Apparently, in Oklahoma, now public money cannot be used to fund the murder of unborn children, although they can be executed for the sins of their fathers.
Here's the link.
Specifically, unborn children can be executed if their fathers committed rape or incest (with their mothers and they were the result of the crime).
This may seem strange to Americans who live in states where neither rape nor incest is a capital offense for the principals, and where federal headship is not the basis of criminal guilt for any other crimes, or even for these crimes once the child is born.
Apparently, though, such children - in the view of Oklahoma - deserve to die for the sins of their fathers.
Truly it is written: "I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the inquity of the fathers upon the children ... of them that hate me." Therefore let us instead seize the accompanying promise: "And showing mercy unto thousands [of generations] of them that love me and keep my commandments."
-Turretinfan
Friday, May 25, 2007
13 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
The babies are allowed die for the sins of their literal fathers (rape/incest) and by the sins of their literal mothers (murder).
ReplyDeleteAre you outraged by the death of the babies, the sin of the parents or the involvement of the state government?
ReplyDeleteAccording to your theology, the babies were totally depraved and their fate was predetermined, so I can't imagine you are outraged that they are dead. Less sinners to do evil in the world, right?
So it must be one of the other two issues you're fretting over. Are you a dominionist?
Are you outraged by the death of the babies, the sin of the parents or the involvement of the state government?
ReplyDeleteAccording to your theology, the babies were totally depraved and their fate was predetermined, so I can't imagine you are outraged that they are dead. Less sinners to do evil in the world, right?
So it must be one of the other two issues you're fretting over. Are you a dominionist?
Dear (Second) Anonymous,
ReplyDeletea) I don't think a careful read of my post would suggest "outrage" nor was that my intent.
I am pointing out that Oklahoma made some minor progress, but that they did so with an exception that makes no sense in American jurisprudence.
It's particularly interesting to note that Oklahoma REJECTED a previous proposal that did not include this bizarre exception.
b) Oklahoma babies come into existence in a state of total depravity, like all ordinary descendants of Adam.
Nevertheless, it is not total depravity, but original sin that provides a judicial basis upon which God can ordain their death.
After all, one result of Adam's fall is that we are totally depraved, but another result is that we are all guilty, and, thus, none of us deserves to live, in God's eyes.
c) As for their "fate" being predetermined, the Bible is clear that God is omnipotent, and that God decides who lives and who dies. Mixing a pagan concept of "fate" into the mix muddies the waters. Despite your claims, fate is not part of my (or any other Reformed author's) theology.
d) I am disappointed that America continues to permit children to be murdered, without executing the willing mothers and their hired thugs the abortion doctors. Capital punishment for intentional murder should not exclude the most helpless segment of the population.
e) As for being a "dominionist," you need to recognize that the term doesn't have any established meaning. Thus, if you are going to use it, you should be more specific.
Perhaps, however, my comments above already clarify the matter for you.
-Turretinfan
In re-reading your comment (you seem to have posted it twice), I thought that these two lines deserved further response:
ReplyDelete"Less sinners to do evil in the world, right?"
That has nothing to do with it. Even the evil of sinners works to the good of the elect. Recall Joseph's experience.
And this: "According to your theology, the babies were totally depraved and their fate was predetermined, so I can't imagine you are outraged that they are dead."
I wonder, based on your comments, whether you believe that all children who die in infancy go to heaven? If so, I wonder whether you are upset that public funds in Oklahoma are no longer being used for the evangelistic technique of slaughter children to ensure their heavenly entrace? I'm not sure how someone who held to such a theology could feel otherwise.
-Turretinfan
"I am disappointed that America continues to permit children to be murdered, without executing the willing mothers and their hired thugs the abortion doctors."
ReplyDeleteYace? So it is a justice issue in regards to the perpetrators that has you concerned? Fine with me. I'm just trying to get you to clarify your point.
"Capital punishment for intentional murder should not exclude the most helpless segment of the population. "
Well, I think that is silly. The babies never deserved to live, so the timing of their deaths is really just a technicality.
Since the babies were totally depraved, killing them is something akin to wiping out a pestilent moth in the larval stage, before it behaves in depraved ways with your shrubbery in its adult morph.
So your problem is not the babies, regardless of their "helplessness", but an unavenged offense against the Law.
"That has nothing to do with it. Even the evil of sinners works to the good of the elect. Recall Joseph's experience."
Of course. Rather than Christians acting as salt and light, the "unelect" are now encouraged to perpetuate themselves and their wretched lives in order to "work to the good" of the elect.
A respectable Calvinist/theonimist/Reconstructionist/What-Have -You would be giving them birth control and lots of it!
Cast the log out of your own eye, before you cast the mote out of the abortion doctor's.
Anonymous wrote:"So it is a justice issue in regards to the perpetrators that has you concerned? Fine with me. I'm just trying to get you to clarify your point."
ReplyDeleteI would hope most people who read this blog would recognize that it is progress when the state stops supporting murder of unborn children, but that the progress should continue, and that the exclusion in Oklahoma is bizarre.
Anonymous also wrote:
"Well, I think that is silly. The babies never deserved to live, so the timing of their deaths is really just a technicality."
That response is truly bizarre.
a) Nobody "deserves" to live. Unborn children are no different from anyone else in that regard.
b) Refusing to punish their murderers is a meaningless technicality.
c) The issue is not the timing of their deaths, but the fact that their deaths are intentional. A child that miscarries naturally is not different from a SIDS infant, even so a child who is killed by his mother and a doctor, while the child is in the womb, is not different from a two-year old child who is hurled from a cliff by his mother.
But anonymous continues: "Since the babies were totally depraved, killing them is something akin to wiping out a pestilent moth in the larval stage, before it behaves in depraved ways with your shrubbery in its adult morph."
I respond: Perhaps that is so in your eyes, but not in God's eyes. There is a real difference between killing a man and killing a moth.
Anonymous continued: "So your problem is not the babies, regardless of their "helplessness", but an unavenged offense against the Law."
I reply: There are degrees of heinousness. Murder of a young child is more heinous than murder of a strong man, murder of a child by his mother is more heinous than murder of a stranger, and murder by a doctor (who professes health) is more heinous than murder by a plumber. A situation in which a mother and a doctor conspire to kill the helpless child within the woman's womb is especially heinous and should receive an enhanced punishment.
Such murder is a violation of the law, but it is also an offense against the child. It falls under the second table of the law.
Anonymous continues: "Of course. Rather than Christians acting as salt and light, the "unelect" are now encouraged to perpetuate themselves and their wretched lives in order to "work to the good" of the elect."
I reply: This response further illustrates the anonymous commenter's unfamiliarity with Reformed theology, as well as a lack of ability to write coherent arguments.
a) The sentences has two halves, which - if the commenter understood R.T. - would appear to have nothing to do with one another.
1) Let's clarify a few things. The elect includes a number known only to God. It does not include only those who have already believed, but also others, including some who right now are living in rebellion against God.
2) Being salt and light means that our good works are seen in the world. It has nothing to do with our telling others what to do.
b) Every Gentile believer, and almost certainly every Jewish convert to Christianity has at least one ancestor who was not numbered in the elect. The reprobate (which is the term, not "unelect") do not necessarily breed children who are not chosen by God, and the children of the elect are not necessarily elect (as Abraham's experience proves).
c) The non-Christians (who may be elect, though they have not yet believed) should not be permitted to murder their children, just as they should not be permitted to murder other non-Christians. It is a sin, it is wrong, and the Government has a duty to make such evil-doers afraid to do such evil things, by the exercise of the power of the sword, and by the credible threat of such exercise.
d) Although they will work to the good of the elect, they do not require any encouragement to do so. Instead, we should pray for our government, that we may be able to live peaceable lives in a land where murder is prohibited absolutely.
Anonymous continued: "A respectable Calvinist/theonimist/Reconstructionist/What-Have -You would be giving them birth control and lots of it!"
I reply: Non Sequitur. There is no reason to encourage the sterility of non-Christians. There is also no reason to encourage their debauchery with aids like birth control.
Anonymous: "Cast the log out of your own eye, before you cast the mote out of the abortion doctor's."
I reply: This conclusion is neither supported by the wandering comments above, or by any rationale relation to the foregoing discussion. The murder of infants is a "mote" in the abortion doctor's eye? And what, pray tell, is the log? How on earth are Jesus' comments in Matthew 7 or Luke 6 relevant to this discussion?
Are you judging me as worse than an abortion doctor?
-Turretinfan
But anonymous continues: "Since the babies were totally depraved, killing them is something akin to wiping out a pestilent moth in the larval stage, before it behaves in depraved ways with your shrubbery in its adult morph."
ReplyDeleteI respond: Perhaps that is so in your eyes, but not in God's eyes. There is a real difference between killing a man and killing a moth.
I know that God cares for people. Now I am trying to figure out if you do.
My statement above is not what I believe. It is what I would imagine that a Calvinist would believe in consistency with Calvinist theology.
The most compassionate circumstance for those babies would have been non-existence, but you are so worried about pregnancy-free "debauchery" amongst the depraved and the breeding of elect that you refuse to tithe some of your money and time for that worthy cause (hint: log). I find this hypocritical, and you tell me I can't write a reasoned argument.
"This response further illustrates the anonymous commenter's unfamiliarity with Reformed theology, as well as a lack of ability to write coherent arguments."
I do not understand Reformed theology in the least bit, nor have you clarified things here.
Here's what I understand so far:
1. People are depraved, but you want more of them.
2. The unelect are doomed, but you want them to perpetuate themselves because it's convenient for you.
3. You consider it worse to kill a depraved fetus than a depraved kung-fu expert on the basis of "helplessness".
4. Murderous plumbers and strangers are relatively less heinous than murderous doctors and mothers. The plumbers, strangers, doctors and mothers are all depraved, but for some inexplicable reason, you think the doctors and mothers should have higher moral principles than the strangers and plumbers. Why would the mothers and doctors be more moral than anyone else if they're utterly depraved?
4. People don't deserve to live, but they must die legally or the government is obliged to intervene.
Many Christians would just say: "We are to love others and protect them from harm and suffering and violent death as best we can, because Christ's example was one of compassion and love for other people."
And yet, I almost sense that you would consider this attitude to be shamefully sentimental and trite, compared to your legal arguments.
Dear Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote above: "I know that God cares for people. Now I am trying to figure out if you do."
I respond: He cares for people, but not necessarily in the way that you imagine he cares for people. But let's take this out of the hypothetical. In what way do you suppose he cares for people?
You wrote above: "My statement above is not what I believe. It is what I would imagine that a Calvinist would believe in consistency with Calvinist theology."
I reply: The problem is that you do not understand Calvinist theology. First you must understand Calvinist theology, before you can determine what is consistent or inconsistent with it.
As you yourself admitted: "I do not understand Reformed theology in the least bit, nor have you clarified things here."
I respond: I should provide some primers in Reformed Theology on this site, and perhaps I'll do that soon.
Anonymous also wrote: "The most compassionate circumstance for those babies would have been non-existence, but you are so worried about pregnancy-free "debauchery" amongst the depraved and the breeding of elect that you refuse to tithe some of your money and time for that worthy cause (hint: log). I find this hypocritical, and you tell me I can't write a reasoned argument."
I reply: Let's reduce your argument to formal terms, with a response to each.
Your Premise 1: "The most compassionate circumstance for those babies would have been non-existence."
I reply: The primary objection here is that the most compassionate circumstance for those babies would be to raised by loving parents in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Your Premise 2: "You are so worried about pregnancy-free "debauchery" amongst the depraved and the breeding of elect."
I respond: Concerns about making immoral behavior easier are legitimate concerns. It seems surprising that anyone would disagree with that. Then again, you put "debauchery" in quotation marks, so perhaps you simply deny that fornication is immoral? If so the response is simply that the Bible says that it is.
As for the breeding of the elect, that's not at all a concern of mine in this discussion.
Your premise 3: "You refuse to tithe some of your money and time for that worthy cause."
I respond: Tithe is not the right word, but I get what you are trying to say. You're right, I don't give money to enable people to fornicate more easily. I also don't give money to put mafia henchmen in body armor, buy handcream for pickpockets, or latex gloves for burglars. And of course, like enforcing the will of a crime lord or stealing, fornication is not a worthy cause.
Your conclusion: "I find this hypocritical, and you tell me I can't write a reasoned argument."
I respond: Your finding it so is not supported by the premises. Hypocrisy is when someone says one thing and does another. For example, if I said that fornication was good, but then refused to enable people to engage in it more easily, that would (arguably) be hypocrisy. Likewise if I said that fornication was bad, but then ran a prostitution ring out of my basement, that would clearly be hypocrisy. In this case, though, I don't think that aiding and abetting fornication is a good idea, so I quite consistently don't aid or abet it.
I'm not sure, therefore, whether you simply don't know what hypocrisy means, or whether you are unable to cogently explain your reason for your personal judgment.
There's one important thing I omitted, which was the "(hint: log)" comment in your argument.
Let's see: the worst thing you even accused me of was hypocrisy, and the form of that hypocrisy was failing to give money to an allegedly worthy cause. That is supposed to be a "log" compared to the "mote" of serial murder of infants? Let's suppose that everything else you said were dead on. Is failing to give money to a worthy cause really worse than serial murder in your view?
Anonymous provided several perceptions of my position. Here's the first:
"1. People are depraved, but you want more of them."
I respond: More compared to what? I don't want them murdered. That's the fundamental reason for my writing posts condemning murder, and applauding states for making progress in preventing murder.
The second is: "2. The unelect are doomed, but you want them to perpetuate themselves because it's convenient for you."
I reply: (a)My convenience does not enter into the equation at all. (b)I do not know who the elect (or the non-elect) are, and consequently I don't make separate rules for them. (c)Just because someone is not elect does not mean that his children are not elect, so the non-elect are not able to ensure self-perpetuation in the sense of necessarily producing non-elect children. (d)More importantly, by the time there is a child in the womb the parents (whether elect or non-elect) have already perpetuated themselves.
The third point was: "3. You consider it worse to kill a depraved fetus than a depraved kung-fu expert on the basis of "helplessness"."
I reply: Not just to kill, but to murder. I consider it worse to murder an unarmed man than a man who is armed to the teeth. I'm surprised you would disagree, but then again, I don't know who you are or what you believe.
Anonymous continued with a fourth point: "Murderous plumbers and strangers are relatively less heinous than murderous doctors and mothers."
I reply: The basic gist above is correct, though heinous refers to their respective murders, not to the people themselves.
Anonymous added an argument to this observation, namely: "The plumbers, strangers, doctors and mothers are all depraved, but for some inexplicable reason, you think the doctors and mothers should have higher moral principles than the strangers and plumbers. Why would the mothers and doctors be more moral than anyone else if they're utterly depraved?"
I respond: Parents have a special duty to protect their children, and doctors have a special duty to protect human life, because of their profession. It is because of their duty that their sin of murder is more heinous than that of a man whose vocation is plumbing, or a stranger who does not have a special duty of protecting someone. Parental infanticide is a particularly heinous form of murder because it violates not only the general prohibition on murder, but the special duty of parents to nurture their children. A stranger does not have that special duty to nurture. Likewise, murder by a doctor is especially serious because it not just a violation of the general proscription of taking human life, but also a violation of the doctor's duties as a physician, duties that doctors frequently affirm by an oath before entering their profession.
As a side note, however, "totally depraved" means depraved throughout: it does not mean "utterly depraved" as in "as depraved as possible."
We expect people to do their duties. There is no reason to suppose that a mother is a more moral person than a stranger, or that a doctor is a more moral person than a plumber. All men are sinners, and aside from the grace of God, all are without hope.
The fifth point (also labeled "4") was as follows: "4. People don't deserve to live, but they must die legally or the government is obliged to intervene."
I respond: This characterization is not quite correct. People don't deserve to live, nevertheless, the government has a duty to punish those who murder. Murder is not wrong because people deserve to live, but because we are prohibited from the act of murdering them. If they die in a tsunami, no injustice occurs. If they die because hijackers smashed a plane into their building, a grave injustice has occurred. Do you see the difference?
Anonymous wrote: "Many Christians would just say: "We are to love others and protect them from harm and suffering and violent death as best we can, because Christ's example was one of compassion and love for other people.""
I reply: Many Christians don't know what the Bible says. What the Bible says is more important than what "many Christians" or even "most Christians" say. Truth is not a democracy.
Anonymous concluded: "And yet, I almost sense that you would consider this attitude to be shamefully sentimental and trite, compared to your legal arguments."
I reply: Are we discussing the law of God and of men or not? If so, legal argumemts are the soup du jour. Are we discussing what the Bible has to say? Then Biblical analysis and understanding are called for. The comments you identified are obviously neither of those. They are not a considered Biblical analysis, nor a reasoned jurisprudential argument. They are more vapid than trite, and more emotive than sentimental. The shame is that people make arguments without thinking, without study, and without considering what the Bible has to say - and that these people are (according to you) professing Christians.
-Turretinfan
"I respond: He cares for people, but not necessarily in the way that you imagine he cares for people. But let's take this out of the hypothetical. In what way do you suppose he cares for people?"
ReplyDeleteI don't have to imagine, because Jesus (whose popularity amongst Calvinists seems decidedly guarded) showed us what to do.
If you believe in the deity of Jesus and that He meant what He said when He said "Follow me", then you have no excuses, legal or otherwise, to deny that compassion, care and love is to be the attitude of every Christian toward other people, in both deed and spirit.
Jesus cared for people by feeding them, telling them stories and parables, affectionately holding children to Himself, tending to their physical ailments, spending time visiting and talking to them, grieving with and for them in times of death and suffering, celebrating happy occasions with them, responding to people in emotional and spiritual distress and acting as a friend to them. He also died for them.
These are the acts of God incarnate when put on the earth with humans. I don't know how you have reinterpreted the idea of divine caring to make it mesh with your theology, but I do know that the example of Jesus trumps all man-made theologies, whether you like it or not.
Why don't you tell me how you define the idea of God's caring and whether the example of Jesus is in any way incorporated into your viewpoint.
"Murder is not wrong because people deserve to live, but because we are prohibited from the act of murdering them. If they die in a tsunami, no injustice occurs. If they die because hijackers smashed a plane into their building, a grave injustice has occurred. Do you see the difference?"
I'm almost afraid to ask this question, but I will.
In light of your opinions on the value and integrity of human life, do you see any reason for governments to act in ways that preserve human life, but which are not, uh, legislated, by the Ten Commandments, etc?
"Is failing to give money to a worthy cause really worse than serial murder in your view?"
In light of your opinion, your failure to support the widespread use of birth control and sterilization is disgraceful, because:
1. It produces more unelect.
2. It produces more depravity, including more abortionists, murderers, fornicators and other manifestations of badness.
In fact, it is completely illogical for you to say that you don't believe in birth control because it allows fornicators to fornicate. If fornicators had fewer people, then there would be fewer people to fornicate.
By the way, recently, in my area, a woman killed her daughter and dismembered the child's body, in part because the child got in the way of the mother's fornicating practices. So don't assume that fornicators are willing to let pregnancy or the responsibility of children get in the way of their sexual habits.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI asked you one question in my last comment, and that was: "In what way do you suppose he cares for people?"
Your response was: "Jesus cared for people by feeding them, telling them stories and parables, affectionately holding children to Himself, tending to their physical ailments, spending time visiting and talking to them, grieving with and for them in times of death and suffering, celebrating happy occasions with them, responding to people in emotional and spiritual distress and acting as a friend to them. He also died for them."
I respond: That, of course, is not the entire picture of Jesus' earthly ministry. Nor is Jesus' earthly ministry the entire picture of God's relationship to man. Do you recognize those two facts or do you deny them?
You also wrote: "I don't have to imagine, because Jesus (whose popularity amongst Calvinists seems decidedly guarded) showed us what to do."
I replied: Even more clearly, Jesus told us what to do. He said, If you love me, keep my commandments. Do you admit or deny this?
You wrote: "If you believe in the deity of Jesus and that He meant what He said when He said "Follow me", then you have no excuses, legal or otherwise, to deny that compassion, care and love is to be the attitude of every Christian toward other people, in both deed and spirit."
I reply: When Jesus said, "Follow me," he of course meant that we are to be His disciples. Nevertheless, caring, compassion, and charity are an important part of Christianity.
You wrote: "These are the acts of God incarnate when put on the earth with humans. I don't know how you have reinterpreted the idea of divine caring to make it mesh with your theology, but I do know that the example of Jesus trumps all man-made theologies, whether you like it or not."
I reply: You appear to be under the delusion that I follow a man-made theology. I just believe what the Bible says - the whole of what the Bible says, not just those pieces that make me feel good.
You wrote: "Why don't you tell me how you define the idea of God's caring and whether the example of Jesus is in any way incorporated into your viewpoint."
I reply: There are plenty of Reformed treatments of the subject that you could read. Nevertheless, I am in the middle of preparing a post (which is getting long, so it may be a series) on the love of God.
The way that Jesus' love is shown is two-tiered. Jesus spoke in parables to the masses, but explained the parables to his disciples. Jesus multiplied the loaves and the fishes to the crowds, but gave his flesh and blood to his chosen disciples in an upper room. Jesus had harsh words for the Scribes and Pharisees, but kind words for Lazarus. And Jesus is not the only example of godly living provided in the Bible, nor was his principle purpose in coming to this earth to serve as an example of how to live.
I had asked you: "Do you see the difference?" You failed to answer this question. Please answer the question.
Instead, you wrote: "I'm almost afraid to ask this question, but I will. In light of your opinions on the value and integrity of human life, do you see any reason for governments to act in ways that preserve human life, but which are not, uh, legislated, by the Ten Commandments, etc?"
I reply: The government may not make laws that violate the moral law of God, and the government should use the civil law of Old Testament Israel to provide a guide as to what sort of laws are just and unjust. The goal should be to have just laws that encourage good behavior and punish bad behavior. If there is conflict between that goal and the vague concept of "preserving human life" then please explain what you think that is, so that we can evaluate whether or not that conflict is real, and if so, what should be done about it.
I also asked: "Is failing to give money to a worthy cause really worse than serial murder in your view?" It's a simple question that calls for a yes-or-no answer. You failed to answer it. Please answer the question.
Instead you wrote: "In light of your opinion, your failure to support the widespread use of birth control and sterilization is disgraceful, because:
1. It produces more unelect.
2. It produces more depravity, including more abortionists, murderers, fornicators and other manifestations of badness."
I reply: You are simply demonstrating that you do not understand Reformed Theology (which you mistakenly label "my opinion").
First of all, before we get to the detailed response, let's be clear: it's not my failure to support sterilization and birth control that produces children. The cause of children is the procreative acts of their parents. Do not try to blame me for their actions. Can you understand that simple concept, that fornication and the resultant conception of children is the fault of the people who engage in procreative acts, and not the fault of people who don't stop them from doing so?
Secondly, getting into the detail, I do not have a duty to make sin easier for people. If your theology is that we should copy Jesus, please provide an example of Jesus making it easier for people to sin, or Jesus sterilizing (or providing birth control) prostitutes or other fornicators. Can you provide such a demonstration?
Thirdly, as noted above, just because sinful people procreate, that does not mean that their children will not be saved. Not all of my ancestors were saved, yet I, by the grace of God, have been saved.
Fourthly, even the wickedness of sinful men works together for good to the elect. Remember Joseph's experience, and my Lord's crucifixion.
Fifthly, and finally, even if my doing evil (enabling fornication) would have some good result, the ends do not justify the means. The Bible forbids us from doign evil that good may come of it.
You wrote: "In fact, it is completely illogical for you to say that you don't believe in birth control because it allows fornicators to fornicate. If fornicators had fewer people, then there would be fewer people to fornicate."
I respond: Read more carefully. I did not say that "don't believe in birth control," whatever that may mean, but that I am not going to give money to people to help them fornicate. Do you understand the difference?
The better solution is not to try to slaughter (or sterilize) the fornicators, but to convert them to Christianity, and to obedience to God's law.
You continued: "By the way, recently, in my area, a woman killed her daughter and dismembered the child's body, in part because the child got in the way of the mother's fornicating practices. So don't assume that fornicators are willing to let pregnancy or the responsibility of children get in the way of their sexual habits."
I reply: Surely you realize that your example actually proves the point you are seeking to disprove. The only difference between that mother and the mother who dismembers her child in her womb, is one of timing.
And virtually everyone with any sense realizes that the risk of pregnancy is one deterent to fornication. It doesn't absolutely prevent it, obviously, it just deters it.
-Turretinfan
You say: That, of course, is not the entire picture of Jesus' earthly ministry. Nor is Jesus' earthly ministry the entire picture of God's relationship to man. Do you recognize those two facts or do you deny them?"
ReplyDeleteYou are getting at something, but you don't seem too inclined to come out and say it.
What is the dark, secret side to caring for others that I'm missing?
Please remember that "ministry" and "caring" are not identical terms.
You say: "When Jesus said, "Follow me," he of course meant that we are to be His disciples. Nevertheless, caring, compassion, and charity are an important part of Christianity"
Disciples are those who learn from and follow a teacher. They are guided by the teacher's example. There is no opportunity for sophistry here: the disciples of Jesus are to follow His example in caring for people.
I am disturbed by the impression I am getting that there are Christians who are embarrassed by the idea of helping, feeding, listening to, grieving with, protecting, forgiving and generally valuing other people's lives.
You say: "The goal should be to have just laws that encourage good behavior and punish bad behavior."
Drinking water tainted with sewage is not a sin. However, it is a good way to contract cholera.
If governments are concerned with enforcing behavior, then they have no reason to construct water purification facilities. The only justification for that is that individuals in authority care about humans in the face of suffering and death.
Do you care if people suffer, or not?
You say: "Even more clearly, Jesus told us what to do. He said, If you love me, keep my commandments. Do you admit or deny this?"
Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
GALATIANS 5:14
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
The bible makes it very clear that this love is manifested in a protective mercy and compassion for the well-being of others. See Luke 10:25-37.
You say: "Read more carefully. I did not say that "don't believe in birth control," whatever that may mean, but that I am not going to give money to people to help them fornicate. Do you understand the difference?"
Fiddle faddle. They fornicate with or without birth control. Read the New Testament.
Birth control simply ensures that the consequences for promiscuity will not be paid by babies who had no say in the matter.
You are wrong in thinking that I am suggesting you financially support birth control and sterilization for the promiscuous alone. In fact, I am saying that someone with your viewpoint should be supporting sterilization and birth control for every breeding human on the planet.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI had asked: "That, of course, is not the entire picture of Jesus' earthly ministry. Nor is Jesus' earthly ministry the entire picture of God's relationship to man. Do you recognize those two facts or do you deny them?"
Rather than answer that question, you replied: "You are getting at something, but you don't seem too inclined to come out and say it. What is the dark, secret side to caring for others that I'm missing? Please remember that "ministry" and "caring" are not identical terms."
I respond: It's disappointing that you are choosing not to answer the questions presented. Let me give you another chance, though, before I stop publishing your comments. Don't try to read something behind what I've written. Either acknowledge or deny the two facts I identified above. In case you are unawaire, Jesus' earthly ministry is the period of Jesus' life from about Jesus' 30th birthday until his ascension.
You wrote: "Disciples are those who learn from and follow a teacher. They are guided by the teacher's example. There is no opportunity for sophistry here: the disciples of Jesus are to follow His example in caring for people."
I respond: Jesus said that his disciples were those who did what He said. Do you agree or disagree?
You wrote: "I am disturbed by the impression I am getting that there are Christians who are embarrassed by the idea of helping, feeding, listening to, grieving with, protecting, forgiving and generally valuing other people's lives."
I respond: Then don't delude yourself into such an impression. That's the simple solution to your ephemeral problem.
You wrote: "Drinking water tainted with sewage is not a sin. However, it is a good way to contract cholera."
I respond: Which is why it is a bad analogy to our discussion.
You wrote: "If governments are concerned with enforcing behavior, then they have no reason to construct water purification facilities. The only justification for that is that individuals in authority care about humans in the face of suffering and death."
I respond: It does not follow. A government may be BOTH concerned with enforcing good morals AND concerned with public health issues. There's nothing mutually exclusive about the two positin.
You wrote: "Do you care if people suffer, or not?"
I respond: Of course I care.
I had asked: "Even more clearly, Jesus told us what to do. He said, If you love me, keep my commandments. Do you admit or deny this?"
It's disappointing that you also failed to answer this question. However, you get a second chance. Do you admit or deny this?
Instead you quoted Matthew 22:36-40 and Galatians 5:14, and added this: "The bible makes it very clear that this love is manifested in a protective mercy and compassion for the well-being of others. See Luke 10:25-37."
I respond: Undoubtedly that is one way in which our love to our neighbor is manifested. It is not the only way. Do you understand that?
A third question I had asked, and again I am disappointed that you did not choose to answer it, but I'll give you a second chance: ""Read more carefully. I did not say that "don't believe in birth control," whatever that may mean, but that I am not going to give money to people to help them fornicate. Do you understand the difference?"
Rather than reply to that question (which could be answered with a simple yes-or-no answer) you responded: "Fiddle faddle. They fornicate with or without birth control. Read the New Testament."
I respond: That was never an issue. As I previously wrote: "virtually everyone with any sense realizes that the risk of pregnancy is one deterent to fornication. It doesn't absolutely prevent it, obviously, it just deters it." Are you the exception to the rule: the person who fails to see that fornication is deterred (though not absolutely prevented) by the threat of the consequences of fornication?
You wrote: "Birth control simply ensures that the consequences for promiscuity will not be paid by babies who had no say in the matter."
I respond: That's clearly wrong. That is not all it does. See above.
You wrote: "You are wrong in thinking that I am suggesting you financially support birth control and sterilization for the promiscuous alone. In fact, I am saying that someone with your viewpoint should be supporting sterilization and birth control for every breeding human on the planet."
I respond: Which just demonstrates your inability to deal with the reality of my viewpoint. If you analyze a caricature, of course you will arrive at absurd positions.
All these things said, your next response, if there is going to be a next response, needs to answer the outstanding questions. The answers can be as simple as "yes" or "no."
In addition to the questions noted above, there is also this one, which you have still not answered: "People don't deserve to live, nevertheless, the government has a duty to punish those who murder. Murder is not wrong because people deserve to live, but because we are prohibited from the act of murdering them. If they die in a tsunami, no injustice occurs. If they die because hijackers smashed a plane into their building, a grave injustice has occurred. Do you see the difference?" This is another of those simple, yes-or-no, questions.
Furthermore, there is this question that is outstanding: "If your theology is that we should copy Jesus, please provide an example of Jesus making it easier for people to sin, or Jesus sterilizing (or providing birth control) prostitutes or other fornicators. Can you provide such a demonstration?" If the answer is yes, provide the example. Otherwise, you can just answer "no."
Another outstanding question is this one: "Can you understand that simple concept, that fornication and the resultant conception of children is the fault of the people who engage in procreative acts, and not the fault of people who don't stop them from doing so?" This question also calls for a simple yes-or-no answer.
The reason you need to answer the questions, is so that this discussion can move forward. You have admitted that you do not understand Reformed Theology, yet you continue to caricature it, and continue to claim to know what the logical consequences of it are.
First we need to know what you don't know, before we can help you understand those things that you do not understand.
-Turretinfan