Board index ‹ Abortion

[Axis of Evil]

It's hard to talk about morality with someone who wouldn't kill Hitler because the "end wouldn't justify the means." What a stupid way of thinking, Jesus.

[jimwalton]

Wow. Haven't you read about theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was part of a plot of assassinate Hitler? There's a vast and valid difference between the assassination of vile and evil person like Hitler and the murder of innocent babies in the womb.

[Tebpla]

> Hmm. I'm going to ask you to substantiate this with references.

Are you seriously asking for substantiation? The guy who claimed that all the innocent people who died were automatically better off? Where's your substantiation for that? The Bible is clear about the fall of man and how it brought pain and suffering and death into the world.

> I guess I need you to prove to me from Scripture that all suffering is the result of sin. I don't think that's correct.

Death is 100% a result of sin according to the Bible, but I don't think you get to ask for proof after some of the claims you have made.
It's not. The death of innocents is instructive to those who survive.

Right, that's my point, we learn something (don't piss god off?) at the expense of innocent lives. What kind of a system is that?

Since we're talking about proof, your entire last paragraph is just some guys opinion. Can you back any of that up?

[jimwalton]

> Are you seriously asking for substantiation?

Yes, and I still am. You didn't give me substantiation for your position.

> The guy who claimed that all the innocent people who died were automatically better off? Where's your substantiation for that?

Sure. Romans 5.13 says that those who didn't have the law won't be held accountable as if they were under the law. Therefore babies, who have no knowledge of any theology, are innocent in that sense and not subject to judgment.

Dt. 1.37-40: God's people are being judged for their rebellion, but the young ones who didn't have the mental capacity to make a reasoned and moral decision like that don't get judged.

Number 14.29 speaks of a kind of "age of accountability," just as Dt. 1.37-40 did.

Isa. 7.15. People can be too young mentally to know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

he Scripture obviously teaches that anyone who is not capable of making a deliberate, reasoned decision is not held accountable like other people.

> Death is 100% a result of sin according to the Bible.

The death spoken of in Genesis 2.17 is a break of fellowship with God. it obviously wasn't physical death (they didn't die that day, but instead were doomed to physical death later because of their break of fellowship with God). The phrase in Gn. 2.17 is literally "dying you shall die," meaning they will be doomed to death. Death didn't result in the instance of their disobedience, but became their inevitable destiny as humans.

Physical death had to have been in the system prior to the Fall. If plants could serve as food, plants died. Since death was in the system, there is no reason to draw a false line and say that insects and animals did not. Through sin came the inevitability of death for people. Because of sin people lost access to the tree of life and become fully susceptible to death.

> Right, that's my point, we learn something (don't piss god off?) at the expense of innocent lives.

You are so quick to condemn God. I'm glad He's more patient with us than you see to be as an individual. What I am talking about in the death of innocents is things like animals who get caught in a forest fire, or children of die of starvation in foreign countries. Those have nothing to do with upsetting God. Back down a little.

> Since we're talking about proof, your entire last paragraph is just some guys opinion. Can you back any of that up?

Of course it is, and I told you it is. I also told you I was struggling with what he said, but I found it intriguing. Please try not to be so judgmental. It's true that the issues in the ancient world were those of order, disorder, and non-order. These are well established in ancient literature, and so there is no reason for us to think they are not part of the ancient biblical worldview. Dr. Walton is coming out with a book on the Flood this November, and I'm anxious to read it to further evaluate what he's saying.

[Axis of Evil]

The fact is, when you admit that you think God won't stop a murderer/rapist/etc, and any moral person would, you've abandoned your morality.

It's a fact of your reality that killing a fetus is the most effective way of ensuring it gets into heaven. Just saying "murder is wrong" isn't a way out.

> Humans are made in the image of God, and the shedding of blood by murder is an offense to God because it is a desecration of that image

God ordered murder a ton in the Bible. So this is outright false.

> Because humans are made in the image of God they are endowed with a certain dignity that deserves honor, not abuse.

Non sequitur.

> Because children (especially unborn children) are some of the most vulnerable classes of humanity, to use one's power to perpetrate violence on them is wrong. They need protection from society, not the turning of a blind eye to their destruction.

They are vulnerable to Hell if they aren't killed. Ending their mortal life slightly sooner is literally protecting them from the worst imaginable fate.

> Because the taking of all life by murder is immoral, and because even unborn children are indisputably alive, then the murder of unborn children by abortion is murder in the first degree.

It wouldn't be immoral if it was in their best interest, which it is...

> Because the end doesn't automatically justify the means, perpetrating a wrong to achieve a supposed right is still perpetrating a wrong.

In this case it does...

[jimwalton]

You're wrong on every count.

> The fact is, when you admit that you think God won't stop a murderer/rapist/etc, and any moral person would, you've abandoned your morality.

As I said, it is well established that it's not necessary for God to stop evil for him to still be all-powerful and all good. An oncologist uses chemotherapy and radiation to bring people to the edge of death, causing them great suffering in the process, and yet we regard him as moral. A surgeon slices people open, amputates limbs, and even extracts body parts, but we regard him as moral because he pursues a greater good. In this case (as in many), the ends do justify the means.

If God were to stop all evil, he would have to take total control of our bodies so that no harm ever came to us. Which means he would have to take control of the total environment so that no building ever collapsed, no two cars ever collided, no tornado ever touched down, or no wave ever swarmed over a child. We would become meaningless robots, and our world would have no sense of cause and effect. There would be no such thing as science. In addition to that, we live in a dynamic environment where chaotic processes actually accomplish good, such as our brains rewiring circuits or our hearts building new blood vessels. Without a dynamic environment, we wouldn't even be able to reason. If we lived in a static environment, as you are proposing (God stops it all!) life as we know it would cease. I haven't abandoned morality in the least to contend that God doesn't have to stop all immorality to be a moral being.

> God ordered murder a ton in the Bible. So this is outright false.

You are failing to make the primary distinction between murder and judgment. When a judge orders execution, that's not considered murder, but justice. When a person defends themselves, it's not considered murder, but justifiable self-defense. When armies engage an enemy to stop the perpetuation of evil (as right now there is a military effort to stop Joseph Kony), it is considered just war, not murder. Just because God orders killing in judgment doesn't mean he is immoral.

> They are vulnerable to Hell if they aren't killed. Ending their mortal life slightly sooner is literally protecting them from the worst imaginable fate.

You need to scroll back to earlier posts that dealt with this objection. The theology of hell is not necessarily the caricature you are assuming and holding up as a straw man.