My bad. It must have been someone else in post number 162 who made the reference to "us evil prochoicers."

Yes. But from the Reagan/Clinton-year levels. Has anybody ever looked into divorce rates and rape rates and crime rates from post-revolutionary times? I seem to remember seeing startling statistics in "simpler" times that provide a stark contrast to what we are seeing now

Being prochoice does not necessarily mean this:
i have numerous objections to such a statement.

If you allow me to be the devil's advocate regarding your statement, how would you respond to these two hypotheticals:

a) We gain access to technology whereby an aborted fetus can be carried to term outside the womb. Would you now consider abortion without doing this to be equal to infanticide?

b) A mother has a newborn baby, but no possible way of having it adopted. Would this lessen the gravity of infanticide?

He has the power to pardon all who accept Christ. It doesn't mean that he does not have the ability(necessarily), but only that pardoning everyone regardless of the circumstance would make him unjust. I don't know the full implications of God not being able to sin, but this is where hell comes from.

The other thing is that if God were to simply forgive everyone, there would be no reason for earth. Just create us in heaven in the first place. Part of the point is that God wants to have community with us, but won't force us to, hence the free will to accept or reject him. Anything else contradicts the nature of love.

God doesn't need to create imperfection, it exists by the same nature that perfection exists. It doesn't make sense for God to always do what's right, if there is no wrong. Plus, biblically, man was once perfect, in the sense that he had no sin, but decided to sin. The popular interpretation of evil and sin is due to our free will. God created man with free will which led to sin, or doing what is wrong (being selfish).

It doesn't surprise me that you reject most of this, since you do not accept it as true to begin with. I'm reminded of people who at the ending of a movie that was left open to interpretation, ponder what happened to the characters. Did they get the girl and live happily ever after? It always made me laugh, because nothing happened. The author simply left it open, the characters aren't real, they don't continue to live when the movie is over. If the bible isn't real, and God doesn't exist, all these extrapolations are useless, no different than a movie with an ambiguous ending. So I understand that you see much of this as silly. When examining the "plot" of real characters and actions, I don't think it's absurd. It's hard for me to argue about hell and sin, if you do not accept these things as real, we are going to disagree sooner or later. In the context of the bible, I don't see anything too difficult to grasp here, except the difficulty in understanding the absolute nature of God and right and wrong, which by their nature lead to paradoxes and contradictions.

Biblically, only God is good. Nothing outside of God has any merit. Separation from God metaphorically involves some sort of removal from his presence, followed by some pain, sorrow, regret, and being in darkness, darkness being evil, where God is light. Separation from God is supposed to be a dreadful thing, it's not really a stretch to think this, given the countless metaphors and characteristics of God. It's no different than saying that outside of Good, there is evil, and happiness, sorrow.

I think it's useless to argue where punishment came from, since I can't prove that God exists, and hence, that it came from him. If you do not believe in God, it follows you won't think that justice came from God, obviously.

Punishment only makes sense when there is some code or morality in which you can diverge from to deserve the discipline. I'm not one to argue that morality can't exist without God, (I enjoy the evolutionary arguments for morality) but where God exists morality and punishment are a given, but this is not so without God, where it needs to be established. I'm sure you've heard WLC debate this.

Biblically, your analogy of throwing away the rubbish and pulling out the weeds is apt. It's one of the metaphors found in the bible. Separating the good from the bad as it were.

Yeah, that definition works for me. "Living as God does" is righteous, and the point of the Christian life, to gradually become like Christ.

As for God having reasons to kill, I think that much is an obvious truth and exception, but I don't press that point too much on here, because it ends the conversation rather quickly, and it does seem to beg the question a little. I do agree that God is exempt, but I think there are other ways to discuss it than simply saying God does not sin when he does X, because he is God, even though I agree with it.

even if you accept a code or morality, punishment still doesnt necessarily make sense. You could, for example, see that everyone is doing their best( even if their best does not measure up to the code), and so punishment, as in "you have done something wrong, and so must suffer undesirable consequences" just doesnt make sense. Your idea of punishment is predicated on the idea that there are individuals, who could have made a different choice, and must suffer pain as a result of not making the choice. It seems a bizarre, outlandish, and vindictive idea to me.

The short answer is yes to both.

The longer answer is that I don't view abortion (or most/all issues?) as having firm absolute answers. I think it is pretty arbitrary in the sense that societies make agreements on accepted morality but I don't know what I can say more meaningfully than that. Note I don't mean to say I am a moral relativist, more like a moral nonabsolutist and/or a moral noncognitivist or something.

So on abortion, I think that physical/economic realities inform the types of decisions that societies accept. The difference between dependency upon the mother and dependency on somebody is a critical difference between fetuses and babies. Hopefully Doggg's skimming of my posts won't get this far, but I don't view infanticide as wrong in the sense that it violates some deontological rule, it is just that there are different factors to consider like the ability of the society at large to raise infants in a way that society at large can't raise fetuses without the mother being involved.

Returning to your questions, you are in effect asking "if the physical/economic realities of abortion changed, would your view change?". To which I say "very possibly!". I think both your a and b are such meaningful changes. I don't know if it makes it exactly equal, but it would certainly create a pressure in those respective directions. One might still make economic arguments such as "if we saved every fetus, there would be consequences like overpopulation" or whatever. So it might not be exactly equal, the technologies might have various economic consequences. But in general, yes those different factors would seem to be relevant to any discussion.

This isn't really "my" idea, I'm just relaying what the bible says. Atonement and the forgiveness of sins through Christ, or the punishment for your sins, is the central theme and foundation of the bible.

What I have been arguing is that this is the only way it could be, based on who God is and what the bible says about him. If it was any other way, God would not be just (based on the given definitions and concepts).

You don't have to like it, there are many things about the punishment that I don't necessarily understand or agree with given my human understanding, but I think it makes sense in a logical way.

Those sound like solid answers to me, in the sense that there is no contradiction in your argumentation. I think I agree on these issues being non-absolutist. As humans we tend to underestimate the situational factors and overplay personal factors when we consider the decisions of others (fundamental attribution error) and abortion is not a likely exception.

Great question. Quick comment/question on it.

Isn't the pro-choice argument more about not actually giving birth to the child, and therefore aborting it, not about *when* they give birth?

If it was simply a matter of delivering the fetus earlier than 9 months, say 6 months, and having it survive with the aid of new technology, why not just wait 9 months and have it survive without any aids, since this technology does not exist as of yet? Presumably the conclusion of both scenarios is adoption, so what is the difference whether it happens at 6 months or 9 months? Isn't that missing the point of why an abortion is wanted in the first place?

Not wanting to carry the baby to term and go through labour is certainly one factor that can cause women to desire an abortion. It isn't the only reason, of course.

Perhaps, I was under the impression this was by far the most common. I can't imagine someone aborting a baby because they don't want the hassle of adopting it, but I guess not wanting people to know is pretty high on the list.

Other reason include adherence to views like "if my child exists, I want to be able to raise it. But I don't want to raise it, ergo I don't want my child to exist". The idea that your child is out there, and you aren't able or willing to care for it, can be deeply uncomfortable. There are many such emotional reasons why people may prefer to have an abortion. Still others may just not consider it an issue that one has to come up with strong emotional reasons against, abortion is just a form of birth control like any other and should deserve no more attention than putting a condom on.

You seem very tied to the idea of punishment. Maybe its just because thats what the bible says, but you seem to need the idea of payment for wrongdoing, you almost seem to like the idea, and think that its justified and logical. Justified possibly( although I dont agree that it is) but logical, no. You dont get an ought from an is, in logic.



Yes, if you define things a certain way, then possibly "it could be no other way". but you are the one defining the things. I am pointing out there are other valid definitions.

All this stuff about god cant abide sin just seems made up fluff to me.

Not sure where you get the idea that I like the idea of people being punished, I'm not a ghoul. The only thing I'm arguing here is what the bible says about punishment, and why it is necessary. Without punishment God ceases to be perfect. You can dismiss the bible entirely, and this all becomes moot, which most people here have already done, but what I find curious is insisting that it logically falls apart. I don't see that it does, especially as a logical conclusion.

There are other valid definitions, but you will have a harder time proving them biblically, what I'm saying is pretty much the common interpretation.

Like I said earlier to Lestat, if you believe this is all a fairy tale, then of course it's "made up", you have no reason to believe that God requires atonement. That is very different than you pointing to a logical inconsistency within the text itself, whether real or fiction.

What is it about God needing justice to be met that you find so unacceptable, logically speaking? If you are distressed by it in terms of human suffering, I'm there with you, most people are, but aside from that, I'm not seeing a problem.

"people do bad things , therefore they deserve punishment" is not a logical conclusion. You cant derive an ought from an is

because it seems fairly obvious that its humans that need justice to be met, not god.

You've probably heard seemingly uncharitable descriptions of the gospel, perhaps similar to: God came to Earth in human form, lived a sinless life, and was ultimately sacrificed by other humans (despite the fact that God cannot be killed, and demonstrated this by returning to life 3 days later), this 'not-really-sacrifice' ultimately being made by Himself, to Himself, for the laws He made Himself. In so doing, this 'not-really-sacrifice' paid the penalty for all of humankind's sin. But that's another 'not-really', a 'not-really-paid-penalty'. The only thing that turns out to matter is that each person must believe the story to be true, otherwise the 'not-really-sacrifice' does not count for anything. If you fail to believe the story, you will be kept alive and tortured for eternity, rather than being allowed to die and disappear from existence. Oh, and all of this was foreseen to happen.

For some people, the idea that within this story is a display of perfect justice is incomprehensible. A blood sacrifice, that isn't a sacrifice at all, is demanded for excusing human behaviour? And more importantly, the faith (to continue the uncharitable description, one might better say gullibility) of the masses is the real measure for what happens to them.


Sorry for the interruption! Also, regarding your "if you think it's just a story" comment, I don't mind saying that a lot of the atheists on RGT do think it is just a story, obviously, but are in general more interested in why those that believe it to be true (such as yourself) do so.

Maybe not, but the opposite is not the logical conclusion either, that people do bad things, and they do not deserve punishment. This is a matter of perspective.

The obvious Christian answer is that we appreciate justice, because it comes from God in the first pace.

I can't prove that justice comes from God, but only that biblically, it's necessary. There is no formula I can give you to prove justice needs to be met, but I don't think any formula will suffice to prove any of these things.

You can grab any belief system and make it seem absurd. I won't attempt it, but you could make the big bang and theory of evolution up to the present time also seem silly. It is silly, everything is, the fact that there is anything is difficult to interpret with perfect logic and understanding.

One thing I will correct you on is that Christ says that he himself lays down his life out of his own accord, for those who believe in him, that they may be forgiven. No one takes it from him.

One other thing is that God didn't necessarily "make" these rules. They are dictated by his character in order for God to be Godly. It's the reason that many call the Euthyphro dilemma a false dichotomy.

The "what" and "why" are very different questions.

What about rehabilitation? Don't you think a loving god would prefer to rehabilitate, rather than condemn one to final damnation? In fact, isn't this what the story of the great flood was about in a way? Wipe out everyone and give humanity another chance? Why wouldn't each individual deserve the same?

Of course, it's a fairly tale. But it's also much worse than that. The bible causes people to defy their own common sense and morality. Just look at the mental hoops you're jumping through to make excuses for your god and justify his brand of punishment. I don't know if you're a parent or even old enough to be one, but I guarantee you this... You would never punish your own child, neither in severity, nor in duration, according to your version of god's reasons and ways. I have two kids and there is NOTHING either of them could do, no finite crime they could commit, that would cause me to punish them the way the god of the bible punishes. And neither would most parents.

I'm on my way out, I'll answer you when I have more time.

One quick comment though, why is the plausibility of all of this somehow attached to your moral interpretation and acceptance of it? There is a bit of argument by outrage in your last comments, and while I understand your outrage, I think it clouds your conclusion that it's necessarily false.

I think you are missing the point. His characterisation isnt necessarily meant to be absurd, in that its an accurate portrayal of the story. Are you saying that he his sacrifice was meaningful? Its funny that in the same vein, christians dismiss peoples life on earth as "only being a few short years, nothing compared with eternity", and yet at the same time make a big deal of jesuses sacrifice, which was what? He didnt die, because he ascended to heaven, and is still there now. So what did he sacrifice?

I would be interested to see you do the same to evolution. I would guess you couldnt do it without misunderstanding the concept, and intentionally introducing errors and false ideas. I guess you would accuse Beaucoupfish of the same in his characterisation of the jesus story, can you point out where he is inaccurate?




Only if you define god a certain way. It almost seems to be begging the question in a way.

I admit there is outrage, but my conclusions came first or at least along with the it.

The main point I'm trying to make is that your own morality is far superior to that of the god you believe in. You wouldn't kill thousands of innocent babies under any circumstances. You wouldn't exact similar punishment on your own kids no matter what their crime was. Yet, you'll go to any lengths to make excuses for why it's different for god. So yes, it frustrates and outrages me, because I honestly don't understand how an intelligent person who stops and thinks about this objectively, doesn't immediately see the silliness of what they're trying to pass off as a loving god.

A side question: Where do you think your morals come from? God? The bible? You? I'm curious. I think you can guess my answer.