huh, usually when I meditate on scripture it continually leaves me with the thought "what kinda of ****er would kill every pregnant woman on earth in one fell swoop and still be against abortion"?

I suggest you study with an OT expert then. You might be misinterpreting it.

You might enjoy reading Andrew Murray. He talks about the steps you mentioned in an earlier post itt.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/murray/surrender.html

So you're saying "Oh think about the babies!", at the same time arguing "let me kill my baby!"

Perfect should take out the exceptionally imperfect (see satanism thread), for the benefit of those who want to be perfect. + reincarnation ftw .

How do people STILL believe in a soul?

...because it's true and some people believe in the truth. Those that don't believe will be "corrected" after physical death - this will be sufficient proof for every human being.

The genocide of virtually every human on the planet in the flood is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp. I fail to see the need for an OT expert.

To be fair, nobody is trying to say that I am an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly moral being. So even if I accepted your false characterization, which I don't, it just paints me as being a bit of an idiot. But the reciprocal problem on God's part that he "kills all the babies" at the same time commanding "don't kill the babies" is a far far larger problem for those who believe he is the moral commander in chief.

Idk...I have no inclination to kill babies really, or to kill baby killers, so I haven't thought about it much. I suppose it's an interesting topic for debate, a puzzle to solve, etc. (but mostly a distraction imo)

I'm trying to think of all the laws that could possibly come up around baby kills, as there's no clear thou shall not kill thy baby, outside of sacrifice to Moloch type deals. (off the top of my head, and I'm a little too lazy to start digging)

Hmm, I could see Canaanite (cursed son of Ham) babies getting taken out along with all the rest of the Canaanites?

What reasons do people use to justify abortions again? I guess rape? Any rape or cross race (I had to be careful here) rape? I mean...if Canaanite rape, you might be able to get away with it?

It isn't the topic of this thread, so we shouldn't debate abortion but I will directly answer your question by saying that many people see abortion as just another form of birth control and that there is no more a consequence from aborting a fetus after the condom breaks than from using a condom in the first place. Certainly aborting is perfectly acceptable in a much wider range of circumstances than just after a rape, in many peoples minds.

We should probably start at the beginning first...

If you find yourself within a universe that exists far, far outside the arena of what is logically coherent, then... huh. Wha?

I'm always stupified by these questions.

It's like someone who doesn't know s*** about aeronatic design pointing at a 747 and guffawing and saying: "Who can't build one of them?"

Not realizing that literally dozens of teams of engineers each specializing in different disciplines came together to design that flying machine.

The question itself is stupid. Your very existence within its context cannot be adequately explained or approached, but you have figured out that that if you roll a rock down a hill, it will not magically stop and climb back up, and so you pat yourself on the back and scoff.

Well, "many" people also see abortion as murder. What is the point?

Even when I was an atheist, I saw abortion for what it was: a conscious shifting of values.

Career first. Suckling second. Maybe even 4th or 5th.

Status first. People second.

Maybe you should be a better student of evolution then.

Just because humans can't make determinations on "fitness to reproduce" doesn't mean God can't.

Evolution Clarification: Clarifying some points on evolution and intelligent design
http://www.khanacademy.org/science/b...-clarification

I was asked how people justify abortion, and whether rape was the only circumstance. I was merely responding with a common argument and noting that many widely held it as entirely acceptable in situations far removed from rape. Obviously others view it differently.

Ironically, I agree that it is something of a shifting of values. I just think this is true on both sides and that the arbitrary nature of this is what makes choice so important.

And no, the choice to have an abortion (such as when a teenage) is not necessarily about putting career or status first, for many people they care very deeply about having children, raising their children in the best possible environment, and go on later in life to have children, but they don't think that a teen single mother in high school is the optimal way to raise a baby. Please stop forcing your perception of priorities on others.

Please link to the scientific, published paper on evolution that I would need to read in order to justify the mass murder of virtually every human on the planet by an omnipotent dictator. "Better student of evolution"....ffs.

I will watch your video if you give a brief summary and explain why it is relevant, at this point it looks like a complete non sequitur.

Thankfully, our universe is one very much inside the arena of what is logically coherent.

Your analogy seems to miss many points. The OP asks his question, presumably, because there never has been a single piece of evidence or reason to suggest that a soul exists and it is thus the height of irrationality to presume it does. How this relates to this query about 747's is beyond me.

Thing is, is that the soul is invisible. You're not going to be able to "see" it with your 5 senses, but by actually trying to be logically consistent in your world view.

I think your problem is in your inability to grasp what all "reason to suggest" means and can mean.(if you're honest) (or just plain intellectual dishonesty)

So with this narrow mindedness (limiting evidence) and lack of depth (falling for catch phrases); pronouncing such resounding judgements such as "the height of irrationality" really should be held off on.

Judgments should be sensible and practical (very difficult), but information collecting needs to allow more for the abstract and theoretical.

You will note that I already said "evidence or reason". I accept the possibility that a rational argument could establish the existence of a soul even if it is "invisible" in the strongest of senses such that no evidence for it could exist.

The question turns to a simple one: if you are claiming it is a rational argument that establishes the soul, what is your rational argument? Thus far in this thread - and for millenia before it - there has been a complete lack of reasonable arguments presented that stand the tests of the adversarial process. Since no such rational arguments has been presented it is, by definition, irrational to maintain the belief.

You bolded the idea of being logically consistent in my world view. What is my logical inconsistency?

If the soul is invisible, intangible, has no smell, makes no sound, and has no taste, then how do you know its there?

These are the only 5 senses we have for detecting things.

I guess it would be possible to detect the presence of a soul if you knew what it did, and then could see the results of its actions in the real world, in the same way that we can detect the wind by seeing the leaves blow.

So, how do we know what the soul does? And how can we detect its acting on the real world?


I could construct a logical world view, wherein the Sneeze Monster was what made me sneeze. This doesnt make it an accurate picture of reality.

Of course , if you are not interested or concerned in accurate pictures of reality, then all this is pointless anyway.

It is fine to accept, at least in principle, the idea that a logical argument could deduce the existence of a soul without any tangible evidence. However, this requires a significant burden of proof given how there is no tangible evidence. Instead of being met with an incredibly convincing, undeniable logical argument that convinces us despite the lack of evidence, there is at best vague wishywashy arguments that are almost trivially dismissed.

Ah the soul is the greatest question in the world.

As I said practical and sensible judgments are very difficult. I don't think I can emphasize that enough.

The two simplest things I can point to are; noticing your body and your will are often going in different directions, and that we're so far ahead of every other animal on this planet, that our capacity to do things is just ... incomparable.

A+

Why is it a great question? There is zero evidence of reason to believe it even exists. And because there is no evidence or reason to believe it exists we know nothing about it so there is nothing to say on the subject. For example, you will never find scientists in Nature and Science debating the existence of the soul. It is not a great question, it is a non question.

More to the point, if you don't have practical and sensible reasons to believe in a soul, why believe in a soul? What reason is there to even talk about it as a meaningful concept?

I have no idea what you mean by the first claim, but as for the second there is nothing about our intelligence that implies a soul or is not perfectly adequately explained by evolution. Even if it was NOT adequately explained, that would just mean this phenomenon was unexplained, it would not imply that the soul was the explanation. That is just irrational.

In what way does any of this point to a soul?

I dont necessarily accept there is such a thing as will, and even if there was, I dont necessarily accept that it is a separate "thing" from the body

Lots of animals are stronger than us, does that mean they have souls?
Lots of animals are faster than us, does that mean they have souls?
and so on...

C'mon you all know it's the greatest question. The length of the thread is evidence. Atheists coming here is evidence. Every other animal having an animal on the same intellectual, or lack of intellectual level is evidence.

Bottom line, it's the biggest question out there.

But...if some want to hold on to what I view as inane, stubbornness, so be it.

You know, I can think of one greater question after further thought; what laws for society are we going to follow to get along. But.. apparently that isn't as obvious to everyone, so it's a toss up. (well, I'm kinda babbling there, more people are in the politics forum)

You don't need that. Man is not God's judge.

All you need is your common sense and an unprejudiced acquaintance with the OT to know that God always determines who is fit to reproduce and who isn't. He's the only one who's All Knowing.

He could have all kinds of reasons for his determination. Genetic, physical, psychological, etc.

You try proving those people killed weren't all degenerate psychopaths.

All anybody has to go on it is God's Word.

Being barren in the OT was a sign of the lack of God's favor. For a woman it was almost as bad as being a leper (a social outcast). Look at the bondwoman Hagar ragging on (mocking) her lady, Sarah, because she had a son and Sarah didn't.

Many women called on the Lord for help in bearing children in the OT. One woman, David's wife Tamar, that berated God was left barren.

There are even women today having trouble having kids that are known to call on the Lord and sometimes they're answered in the affirmative and given children. I know a lady who did that and she had 2 kids that are practically golden. One of them graduated a year early from H.S. and was valedictorian and already has a medical school scholarship before he even starts undergrad school. The other one's about to go into the Junior Olympics for track.