September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Heroism & Evil | Main | Construction vs. Development (Share your dialogue with us!) »

September 11, 2008

Comments

"At least on the Christian view, one might think that abortion inestimably benefits the aborted fetus--which probably isn't the case for the victims of Hitler."

Huh?
Site chapter and verse - please.

Sandpaper - are you a Christian? Would someone be doing you a favor by killing you?

Man, that is some twisted logic there.


Lumbergh,

I don't think any logic needs to be twisted. But also you can't find this thesis in a single Bible verse. Rather, one must apply logic to premises made plausible by the whole council of God (If your own mind only allows for simple reactions to individual Bible verses, I don't know how to help you.)

Also, my use of the word "probably" was understatement. I should have been clearer:

At least on the Christian view, one might think that abortion inestimably benefits the aborted fetus--which isn't the case for the victims of Hitler.

"At least on the Christian view, one might think that abortion inestimably benefits the aborted fetus--which probably isn't the case for the victims of Hitler."

Huh?
Book, chapter, and verse - please.

Man, that is some twisted logic!


"I don't think any logic needs to be twisted."

It might not need to be twisted, but it surely was with your "better off dead" philosophy. All you need to do is inject yourself into the equation to see that it doesn't hold water.

That was my reason for asking:

"Sandpaper - are you a Christian? Would someone be doing you a favor by killing you?"

You never answered that question by the way.

"But also you can't find this thesis in a single Bible verse."

Where did I say you could? This is known as a straw man argument.

"Rather, one must apply logic to premises made plausible by the whole council of God (If your own mind only allows for simple reactions to individual Bible verses, I don't know how to help you.)"

You could help by first not being condescending. Step two might involve showing some evidence that your point is valid. One is left to wonder why when given that chance, you would act in a defensive manner.

This is referred to as an ad hominem attack commonly used by those who don't want to debate the issue but muddy the waters.

"Also, my use of the word "probably" was understatement. I should have been clearer:"

Congratulations! You have somehow managed to make an offensive and illogical statement even more offensive and illogical.

Interesting point, Sandpaper! Given that aborted fetuses go to heaven, thereby avoiding life of possible suffering and the possibility of hell, is it really the concern for the well-being of their souls that drives the pro-life position?

"Given that aborted fetuses go to heaven, thereby avoiding life of possible suffering"

Again I ask, where is your evidence for this statement?

Also, would you would be willing to give up your life so as to avoid a possible life of suffering? Why not?

The person making the claim is the one responsible for providing the the proof. Still waiting.

Using that logic, let's kill all of the atheists now so that they will receive a lesser punishment in Hell becaused we offed them before they could commit additional sins.

Lumbergh,

My apologies for the condescension. The abortion issue, not to mention all the politics that come attached, prompt emotions enough.

Sincerely.

Hi Paul,

"I don't think I tried to "sneak" it in -- I'm upfront in my declaration that economic systems have a component of morality... "

Perhaps, what you mean to say is that we can assess whether some economic system is "moral" or not based on our ideas of what is just. To say that economic systems have a build-in component of morality is strictly speaking wrong, unless a system was deliberately designed to be moral which free market economy was not. (that was the only point I was trying to make).

"So would it be "moral" for a government to tax "rich" people 100% of their income, to give to "poor" people? To me, it's clear that is theft, whether lawful or not, and is thus immoral."

Of course it would not be moral to tax anyone 100%, and I don't know of any system that does that besides, maybe, slavery. Also, I don't see why you ask this question. I have never mentioned socialism or communism in my post.

"I don't think I said that no other considerations should be taken, but can you give an example of a system that is more moral?"

Good. I'm glad you agree that there are other considerations, and free market economy by itself is not a warrant of morality and justice. If you are interested in economic/political systems that are designed with moral principles in mind (not communism and socialism) I recommend to take a look at "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls.

Lumbergh,

"Again I ask, where is your evidence for this statement?"

you're right, there is no direct evidence for this. But some indirect evidence suggests this is most likely the case:

(Ezekiel 18:4 NIV) For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

Since aborted babies did not have a chance to sin yet, they should go to heaven.

"Also, would you would be willing to give up your life so as to avoid a possible life of suffering? Why not?"

Wouldn't you? What would you rather choose: a life that might end up with ETERNAL horrific suffering or life in heaven with God? If you take the possibility of hell as real, the answer should be clear!

"Using that logic, let's kill all of the atheists now so that they will receive a lesser punishment in Hell becaused we offed them before they could commit additional sins."

That's exactly the point! This logic leads to weird consequences, consequences that we are not prepared to accept. This should make you question the original premises. Or it should make you accept that abortion is not comparable to holocaust!

Sandpaper - apology accepted.

Let me attempt to tie up the loose ends by saying that the Bible does not directly address the issue of the destiny of aborted fetuses.

We can, of course, take solice in the fact that and all knowing God will make a completely just decision on the destiny of each individual based on all possible factors.

There is no consensus on this issue.

We should not scream where the Bible whispers.

Lumbergh, based on your comments would it then be safe to assume that your candidate better supports the Christian worldview solely on the topic of abortion but in no other area? If thats the case then there is a possibility that there exist other moral topics that do not fall in line with our Christian worldview that might be appropiate to discuss or post in this blog. Therefore it's quite reasonable suggest a discussion of the McCain/Palin platform as it relates to these issues. You can disagree because of your personal preference, but not because my request is "unreasonable".

Elwira (no relation to the song by the Oak Ridge Boys - I assume)

Thanks for at least offering some scriptural texts. Although I don't think the ones you chose make the point that all fetuses go to heaven.

(Ezekiel 18:4 NIV) For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

Since aborted babies did not have a chance to sin yet, they should go to heaven.

This is true, but the Bible also teaches that we are conceived with a sin nature. In other words, we have all inherited the sin that Adam committed in the Garden of Eden. Just as we inherit a foreign rightousness through Christ's death on the cross. See Romans 5: 12

Psalm 51: 5

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

"Wouldn't you? What would you rather choose: a life that might end up with ETERNAL horrific suffering or life in heaven with God? If you take the possibility of hell as real, the answer should be clear!"

No, I would not choose to be aborted elwira and neither would you. No one would. Not that you would have a choice. The person who has the abortion never consults the living person inside them for their opinion.

God's plan is for us to live and love him with all of our heart, soul, and mind. To do his will on Earth and then to worship him forever in eternity even though we in no way deserve it.

"That's exactly the point! This logic leads to weird consequences, consequences that we are not prepared to accept. This should make you question the original premises. Or it should make you accept that abortion is not comparable to holocaust!"

The example I used was based on the logic that sandpaper was using. Afterwards, you told him that he had a good point. I'm unclear whether you are supporting or trying to refute the issue.

Why exactly is it not comparable?

"Lumbergh, based on your comments would it then be safe to assume that your candidate better supports the Christian worldview solely on the topic of abortion but in no other area?"

No. And how would you base that on my comments. All I said is why would you set the abortion issue aside? Never got an answer by the way.

"If thats the case then there is a possibility that there exist other moral topics that do not fall in line with our Christian worldview that might be appropiate to discuss or post in this blog."

I prefer to finish the discussion on one issue before moving on to the next one.

Please feel free to join in on this topic.

So far, we have only received the ghoulish reply that unborn babies are better off dead so that they go to heaven. Which, of course, is not supported Biblically.

I was actually responding to your first response to me in this post regarding the reasonability of my request on a Christian site. Sorry for the confusion. Please keep the current topic going, I won't distract from it any further :)

'Traditional Calvinist'
Thanks for your answer Pro Life, that helps. The only problems I see with that, is that Calvin didn't die for our sins. The other problem is that Calvin, Luther and others brought a European mind set to a distinctly Hebrew book. I'm not discounting the contributions made by men like them, but their resources as fare as manuscripts, were extremely limited at the time. I believe that the 1611 translators only had six available.
As far as the Arminian/Calvinist (free will/soveriegnty) issue goes, both are taught, but it is beyond the ability of our finite mind to comprehend. You cannot adher to one to the exclusion of the other, and remain within Biblical bounds; man just cannot reconcile the two ( in my opinion). My personal view at the moment is that we run into the totality of God's devine attributes in this issue. I realize that there are more differences between the two sides.
This way off topic, and I appologize for that, but the basis for how we 'apply' Scripture in practical day to day life is often colored more by cultural/historical figures, rather than exogetics.

I applaud Lumbergh's efforts to keep this thread together (despite the fact that this little sub-discussion is itself tangential to the OP).

It is, however, noteworthy that some Christians seem suppose that a candidate's stand on abortion is so important that it overrides every other consideration. But Lumbergh does well to explain this sentiment: who is willing to vote for a Nazi--no matter how superior his health care plan may be?

I made a claim that Lumbergh finds outrageous: that a relevant dissimilarity between Hitler and abortion supporters is that Hitler's act was not in the best interests of his victims.

Elwira sympathizes: the aborted fetus is spared the chance of ending up tormented in eternal hellfire. But Lumbergh seems doubts this--but not by doubting the hell part. Rather Lumbergh apparently must suspect that unborn babies might also end up being tormented in eternal hellfire. Now this is where I would appeal to what I called "the whole council of God." Frankly, it seems implausible that the God of the Bible would send an unborn baby's soul to eternal torment. I think many Spirit-filled Christians would agree.


>>It is, however, noteworthy that some Christians seem suppose that a candidate's stand on abortion is so important that it overrides every other consideration. But Lumbergh does well to explain this sentiment: who is willing to vote for a Nazi--no matter how superior his health care plan may be?

Sandpaper, you should take the time to more thoroughly understand what positions politically conservative Christians hold and why they hold them. I've frequently heard more liberal Christians make the charge you've just made against conservatives, but it's based on a misunderstanding. It's not only abortion that conservatives care about. They actually believe that conservative positions across the board will create a better, more generous, more prosperous, more just society. It's difficult for liberals to believe conservatives think this (hence, they think conservatives must only care about abortion) because many of those liberals have very little understanding of the conservative perspective, but it really is true.

If you're really looking for more explanation for why Christians would be conservative other than because of the abortion issue, check out Acton.org.

On topic now. I do understand Pro Life's frustration. My complaint was that I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Then I ran into,' There is none righteous...., all have sinned etc.' Until the Lord returns, we will be faced with fallen men and women in our political arena. The only thing we can do is choose those that most closely match the Scriptural guide lines; right now that is McCain/Palin.
The marriage/divorce issue is secondary to abortion which is child sacrifice. So what does the Bible say on these two issues?
In john 4 & 8 we have two women in sin. In John 8 we have Jesus Himself dealing with the issue. He didn't council her husband to divorce her, nor to have her stoned. I'll point out that Jesus, was, fully qualified to judge and condem her, yet He showed mercy and grace. The same overall thing can be said of the Samaritan woman.
EZE. 14,15 & 16 however clearly shows God's intolerance for child sacrifice. In fact in EZE 16:20-21, God asks if it is a small matter. Furhter we have Sodom and part of their abominations listed in EZE 16. So we have child sacrfice/abortion, Sodom/homosexuality, (EZE); forsaking the law of God, ( Hosea 4:6) etc. Obama & Biden have staked out their party's position, whatever Biden may try to say. These issues sent Israel into captivity and destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem and Juda. If God is a just God, then it is clear which party is the least of the two evils.
I don't however, share the view that voting for a candidate that isn't likely to win, is a sin, as long as they hold a Biblical view. All the candidates are 'short of the glory of God', some just don't know it, or don't believe it. The nation has a clear choice now right out in the open. This nation is the only major nation with any vestage of Christianity left at the national level. My prayer is that as with Josiah in 2 Chron 34 & 35 God will stay His hand of judgement on America until the church is gone. Yes I do believe in the rapture. To that end, Biblically speaking, godly leadership at the national level is crucial. Obama & Biden definitely don't fit the Biblical example at all. Mccain and Palin, whatever their short comings are a lot closer, Palin much more so than McCain even.

Tim,

I suppose you voted for Bush based on similar considerations. Just curious: are you happy with the state of affairs after 8 years of Bush?

Elwira,

I don't know about Tim, but (though I'm not thrilled about everything done in the Bush administration) I'm much happier than I would have been under a Dem presidency.

Further, there's really no way to be sure, since we'd need an alternate universe (in which Bush wasn't elected) to know what our country would look like now under other leadership.

Hello again elwira,

(this time on the economics question) you wrote:
"Perhaps, what you mean to say is that we can assess whether some economic system is 'moral' or not based on our ideas of what is just."

That is probably a better way to state it.

"To say that economic systems have a build-in component of morality is strictly speaking wrong..."

I didn't put it quite like that, but "component" was probably a poor word choice on my part. Morality isn't strictly *part* of an economic system, but economic systems can be moral or immoral.

"Of course it would not be moral to tax anyone 100%, and I don't know of any system that does that besides, maybe, slavery."

My point in using this (extreme) example was to set the bounds -- clearly somewhere between 0% and 100% taxation the government crosses the line between appropriate and necessary taxation and outright (though lawful) theft. Some on the far-left advocate 60-80% tax rates for the "rich". IMHO, that is theft.

"Also, I don't see why you ask this question. I have never mentioned socialism or communism in my post."

From your comments, it sounded like you were suggesting that economic systems can't be immoral, so I was trying to give an example. From your last post, it seems my assumption was incorrect.

"Good. I'm glad you agree that there are other considerations,..."

What other considerations should be taken when deciding on a "just" redistribution of wealth? We were discussing in vague terms, so I'm a little unclear on your point.

"... and free market economy by itself is not a warrant of morality and justice."

No, it's just the most moral of the economic systems with which I'm familiar.

"If you are interested in economic/political systems..."

I know the two are tightly linked, but my comment was on the morality of an economic system (the free-market), not a comment on a political system.

"... that are designed with moral principles in mind (not communism and socialism) I recommend to take a look at 'A Theory of Justice' by John Rawls."

Sounds interesting -- I'll look it up. Is it an advocacy piece or is it a clinical appraisal? If the former, it matters greatly what moral system is being adopted and how it is applied, since most economic systems (including those I find to be immoral) are somebody's implementation of somebody's idea of morality.

Readers of this blog are reading Rawls? My respect for this community is renewed. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.