:nono: Still 'parasitic' (dependent) for life. They cannot live on their own.
A lot on the table. This thread isn't really 'indictment against God.' You are comparing. It is like saying Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands, so I should be able to kill just this one. You are admitting it is wrong by such a comparison, Stuart.
No, that figure is way too high. Virtually no pregnancy carried to term is in danger these days. Regardless, it is a comparison of numbers again and exercising excusing behavior. My point again over this matter is that even if you say 'act of God' it doesn't mean you can do it. People die naturally in forest fires. It doesn't mean you can go light someone on fire, even if the number of other arsonists is decreasing. Stuart, for the most part, I see all these arguments as grasping at straws looking for an excuse. None of them hold up very well. It is why I think critical thinking solves this discussion. Simply: Is it right for you or me to make decisions about living and dying for another human being? We can vote, but that doesn't mean 'right.' We've given ourselves the right. Oregon passed a death with dignity bill. Just because they say "you can" doesn't mean we actually have the right. There are all kinds of complications with granting the power of death over life and it is never ever ever considered 'good.' Again, when Regan passed the bill, it was to make 'the best' of a desperate situation. While I personally think best is different than most, saving life should be the ultimate goal, not convenience from bad choices.
Again, this is like asking me to be more concerned about Saddam Hussein than Jeffrey Dahmer.
▲Look at your post, Stuart. ▲ You posted the numbers.
Whenever atheists bring up God in threads, the conversation gets complicated because you are carrying your whole worldview into the conversation. Now I do as well so I'm accommodating, but it carries us off a bit on a tangent. This particular is about the value of life, by extension. If we are God's, we have no right to decide for one another who lives and who dies barring desperate circumstances. However, even without God in the pictures, we still have to meet that 'desperate' bar. We shouldn't be ending pregnancies barring a genuine demonstrable need. Desire isn't good enough. We need to be responsible.
Yes. One of the MOST important science employments is discovery and actually questioning via the scientific method. Generally, if you DON'T employ it nor ever question, you aren't doing good science. I posit that many on TOL are better scientists SIMPLY because they keep looking.
In a nutshell, it is like Legos. You can build a Millennial Falcon or a Batmobile but not out of the same package. God can use similar building blocks but my cells look and are made largely different than the cells of an onion.
No, I disagree with this. I mean, perhaps where some are concerned but it does not meet my higher critical thinking standards to be viable. Who am I that that should be a function? One of the over 70% of America that calls that figure into question. It means it is ENTIRELY assailable as a proposition where kids in high school science class simply aren't buying it.
Very politely stated but you know, as well as I do, that you couldn't even type that without fingers that you take for granted but have NO power to have attained. You use what you did NOT provide for yourself, but were given (be it nature or God between us). IOW, you 'can' take it for granted, but it would be incredibly arrogant to take credit for what is COMPLETELY out of your purview to have accomplished.
Another rabbit trail from here so I'll let this one slide. We are covering it in the rest of our conversation anyway.
...which is a horrible excuse for ending a life.
You'd shoot her if she said and did that with a four year old.
lain: When abortion was made 'legal' it was never intended for this poor reason.Again, you'd shoot the mother that did this to a four year old.
lain::nono: On the premise that you'd shoot her for killing her four year old, this is put to rest. YOU have the right and power to stop that atrocity.
:chuckle: You are the one playing with theological ideas. Because you've spent so much time on a theology board, your complain looks benign or impotent.
See? You can't help yourself :chuckle:
It is why I suggest further study. You are delving into theology speculation and need the theology background to carry the conversation.
Thanks. I think so too. In the end, almost always from a parent, 'do as I say, not as I do' IS good parenting, at least for the child's welfare. It is a mindset change and I think you can acquiesce that. Do as I say may not 'look' fair, but it is more than fair, and in fact loving. This too is a bit of an extended trail, but it points back to God having those same rights over us. Again, you are more interested in theology than you realize because you've been here on TOL a very long time and you ask a lot of theology questions. There is no possible way it then, isn't important to you. Again, some of this would be fast-tracked by some theology education for you. You ARE interested whether you admit that to yourself or not.
No it wouldn't because "Christ" invented it. Nice try, but it is NOT toxic. It is the cure for all who need a physician. I wouldn't have been nearly as nice or a viable citizen without it, so even by world standards, it is to be embraced. It is much more than that, but for you, outside looking in, it would be your first concern. It kept me out of a lot of trouble taxpayers would be incarcerating me for. This too is a long trail from the topic. As I said, you are very interested in theology.
:up:
How do you know? Do you make up 'god's law', given that abortion is not mentioned in scripture? Your god caused the deaths of every foetus gestating at the time of the alleged flood, and the some in the case of the slaughter of the Amalekites. If the killing of foetuses is against 'god's law', then this must be a god that breaks its own law.
Shalom.
In the 'flood of Noah', there would have been large number of pregnant women. Your god killed all their foetuses by drowning the pregnant women. In the slaughter of the Amalekites, there were plenty of pregnant women, all of whose foetuses were killed as they died.
Leviticus 201:5 1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. |
...and others see it as a much broader, more allegorical piece of writing about 'the children of Israel'.
You say the innocent may die. This is a case where the innocent would have been born and lived, had they not been killed by your god.
Your god kills 'unborn chldren'. So how can this be 'god's law', if your god breaks that law?
God has the right to bring Man, whom He created to live life in two stages, from stage one (life here on this earth) to stage two (life in heaven with Him, or life in hell without Him). We as the creation do not, as individuals, have that right.
Sounds arbitrary. Aren't you just making excuses?
There are some places where that 'right' doesn't appear to have been granted to the government, so it's pretty clear the right to kill criminals is granted by the people. What crime did the Amalekite foetuses commit that was 'worthy of death'?
Doesn't sound like something that should be worshiped, this god, does it. If you can't make sense of the apparently arbitrary decisions it makes to kill foetuses, then I don't think your religion provides any moral basis for opposing elective abortion.