PDA

View Full Version : Per Ginger's request...from the Kids Hearing Christian Music thread



MrsSmith
03-19-2009, 05:42 PM
Is it irrational for a person to support abortion while also insisting that God does not have the right to take the unborn, infants, and children Home?

Gingersnap
03-19-2009, 07:43 PM
What a sweetheart! Finally, somebody has taken the bold move and made a new thread. I'm grateful. :)

Can we clarify the question a little?

MrsSmith
03-19-2009, 07:58 PM
What a sweetheart! Finally, somebody has taken the bold move and made a new thread. I'm grateful. :)

Can we clarify the question a little?


Can we say that Saul was following the Golden Rule when he and his men, acting on orders from God, slaughtered the children of the Amalekites? I don't think we can.

The only way we can say that the Bible establishes moral absolutes is if we define morality to be that which pleases God. In other words, if the story of the Amalekites is to be believed then that which pleases God is not necessarily moral by human standards.


Irrelevant. The children of the Amalekites did not deserve to be slaughtered for the crimes of their parents. Punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is the epitome of injustice.



Feel free to provide a reasonable justification for the slaughter of infants and children.


I see statements like this from abortion-supporting people on a fairly regular basis. I believe that it is irrational to support abortion "rights" while simultaneously standing in judgement of the actions of God. I am curious about the thoughts of others...especially those that made these statements.

Gingersnap
03-19-2009, 08:13 PM
Ah! So we are talking about The Problem of Evil. This issue has an actual title and entire books have been devoted to this subject because believers and unbelievers have been talking about it for centuries.

When discussing TPOE, I find that it's useful to clarify even basic points on both sides. Sadly, neither side shares a common vocabulary when discussing "innocence", "love", "cruelty", "justice" or "mercy".

Generally, the Your God Is An angry God side will attempt to posit that the Christian God cannot be merciful or just if He allows toddlers to be crushed by semi-tractor trailers. The Traditional Christian side will discuss the Potter and the Potter's vessels as well as a completely different interpretation of "innocents". How it goes depends largely on the flavor of Christianity involved: the Reformed inclining toward a sovereign view and the Liturgical inclining toward a Grace-infused view. Either way, it's always interesting.

MrsSmith
03-19-2009, 09:29 PM
Ah! So we are talking about The Problem of Evil. This issue has an actual title and entire books have been devoted to this subject because believers and unbelievers have been talking about it for centuries.

When discussing TPOE, I find that it's useful to clarify even basic points on both sides. Sadly, neither side shares a common vocabulary when discussing "innocence", "love", "cruelty", "justice" or "mercy".

Generally, the Your God Is An angry God side will attempt to posit that the Christian God cannot be merciful or just if He allows toddlers to be crushed by semi-tractor trailers. The Traditional Christian side will discuss the Potter and the Potter's vessels as well as a completely different interpretation of "innocents". How it goes depends largely on the flavor of Christianity involved: the Reformed inclining toward a sovereign view and the Liturgical inclining toward a Grace-infused view. Either way, it's always interesting.

That sounds about right. :D However, I have a specific question to ask Night Owl...or anyone else with the same view of God's actions. If, that is, any of them join the thread.

Gingersnap
03-19-2009, 09:44 PM
That sounds about right. :D However, I have a specific question to ask Night Owl...or anyone else with the same view of God's actions. If, that is, any of them join the thread.

Oh, I doubt they be able to resist over the next few days. I look forward to it!

The Night Owl
03-20-2009, 08:48 AM
I see statements like this from abortion-supporting people on a fairly regular basis. I believe that it is irrational to support abortion "rights" while simultaneously standing in judgement of the actions of God. I am curious about the thoughts of others...especially those that made these statements.

For the record, I'm against the abortion of embryos older than 3 weeks. I don't consider an embryo younger than 3 weeks old to be a child because it lacks a brain and a nervous system and has no consciousness whatsoever.

Now to turn the tables... how do you justify the slaughter of the Amalekite children?

The Night Owl
03-20-2009, 09:01 AM
That sounds about right. :D However, I have a specific question to ask Night Owl...or anyone else with the same view of God's actions. If, that is, any of them join the thread.

For me, responding to challenges is a matter of when not if.

The Night Owl
03-20-2009, 11:04 AM
Ah! So we are talking about The Problem of Evil. This issue has an actual title and entire books have been devoted to this subject because believers and unbelievers have been talking about it for centuries.

When discussing TPOE, I find that it's useful to clarify even basic points on both sides. Sadly, neither side shares a common vocabulary when discussing "innocence", "love", "cruelty", "justice" or "mercy".

Generally, the Your God Is An angry God side will attempt to posit that the Christian God cannot be merciful or just if He allows toddlers to be crushed by semi-tractor trailers. The Traditional Christian side will discuss the Potter and the Potter's vessels as well as a completely different interpretation of "innocents". How it goes depends largely on the flavor of Christianity involved: the Reformed inclining toward a sovereign view and the Liturgical inclining toward a Grace-infused view. Either way, it's always interesting.

I'm not talking about God letting bad things happen though I can if you want me to. I'm talking about God commanding Saul to kill infants and children.

Gingersnap
03-20-2009, 12:11 PM
I'm not talking about God letting bad things happen though I can if you want me to. I'm talking about God commanding Saul to kill infants and children.

Okay, what is your specific question?

The Night Owl
03-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Okay, what is your specific question?

See post #7.

Gingersnap
03-20-2009, 01:36 PM
Now to turn the tables... how do you justify the slaughter of the Amalekite children?

Why does she have to justify it all? :confused:

It would be better if you restate your question for clarity.

PoliCon
03-20-2009, 01:38 PM
Now to turn the tables... how do you justify the slaughter of the Amalekite children?tell me - what were the circumstances of said slaughter? Do you know?

MrsSmith
03-20-2009, 05:03 PM
For the record, I'm against the abortion of embryos older than 3 weeks. I don't consider an embryo younger than 3 weeks old to be a child because it lacks a brain and a nervous system and has no consciousness whatsoever.

Now to turn the tables... how do you justify the slaughter of the Amalekite children?

In your view, if the child is young enough, it's OK for the mother to end that life. Now, we are talking about an ordinary, mortal, human mother...she knows absolutely nothing about her child. She doesn't even know if her child is male or female, let alone the personality, potential and possible future of that child. Heck, she doesn't even know HER future. Yet, under your definition of "moral behavior," she can kill that child because the brain is not yet developed.

Now, on the other hand, you have God, the Creator. The only Being in the universe that knows every single human from before conception. He knows every thought, every emotion, every action of every single human ever conceived. He knows all the past and all the future of every individual human. He knows which will choose Heaven, and which will not...what moment in time each human is conceived, and what moment and way each human dies...and He has known since before He created Time.

The Night Owl
03-20-2009, 05:54 PM
tell me - what were the circumstances of said slaughter? Do you know?

The slaughter of the Amalekites was retribution for their attacks on God's people during the period of Exodus.

The Night Owl
03-20-2009, 06:17 PM
In your view, if the child is young enough, it's OK for the mother to end that life. Now, we are talking about an ordinary, mortal, human mother...she knows absolutely nothing about her child. She doesn't even know if her child is male or female, let alone the personality, potential and possible future of that child. Heck, she doesn't even know HER future. Yet, under your definition of "moral behavior," she can kill that child because the brain is not yet developed.

Substitute the word "child" with the word "embryo" and you will have a fair summary of my position.


Now, on the other hand, you have God, the Creator. The only Being in the universe that knows every single human from before conception. He knows every thought, every emotion, every action of every single human ever conceived. He knows all the past and all the future of every individual human. He knows which will choose Heaven, and which will not...what moment in time each human is conceived, and what moment and way each human dies...and He has known since before He created Time.

I asked you to give me a justification for the slaughter of the Amalekite children, not for a description of the god of the Bible.

MrsSmith
03-20-2009, 06:50 PM
Substitute the word "child" with the word "embryo" and you will have a fair summary of my position.



I asked you to give me a justification for the slaughter of the Amalekite children, not for a description of the god of the Bible.

Do you know WHERE those children are today?

Does the human who destroys embryos know where those children are today?

Are those humans able to see the future and the past, and determine exactly when each life should begin and end?

There is One Who has always known the perfect time for each of us to die...even the Amalekites.

Gingersnap
03-20-2009, 08:50 PM
The slaughter of the Amalekites was retribution for their attacks on God's people during the period of Exodus.

Kind of. The Chosen people got attacked by a lot of people but only the Amaleks were singled out for a terminal beat down by God. Most biblical scholars of the Hebrew persuasion believe that more than simple dislike was at work here. They believe that the Amaleks were a truly godless people who opportunistically preyed on the weak and unarmed. They didn't fight for land or spoils, they killed for the joy of it and they rejected any negotiations or peace treaties.

This made the Amaleks the Nazi storm troopers of that age. All Jews were enjoined to destroy the Amaleks wherever they were found. Saul got a specialized directive in that regard. Saul disobeyed God, however, when he spared the king and a bunch of livestock. (Yes, God wanted the chickens killed too, along with the women and children.)

God thereafter dropped Saul like a hot potato and the hated Amaleks eventually vanished.

So, are you concerned about the obliteration? That it involved 'innocents"? That Saul didn't get rewarded for taking a more touchy-feely route? Or what? :confused:

FlaGator
03-20-2009, 09:31 PM
<snip>

I asked you to give me a justification for the slaughter of the Amalekite children, not for a description of the god of the Bible.

Among other things, the Amaleks sinned by violating the First and Second Commandments

Do not have any other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.


They were idolaters who the Lord knew would eventually infect the Hebrews with their idolatry. Now before you get in to God calling for the slaughter of the Amalek idolaters and not other idolaters remember the words of God, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." If justice was to be done then all idolaters would die, but the Lord shows mercy to some and justice to others.

The Night Owl
03-21-2009, 05:13 PM
Among other things, the Amaleks sinned by violating the First and Second Commandments

They were idolaters who the Lord knew would eventually infect the Hebrews with their idolatry. Now before you get in to God calling for the slaughter of the Amalek idolaters and not other idolaters remember the words of God, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." If justice was to be done then all idolaters would die, but the Lord shows mercy to some and justice to others.

Did the children of the Amalekites deserve to be slaughtered for idolatry practiced by their parents. Of course not.

The Night Owl
03-21-2009, 05:15 PM
So, are you concerned about the obliteration? That it involved 'innocents"? That Saul didn't get rewarded for taking a more touchy-feely route? Or what? :confused:

Why do you put the word innocents between quotation marks? Are you suggesting that the children of the Amalekites were culpable for what their parents did?

The Night Owl
03-21-2009, 05:22 PM
There is One Who has always known the perfect time for each of us to die...even the Amalekites.

If the Bible is to be believed, then the Amalekites didn't just drop dead. They were slaughtered. What I would like to know is how you justify the slaughter of the innocent among the Amalekites. If you can't then say so.

MrsSmith
03-21-2009, 05:56 PM
If the Bible is to be believed, then the Amalekites didn't just drop dead. They were slaughtered. What I would like to know is how you justify the slaughter of the innocent among the Amalekites. If you can't then say so.

Excuse me, but aren't you the guy that feels a woman or doctor is justified in slaughtering innocents...so long as they catch them young enough...despite the total and complete ignorance of who they slaughter...or maybe BECAUSE of the total and complete ignorance? Exactly how does this compare to ending of life by the One Who has complete knowledge?

CueSi
03-21-2009, 09:38 PM
Did the children of the Amalekites deserve to be slaughtered for idolatry practiced by their parents. Of course not.

The Bible holds precedent of orphaned/abandoned children holding to the ways of their parents, even to a foreign land(Joseph and Daniel are notable examples), and in that time, identity as a people was sustained to the next generation, and children were taught early the ways of the tribal group they were part of. At that time in history, If you truly meant business in exterminating a people, you had to destroy them all. No exceptions. Men were of fighting age by 16, women were marriageable by 14. Childhood was a short term proposition.

I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, the Amalekites would have slaughtered each Israelite child as well.

~QC

FlaGator
03-21-2009, 09:43 PM
Did the children of the Amalekites deserve to be slaughtered for idolatry practiced by their parents. Of course not.

They were idolators as well so in that respect they brought their destruction on themselves. Also I believe that God is using hyperbole to get his point across. Anyways, why are you so concerned with a God you don't believe exists killing a bunch of characters in a book you consider fiction?

Gingersnap
03-23-2009, 11:36 AM
Why do you put the word innocents between quotation marks? Are you suggesting that the children of the Amalekites were culpable for what their parents did?

Sure they were. Do you not understand the terms of the OT in general or the terms of the Covenant established between the Jews and God specifically? The Amaleks were so despicable that not even their livestock and household goods were spared destruction.

The Night Owl
03-23-2009, 12:36 PM
They were idolators as well so in that respect they brought their destruction on themselves. Also I believe that God is using hyperbole to get his point across. Anyways, why are you so concerned with a God you don't believe exists killing a bunch of characters in a book you consider fiction?

The origin of this discussion is the claim that the Bible is the absolute standard for morality. The story of the Amalekites undermines that claim in a big way.

The Night Owl
03-23-2009, 12:38 PM
Sure they were. Do you not understand the terms of the OT in general or the terms of the Covenant established between the Jews and God specifically? The Amaleks were so despicable that not even their livestock and household goods were spared destruction.

You're right. I don't understand "the terms" of the OT. The OT looks like barbarism to me. If you can explain why infants and children should be held responsible for the sins of their parents then perhaps I will understand the terms.

The Night Owl
03-23-2009, 12:47 PM
The Bible holds precedent of orphaned/abandoned children holding to the ways of their parents, even to a foreign land(Joseph and Daniel are notable examples), and in that time, identity as a people was sustained to the next generation, and children were taught early the ways of the tribal group they were part of. At that time in history, If you truly meant business in exterminating a people, you had to destroy them all. No exceptions. Men were of fighting age by 16, women were marriageable by 14. Childhood was a short term proposition.

~QC

According to the Bible, Amalekite infants and children of all ages were slaughtered. Why couldn't the supposedly almighty God figure out a way for the young ones to be spared?

FlaGator
03-23-2009, 01:13 PM
The origin of this discussion is the claim that the Bible is the absolute standard for morality. The story of the Amalekites undermines that claim in a big way.

Actually it reinforces morality in a big way. The problem is you are use to the modern day loose application of the morals society uses. The wages of Sin is death, yet Gods gives one the opportunity to repent from one's sin and be forgiven. The fact that he gives time for repentence to some by showing mercy upon them in no way discounts the morality that He teaches us. The Amalekites were unrepentant sinners and they received the wages that they earned. How does this undermine the Bibles being the standard of morality. You keep saying that but your examples are easily explained away.

CueSi
03-23-2009, 01:20 PM
According to the Bible, Amalekite infants and children of all ages were slaughtered. Why couldn't the supposedly almighty God figure out a way for the young ones to be spared?

But then that wouldn't be fair would it? God is Almighty, but he is holy. And since this was before the time of Christ, the standards were different. And as I said, probably the Amelikites would have done the same thing.

It leaves me thinking God is down for that pre-emptive war thing. :D

~QC

FlaGator
03-23-2009, 01:21 PM
You're right. I don't understand "the terms" of the OT. The OT looks like barbarism to me. If you can explain why infants and children should be held responsible for the sins of their parents then perhaps I will understand the terms.

Perhaps this can help you out. I tried to explain to you that God and Jesus both use hyperbole to get across the point that some things are really bad in the eyes of the Lord. What does God tell us through Ezekiel?

Ezekiel 18:20-22

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

“But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live."


Perhaps researching all the Biblical Scripture concerning a subject instead of picking out something you think proves your point and running with it will help you to understand things. Also, a understanding of hyperbole will help you immensely.

Gingersnap
03-23-2009, 02:02 PM
The origin of this discussion is the claim that the Bible is the absolute standard for morality. The story of the Amalekites undermines that claim in a big way.

It reinforces it but you do need to understand something about Christian theology to see that. FlaGator is pointing you toward part of the basics. I doubt that you would pick one story out of thousands revered by the Hopis and attempt to proclaim or refute a moral point made by modern day Hopis based on that. Not only would it be pointless from the Hopi point of view, it would make you look uninformed and manipulative.

Christians vary in their view of the OT but this isn't normally of any importance to most of us. Most traditional Christians will assert that the Bible is 'sufficient for faith and morals'. This is a technical phrase meaning that the information contained within scripture as viewed through the lens of the sacrifice and the New Covenant is adequate to show the path to salvation and serves as the moral framework for a Christian life.

Does it answer scientific questions or offer cooking tips? No. Is it a coded financial scheme for material prosperity? No. Does it contain the 8 happy steps to improved self-confidence and better sex? No.

If you want to discuss Christian morality, then just ask your question or make your assertion. If you think a passage in scripture supports your point, then add that after your real question.

PoliCon
03-23-2009, 02:05 PM
The slaughter of the Amalekites was retribution for their attacks on God's people during the period of Exodus.

and your reference for this?

The Night Owl
03-23-2009, 05:31 PM
and your reference for this?

Matthew Henry's writings.

The Night Owl
03-23-2009, 05:54 PM
Perhaps this can help you out. I tried to explain to you that God and Jesus both use hyperbole to get across the point that some things are really bad in the eyes of the Lord. What does God tell us through Ezekiel?

Perhaps researching all the Biblical Scripture concerning a subject instead of picking out something you think proves your point and running with it will help you to understand things. Also, a understanding of hyperbole will help you immensely.

I see no reason to think that 1 Samuel 15:3 is hyperbole. Moreover, God would have to be a fool to employ the sort of hyperbole which might lead some to believe that murdering infants and children is acceptable.

The Night Owl
03-23-2009, 06:06 PM
Actually it reinforces morality in a big way. The problem is you are use to the modern day loose application of the morals society uses. The wages of Sin is death, yet Gods gives one the opportunity to repent from one's sin and be forgiven. The fact that he gives time for repentence to some by showing mercy upon them in no way discounts the morality that He teaches us. The Amalekites were unrepentant sinners and they received the wages that they earned. How does this undermine the Bibles being the standard of morality. You keep saying that but your examples are easily explained away.

What I wrote is that the story of the Amalekites undermines the idea that the Bible is the absolute standard for morality. Not surprisingly, the standard for morality as outlined by the Bible is as shifty as any standard of morality created by mankind.

MrsSmith
03-23-2009, 06:54 PM
What I wrote is that the story of the Amalekites undermines the idea that the Bible is the absolute standard for morality. Not surprisingly, the standard for morality as outlined by the Bible is as shifty as any standard of morality created by mankind.

This from the guy that supports HUMANS deciding which innocent lives, and which dies, from their overwhelming ignorance of past, present and future of said innocents. :rolleyes: Just catch them young enough, and it's fine...but the One Who knows the past, present, and eternal future of every single human life, TNO has a problem with His decisions. :rolleyes:

So, tell us, is it OK for a human to kill an innocent BECAUSE they are ignorant of who they kill, or DESPITE the ignorance?

MrsSmith
03-23-2009, 08:30 PM
Excuse me, but aren't you the guy that feels a woman or doctor is justified in slaughtering innocents...so long as they catch them young enough...despite the total and complete ignorance of who they slaughter...or maybe BECAUSE of the total and complete ignorance? Exactly how does this compare to ending of life by the One Who has complete knowledge?



So, tell us, is it OK for a human to kill an innocent BECAUSE they are ignorant of who they kill, or DESPITE the ignorance?


I'm beginning to think TNO doesn't have an answer.

PoliCon
03-23-2009, 08:46 PM
Matthew Henry's writings. And Matthew Henry was there?

FlaGator
03-24-2009, 05:43 AM
I see no reason to think that 1 Samuel 15:3 is hyperbole. Moreover, God would have to be a fool to employ the sort of hyperbole which might lead some to believe that murdering infants and children is acceptable.

I never said that 1 Samuel 15 was hyperbole. What I stated as hyperbole was this visiting sins of the father upon the children. Ezekiel 18:20-22 should have cleared that up for you. As for the massacre of the Amaleks, they all died on the merits of their own sin and their sin was idolatry. The sins of the father where not visited upon the sons. All were idolaters and the punishment for idolatry is death. They died so as not to contaminate the Israelites at some point in the future with their idolatry. Why do you find this so hard to understand? They were given several generations to repent and did not. Justice prevailed. The Amaleks were shown mercy and given time to repent. They did not so they received justice.

FlaGator
03-24-2009, 05:45 AM
What I wrote is that the story of the Amalekites undermines the idea that the Bible is the absolute standard for morality. Not surprisingly, the standard for morality as outlined by the Bible is as shifty as any standard of morality created by mankind.

In what way is it shifty? It seems absolute to me.

Gingersnap
03-24-2009, 09:07 AM
From M.H. - F I R S T S A M U E L CHAP. XV.:


V. Saul prevailed against the Amalekites, for it was rather an execution of condemned malefactors than a war with contending enemies. The issue could not be dubious when the cause was just and the call so clear: He smote them (v. 7), utterly destroyed them, v. 8. Now they paid dearly for the sin of their ancestors. God sometimes lays up iniquity for the children. They were idolaters, and were guilty of many other sins, for which they deserved to fall under the wrath of God; yet, when God would reckon with them, he fastened upon the sin of their ancestors in abusing his Israel as the ground of his quarrel. Lord, How unsearchable are thy judgments, yet how incontestable is thy righteousness!

VI. Yet he did his work by halves, v. 9. 1. He spared Agag, because he was a king like himself, and perhaps in hope to get a great ransom for him. 2. He spared the best of the cattle, and destroyed only the refuse, that was good for little. Many of the people, we may suppose, made their escape, and took their effects with them into other countries, and therefore we read of Amalekites after this; but that could not be helped. It was Saul's fault that he did not destroy such as came to his hands and were in his power. That which was now destroyed was in effect sacrificed to the justice of God, as the God to whom vengeance belongeth; and for Saul to think the torn and the sick, the lame and the lean, good enough for that, while he reserved for his own fields and his own table the firstlings and the fat, was really to honour himself more than God.

So, by reading this commentary we have what? All the things several of us have outlined to you before. I notice that while you seem concerned with the fate of the Amaleks, you skip over the part where the Lord spares their buddies, the Kenites, who are living with them.

God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2: 11) and this seems to be your main issue. The problem in discussing Christian morality is this roundabout way through various commentaries is that you will never find satisfaction in the answers because you lack the framework to understand them, let alone accept or reject them. It's like a kid asking a math question that can only be completely and accurately answered using analytic geometry - the answer is unsatisfying because the kid lacks the language, context, and skill set to evaluate it.

So, what is your real question? Are you asking us to explain a proposition like "If God is Love, then why is God okay with (fill in the bad thing)?'

FlaGator
03-24-2009, 11:16 AM
TNO has been on a "if God exists then he is evil and unjust" kick for quite a while. He keeps putting out situations that he believes can't be justified and seems somewhat surprised that we are able to point out justifications.

PoliCon
03-24-2009, 06:50 PM
According to the Bible, Amalekite infants and children of all ages were slaughtered. Why couldn't the supposedly almighty God figure out a way for the young ones to be spared?

And According to scripture - why is it that all of the Amalekites were all to be slain? What reason is given there in scripture?

Gingersnap
03-24-2009, 08:41 PM
And According to scripture - why is it that all of the Amalekites were all to be slain? What reason is given there in scripture?

He doesn't believe the reason is sufficient, he believes that if it is - it can apply now (to anybody), and/or he believes that no conception of God can entail a moral sense larger and more immanent than any he can imagine forming himself. :cool:

PoliCon
03-24-2009, 09:34 PM
He doesn't believe the reason is sufficient, he believes that if it is - it can apply now (to anybody), and/or he believes that no conception of God can entail a moral sense larger and more immanent than any he can imagine forming himself. :cool:

which is why it is pointless to argue morality with an atheist. They keep moving the goals. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
03-24-2009, 09:44 PM
which is why it is pointless to argue morality with an atheist. They keep moving the goals. :rolleyes:

Actually the issue is that they don't have the same understanding of the Bible that believers do. That is not their fault, it is just the way things are.

Gingersnap
03-24-2009, 09:50 PM
Actually the issue is that they don't have the same understanding of the Bible that believers do. That is not their fault, it is just the way things are.

You do a good job of meeting them more than halfway. I was thinking about this today and I noticed that I, also, usually attempt to bring it down to their level in debate. Most issues also have a purely pragmatic explanation or reason that dovetails nicely with theology or doctrine.

I decided that I'm kind of tired of doing that at the moment. I'm sure it will pass but constantly meeting them in the pig sty instead of on the porch loses it's allure occasionally.

PoliCon
03-24-2009, 09:53 PM
You do a good job of meeting them more than halfway. I was thinking about this today and I noticed that I, also, usually attempt to bring it down to their level in debate. Most issues also have a purely pragmatic explanation or reason that dovetails nicely with theology or doctrine.

I decided that I'm kind of tired of doing that at the moment. I'm sure it will pass but constantly meeting them in the pig sty instead of on the porch loses it's allure occasionally.

I have the good sense to realize that I don't have a ministry to the lost. Gator can have that ministry. I'm good for throwing a monkey wrench into the arguments from time to time - but leading them out of the mud and getting them cleaned off is just not something I've ever been good at.

Gingersnap
03-24-2009, 09:59 PM
I have the good sense to realize that I don't have a ministry to the lost. Gator can have that ministry. I'm good for throwing a monkey wrench into the arguments from time to time - but leading them out of the mud and getting them cleaned off is just not something I've ever been good at.

I feel up to turning on the hose but not up to scrubbing them with the bluing and blow-drying them right this minute. :p

PoliCon
03-24-2009, 11:31 PM
I feel up to turning on the hose but not up to scrubbing them with the bluing and blow-drying them right this minute. :p

You have fun. I'll sit back and watch. :cool:

MrsSmith
03-25-2009, 05:42 PM
Well, this little discussion isn't going far, is it? :rolleyes: Maybe you shouldn't have threatened to use the hose on him, Ginger. :D:D

Gingersnap
03-25-2009, 08:05 PM
Well, this little discussion isn't going far, is it? :rolleyes: Maybe you shouldn't have threatened to use the hose on him, Ginger. :D:D

Yeah, I guess I overplayed my hand on that one. :p

FlaGator
03-25-2009, 08:11 PM
Well, this little discussion isn't going far, is it? :rolleyes: Maybe you shouldn't have threatened to use the hose on him, Ginger. :D:D

It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again.

Gingersnap
03-25-2009, 08:32 PM
It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again.

You already knew you were going to burn in Hell, right? :D

FlaGator
03-25-2009, 09:16 PM
You already knew you were going to burn in Hell, right? :D

My innocent boyish nature protects me...;)

Gingersnap
03-25-2009, 09:43 PM
My innocent boyish nature protects me...;)

That's the Greek Pantheon you're thinking of. Christianity - not so much. :p

MrsSmith
03-27-2009, 07:57 PM
Just wondering if TNO is going to enlighten us...

MrsSmith
03-28-2009, 02:20 PM
This appears to have become a dead subject, so I guess my original theory is true. Only the irrational can support abortion while also assuming the position of judging God's actions.

FlaGator
03-28-2009, 06:04 PM
Just wondering if TNO is going to enlighten us...

The last time we checked in our hero was pointing out that the first Christian Book Expo took place with a low turnout. He did fail to mention that in the current Obama economy alot of these types of events that are secular in nature where having low turnouts.

wilbur
03-28-2009, 09:27 PM
This appears to have become a dead subject, so I guess my original theory is true. Only the irrational can support abortion while also assuming the position of judging God's actions.

Only have time for a hit and run here... but I couldnt help but respond to this, because its just plain loony.

The OP question is quite a loaded one, and should probably better phrased like so:

"Is it inconsistent to support abortion and also maintain that the god described in the Bible is a reprehensible being because, at times, he either seems to support or is directly involved in the murder of human children (often large scale)?"

Abortion kills beings that are of no or very little ethical concern for one who is pro-choice. The god described in the Bible clearly murders actual children and actual human persons of any age. These children are actually of ethical concern to someone who is pro-choice. In some cases, the only transgression of said children was the failure of their parents to adorn the door of their home with lambs blood on the appropriate night.

So obviously, if you hold a pro-choice philosophy towards life, than there is nothing inconsistent about simultaneously accepting abortion, while believing the biblical god isn't exactly what a sane person would call a wondrous deliverer of righteous justice who simply graces humanity with his incomprehensible (literally) but allegedly beneficent morality when he slaughters or commands the slaughter of kids (of the walking, crawling or talking variety). No inconsistency at all... in fact, its called having a functional moral compass.

If one is pro-life, it might appear that a pro-choicer is being inconsistent with his own beliefs, but to think so is simply a failure (or refusal) to understand the character of pro-choice philosophies. They certainly are being inconsistent with pro-life philosophy. It would, of course, be ridiculous to expect a pro-choice person maintain any consistence with pro-life philosophy though, wouldn't it?

To convince one who is pro-choice that they are being inconsistent with themselves will require you to convince them that an embryo or a fetus is what you claim it is... which will bring us all back `round full circle everything to the same debate thats been going on and on... and on. So actually... your theory couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

FlaGator
03-28-2009, 09:59 PM
Abortion kills beings that are of no or very little ethical concern for one who is pro-choice. The god described in the Bible clearly murders actual children and actual human persons of any age. These children are actually of ethical concern to someone who is pro-choice. In some cases, the only transgression of said children was the failure of their parents to adorn the door of their home with lambs blood on the appropriate night.


That may have been the most lunatic thing you've ever said in reference to God. :rolleyes:

Besides there are a couple of good reasons not to abort that have nothing to do with religion.

MrsSmith
03-29-2009, 02:49 PM
Only have time for a hit and run here... but I couldnt help but respond to this, because its just plain loony.

The OP question is quite a loaded one, and should probably better phrased like so:

"Is it inconsistent to support abortion and also maintain that the god described in the Bible is a reprehensible being because, at times, he either seems to support or is directly involved in the murder of human children (often large scale)?"

Exactly how can God's decisions on human life equate to murder? As the owner of all life, human included, He is the only Being with the absolute right to end any life at any moment. Murder, on the other hand, can ONLY be committed by humans.


Abortion kills beings that are of no or very little ethical concern for one who is pro-choice.

Abortion kills humans. As God knows each and every human life from before time began, each and every human life has equal value, regardless of age or development.


The god described in the Bible clearly murders actual children and actual human persons of any age.

God, by definition, cannot murder.


These children are actually of ethical concern to someone who is pro-choice. In some cases, the only transgression of said children was the failure of their parents to adorn the door of their home with lambs blood on the appropriate night. And you know this how? You know those children? You know every thought and every action of every child involved? On what basis can you make any statement of knowledge? Especially when contrasted with the Being Who does know every child, every thought and every action, from before He created any life...and He still knows each and every one of those children today. Yet you, from your massive ignorance, believe you can know anything? :rolleyes:


So obviously, if you hold a pro-choice philosophy towards life, than there is nothing inconsistent about simultaneously accepting abortion, while believing the biblical god isn't exactly what a sane person would call a wondrous deliverer of righteous justice who simply graces humanity with his incomprehensible (literally) but allegedly beneficent morality when he slaughters or commands the slaughter of kids (of the walking, crawling or talking variety). No inconsistency at all... in fact, its called having a functional moral compass. Irrational, but not inconsistent, for those who own a self-based moral compass.


If one is pro-life, it might appear that a pro-choicer is being inconsistent with his own beliefs, but to think so is simply a failure (or refusal) to understand the character of pro-choice philosophies. They certainly are being inconsistent with pro-life philosophy. It would, of course, be ridiculous to expect a pro-choice person maintain any consistence with pro-life philosophy though, wouldn't it?

To convince one who is pro-choice that they are being inconsistent with themselves will require you to convince them that an embryo or a fetus is what you claim it is... which will bring us all back `round full circle everything to the same debate thats been going on and on... and on. So actually... your theory couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Actually, I believe you have proven my theory for me. Thanks!

wilbur
03-30-2009, 10:19 AM
Your original question did not challenge the rationality or irrationality of believing the god as described in the bible was wrong to kill children.

You said to believe both X and Y at the same time is irrational... as if there is something about the character of both those beliefs which make them or should make them mutually exclusive. You never questioned the rationality of holding them singly... and the way you phrased your question implied that it wouldnt necessarily be a given that it is irrational to hold either of the beliefs on their own.

Now you are just arguing that believing Y is irrational, period. As per usual, you simply reshape debates at will by moving goalposts, changing topic, and otherwise just disobeying any of the typical rules one must obey to participate honestly in any conversation or debate.