|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 2, 2015 15:12:56 GMT
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Jul 2, 2015 16:42:50 GMT
So does gnosticbishop oppose late term abortion?
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 4, 2015 18:46:35 GMT
So does gnosticbishop oppose late term abortion? Reciprocity is fair play. Answer my question and I will gladly answer yours.
Regards. DL
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Jul 5, 2015 16:32:16 GMT
A snarky question deserves one in reply. The infant deaths you mention from the Bible, unlike late term abortion, which involves the dismemberment of a helpless infant capable of feeling the pain, can not in the remotest sense be regarded as "torture."
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jul 6, 2015 10:55:20 GMT
Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified? 1. It might be, but it would have to be to provide an extremely great subsequent good (as torturing a baby seems to be an extremely great evil in and of itself). I wouldn't trust a human being to make such a call. If an omniscient being who had already proven his benevolence and trustworthiness made the call, I would trust it. 2. I see no evidence of any babies being "tortured" in your links. Some children were killed, and one was unwell for a week before dying. Why did you say they were tortured? On the face of it, murder is not a lesser crime than torture, so what advantage is there to you to mention torture? Only possibilities I can think of: (a) You're incapable of reading properly; (b) you chose "torture" because it generates a more emotional response than "dying", and you're trying to load the emotional dice; or (c) you want to say "murder", but can't because you realise than a creator removing the life of its creation doesn't necessarily count as murder, so you need something else to tug on the heartstrings. Noe of these reflect well on you. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 6, 2015 18:52:35 GMT
A snarky question deserves one in reply. The infant deaths you mention from the Bible, unlike late term abortion, which involves the dismemberment of a helpless infant capable of feeling the pain, can not in the remotest sense be regarded as "torture." Interesting that you do not think that imposing sickness onto a baby then killing it is not torture.
Are you a Christian?
I did say that I would reciprocate and answer your question.
I think that the destruction of any potential human being is desirable.
I also think that I do not have the right to impose my belief on a woman.
Consider that if more potential Christian grand parents in the U.S. would help their daughters both financially and morally, the atrocious U.S. abortion rate might drop.
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 6, 2015 18:58:22 GMT
Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified? 1. It might be, but it would have to be to provide an extremely great subsequent good (as torturing a baby seems to be an extremely great evil in and of itself). I wouldn't trust a human being to make such a call. If an omniscient being who had already proven his benevolence and trustworthiness made the call, I would trust it. 2. I see no evidence of any babies being "tortured" in your links. Some children were killed, and one was unwell for a week before dying. Why did you say they were tortured? On the face of it, murder is not a lesser crime than torture, so what advantage is there to you to mention torture? Only possibilities I can think of: (a) You're incapable of reading properly; (b) you chose "torture" because it generates a more emotional response than "dying", and you're trying to load the emotional dice; or (c) you want to say "murder", but can't because you realise than a creator removing the life of its creation doesn't necessarily count as murder, so you need something else to tug on the heartstrings. Noe of these reflect well on you. I just considered making a baby sick for 6 days before finally killing it should be called torture.
If you think of the great flood, many babies were intentionally drowned.
Waterboarding is considered torture and it does not usually go as far as the full drowning that God cause to many innocent children and babies.
Do you think drowning to be a form of torture?
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 12, 2015 13:07:11 GMT
A snarky question deserves one in reply. The infant deaths you mention from the Bible, unlike late term abortion, which involves the dismemberment of a helpless infant capable of feeling the pain, can not in the remotest sense be regarded as "torture." On the other hand, the infant deaths can be described as gratuitous in a way that late-term abortions can't be assumed to be. If a foetus has fatal defects that would cause him or her to die shortly after birth, couldn't an acceptable (by which I mean allowable but not enforceable) case be made that a late-term abortion is actually the more compassionate option that causes less suffering? |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 13, 2015 18:21:23 GMT
A snarky question deserves one in reply. The infant deaths you mention from the Bible, unlike late term abortion, which involves the dismemberment of a helpless infant capable of feeling the pain, can not in the remotest sense be regarded as "torture." On the other hand, the infant deaths can be described as gratuitous in a way that late-term abortions can't be assumed to be. If a foetus has fatal defects that would cause him or her to die shortly after birth, couldn't an acceptable (by which I mean allowable but not enforceable) case be made that a late-term abortion is actually the more compassionate option that causes less suffering? Good point.
I believe that abortion would be the more benevolent route the less consciousness an entity has, the less it should suffer being terminated.
Regards DL
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Jul 13, 2015 20:06:13 GMT
In the specific examples mentioned by gnosticbishop, the alternative was to be raised in an environment that would have led to the child's eventual, and inevitable, eternal torment (i.e. torture) in the Lake of Fire, reserved for Satan and his followers. God's actions were the most merciful possible course of action.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 14, 2015 13:55:05 GMT
In the specific examples mentioned by gnosticbishop, the alternative was to be raised in an environment that would have led to the child's eventual, and inevitable, eternal torment (i.e. torture) in the Lake of Fire, reserved for Satan and his followers. God's actions were the most merciful possible course of action. To you, God created those babies. Why did he create them to inevitably land in hell?
If we are all inevitably bound for hell, would the moral thing to do be to kill all of our children before they can sin, --- to insure they get to heaven?
If it is good for God to insure a baby's souls get to heaven, then it must also be good for us to do the same. Right?
If you are correct then why do Christians complain about abortions. God would approve as he would get a lot more souls in heaven and a lot fewer in hell.
Regards DL
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Jul 15, 2015 17:58:14 GMT
In the case of David, God allowed David's baby to die to impress upon David the seriousness of his sin with Bathsheba so as to bring about his repentance. As a consequence, instead of another Absalom, who led the Israelites in rebellion against his father, we instead got Solomon, author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon - a definite win-win for God and His followers.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 24, 2015 20:17:11 GMT
In the case of David, God allowed David's baby to die to impress upon David the seriousness of his sin with Bathsheba so as to bring about his repentance. As a consequence, instead of another Absalom, who led the Israelites in rebellion against his father, we instead got Solomon, author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon - a definite win-win for God and His followers. So to you, it is good to punish the innocent baby instead of the guilty man.
I will not elect you judge any time soon. You are way too immoral.
Regards DL
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Jul 26, 2015 19:59:02 GMT
You condemn God for "torturing" innocent babies, yet you would force helpless infants to fend for themselves without parents, condemning them to an extended, inhumane, grisly death from exposure, starvation and thirst.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 27, 2015 15:50:14 GMT
You condemn God for "torturing" innocent babies, yet you would force helpless infants to fend for themselves without parents, condemning them to an extended, inhumane, grisly death from exposure, starvation and thirst. Are you saying that those are beyond what your God can do?
Is that why he takes the satanic moral low ground and kills instead of cures?
In the case of King David's baby, why not5 just punish the guilty instead of the baby?
Regards DL
|
|
