Interesting abortion argument

[anon_snp6dc585nnj4]

If God has a plan for everyone, wouldn't the fetus's plan (assuming person here) be for their mother to have an abortion. The argument will be made he doesn't plan for people to commit murder and if that is the case how can we ignore natural disasters if we accept the idea he is real.

Disclaimer: I really don't care, just overhead this and seemed legit.

 

[Raglefant]

He plans for his own murders, which is what natural disasters are... God murders. All the other ones are wrong, including and especially baby murders.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

God knows everyone's future including those of us who will be killed by our fellow man. That doesn't mean he's ok with another person killing you, he's just aware it will happen.

In terms of natural disasters and other things these are the overall result of the world's sin and God has the sole right to determine when a person dies.

 

[fredjr82]

God knows everyone's future including those of us who will be killed by our fellow man. That doesn't mean he's ok with another person killing you, he's just aware it will happen.

Do you think people who get abortions go to hell? What if they've accepted Jesus as their personal savior?

 

[fredjr82]

In terms of natural disasters and other things these are the overall result of the world's sin and God has the sole right to determine when a person dies.

Is this kind of like saying God causes natural disasters because we let gays get married and abortions are not illegal? Sounds kind of Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson in my opinion.

 

[Joes Place]

If God has a plan for everyone, wouldn't the fetus's plan (assuming person here) be for their mother to have an abortion. The argument will be made he doesn't plan for people to commit murder and if that is the case how can we ignore natural disasters if we accept the idea he is real.

Disclaimer: I really don't care, just overhead this and seemed legit.

Well....he's apparently 'ok' with allowing himself to 'naturally abort' or miscarry 30% to 50% of all conceptions/fertilized eggs....

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

God knows everyone's future including those of us who will be killed by our fellow man. That doesn't mean he's ok with another person killing you, he's just aware it will happen.

In terms of natural disasters and other things these are the overall result of the world's sin and God has the sole right to determine when a person dies.

So if God knows another is going to committ a

God knows everyone's future including those of us who will be killed by our fellow man. That doesn't mean he's ok with another person killing you, he's just aware it will happen.

In terms of natural disasters and other things these are the overall result of the world's sin and God has the sole right to determine when a person dies.

If God knows everyone's future than he knows not only who will be a victim but who will be a murderer. In other words it's predetermined who will murder and subsequently go to hell. It's as if as a human you have no choice in the matter to do right or wrong?

 

[naturalmwa]

The Muslims have a loophole for this. They believe the soul enters some time after conception so early abortions are fine. Now we know why liberals love Islam.

 

[Raglefant]

Well....he's apparently 'ok' with allowing himself to 'naturally abort' or miscarry 30% to 50% of all conceptions/fertilized eggs....

I got this one boys....

No, those things happened because of sin. We fvcked the world up so now bad stuff happens. I can't draw the direct link, but it probably started with humping relatives?

Yada Yada yada... procreation issues... miscarriages, etc.

 

[Joes Place]

I got this one boys....

No, those things happened because of sin. We fvcked the world up so now bad stuff happens. I can't draw the direct link, but it probably started with humping relatives?

Yada Yada yada... procreation issues... miscarriages, etc.

So then Jesus didn't actually die for our sins.....miscarried babies are the ones actually dying for our sins.
Got it.

 

[jscott78]

If God has a plan for everyone, wouldn't the fetus's plan (assuming person here) be for their mother to have an abortion. The argument will be made he doesn't plan for people to commit murder and if that is the case how can we ignore natural disasters if we accept the idea he is real.

Disclaimer: I really don't care, just overhead this and seemed legit.

God is a murderous unpredictable savage. We consider ourselves made in his likeness. Give me a break that he cares about abortion the way wingers do.

 

[Raglefant]

So then Jesus didn't actually die for our sins.....miscarried babies are the ones actually dying for our sins.
Got it.

Nope. Jesus died FOR our sins (individually). Babies die BECAUSE of humanities sin (collectively).

Damn, I thought you were smart after the wormhole thread. It's disappointing seeing you struggle with this. Next we'll talk about Noah's Ark and Jonah living inside that whale!

 

[artradley]

God is a murderous unpredictable savage. We consider ourselves made in his likeness. Give me a break that he cares about abortion the way wingers do.

This.

God, as described in the OT, makes Hitler look like a unicorn dancing on a rainbow. All humans for generation after generation punished because one couple disobeyed him. Almost every single living creature on earth wiped-out because, well, because he was pissed-off. And that's not counting all the sadistic dicking around he did to people like Job and Abraham. If we assume that every fetus is a human being, then it's not surprising that he chooses to murder about a third of them just for grins.

That said, it does not follow that he would be okay with humans performing abortions on their own. That's his job. And he's a big enough dick I imagine he would be pretty PO'd that we're doing it instead. Perhaps global warming is going to lead to another Great Flood.

 

[artradley]

Nope. Jesus died FOR our sins (individually). Babies die BECAUSE of humanities sin (collectively).

Damn, I thought you were smart after the wormhole thread. It's disappointing seeing you struggle with this. Next we'll talk about Noah's Ark and Jonah living inside that whale!

That's right. Christianity is a religion founded on human sacrifice. Joe should have caught that!

 

[pablow]

God is like the Hayden Fry of the universe. He's the head coach, but he really doesn't mess with the details.

 

[artradley]

God is like the Hayden Fry of the universe. He's the head coach, but he really doesn't mess with the details.

True. God even made Adam name all of the animals. All of them. Can you imagine how long that took? That must have been maddening. Of course, we even screwed that up.

Adam: That's a dog.

Today: Perro, Cane, Skylos, Chien, Hund.

Adam: WTF? What part of "dog" don't you get?

 

[naturalmwa]

True. God even made Adam name all of the animals. All of them. Can you imagine how long that took? That must have been maddening. Of course, we even screwed that up.

Adam: That's a dog.

Today: Perro, Cane, Skylos, Chien, Hund.

Adam: WTF? What part of "dog" don't you get?

According to the Tower of Babel story it was god that screwed that up showing he is very interested in the details. One can't maintain belief in a hands off God concept and remain a follower of the biblical traditions. The Haden Fry God belief would make one a deist.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

The only real abortion argument that makes sense contains just two words:

Black Market.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If God has a plan for everyone, wouldn't the fetus's plan (assuming person here) be for their mother to have an abortion. The argument will be made he doesn't plan for people to commit murder and if that is the case how can we ignore natural disasters if we accept the idea he is real.

Disclaimer: I really don't care, just overhead this and seemed legit.

Is this argument founded on the idea that a god specifically creates natural disasters? Is this the same thread as the other day?

 

[theIowaHawk]

According to the Tower of Babel story it was god that screwed that up showing he is very interested in the details. One can't maintain belief in a hands off God concept and remain a follower of the biblical traditions. The Haden Fry God belief would make one a deist.

Why do you insist that people a) wrote things down "correctly" and b) insist it be always interpreted literally?

Do we have to blindly follow and agree with all of Socrates' findings in order to believe in science, or his fundamental ideas?

 

[theIowaHawk]

This.

God, as described in the OT, makes Hitler look like a unicorn dancing on a rainbow. All humans for generation after generation punished because one couple disobeyed him. Almost every single living creature on earth wiped-out because, well, because he was pissed-off. And that's not counting all the sadistic dicking around he did to people like Job and Abraham. If we assume that every fetus is a human being, then it's not surprising that he chooses to murder about a third of them just for grins.

That said, it does not follow that he would be okay with humans performing abortions on their own. That's his job. And he's a big enough dick I imagine he would be pretty PO'd that we're doing it instead. Perhaps global warming is going to lead to another Great Flood.

Interesting, so he controls all of the elements and often people .... but when people do things you disagree with he isn't controlling that? Seems like anybody who arguesa god does EVERYTHING would argue that abortions are completely his doing.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So if God knows another is going to committ a


If God knows everyone's future than he knows not only who will be a victim but who will be a murderer. In other words it's predetermined who will murder and subsequently go to hell. It's as if as a human you have no choice in the matter to do right or wrong?

Or, maybe like the comic book alternate universes he sees everything simultaneously, like the guy who played Arnold Rothstein in Boardwalk, but while the future-seeing guy in MIB 4. So maybe he sees every possible instance at all times, or maybe he chooses to see none at all.

 

[naturalmwa]

Why do you insist that people a) wrote things down "correctly" and b) insist it be always interpreted literally?

Do we have to blindly follow and agree with all of Socrates' findings in order to believe in science, or his fundamental ideas?

Why do you insist on making up positions to argue against? Argue my actual points, which were that the bible says God gave us languages, the bible supports a very hands on god concept and a hands off God concept is intact a different religion called deism.

 

[lawsonhawk]

Why do you insist on making up positions to argue against? Argue my actual points, which were that the bible says God gave us languages, the bible supports a very hands on god concept and a hands off God concept is intact a different religion called deism.

He likes to argue the argument. Deconstruction is easy.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Do you think people who get abortions go to hell? What if they've accepted Jesus as their personal savior?

If they have accepted Christ and trust in him they will be saved. Every sin including murder can be forgiven through Christ.

Is this kind of like saying God causes natural disasters because we let gays get married and abortions are not illegal? Sounds kind of Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson in my opinion.

Difference. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say those disasters came specifically because of gays and abortion.

I say it came because of ALL of the world's sin throughout human history. It came just as much because Falwell was a complete dick to people and because I've had pre-marital relations and I've not always loved God with my whole heart or loved my neighbor as myself as it came because of homosexual relations and infanticide.

The whole world throughout human history is equally responsible for the condition it's in today.

If God knows everyone's future than he knows not only who will be a victim but who will be a murderer. In other words it's predetermined who will murder and subsequently go to hell. It's as if as a human you have no choice in the matter to do right or wrong?

I know my brother is going to wear a camo hat to his rehearsal dinner. Does that mean that I made him wear the camo hat?

There is a difference between knowing and pre-determining. God knows what you will do, that doesn't mean he made you to do it. Much like I know sometimes what my brother is going to do before he does it. That does not mean that I made him do it. It simply means I know him well enough to predict his actions.

 

[artradley]

Interesting, so he controls all of the elements and often people .... but when people do things you disagree with he isn't controlling that? Seems like anybody who arguesa god does EVERYTHING would argue that abortions are completely his doing.

Um....I think you might have quoted the wrong post.

 

[Tom Paris]

God knows everyone's future including those of us who will be killed by our fellow man. That doesn't mean he's ok with another person killing you, he's just aware it will happen.

In terms of natural disasters and other things these are the overall result of the world's sin and God has the sole right to determine when a person dies.

This isn't what he says on Twitter.

 

[INXS83]

God knows everyone's future including those of us who will be killed by our fellow man. That doesn't mean he's ok with another person killing you, he's just aware it will happen.

In terms of natural disasters and other things these are the overall result of the world's sin and God has the sole right to determine when a person dies.

Best answer. Period.

 

[Titanhawk2]

If God has a plan for everyone, wouldn't the fetus's plan (assuming person here) be for their mother to have an abortion. The argument will be made he doesn't plan for people to commit murder and if that is the case how can we ignore natural disasters if we accept the idea he is real.

Disclaimer: I really don't care, just overhead this and seemed legit.

He knew that you would come up with a stupid post, but I'd bet that wasn't His plan

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why do you insist on making up positions to argue against? Argue my actual points, which were that the bible says God gave us languages, the bible supports a very hands on god concept and a hands off God concept is intact a different religion called deism.

How is that not exactly what I claimed you argued? You are saying that the bible must be literal: that it is TRUE that "God gave us languages", my question was why do you demand that it be absolutely literal and correct?

You are specifically trying to pigeon-hole Christians in order to try and tear them down, that if they believe God actually did A, then how can B not be him as well ... when the truth does not depend on the persons actual belief.

As I said before, you are necessitating that the idea/belief in a god is controlled by the person's actual idea/belief, instead of the god itself.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why do you insist on making up positions to argue against? Argue my actual points, which were that the bible says God gave us languages, the bible supports a very hands on god concept and a hands off God concept is intact a different religion called deism.

Maybe to put it more plainly: You don't get to determine which is "deism" with a "hands off god" and which is "Christianity", at least not until you get some sort of consensus on what "Christianity" actually is, point by point. Do you think you can accomplish that?

A story in the bible does what you claim, Christianity (or its god), does not.

 

[theIowaHawk]

God knows everyone's future including those of us who will be killed by our fellow man. That doesn't mean he's ok with another person killing you, he's just aware it will happen.

In terms of natural disasters and other things these are the overall result of the world's sin and God has the sole right to determine when a person dies.

Like right here Natural, you can argue specifically with Hoosier about his claims, that doesn't mean you are properly arguing about Christianity itself, just Hoosier. And if Hoosier is intelligent he would understand that he could be wrong, not that there isn't a god, but that he could be wrong about what the god is and does.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Like right here Natural, you can argue specifically with Hoosier about his claims, that doesn't mean you are properly arguing about Christianity itself, just Hoosier. And if Hoosier is intelligent he would understand that he could be wrong, not that there isn't a god, but that he could be wrong about what the god is and does.

I can always be wrong, I believe in God and many things about him, but I also recognize that all of those things are impossible to prove on an empirical level. Just trying to represent what I believe.

 

[lawsonhawk]

I can always be wrong, I believe in God and many things about him, but I also recognize that all of those things are impossible to prove on an empirical level. Just trying to represent what I believe.

 

[artradley]

Maybe to put it more plainly: You don't get to determine which is "deism" with a "hands off god" and which is "Christianity", at least not until you get some sort of consensus on what "Christianity" actually is, point by point. Do you think you can accomplish that?

A story in the bible does what you claim, Christianity (or its god), does not.

You're really just being silly in this thread. Look at what natural initially said:

"According to the Tower of Babel story it was god that screwed that up showing he is very interested in the details. One can't maintain belief in a hands off God concept and remain a follower of the biblical traditions. The Haden Fry God belief would make one a deist."

Clearly his argument is specifically directed at those who both believe in the Tower of Babel story, but who also believe in a hands-off God. So it matters not one whit that there are a lot of Christians who don't believe all bible stories literally; because his words are not directed towards them. This is why he is perplexed that you made an argument supposedly against his post which, in fact, had nothing to do with his post.

 

[naturalmwa]

How is that not exactly what I claimed you argued? You are saying that the bible must be literal: that it is TRUE that "God gave us languages", my question was why do you demand that it be absolutely literal and correct?

You are specifically trying to pigeon-hole Christians in order to try and tear them down, that if they believe God actually did A, then how can B not be him as well ... when the truth does not depend on the persons actual belief.

As I said before, you are necessitating that the idea/belief in a god is controlled by the person's actual idea/belief, instead of the god itself.

You have it wrong. I'm only pointing out what the bible says. If you want to argue the bible is not correct, that works fine for me. It appears that is what you are arguing.

Yes Christians are pigeon holed. They have to believe in the biblical god or they aren't Christians. That religion is defined by that book. That book defines god as hands on and detail oriented. If you believe in a hands off god you are some other faith, likely closer to deism.

I didn't make these rules. Religion made them. If you want to argue religion is wrong, that too is to my purposes.

 

[naturalmwa]

Maybe to put it more plainly: You don't get to determine which is "deism" with a "hands off god" and which is "Christianity", at least not until you get some sort of consensus on what "Christianity" actually is, point by point. Do you think you can accomplish that?

A story in the bible does what you claim, Christianity (or its god), does not.

These matters of what defines these faiths have been settled long ago. I don't have to define them. You have to accept and follow the definitions they already have.

 

[Raglefant]

You have it wrong. I'm only pointing out what the bible says. If you want to argue the bible is not correct, that works fine for me. It appears that is what you are arguing.

Yes Christians are pigeon holed. They have to believe in the biblical god or they aren't Christians. That religion is defined by that book. That book defines god as hands on and detail oriented. If you believe in a hands off god you are some other faith, likely closer to deism.

I didn't make these rules. Religion made them. If you want to argue religion is wrong, that too is to my purposes.

So if I don't believe in the biblical God I can't identify as a Christian? Sheesh, next you're going to say that I can't identify as black just because I'm white...

 

[naturalmwa]

Like right here Natural, you can argue specifically with Hoosier about his claims, that doesn't mean you are properly arguing about Christianity itself, just Hoosier. And if Hoosier is intelligent he would understand that he could be wrong, not that there isn't a god, but that he could be wrong about what the god is and does.

And I think Hoosier is wrong. But if the right answer is there are really 12 gods, Christians are wrong. It means something to be a Christian. There are rules. Honestly this is so basic I'm surprised you even need this explained.

You lurch from the point of view that words have precise meanings that you police with dogmatic exactitude to the position that religious creeds can't be pinned down. Do you really believe this or are you trolling?

 

[Raglefant]

And I think Hoosier is wrong. But if the right answer is there are really 12 gods, Christians are wrong. It means something to be a Christian. There are rules. Honestly this is so basic I'm surprised you even need this explained.

You lurch from the point of view that words have precise meanings that you police with dogmatic exactitude to the position that religious creeds can't be pinned down. Do you really believe this or are you trolling?

I dig what you're saying, but it's also clear that you haven't met many Presbyterians. A lot of bending and even breaking. There are a lot of folks who identify as Christians that believe there are like 1 or 2 important details to believe and the rest isn't important. I'm not going to argue whether or not they "should" identify as Christians, but there are more and more people in this bucket every day.