tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115177874175238641..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: That Funky White BoyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1151841108915478622006-07-02T07:51:00.000-04:002006-07-02T07:51:00.000-04:00First, a clarification is in order: this topic ca...First, a clarification is in order: this topic came up, and I quoted Paul, in reference to abortion, not infanticide, but, you guys have a bit of a moral issue in declaring that infanticide is <I>always</I> sin, don't you? (eg 1 Sam 15:3, Num 31:17-8)<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/>Hmmm, well, Paul, perhaps my "arbitriness" stems from a couple of things which you appear blissfully unaware of:<BR/>a) God is supposed to be perfectly merciful and gracious, no one claims humans are perfectly anything [and no one claims they need to be except Christians]<BR/>b) Using the term "murder" as you have here is rhetoric. I can just as easily declaim that God "murders" over 40% of all fetuses via natural abortion, since in your worldview, your sovereign God chooses for it to happen that they die. Thus your God "murders" far more fetuses than mothers do. Let's not descend into such rhetorical platitudes.<BR/>c) There is just a *bit* of a difference between ending something's life and sending it into an eternal hell, consider:<BR/>i) A fetus is not self-aware, so that when they die, whether by natural [God-ordained] or terminative abortion, there is no awareness of this fact...is the same true with hell?<BR/>ii) The process of death itself is temporal, and almost always brief. Your God sends infants to an infinite/eternal hell<BR/>iii) The process of death may or may not be painful, but let's rank the pain of physical death as a 1 on a scale of 10^1000, where hell = 10^1000<BR/><BR/>Arbitrary, indeed.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/>The claim was actually regarding, "won't aborting fetuses ensure their place in heaven?" To which you answer "no, not necessarily, some fetuses are not elect, and so go to hell" If there is a verse you can point to which clarifies this point, I would love to read it. I am not claiming there isn't one, but I certainly am not aware of any verse in the Bible which deals with unborn children with respect to their fate in the afterlife.<BR/><BR/><I>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."</I><BR/>Um, no. The premises of Xianity are:<BR/>1) Humans sin aganist God<BR/>2) God is just in sending sinful humans to hell<BR/>3) Therefore some humans go to hell [not dealing with the "elect" here for simplification]<BR/><BR/>The argument that was made:<BR/>1) Fetuses do not sin against God<BR/>2) God is not just in sending sinless fetuses to hell<BR/>3) Therefore no fetuses go to hell<BR/><BR/>The refutation you offered is:<BR/>1) Only the elect avoid hell<BR/>2) Not all fetuses are elect<BR/>3) Some fetuses go to hell<BR/><BR/>Of course, the way to resolve this is to explain how "original sin" is attached to election of a fetus, how it has some kind of intrinsic sin value which is justly met with the wrath of God. Personally, I see you descending into some pretty obscure interpretations to support your contention. The idea that fetuses and infants have some sort of willful sin is obvious nonsense. So, original sin is then all you have to go on, and aside from poetic references to David's "i was conceived in sin" I challenge you to substantiate your P2.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/>I point out what Christians have always wanted to avoid facing -- that this interpretation of their God is one of an immoral monster, in that it sends some fetuses/infants to an eternal darkness, to which Paul replies in Romans 9 only "who are you?" Without examining the truth value of your premises, it is quite clear that most people have enough moral fiber to reject your interpretation, and you know it, and that is why only 1% of 1% of Christians would ever make such a claim. That you would worship such a being belies your own moral vacuity.<BR/><BR/><I>This is also an ad-hominem against Jehovah.</I><BR/>Actually it's a critique of your worldview. Equivocating your interpretation as "God" is telling.<BR/><BR/><I>And, as Dan Barker, an ex-debunker</I><BR/>?? ex?? Is he still not an atheist? <BR/><BR/><I>"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</I><BR/>When you make a claim that "God is good" and "God is merciful" and "God is gracious" and "God is loving", you set yourself up for <I>reductio ad absurdum</I> concerning such conclusions as "Therefore, God sends some fetuses to hell". In these cases, you are making specific claims <B>about the character of God</B>. For me to argue against your conclusions, without disputing the truth of your premises, is hardly <I>ad hominem</I>, it's just showing how absurd it is to believe that God could simultaneously be just, merciful, good, loving, and send fetuses to an eternal hell. You don't have to reject your premises, just rethink your conclusions. In that sense, I'm saying that your logic is flawed, not God's character...so, no <I>ad homs</I> at all.<BR/><BR/>So, would you prefer I call you "Paulie"? I prefer Daniel, and if I can be called Daniel, rather than "Polly the parakeet" or some permutation of Snoop Dogg's ebonics-talk, I would appreciate it, and reciprocate with "Paul". I subscribe to "tit for tat", you see.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1151816939912698272006-07-02T01:08:00.000-04:002006-07-02T01:08:00.000-04:00Paul,From now on I want to be referred to as J-Lo,...Paul,<BR/><BR/>From now on I want to be referred to as J-Lo, OK? Thanks, homey...John W. Lostushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07487692954588047858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1151791978419693262006-07-01T18:12:00.000-04:002006-07-01T18:12:00.000-04:00Personally, I'd say it was art for Satan's sake.An...Personally, I'd say it was art for Satan's sake.<BR/><BR/>And as for 'just art', does he believe art has no meaning?<BR/><BR/>And my reading of Morgan's position seems to indicate that he believes it's okay to kill very young infants after birth provided you get parental consent.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1151782344321478222006-07-01T15:32:00.000-04:002006-07-01T15:32:00.000-04:00What up G?I fail to see how your comment refuted t...What up G?<BR/><BR/>I fail to see how your comment refuted the substance of my post??<BR/><BR/>Why did I fail to see that?<BR/><BR/>Oh, that's right, because you offered nothing substantial.<BR/><BR/>Basically, your motto is: Hey, if I can't beat the argument I'll pick on some obscure portion of the post and argue that till the cows come home, hoping everyone forgets to remember the main purpose of the post.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, D-dizzle Morgizle *simply* offered ad hominems. He just called Jehovah a big meany. If you're referring to my ad hominems then you miss that I *included* substance. So, one could remove my ad hominems and still have the meat of the argument, if you remove Morgizzle's then you'd have *nothing.*Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.com