Anyway, the esteemed John Loftus (note: I did not call him John-boy) posted something from Marky Mark's blog entitled: God Doesn't Work. What he posted was a fine piece of how not to argue, called, "Insure He Gets To Heaven."
Basically, the premise is that we should shoot all the infants in the world so as to ensure they get to heaven.
Now in the comments section the funky bunch started in with their laudatory comments of this fine piece of argumentation.
It was none other than D-dizzle Morgizzle who gave the first shout out; what what! He bemoans,
"As sick as it is, the common Calvinist objection (I've heard Manata state it explicitly) is that "there is no guarantee that infants are elected" and thus abortion doesn't prevent hellbound souls, after all...
Yeah, some God they worship."
1. Why is this "sick?" In fact, D-dizzle has argued that it's okay for mothers to murder their unborn children, as long as it's early enough in the pregnancy. Is he arbitrary? For shizzle.
2. And, yes, the claim is that "all elect infants dying in infancy" will go to heaven. Indeed, there is not one verse in the Bible that tells us that all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven.
3. The unstated premise is that "God is wrong for sending infants to hell because their innocent." Once we see the unstated premise we can see that this position simply begs the question against the Christian worldview. If we restate this argument, then, it looks like this: "If we assume that portions of Christianity are wrong then we can show how God is a big meany."
4. Lastly, he points out what us Christians have always wanted people to agree with. We don't worship God, or believe in Christianity, because it fits some soft, humanistic, can't we all just get along, pie in the sky bye and bye, mentality.
This is also an ad-hominem against Jehovah. And, as Dan Barker, an ex-debunker, has told us:
"A strong clue that a person argues from a weak position is that character, rather than content, is addressed." -Barker, Loosing Faith in Faith, p.22
As we proceed I'd just like to point out that the west syde is the best syde, you better recognize. The more we critique the funky-debunkies the more we see how much their posts stunkies.
Then, a Christian interjected and pointed out that man does not have the right to murder. In response to this, Marky Mark himself saw fit to grace this virtual dance floor with his funky moves, hip hop hooray, ho, ay, ho....
In response to the claim that we are not allowed to murder Marky Mark rights,
"Here's the theme in a nut-shell.
Lets say you were a person in hell, wouldn't you wish someone did whatever it took to get to heaven, even kill you at birth? If it's true that this life on earth is just a *blink* compared to eternity. Being killed as an infant would be infinitely better than an eternity in hell."
1. Notice how he doesn't even address the claim that it's wrong to murder? His original argument was that we *should* shoot infants in the head since that gets them to heaven. He is countered with the moral claim that we *shouldn't.* His response to this is to bring in a third party and ask, "wouldn't you have wanted someone to murder you?" I mean, even if the third party would have, does that make it right?
2. This assumes people in hell will want to be in heaven, with God. Actually, no one in hell will ever want to be in heaven with God. They might not want the punishment to stop. They might think it's a horrible place. They might wish they were somewhere else. But it's simply ignorance of basic Christian doctrine that sinners would want to spend everlasting life worshipping God. They hated God on earth and will hate him for eternity.
3. How does he know what people will wish in hell?
4. His solution is to send one soul to heaven while another goes to hell for murder. or, does he think we can just murder infants and then repent, do it again, repent... If so, this is just another example of how theologically messed up all these so-called ex-Christians were. They almost always held to an easy believism.
"I really didn't consider the "Elect" issue when I created it, but that is an extremely interesting twist that I'll admit I missed. I come from a stone cambell background, so that concept, that of the "Elect" is a bit foreign to me, and might I add, must be really hard to reconcile with the bible."
1. Yeah, he "missed" the refutation of his entire assumption, along with the other refutation of his argument - that people can not murder others.
2. Well, another dispensational, touchy-feely, anti-intellectual, Arminian, creedless, NT only, doctrine doesn't matter (just unity), Christian bites the dust.
3. Really hard to reconcile with the Bible? Were we going to get an argument for this, or just an ad hoc assertion thrown out to save your theory?
4. Maybe this apostate would like to test his metal against the wealth of biblical and philosophical arguments in favor of God's sovereign predestination of all facts and his pleasure to elect sinners by grace, through faith, on the basis of the active and passive obedience of Christ alone. Note, it is his *pleasure* to do so. God doesn't owe anyone salvation.
So, it's time for Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch to exit the stage. I mean, even THIS GUY gives a better rap that you all. Peace out, word to your mother.