Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

There is a big difference between a glob of cells or a fetus, and an autonomous child.


*

As it pertains to whether it is wrong or right to destroy it, what difference is there? Suppose God supplies a soul to that child at conception. Is it still right to destroy it? The point I am making is this. No-one knows at what point it is ok to kill a human life. Christians err on the side of life and most non-theists arrogantly err on the side of death. If there is an argument to this I am unaware of it.

 

[allright]

Actually ancient Jews and Christians believed the soul entered with the first breath.

So abortion would not be killing a soul/being.

Just a cell body. No one home.

*

Try and twist it all you want anyone who condemns God as evil for letting chidren die and yet supports abortion declares to the world based on thier own standard they are evil too

 

[ruffen]

As it pertains to whether it is wrong or right to destroy it, what difference is there? Suppose God supplies a soul to that child at conception. Is it still right to destroy it? The point I am making is this. No-one knows at what point it is ok to kill a human life. Christians err on the side of life and most non-theists arrogantly err on the side of death. If there is an argument to this I am unaware of it.

Well, even if a soul is injected at conception, the best thing you can do to that child is give it a golden ticket straight to "a better place" than this world?

 

[ruffen]

Try and twist it all you want anyone who condemns God as evil for letting chidren die and yet supports abortion declares to the world based on thier own standard they are evil too

Not if one views a child as a human being and a person, but 2 or 4 or 8 cells as something without consciousness, that has the potential of becoming a human being and a person.

 

[ruffen]

And if it is wrong to deny something that has the potential to become a person, to live, then everytime you consider having sex with someone and doesn't makes you a murderer, and that is just a bit too far out for me.

 

[1robin]

Well, even if a soul is injected at conception, the best thing you can do to that child is give it a golden ticket straight to "a better place" than this world?

That claim comes within contexts that destroy any attempt at logic that inspired it.

1. If the child went to heaven then the same God who created it also will hold those who performed the abortive act accountable. That is not a net gain.
2. Since you can't prove that Child will go to heaven any more than I can prove he will again the safest play is no abortion (except to save the mother).

Why is everyone but Christians so ready to make the most wreck-less choice?

Your statement is so bizarre you make have been making a bad joke, however I assumed you were not. The exact same argument you made has been used in defense of God in the case of a literal flood or David's son and used as an argument against God by atheists but I have not the slightest idea what the argument is used for in your case.

 

[1robin]

Not if one views a child as a human being and a person, but 2 or 4 or 8 cells as something without consciousness, that has the potential of becoming a human being and a person.

Consciousness is not a rational basis for murder or not murder, nor is the potential for future Human life. The line should be that we have not the slightest idea what the line should be so let's err for life.

 

[CG Didymus]

...Suppose God supplies a soul to that child at conception...

Can you explain your understanding of when the soul is joined to the growing fetus? The egg and the sperm each have part of the necessary physical material, but where and when does the spiritual part get in the mix? And where did this new soul come from? Were they pre-made at creation, because some people believe all that is created was created in those first six days? If not, then we have a point at which this new soul gets added to the many souls in existence. It lives inside a physical body, a body that might live a few minutes or maybe 100 years, a body that might turn to God or reject him. Why then should that soul suffer for the ignorance or stupidity of the body? Or, does the soul, knowing it came from God, try to convince the body to do the right thing and follow God? Which, still, the soul would suffer for the bad decisions of the body. Or, is the soul the one that is in control and has free will to choose, and the body is nothing more than a shell? I'm sure there's more than one Christian idea about this, so if you want to just put out some basic thoughts about it, that would be fine. Thanks, CG

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Consciousness is not a rational basis for murder or not murder, nor is the potential for future Human life. The line should be that we have not the slightest idea what the line should be so let's err for life.

"Err for life" all you want to; nobody's ever going to force you to have an abortion... Just don't sit here and pretend you have the moral authority to tell the rest of the world they should follow your lead

 

[McBell]

Why is everyone but Christians so ready to make the most wreck-less choice?

You should pay more attention to your absolutes.
They make you look foolish.

 

[dgirl1986]

- The lack of action does not make him evil
- There has to be good with the bad otherwise we would never appreciate the good
- Should he shelter everyone from ever experiencing anything bad EVER and therefore never let his children learn anything? Especially considering the whole free will thing.

 

[1robin]

Can you explain your understanding of when the soul is joined to the growing fetus? The egg and the sperm each have part of the necessary physical material, but where and when does the spiritual part get in the mix? And where did this new soul come from? Were they pre-made at creation, because some people believe all that is created was created in those first six days? If not, then we have a point at which this new soul gets added to the many souls in existence. It lives inside a physical body, a body that might live a few minutes or maybe 100 years, a body that might turn to God or reject him. Why then should that soul suffer for the ignorance or stupidity of the body? Or, does the soul, knowing it came from God, try to convince the body to do the right thing and follow God? Which, still, the soul would suffer for the bad decisions of the body. Or, is the soul the one that is in control and has free will to choose, and the body is nothing more than a shell? I'm sure there's more than one Christian idea about this, so if you want to just put out some basic thoughts about it, that would be fine. Thanks, CG

Hello CG. I have not the slightest idea when we are given a soul. It could be at conception, at birth, or anywhere in between. My point was no one can know and so the best course is to err on the side of life and not death. I will and hit the rest of the questions quickly.

1. I have no idea when we are given a soul. BY the way even if we had no soul at all, still all of us believe that one second after birth it's murder. Stepping back from that date at what point is the line encountered that separates murder from legal abortion. My point is that line, wherever it is, is arbitrary and again we should err for life. The soul was added to make it far easier to see the stakes we are arrogantly playing with but it is not needed for the argument.
2. I have no idea when souls are made but in theory they are made by God. It is a very confusing issue the Bible apparently did not intend to sufficiently clear up. I do not have much of a need for clarity about this however.
3. We are intertwined dual entities. There is an official term in theological hermeneutics but it escapes me. Actually in some interpretation we are tri-natured as God is but this is beside the point. Our body is on the hook the same as our soul is. In fact we are even given new bodies if we get into heaven. If the soul was created at the instant of conception and planted in a zygote (I think is the proper word) and gets to heaven it never exist without a body. If the soul is not allowed in heaven I believe it is destroyed in Hell as the scriptures say. The torture chamber is a mistaken misunderstanding of the analogy with the Gehenna valley, etc.. the Catholics used to scare people into Church. So the soul and body are never apart once combined. This may not address your question but it changes what it is based on so needs re-stating.
4. The body and soul work together as two aspects of one entity and either rebel or comply in union.

Either both are destroyed in hell:

New International Version (©2011)
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Or the soul is given a new body (or in some verse our body is perfected) and enters heaven. (Christ is the first example of this and his new body looked exactly like his old one though his nail marks were left (where our wounds are healed) as signs of honor for what he had done. He and we are given transformed or new bodies when we enter heaven.

You would be surprised how even many obscure issues (like yours) have been dealt with by God thousands of years ago. Many but not all.

I think my clarification of what is true on my view makes a change in the nature of your questions necessary. You make some assumptions that are not true of my faith anyway though they are reasonable assumptions to make. However none of this makes erring on life any less the best solution possible concerning abortion as it is used for convenience alone.

 

[1robin]

"Err for life" all you want to; nobody's ever going to force you to have an abortion... Just don't sit here and pretend you have the moral authority to tell the rest of the world they should follow your lead

However law makers use BS and arbitrary lines of demarcation based on nothing to kill those unborn children against their input. Unplanned parenthood councils countless teenagers far to young to be deciding to have an abortion, which the mothers spend the rest of their lives regretting and seeking treatment for the depression it caused This is not a victimless crime. Stop demanding I do anything and stop characterizing what I say any way you wish. I have been patient with this crap but am loosing it in your case. It requires far less arrogance to suggest that since we do not know where the line between murder and abortion should be then let's not kill those who are innocent (regardless of whatever label makes you feel better about killing a human life) unless we do know where that line is. Your side says even though we have no idea when it becomes murder we will arrogantly draw a line anywhere we can to put the power of life and death in our omniscient hands over those who have no choice in the matter or in the actions that were committed by those that are deciding the child's fate (in that the child must die for their actions). Does there even exist anything this terribly messed up in human history. You think food is the most important yet are fine with destroying life before it can eat anything. The moral insanity and arrogance is not on my side.

Your side is the only one of us on either side of the issue that is forcing destruction on human life that is not consulted (regarding his own life) yet accuses me of forcing something on others, not one example can you produce of this. I have almost a billion lives destroyed I can point at.

You say I am arrogant when I suggest we admit we don't know squat about when abortion is murder and take responsibility for our own actions instead of punishing the innocent. Yet that is the diametrical opposite of arrogance. Especially considering your side has no clue yet takes life in the arrogant insistence that they have a right to act in their ignorance at the expense of human life.

I do not think it possible to create a greater example of blatant hypocrisy and ambiguous moral chaos than what you have typed here.

It is no wonder this mentality as it has been infesting the US since 1960 has resulted in the moral erosion that is destroying this country. It is only a wonder we still exist at all. We probably would have ceased to exist except for the fact China has so much money to lend. This was truly depressing. The Bible's prophecies about the mentality that would prevail in the last days (shortly before even he has had enough and ends the whole program) is chillingly apparent.

 

[ruffen]

I guess the only logical choice to avoid that many abortions is to encourage gay marriages.

:run:

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

However law makers use BS and arbitrary lines of demarcation based on nothing to kill those unborn children against their input. Unplanned parenthood councils countless teenagers far to young to be deciding to have an abortion, which the mothers spend the rest of their lives regretting and seeking treatment for the depression it caused This is not a victimless crime. Stop demanding I do anything and stop characterizing what I say any way you wish. I have been patient with this crap but am loosing it in your case. It requires far less arrogance to suggest that since we do not know where the line between murder and abortion should be then let's not kill those who are innocent (regardless of whatever label makes you feel better about killing a human life) unless we do know where that line is. Your side says even though we have no idea when it becomes murder we will arrogantly draw a line anywhere we can to put the power of life and death in our omniscient hands over those who have no choice in the matter or in the actions that were committed by those that are deciding the child's fate (in that the child must die for their actions). Does there even exist anything this terribly messed up in human history. You think food is the most important yet are fine with destroying life before it can eat anything. The moral insanity and arrogance is not on my side.

Your side is the only one of us on either side of the issue that is forcing destruction on human life that is not consulted (regarding his own life) yet accuses me of forcing something on others, not one example can you produce of this. I have almost a billion lives destroyed I can point at.

You say I am arrogant when I suggest we admit we don't know squat about when abortion is murder and take responsibility for our own actions instead of punishing the innocent. Yet that is the diametrical opposite of arrogance. Especially considering your side has no clue yet takes life in the arrogant insistence that they have a right to act in their ignorance at the expense of human life.

I do not think it possible to create a greater example of blatant hypocrisy and ambiguous moral chaos than what you have typed here.

It is no wonder this mentality as it has been infesting the US since 1960 has resulted in the moral erosion that is destroying this country. It is only a wonder we still exist at all. We probably would have ceased to exist except for the fact China has so much money to lend. This was truly depressing. The Bible's prophecies about the mentality that would prevail in the last days (shortly before even he has had enough and ends the whole program) is chillingly apparent.

Pretty words to say absolutely nothing. In the end, it's up to the individual to decide.

 

[Ingledsva]

There is a big difference between a glob of cells or a fetus, and an autonomous child.

As it pertains to whether it is wrong or right to destroy it, what difference is there? Suppose God supplies a soul to that child at conception. Is it still right to destroy it? The point I am making is this. No-one knows at what point it is ok to kill a human life. Christians err on the side of life and most non-theists arrogantly err on the side of death. If there is an argument to this I am unaware of it.

Yes it would make a difference. One would just be a mass in a woman's body; like cancer.

However it is my opinion that it is just wrong to force women to be broodmares.

If people really want to stop most abortion - they should pump tons of money into the contraceptive industry - in search of a 100% reliable contraceptive.

*

 

[1robin]

I guess the only logical choice to avoid that many abortions is to encourage gay marriages.

:run:

Why don't we mandate them and kill off humans entirely?

 

[1robin]

Pretty words to say absolutely nothing. In the end, it's up to the individual to decide.

I knew an intellectual punt as not far off for you.

 

[1robin]

Yes it would make a difference. One would just be a mass in a woman's body; like cancer.

However it is my opinion that it is just wrong to force women to be broodmares.

If people really want to stop most abortion - they should pump tons of money into the contraceptive industry - in search of a 100% reliable contraceptive.

*

You must have missed my entire point. Both you and I believe that to kill a child one second after birth is murder. Now from that point backwards tell me exactly when that child becomes a biological mass (BTW comparing a human life to cancer is abhorrent). No matter where you draw that arbitrary line it is based in ambiguous ignorance. Since no one can possibly know where the line between murder and permitted should be drawn my side is erring on the side of life, and your side on death. One side is selfishly arrogant and the other admits their ignorance and does not kill a human life as a result of it. If Women do not wish to breed I know of an absolutely certain method of contraception, and it will never require the death of the innocent for the guilt of another, and the lifelong depression and mental problems abortion produce in tens of thousands of cases. BTW I am all for contraception but that is another topic. It is a sad commentary on secularism when the destruction of human like is not considered immoral but even a sacred right. I hope that big spaceship the nation of Islam believes in or Calgon, comes soon.

 

[ruffen]

You must have missed my entire point. Both you and I believe that to kill a child one second after birth is murder. Now from that point backwards tell me exactly when that child becomes a biological mass (BTW comparing a human life to cancer is abhorrent). No matter where you draw that arbitrary line it is based in ambiguous ignorance. Since no one can possibly know where the line between murder and permitted should be drawn my side is erring on the side of life, and your side on death. One side is selfishly arrogant and the other admits their ignorance and does not kill a human life as a result of it. If Women do not wish to breed I know of an absolutely certain method of contraception, and it will never require the death of the innocent for the guilt of another, and the lifelong depression and mental problems abortion produce in tens of thousands of cases. BTW I am all for contraception but that is another topic. It is a sad commentary on secularism when the destruction of human like is not considered immoral but even a sacred right. I hope that big spaceship the nation of Islam believes in or Calgon, comes soon.

There is no clear line and no exact point. Only religious people operate in absolutes.

Just as there is no exact point in the evolution of human beings when you could say that "THERE! Now they are homo sapiens and a different species than they were yesterday", there is no clear line in the development of a fetus.

This is what makes it a difficult moral and ethical judgement. 1 day before birth it would of course be child murder to abort it, 1 day after conception it would of course not be murder to abort it. And between those two points there's just a lot of gray shades and not a clear line.

I do see your point that one should then play it safe and forbid abortion at any stage, but the problem with this approach is that people will find other ways to terminate the pregnancy if it is really not a wanted child at that point. And that may be less humane and less controlled and we're back to visiting the old hag in the forest for a secret remedy against this unwanted pregnancy.

It's like alcohol. If you draw an absolute zero-tolerance line, people will find ways to do it anyway, but then you have no control at all. It is better to have moderate control and allow some of it, than to lose control over the issue altogether.