A bizarre twist on morality (abortion)

[DavidL]

Reply to the original topic:

This thread has meaning only if you reduce God to being nothing more than a set of rules.

According to the Bible (at least the way I read it) people are not judged according to righteous obedience, but by their faith. For example, King David committed both adultery and murder, but it is recorded that he was a "man after God's own heart". Sins like adultery and murder are temporal and forgivable, but setting one's conscience against God for eternity is not, because God will not violate a person's freedom of choice. To those who want to spend eternity apart from God's presence, then God grants them their choice. Hell is the ultimate consequence of that choice, and one element of its "hellishness" is that the decision is irrevocable. That is the nature of eternal torment.

Regarding premise #3, I don't believe that aborted fetuses "automatically" go to heaven. Saying that a fetus can not have sinned physically may be correct, but the unforgivable sin is an eternal one: it is not dependent on an existence in time. As a descendant of Adam, every person is born (i.e. conceived) a sinner, and as Jesus pointed out, all sin begins in the "heart". The only difference with a life that was terminated early is that WE (as opposed to God) don't get to see whether that soul had a humble, repentant heart (attitude).

To properly understand the concept of eternity, we need to somehow try to expand our intellectual horizons beyond a space-time world view.

Assuming that all of life's questions can be answered by philosophy and logic is also unhelpful. The problem with logic is that it can be overcome by forgiveness. There is nothing logical or just about forgiving someone, because justice demands that good deeds be rewarded, and evil be punished. But Jesus' atoning death turns all of this logic on its head.

Sorry, I know that for many of you who want to reduce God to set a of rules, all I've done is complicate the issue. But God is a living being who can be spoken to, reasoned with, and (if I may say it with reverence) negotiated with. Eternal life is a relationship with the living God, not merely an adherence to a set of rules because one fears punishment.

Put another way, one can not manipulate God's hand by saying "if I do this, then God MUST respond in this manner...". In this way, one must have faith in what God says about Himself, that all those who have the faith and humility to repent (i.e. in the "eternal" sense) will find themselves overwhelmed with His compassion and forgiveness.

The key to the kingdom is not superior knowledge, but the humility inherent in a childlike faith.

David

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding premise #3, I don't believe that aborted fetuses "automatically" go to heaven. Saying that a fetus can not have sinned physically may be correct, but the unforgivable sin is an eternal one: it is not dependent on an existence in time. As a descendant of Adam, every person is born (i.e. conceived) a sinner, and as Jesus pointed out, all sin begins in the "heart". The only difference with a life that was terminated early is that WE (as opposed to God) don't get to see whether that soul had a humble, repentant heart (attitude).

[/ QUOTE ]

How can a child deserve either? The child must have a knowledge of Jesus, be it through scripture, oral word, or divine revelation before he can accept the good news. How can God judge someone for an action he had no chance of committing?

Lastly, if the heart was "repentant," then that suggests that not all hearts are created equally. That compromises both free will and God's fairness.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In your hypothetical, the woman is assuming that the child will not accept Jesus. Why? Even though most people are not Christian, she is (to the extent that she'd abort her kid to send him to Heaven lol), so the odds are that her kid WILL accept Jesus because it is she who will raise him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, no, only to be on the safe side. She doesn't want to take a chance that those kids turn out to be rebels or worse atheists.

To leave all humour out of it, this obviously (I hope) unacceptable conclusion based on a seemingly logical argument should strongly indicate that a review of the premises may be in order. By this I am repeating what I said in an earlier post which seems to be conveniently ignored. I can only assume that the lack of willingness to have a dialogue is based on a fear (certainly palpable) and its attendant insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Review the premises then.

(Keep in mind that I requested earlier that premise 2 be omitted, as it is unnecessary)

[DavidL]

hmkpoker

** How can a child deserve either? The child must have a knowledge of Jesus, be it through scripture, oral word, or divine revelation before he can accept the good news. How can God judge someone for an action he had no chance of committing? **

Sin is not just a case of doing wrong things, it is a state of being. Every descendant of Adam is born (or conceived) with a sinful nature. Selfishness, pride and defiance lie at the core of the sinful nature, and acts like murder, theft, rape, cheating, greed, and so on are merely the outworking, made visible by the setting of the material world.

It is not just a case of what a person deserves, or doesn't deserve. All (even the unborn) are sinners, and have fallen short of the righteousness of God. If one wants to be pedantic, then, everybody "deserves" eternal separation from a righteous God, regardless of the opportunity they've had the chance to "prosper" their sinful nature in the material world.

All sin is covered by the atoning blood of Christ. The demands of the law have been met, and God forgives unconditionally, because it is His nature to do so.

However, the Bible talks about one eternal, unforgivable sin. I am speculating here, but I believe that it is about seeking independence from God's presence on an eternal basis. God desires that all people be "saved", but He will not violate their freedom of choice. Thus the only "charge" that can be laid upon Him is the gift of free will.

Consider the alternative: how frustrating it would be if all (or even some) of the choices we make in life were constantly being overridden by God. For example, I want to play golf every Saturday, but God would rather that I spend the time looking after the elderly in a geriatric hospital. A dumb example, perhaps, but I expect you see my point :-)

** Lastly, if the heart was "repentant," then that suggests that not all hearts are created equally. That compromises both free will and God's fairness. **

Repentance is not the result of knowledge, but humility, and that humility is either forcibly planted by God, or is a free choice. Calvinists might disagree, but I support the latter view, because the former appears to me to be incongruous and self-defeating. There are Bible verses that can be prioritized to support both views.

Two men were crucified with Christ. One cursed God for his agony, perhaps because he believed his sentence was unjust, or perhaps he simply blamed God for everything that had gone wrong in his life. The other recognized Christ for whom He was, and seeing Him suffering, sought not to selfishly ask for his own freedom from torture, but for Christ's forgiveness. Apparently he saw a greater picture. Otherwise, I can not explain why two individuals suffering the same fate would hold such divergent views. Supposedly both were free to take either position.

We are in some way confronted with much the same choice. Either we blame God for the ill-used free will that causes poverty, injustice, violence, oppression etc in the world, or we look humbly inward and acknowledge our part in it, ultimately in the hope that we might not only share His righteous grief, but also partake in measures to somehow turn the tables around.

David

[hmkpoker]

So, do the unborn get saved or not?

[ QUOTE ]
Cool. Review the premises then.

(Keep in mind that I requested earlier that premise 2 be omitted, as it is unnecessary)

[/ QUOTE ]

Eliminate Premise 1, replace with "there is no omnipotent god" and most, if not all, contradictions that are manifested in religions that do propose an omnipotent god, dissapear. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It has to do with the irreconcilibity of omnipotence, goodness and the existence of evil.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cool. Review the premises then.

(Keep in mind that I requested earlier that premise 2 be omitted, as it is unnecessary)

[/ QUOTE ]

Eliminate Premise 1, replace with "there is no omnipotent god" and most, if not all, contradictions that are manifested in religions that do propose an omnipotent god, dissapear. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It has to do with the irreconcilibity of omnipotence, goodness and the existence of evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unacceptable.

The point of this post (kind of like the point of all my posts *tongue-in-cheek*) is to produce a logical inconsistency from the information that Christianity provides. Nearly all people who call themselves Christian believe in an omnipotent God.

The logical inconsistency, at a fundamental level, is the simultaneous existence of a good, loving omnipotent god and the existence of evil. Any question you can frame to that context will give raise to a fair amount of squirming by those who hold the proposition. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical inconsistency, at a fundamental level, is the simultaneous existence of a good, loving omnipotent god and the existence of evil. Any question you can frame to that context will give raise to a fair amount of squirming by those who hold the proposition. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't spend much time in this forum, do you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]