Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: James C. Bennett
Didn't trouble me at all.

If God has the right to send people to Hell forever, then He has the right to kill them here.

For the 50% -- so what? What are you doing, since it bothers you so much, to advance medical research to the point that these short-term miscarriages never happen?

Nice try, though.

23 posted on 02/09/2013 11:26:58 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers

LOL, not so fast.

You have no problem that the infants needed to be allowed to be conceived, by a supposed god which wanted them destroyed, not by its own efforts (which it could have avoided having to do so, by preventing their conception), but by the hand of a man, ordered to stomp, chop and slice babies as if they were scrub vegetation? I don’t believe you. Mind you, their short lives would also imply that they didn’t have any free will to exercise their options, as to whether they truly deserved “Hell” or not. If this god could foresee their eventual behaviour beforehand, then what was the point of their conception in the first place, and their premature destruction before they actually committed evil? If you don’t see a problem with the entire arrangement, I don’t have much to say other than that I assume you are lying (to yourself, and to me) about your level of comfort with it.

You would have to endure massive levels of cognitive dissonance almost to the level of what would classify as a psychological disorder, in order to “zone out” of the internal contradictions you are forced to deal with, here. On top of that, accepting such a god for its “recorded” behaviour would make it impossible for you to make a moral case against someone’s belief in, say, Allah. Since your version of god can do anything it wants (even contradict itself) then where is the limit? Nowhere.

The point about the spontaneous abortions was to highlight the callousness of existence, of suffering which has no meaning, no purpose. There is little that can be done to save them because their destruction was induced by the mother’s body due to mechanisms evolved which prevent her body from bringing these embryos to term - because of the risk they would eventually pose to the mother’s survival. Artificial intervention to force a body to continue a pregnancy to term which would have naturally been ended would involve causing more damage than good. Not to mention privacy violations because devices would have to be put in place in the mother’s body to detect such a fertilisation, as the mother herself is not aware most of the time.

Work your way through all this and let me know your thoughts.


25 posted on 02/09/2013 12:04:44 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson