies generally slaughtered all surviving wounded adult men or publicly executed prisoners for demonstration of power and to break the spirit of the surviving women/children & those still in-hiding to make them more resigned & cooperative to their fates. Some few wealthy enemy leaders might be held for ransom from their allies or distant families. And some more of the fitter captured men who a conquering enemy might desire to retain as slaves they oft partially crippled/hamstrung to prevent escape and castrated (botched "circumcisions" ;-) ) to emasculate them and subordinate/humiliate them. Children and women were often given to allies and soldiers as rewards and chattel too (for domestic slaves and sexual service). It was just not as morally repugnant then as it is now (thanks precisely to the moral elevation of society at large and collective moral conscience by advances in western culture as fruits of the advent of Judeo-Christian morality). Since the OT portions of the bible contain a lot of history of the Jews its really not at all unusual or strange to to see these explicit and theologically integrative accounts of these wars. It was in fact a source of pride to the Jews to record how their very small nation living among mighty nations and great evils could miraculously not only stand up to their much larger foes but prevail and win. That's the whole point in including the histories as "scripture" -- to lend not only witness to God's promise but credibility to the Jewish claim of having God's favor and protection; and also to develop a rich tradition to bond the people in common faith and heritage. From a God's eye view - it is also clearly mean to teach & inspire future generations of what eventually are to become Jewish Christian apostles and disciples (Christian perspective obviously).

If one first extends the "benefit of the doubt" to presume upon the basic goodness of the human scripture writers rather than come at it from a presumption of suspicion you should soon discover the exact opposite thing that you claim (consistency vs inconsistency). You're really implying that there was some grand inter-generational conspiracy to advance a fairy-tale or a "never ending story"; or else you can't believe in and accept a God who could do what you consider horrid things. Let me rebut that prior implication first. Given the complex history of the bible's formation (e.g. penned by 40 some different authors over many centuries without any mutual collaboration of any kind) and its stunning single-mindedness in objective truths and principals this theory of a "conspiracy" is orders of magnitude less plausible than the more direct possibility - namely that scripture is all true. As to the latter case of the appearance of God being unjust - I will offer a rebuttal to that notion in the balance of this dialog.

Let me say that it's no easy or quick chore but one needs to read the bible holistically and within the context of the history to arrive at the correct messages. Many coming from a fundamentalist-literalistic tradition have a tendency to "versize" (slice and dice scripture out of context or not see it holistically) and miss the larger, broader and deeper truths and principals. One must also resist a natural human tendency to anachronistically back-project contemporary ideas and mores into ancient times and societies. We living in the 21 centuries are in a context that is completely alien to these ancient cultures. They'd all just look at you funny in OT times if you were able to go back in time and suggested anyone should show mercy to a committed mortal enemy. That is, unless you offered to pay a handsome yearly homage in gold or crops in exchange for not being attacked; or at least offered up quotas of slaves or conscripts for military service to your enemy in a kind of hostage-for-peace brokerage (and end up fighting your own people serving in the enemy camp if you broke the pact).

I'll concede that these "Old Testament" accounts might indeed appear unjust and disturbing to such a casual modern day "literalist" reader of scripture. But others who are well steeped in the theological principals and literary styles (and the histories) will see an entirely different and more accurate perspective. The latter sort of scripture reader will not see any contradictions to Christian (and societal) mores since he is seeing it holistically and in the total context of the original writer and as a continuum of history. By the way, Christ did not really "soften" the law as you suggest. In fact He intensified it in some ways (mere illicit thoughts are as grave as the actual deeds with respect to penalty). Christ in fact offered a way to be forgiven from the full eternal penalty of The Law provided one repented, tried to remain faithful and earnestly strove to "sin no more" (ref. the woman caught in adultery).

Ontologically speaking it follows conceptually from plain reason that if God exists with the attributes we believers generally subscribe to Him then He must unceasingly continue to exist as complete, perfect and forever unchanging in nature. Perfection would never arbitrarily abrogate its own nature or ideal to self-corrupt and cover itself with a mantle-of-inferiority; nor could It justly change objective truth and remain "just" (a logical impossibility). How then can we account for the apparent contradiction of a God who orders the killing of one tribe at the hand of another in one generation but in another tells us to love our enemies? It's a deep question worthy of the energy to give a reply.

Before I give my own insights I want to give a link here to one of the finest expositions on this whole topic that I have ever come across. I think you'd really enjoy reading the crisp and rational logic and rock solid rationale of a very well known Catholic apologist: Hard Sayings Of The Old Testament (By Jimmy Akin)
Last edited by AZJoe; August 24,2011 at 4:21pm.
 
 
AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #27  August 24,2011, 4:25pm
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
...
The OT is chock full of murder/genocide committed in the name of God - many of those victims were in fact children, both born and unborn (depending of course on how much veracity one ascribes to the related biblical stories).
Rebuttal Part III
-----------------
Let me say this up front. Has it ever occurred to you that some people's life philosophies and behaviors are just so given over to perverse wickedness and corruption that they become like a serious infectious disease (think leprosy here) that left unchecked could become too dangerous to be permitted to co-mingle with the whole human race? History is full of notorious single godless individuals that were responsible for 10's of millions of innocent's hideous torture and mass extermination (e.g. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler etc.). If Nazism had succeeded the majority of the free-world as we know it now would be living as inferior subservient to the Aryan race or be executed as inferior-beings when we became too old or sick to efficiently serve the fascist states.

Certainly God, if He exists, and has the power to grant life must also have the sovereign right to set its extent and to give or withhold each soul's object of desire (the joy of beatitude in heaven or the selfish and self-serving wickedness of hell). As Life Giver, it should be axiomatic that it is not unjust for God (but only God) to take back life. He owes us nothing and our gift of life is purely at His pleasure. Nor is the manner by which God takes back like unjust - be it by accident, worn out body, war, starvation/disease etc. With our without God none of us have any guarantees about the quality or duration of life nor to the degree of contempt or love any particular neighbor might have for us personally. Therefor it is not unjust for God to permit evils or to confront evils at any opportune time that He chooses (especially when it becomes "hardened" and committed against "good" or becomes a grave threat to the progression of the greater good). And yes it is just too for God to use a "blunt instrument" to take innocent life along with wicked life since we all share the same defective human nature and are "in it together" for better or worse. But God while punishing evil can certainly also reward and reimburse that innocent life shed with eternal life (much better than before!). In fact God does that daily anyway for both the good and evil who God let's die by natural ordinary means - old age, illness and natural accidents.

I understand that this may sound outrageous at first. But hear me out.
With regard to taking innocent life I presume you know the Christian biblical accounts (New Testament) -- God did just as much to His very own Son as well. Jesus was completely innocent of any fault/sin yet God willed that Christ die at the hands of unjust men in order to save the many (a concept of sacrifice for a greater good). If God can kill His own son (and resurrect Himself) for the sake of the wicked who might turn from evil and be saved from the punishment of hell then it is consistent and just that God can also punish the same wicked who will not turn from evil & send them on their way to the hell they have chosen. All we are talking about is how short or long a life is in the here-and-now compared to life in eternity. Eternal life trumps all temporal life experience - this is the key to seeing the justice in it all. God is being very consistent - He gives and takes this temporal life to/from both good and wicked alike and meets out eternal reward or punishment in accord with how each elected to spend that temporal life.

The truth is, when it comes to war, a swift and decisive victory of a mortal enemy is a always a mercy compared to the hell-on-earth of a prolonged inter-generational war where no quarter would be asked for nor given by either side. Protracted wars just lead to greater misery, disease, debased human existence. Eventually both sides are so weary and devastated and brought to ruin by prolonged war that any 3rd party who opportunistically wanders into the arena is in a position to enslave or wipe out both parties. This is as true today as it was then.

As to the "innocent Canaanite children" - yes, those not of the age of reason could not choose for good or evil and so some were innocent of personal fault but were still the seed-stock of a wicked tribe. And yes, some of the older members of this tribe may have escaped the evil influences of their own debased culture and retained a desire for God and His goodness & also been substantially innocent due to ignorance (in fact the Canaanites DID worship the Jewish God ("El") but being polytheists did not worship Him as the one and only God). But the truth is the Jews like all other peoples at this time were TRIBAL too and were essentially a "blunt instrument" in God's hands. In those days an attack against one tribal member (any one of them) was an attack against the entire tribe. Neither side would rest until one was utterly defeated (why the tribal middle east still is in the chaos of war to this day). At the time of these OT accounts the Jews were a "work-in-progress" and externally really not much different than other tribes of the time. Except for their faith in God and their fledgling struggles with obeying His commandments (they fell short of the mark a lot) they interacted with other tribes in much the same way as all tribes of the time did (generally trying to avoid them & warring with them over disputes).

What was different with the Jews is that God was slowly over generations purifying them and progressively enlightening them to His Divine Truths. The purification of Jewish ideas about collective versus individual guilt and innocence had not yet taken place. The modern day objections we hold to these OT account benefit from this very long societal progression of "enlightenment" which we ironically inherit from the Jews. It is BECAUSE of the Jews contribution to the human race in the areas of morality that any of this now seems all so strange to us looking back. You have the Jews & God to thank for your partially enlightened conscience -- it didn't exist 3,000 or so years go![/b] The Jews of the OT time were were pretty much just like the other tribes in how they dealt with each other. They had to exist and fight within the mores of the tribal world culture of the time - which where very savage, brutal and unmerciful. "The code" of conduct in this era was that any tribe member surviving a tribal war in which his tribe lost was to lay low for an opportune time then seek vengeance at any personal cost to save his own personal and tribal honor. Any survivors including some fairly young children would have of course retained the impressions of their wicked culture that God desired to annihilate for the sake of humanity at large. But here is they key concept to explaining this whole riddle -- God can & does as a matter of justice completely restore and recompense an innocent soul's lost mortal life with an even greater eternal life that utterly climaxes its prior inferior condition. And this is in fact the presumption that Christians hold - that no finite and temporary suffering that we must endure in this mortal life can scare compare to the infinite joy and beatitude of life with God in eternity. There, we are assured by the principals of Justice (and Divine Promise) that we will have perfected, glorified and imperishable bodies; an imperishable body that can comfortably live both in the new material creation to come and in the heavenly spiritual world that now exists. Hope this makes sense.

Almost done I think...
 
 
AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #28  August 24,2011, 4:33pm
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
...
The OT is chock full of murder/genocide committed in the name of God - many of those victims were in fact children, both born and unborn (depending of course on how much veracity one ascribes to the related biblical stories).
Shoot the prior rebuttal part #3 went to moderation - probably too long. So this will come out of logical order regrettably...

Rebuttal Part IV

Now let me run with some other thoughts. Just as you mention there are indeed many OT accounts that show a consistent pattern of God annihilating evil and thinning out the tares from the wheat so to speak: ref. the Sodomites, the Canaanites, The Great Flood etc. Now here's the bit I bet you hadn't considered - God punished His own people too (women and children and men) when they rejected Him numerous times. Most prominent was when He turned the Jews over to Babylonian captivity as punishment for their infidelity. Another stunning one is when He permitted the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the great Jewish Diaspora. This happens after the majority of the Jews rejected The Christ (ironically not recognizing Him as the long awaited Messiah) and committed Deicide rather than embrace the new universal covenant that Christ preached and extended to all nations [i.e. Jews and Gentiles] (Christian perspective obviously).

Note how God shows no quarter to evil after it reaches a certain level of wickedness (which should be a relevant and pressing lesson for us today). Nor does He show any impartiality as to who commits the evil. He punished both Jews and Gentiles. He elects at his own time (generally when evil has reached its full extent and the people have shown no desire for repentance - "given or hardened to evil") to strike both the wicked and His own people alike (when the latter reject Him or become unfaithful). It is only His People though who are never utterly destroyed and some few faithful remnant are always retained to further His Providence and covenantal promise.


Here I must interject a curious thought. I bet you and other non-believers would be just fine if God had no alleged part in any of the forgoing but rather would be comfortable if all the "evil" societies were annihilated by some inexplicable wild serendipity; perhaps arising from a principal of "Social Darwinism" (where the stronger ["good"] culture just happens to naturally prevails over the weaker ["bad"] culture). If my speculation is true as to attitude, I must wonder if non-believers would disavow this concept of a corrective Social Darwinism if it also turned out to work against the majority in an unexpected twist? What if the smaller culture just happened to be the stronger culture and that smaller culture just coincidentally happened to believe in a "fictional" God (atheist view) who they just imagined told them to annihilate His weaker enemies? This seems to be the only way "unbelievers" can account for current circumstance & histories... Either we have natural justice or we have Divine Justice (or both) irrespective to what people say it is...

Now that I have hit most of the areas I wanted to talk about let me see if I can pull this all back into the original OP before we completely derail it...

What is profoundly ironic to me in this tangent religious-discussion is the degree of arbitrary selectivity demonstrated by many here in this OP discussion on "abortion". Some seem just fine with the idea of casting the expecting mother who does not want her child in the roll of a Caesar to give a subjectively-fair thumbs-up or down (for life or for death) in the arena of the womb. Most of these same then go on to say something like: "Oh, I just want the choice but I would personally chose life". This is a canard and a moral-coward's kind of reasoning. It makes life and death a contest with a double standard as to the sanctity of life. It elevates a principal of moral-relativism that can vary wildly from person to person to a higher societal standard than a notion of any objective truth. This is a fallacy of hierarchy that creates an impossible tautology as it permits no absolutes except for the one single absolute secular-dogma that "there can be no wrong when there are choices". The jingoism coming out of the pro-death/pro-choice camp is a self-contradicting irrational babel - evidence of both mental as well as spiritual illness or profoundly malicious- ignorance.

Again, previously ironic to me is the strong likelihood that many here who support abortion would likely reject AudioDad's laudable aversion to abortion but then turn full circle to share in his same harsh critique of the ancient Jews for slaying their enemies in defensive wars. If this speculative attitude exists in fact (and I believe it does) then how strange it is that such could take no similar revulsion or discomfort to giving the choice to play God to slaughter/abort many 10's of millions of innocent babies but become become only repulsed at the notion of a sovereign God (who has the right to give and take life) commanding the killing of an order of magnitude less people (10's or 100's of thousands of people?) of vile and debased Canaanites (so apparently wicked that God judged that they lost their claim to humanity). It's not that most people don't believe in God - the majority do. They just don't want to admit that they don't trust God and imagine themselves better suited than God to decide for self as to which babies should live and which should die. Where's the sense of consistency or scale for the higher order of magnitude of slaughtered innocent life? Metaphysically it's clear to me that women are being directed by an idol named 'Choice' to heed its precepts. The idol choice calls for its devotees to come forward and make a sacrificial altar (at the very place that should be the safest place for a baby on the planet - a mother's womb) and to either give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down there to the fate of their child. It seems to me therefor that some people's revulsion to killing and murder should be a bit more consistent least it be seen as hypocrisy, a double-standard or simple old-fashioned idol worship and child sacrifice that are also recorded in the Old Testament.

Consistent in human history - both within nations that believed in God and within those who did not - it is a timeless truth that the innocent always suffer unjustly as a consequence of natural evils/calamities and as a natural consequence of evil men's actions or arise in the clash between good and evil. But here is an important concept that non-believers must accept from the perspective of "believers"; and that is "the gift of life is eternal". The time in the "here and now" is infinitesimally small compared to Eternity. Whether a person lives a day or 100 years - the interval is trivial compared to eternity. We presume that God makes recompense for the innocent who are taken early in life by giving them a supernatural election to receive an eternity of beatitude that utterly climaxes by an infinite order of magnitude all transient happiness (or sorrows) a person could ever experience in a comparatively flicker of short life here on earth. We can confidently presume that God miraculously gave to whatever number of Canaanites were truly innocent of evils on earth (presumably all children under the age of reason and those innocent by invincible ignorance) a greater gift of life in a less harsh eternity vs the eternal punishment due to the wicked.

The bottom line is - God can not be unjust nor will He ever permit evil to entirely prevail in human affairs. God has the right to set the limit of each soul's mortal existence and the right take that mortal life at any time. In taking a life God has the right to advance and elevate it or to demote it onward into its elected eternal choice (heaven or hell) and to mete out just rewards & punishments.

I apologize for this running so long but it's a very interesting sub-topic which I used as an occasion to do some of my own additional research. Hope this gives a different perspective that helps answer the criticism.
Last edited by AZJoe; August 24,2011 at 5:02pm.
 
 
AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #29  August 25,2011, 4:32am
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
Yes, I've seen some of those same figures as well. Regardless, by virtue of higher math, 46 million does not equal 53 million. I know, I know....
But the math does work when you come to realize the operative words "estimates" of "legal" abortions and then you adjust for the old date that the data was last tabulated and then add in the presumption of underestimation by Prolife advocates that Guttmacher Institute (GI) admits is at least 3% due to "reporting errors".

In all likelihood the numbers are much higher. For example we have no idea how many illicit/illegal and unreported abortions were performed on underage women, illegal aliens etc. Nor do we know how many women aborted with emergency abortion pills gained illegally "off the street" (or were given them under the table by Planned Parenthood or by boyfriends or pimps etc).

Here is the NRLC estimates from a YEAR ago that are based largely on GI's data using their own error rates. Analysis Shows 52 Million Abortions Since Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade Decision (2010). Just add GI's own yearly estimated abortion rate of about 1.3 million per year to that and there's your data.

Again, the real numbers are probably significantly higher. As I have said before the Guttmacher Institute at the time of the original studies worked for the biggest abortion provider in the country - Planned Parenthood. No one would reasonably expect them to release numbers that might incriminate their employer in any sort of illegal abortions. At the very best they rolled up estimates of illicit abortions into the 3% "error-rate" estimate (but I doubt it). Remember too that a large part of the US Congress is currently trying to defund Planned Parenthood because it has been caught red-handed numerous times in various deceptions and illegal activities (i.e. aiding sex trafficking of underage girls). Again, here's more reason to suspect that the data is under reported and even more horrific than even they admit.

Can we move on now?
Last edited by AZJoe; August 25,2011 at 4:40am.
 
 
harnomygirl is offline harnomygirl Post #30  August 25,2011, 9:31am
harnomygirl's Avatar

Power Poster

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 6,418

See profile

AZJoe wrote :
Can we move on now?
Yes. I think I see what you mean. I'm not positive though because the posts were really, really long.

These are the parts I remember. I am no religious scholar, and I'm trying to repeat the concepts as simply as I can:

Lots of the OT was poetically written and not to be taken literally. Killing children is okay only if God says so and, don't worry, those kids went to Heaven. If a smaller nation wins a war it's most likely because God wants the world to know that He's on their side. Pro-choice women who give birth to a child are illogical cowards because having an abortion yourself is the only reasonable way to show that the choice should exist. The OT sounds barbaric to us because it took God thousands of years to purify His people into something special, and the end result is today's Christian.
 
 
Closed Thread


« A question of faith versus works for believers? | Religion & Spirituality | Is Sin a part of God’s plan? »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Excellent, thank you. I think I will leave out the first part, I think it is unnecessary information to give him. I'm not interested in putting myself out there like that and it might be a little ... ” –  generallyyou

Join the “Ending a friendship” discussion

“Alfred Hitchcock - 18 Steven Spielberg - 62 *notice what?” –  dmi

Join the “War of the Directors” discussion

“ I would be "certain people" :P The issue isn't a deal-breaker, but a very strong factor preference-wise, for me.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “How much does race play in your dating someone?” discussion

“Love Texas Hold'em!.. I'm thinking of trying another tournament this summer...not sure yet though.. Never entered a tournament before, outside of online ones. Personally I prefer to play with ... ” –  Freezepop

Join the “Favorite Card Game” discussion

“Make that 3! I also had a crush on Donny Osmond. I think I still have a record or two of his. Suzie ” –  legend29

Join the “Robin Gibbs Dead at 62...How Deep is Your Love?” discussion

“Oh, my revised profile can be seen in the forum in the section where you can ask for a profile review. Suzanne” –  SuzanneScorpio

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“Just remember, everything that you are feeling and/or are capable of he is as well. If he wanted to reach you, he could. Right now he knows that you are hurting, and that this is not what you ... ” –  lynntlb78

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“ Yohio. And the shortened form (Anya) is nice too.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “Where is Becky?!?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:36am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0