Since we're doing abortion again

18,812 Views | 491 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by one MEEN Ag
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

If a fetus is considered a child, then sure, it comes out the same. Motivation is irrelevant in that regard. I am asking whether those passages about child sacrifice are meant to extend to an unborn child. There appears to be terminology in Hebrew that refers to an unborn child, but I am not aware of whether or not it appears in the Bible. I could not find anywhere that it had.
You've answered in the first sentence. An unborn child is still a child, as far as any Christian is concerned. The God of the OT makes it eminently clear He is deeply concerned for the powerless, the marginalized, the children, the poor, the orphan, and the widow. It would be exceedingly out of character for Him to not care for the unborn - there is no weaker, voiceless, innocent, unprotected class in society.

Quote:

And where does Jephthah's child sacrifice of his daughter at God's command following the defeat of the Ammonites play in? On the surface, this certainly seems relevant. No? I mean, as long as the child sacrifice isn't for Moloch. . . OG God seems cool with it.
This is something the Lord neither asked for nor approved. Over and over He says regarding human sacrifice, or child sacrifice, that this is something "I did not command, nor did it come into my mind."

Quote:

I guess my point is this: If those are the 'best' passages to apply to an unborn child, they are not as clear as they could be. Yahweh condemns beastiality far more clearly and often than child sacrifice.
Human beings are not to be sacrificed, and children in particular. There is absolutely no reading of the OT which could come to any other conclusion. For the vast majority of abortions the children are being killed for what can boils down to convenience, avoidance of hardship. There is no reading of the OT that makes this acceptable or even a gray area.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

What does that say about free will? And why pick and choose which humans he would have die rather than let them become what they'll become. God decided to kill a loooooooooot of ancient peoples. . . . But not ****ing Hitler?
It says nothing about free will. If a human being kills you, has your free will been violated?

I think your understanding of the level of badness of Hitler vs the ancient peoples mentioned in the scriptures are off-base. The ancients are fascinating, but they're also barely human. Hitler and the Nazis have nothing on some ancient people. Seriously.

Quote:

God became like us in every way? Jesus was supposedly an immaculately conceived God-man, free from sin and impurity who could walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform all manner of miracles. . . . I have to say, I'm not sure he was like us in every way.
I answered this above. He is like us with every excepting only sin. He is what all humans are to be.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RebelE Infantry said:

Free will does not imply freedom from consequences.

Killing someone so that they don't make future bad decisions, does not mean free will.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I find all of this some amazing mental gymnastics to twist a vengeful God (his own words) into an all loving God.

Again, God is okay with some little one's being killed but there's a blanket order against Abortion even though it's never mentioned....
File5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Macarthur said:

I find all of this some amazing mental gymnastics to twist a vengeful God (his own words) into an all loving God.

Again, God is okay with some little one's being killed but there's a blanket order against Abortion even though it's never mentioned....


I think the responses have done a great job of responding to both of your statements here, do you have anything more of substance?
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
God never killed out of convenience.

The pro abortion crowd only wants life that is convenient for them.

Even the argument the God is a murderer is an attempt to slander, in order to alleviate themselves of guilt.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Anyone slandering God in this thread ever given up their lives for people? Even the same people who hate them and wanted to kill them?

Anyone?

No?
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
File5 said:

Macarthur said:

I find all of this some amazing mental gymnastics to twist a vengeful God (his own words) into an all loving God.

Again, God is okay with some little one's being killed but there's a blanket order against Abortion even though it's never mentioned....


I think the responses have done a great job of responding to both of your statements here, do you have anything more of substance?
No, they haven't. Kurt beat me to the punch on a couple of these reponses. They are incredibly inadequate, IMO.

Do I need to actually post a list of why I think God doesn't really value human life?
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Anyone slandering God in this thread ever given up their lives for people? Even the same people who hate them and wanted to kill them?

Anyone?

No?
Since we are here posting, then no, we are not dead having given up our lives.

Have Christians here given up their lives literally or metaphorically? Yes I know a few posters here have moved, and donated, and done amazing things. But I'd think the majority of Christians here haven't done anything like that.

What does giving up one's life have to do with anything on an abortions thread?

Can you highlight the slander for us?


Also,
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Quote:

I guess my point is this: If those are the 'best' passages to apply to an unborn child, they are not as clear as they could be. Yahweh condemns beastiality far more clearly and often than child sacrifice.
Human beings are not to be sacrificed, and children in particular. There is absolutely no reading of the OT which could come to any other conclusion. For the vast majority of abortions the children are being killed for what can boils down to convenience, avoidance of hardship. There is no reading of the OT that makes this acceptable or even a gray area.

Ultimately, I'm not arguing that the OT condones abortion or that it prohibits it.

Strictly from a reading comprehension stand point - I am saying that the Bible is far more clear about not having sex with animals than it is about the personhood status of unborn children. That seems odd to me.

Most Jewish scholars and interpretations of the OT come to a very different conclusion than what you state regarding when life begins. My understanding is that must Jews do not consider abortion as child sacrifice. They are pretty clear about not having sex with animals though.
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

RebelE Infantry said:

I useThe astonishing part is that in His mercy, he allows us to live after disobeying Him. He is our God, and we have the insolence to disobey Him.

God is both perfect mercy and perfect justice. We often forget about the justice part.


Some of you guys are really good at making God sound like a slaveowner.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was being a little facetious.

The point being its strange to say "God is bad because he killed people based on this religious text" and ignore the part right after where that same God voluntarily submitted suffering and death to save all mankind. You wanna talk about one, you need to talk about the other.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Anyone slandering God in this thread ever given up their lives for people? Even the same people who hate them and wanted to kill them?

Anyone?

No?
This supposes that God has given up His life for people or provided some sacrifice. What has God lost? Is God less powerful? Does God now lack something which He wishes He still had. If not, then God hasn't sacrificed anything.

What did Jesus sacrifice? A few more years on Earth so that he could live in bliss in Heaven? Sign me up for that sacrifice! If Jesus had gone to Hell to be tortured for eternity, that would be a sacrifice!



Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

I was being a little facetious.

The point being its strange to say "God is bad because he killed people based on this religious text" and ignore the part right after where that same God voluntarily submitted suffering and death to save all mankind. You wanna talk about one, you need to talk about the other.
Fair, but one doesn't absolve the other either. Voluntarily submitting yourself to suffering and death to save all mankind doesn't absolve you of causing a lot of suffering.
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If God exists, do you believe that he is an evil entity?
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

I was being a little facetious.

The point being its strange to say "God is bad because he killed people based on this religious text" and ignore the part right after where that same God voluntarily submitted suffering and death to save all mankind. You wanna talk about one, you need to talk about the other.

Again, what suffering and death did God submit to? I recently watched someone I love very much go from the best shape of his life to be withered down and destroyed by cancer leaving behind a wife and two girls. If my choice is to suffer a day on a cross or go through a single day of what he went through - give me the cross.


Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Right, I'm arguing that it clearly prohibits it. I think you may be making a kind of error of ascribing our modern sense of "law" to the ancient one. But ancient near east law codes were casuistic, not exhaustive. In our concept of law what isn't explicit isn't covered, the absence of a law means there is no law. On the other hand casuistic laws take case studies which imply or teach moral principles which can be applied in other situations.

Under this approach the killing of unborn children is clearly against the principles outlined in the text.

The second problem with your statement is a pervasive error Christians and non-Christians alike have made throughout history - namely that the Rabbi or Jewish person you know in your day represents in any the ancient Jew or Israelite. They don't. Modern day Rabbinic Judaism is more or less a reactionary religion formed as a direct repudiation of Christianity. I don't have any issue whatever with saying that modern Christianity has more of a direct claim on the interpretation of the OT than modern Rabbinic Judaism does. I think this is a historical fact, actually.

Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
M1Buckeye said:

If God exists, do you believe that he is an evil entity?
Creating an Eden that was designed to fail, Flooding the world, Plagues of Egypt, creating a bear to maul 42 children, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.

Judging God based on his actions, and not what he claims. A lot of signs point to yes.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No? Does a surgeon healing a person absolve them of the damage they do during the surgery?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think you mean that. Christ was scourged more or less to death, then nailed naked to a cross in a death explicitly designed and intended to maximize suffering, humiliation, and shame.

It doesn't make sense to compare sufferings, of course. But the key difference is that Christ Jesus suffered what He did voluntarily.
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

Zobel said:

What did Jesus sacrifice?





Sign me up for that sacrifice!
No you get it!!!!
Take up your Cross and follow me!!!!

If Jesus had gone to Hell (HE Did)




Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

No? Does a surgeon healing a person absolve them of the damage they do during the surgery?
A surgeon expertly and delicately cutting into someone to remove a ruptured appendix is very different from any of the terrible actions of God. I'd say the actions of God are closer to a surgeon solving the appendix with a sledgehammer.

Once you've convinced yourself you are doing the greater good, then any actions are justifiable.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There's no basis for you to evaluate the two. You have as much support for your estimation as me saying that the Lord is infinitely more precise and effective as the best surgeon, and also infinitely more loving, compassionate, and altruistic.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jrico2727 said:

Sapper Redux said:

RebelE Infantry said:

I useThe astonishing part is that in His mercy, he allows us to live after disobeying Him. He is our God, and we have the insolence to disobey Him.

God is both perfect mercy and perfect justice. We often forget about the justice part.


Some of you guys are really good at making God sound like a slaveowner.



He can be the nicest one in history, but the comparison works based on how God is framed in some of these discussions. People get zero say in whether they are born or the circumstances of their birth. They are expected from birth to follow a set of rules that are impossible to actually follow. Failure to follow these impossible rules creates a right for God to kill or torture them without recourse, since God is the source of all power. And the only way out is to submit and accept a single path created by God. There is no escape and any deviation can result in eternal torture.
File5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Macarthur said:

File5 said:

Macarthur said:

I find all of this some amazing mental gymnastics to twist a vengeful God (his own words) into an all loving God.

Again, God is okay with some little one's being killed but there's a blanket order against Abortion even though it's never mentioned....


I think the responses have done a great job of responding to both of your statements here, do you have anything more of substance?
No, they haven't. Kurt beat me to the punch on a couple of these reponses. They are incredibly inadequate, IMO.

Do I need to actually post a list of why I think God doesn't really value human life?



Sure, why not? Anything is better than just calling arguments mental gymnastics and restating points that we've already addressed. Conversation requires two people honestly engaging with reasoned, supported positions, if you don't do that then there's no point to put any time into it.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a bad faith representation and no Christian would agree with it.
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
File5 said:

Macarthur said:

File5 said:

Macarthur said:

I find all of this some amazing mental gymnastics to twist a vengeful God (his own words) into an all loving God.

Again, God is okay with some little one's being killed but there's a blanket order against Abortion even though it's never mentioned....


I think the responses have done a great job of responding to both of your statements here, do you have anything more of substance?
No, they haven't. Kurt beat me to the punch on a couple of these reponses. They are incredibly inadequate, IMO.

Do I need to actually post a list of why I think God doesn't really value human life?



Sure, why not? Anything is better than just calling arguments mental gymnastics and restating points that we've already addressed. Conversation requires two people honestly engaging with reasoned, supported positions, if you don't do that then there's no point to put any time into it.


Exactly. Matthew 7:6
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Right, I'm arguing that it clearly prohibits it. I think you may be making a kind of error of ascribing our modern sense of "law" to the ancient one. But ancient near east law codes were casuistic, not exhaustive. In our concept of law what isn't explicit isn't covered, the absence of a law means there is no law. On the other hand casuistic laws take case studies which imply or teach moral principles which can be applied in other situations.

Under this approach the killing of unborn children is clearly against the principles outlined in the text.

The second problem with your statement is a pervasive error Christians and non-Christians alike have made throughout history - namely that the Rabbi or Jewish person you know in your day represents in any the ancient Jew or Israelite. They don't. Modern day Rabbinic Judaism is more or less a reactionary religion formed as a direct repudiation of Christianity. I don't have any issue whatever with saying that modern Christianity has more of a direct claim on the interpretation of the OT than modern Rabbinic Judaism does. I think this is a historical fact, actually.

I understand that nature by which one can take a moral principle and apply it elsewhere. Again, I'm not really arguing that the Bible condones abortion. Go ahead with a caustic approach and extend from Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Kings toward unborn children. I'm not saying it isn't valid. I'm asking why the laws about sex with animals is so relatively exhaustive. If God wishes us to live by certain laws, then God must communicate those laws to us. There are more effective ways to communicate and less effective ways to communicate.

I brought up the Jewish position as a counter example to the suggestion that no one could read the OT and reach different conclusions about the nuances of child sacrifice. And simply stating your opinion that modern Christians have a more direct claim to the OT and then stating it is fact does not make it so. I did not bring up Judaism as an appeal to authority, but it is certainly a tactic you are using here, right? You are saying that modern Christians are the authority and therefore their interpretation should be more valued.

Back to communication. . . . . the concept of abortion is not rocket science. An effective communicator God should be able to tell people what is right and wrong. A God that gives us moral principles and then asks us to use our best judgement in applying that principle elsewhere is inviting disagreement and inconclusion. And a God that expects that we should all become ancient civilization scholars, linguists, cultural experts, and theologians so that we can, through decades of study, understand something as simple as 'abortion - bad' or 'abortion - okay' is not a God that should have any expectation that we should understand His will. Which is also weird. Why would God give us direction knowing we aren't going to understand, we're going to fight, and we're going to come to different conclusions.. . . . . except when it comes to sex with animals. Again, he was much more clear about that.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

I don't think you mean that. Christ was scourged more or less to death, then nailed naked to a cross in a death explicitly designed and intended to maximize suffering, humiliation, and shame.

It doesn't make sense to compare sufferings, of course. But the key difference is that Christ Jesus suffered what He did voluntarily.

No, I do mean it. I don't have a rosy picture of what torture and execution looks like. But I would take that over being destroyed by cancer and seeing my kids next to me crying because daddy is dying.

I don't like pain or humiliation, but at this point in my life. . . . its not what I fear most. There are a great many things I can think of that would be more horrifying than one day of torture.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just dropping in to say **** CANCER
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The OT doesn't exist in a vacuum. One of the most interesting ways to read it even in a non-religious setting is as dialogue. Where it speaks, it often speaks in opposition.

Bring frank I suspect bestiality was rampant, so it was explicitly prohibited. Along with a long list of other sexual immoralities.

I suspect abortion as we know it was not. I don't know when herbal abortifacients were invented, but I suspect they weren't common in the Bronze Age. On the other hand, child sacrifice was practiced, and is rejected.

It's not ambiguous. It has never been ambiguous to followers of Christianity, on any level. It is ambiguous to people outside the faith, or to those who are more closely aligned with modern secular morality than Christianity. The appeal to an unclear principle is ahistorical. Christians have argued against abortion explicitly since the end of the first century, and in continuity since.

And no, I'm not saying it's an appeal to authority. I'm saying pulling up (more relatively) modern rabbinical interpretations is not in any way an answer to what I wrote in the preceding paragraph.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is an unanswerable discussion. But again, regardless of some kind of pain and suffering olympics, the difference is the death He endured, He did voluntarily. And those children weeping at the side of your friend are God's children as well, and He cares for them and your friend an unimaginable amount. For their benefit, He endured it.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

This is an unanswerable discussion. But again, regardless of some kind of pain and suffering olympics, the difference is the death He endured, He did voluntarily. And those children weeping at the side of your friend are God's children as well, and He cares for them and your friend an unimaginable amount. For their benefit, He endured it.

I used cancer just as an example, but if willingness is a requisite, I hardly think I'll have any trouble finding examples of persons who willingly went through torture and mutilation and pain that would be far worse than a day on the cross.

Again, the point is that the physical pain that Jesus would have gone through was not extraordinary compared to millions of other people that willingly went to horrific deaths.

One day of pain divided by an infinity of happiness goes to zero. What did Jesus give up and sacrifice. Is it just that one day of physical pain? What did Jesus lose? What does he not have today that he wishes he still had?
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just as a side note, the OT has all these rules about sex that seem eye rollingly obvious to us, but were being practiced by the nonjewish tribes back then. God sets rules up to set the Jewish people apart, trying to make a priest of a people. That includes highlighting things that the local surrounding cultures were doing and what you shouldn't be doing.

Also, your critique on communication with God begs the question that you demand God to be here, today holding a press conference. Thats not how this works.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you believe that all people will be resurrected as I do then He have no less than they did.

If you are a materialist and believe that there is nothing after death, then again they are equivalent.

I don't see the distinction.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.