The biblical flood: abortion of "convenience"

shnarkle

Well-known member
What does any of this have to do with abortion, sir?

Even if you are right, namely, that God is a hypocrite or that God is a moral monster, so what? All you prove is that the Christian God is a moral monster and not worth believing in.

You haven't proven that abortion is morally justifiable.

Furthermore, what if the issues you raise about God do not exist? What if when you read the Old Testament you found a God who did NOT kill people or start wars? What if you found in the Old testament a clear commandment against abortion? Would you become pro-life in such a case? No, you wouldn't. In such a case, you would just dismiss pro-lifers as religious morons and claim "You know, like, separation of Church and state, man."
I can empathize with how annoying their argument is.
So again, what does any of what you have written have to do with abortion?
They're pointing out what they see as a double standard. They see people who are capricious about murder. It's okay when their god kills people, but not okay when someone else does it.

It's a feeble argument due to the fact that the reasons are completely different. He's assuming it's about convenience with God when the actual stated reason is that God is condemning to death those who are "continually evil", and their offspring will likewise be continually evil.

God's method may be convenient, but it isn't the reason he's wiping them off the face of the earth.

Digging a little deeper, we might note that Noah proclaimed the gospel message, and all the while he was proclaiming the gospel, no one could hear it. They could only mock Noah for building such a useless vessel. This is how evil deceives people to their own destruction.

The biblical authors saw life as well as the ability to procreate as a blessing, but today the wicked and depraved heart of humanity only views it as a curse to be blotted out along with the ability to reproduce ever again.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
I can empathize with how annoying their argument is.

They're pointing out what they see as a double standard. They see people who are capricious about murder. It's okay when their god kills people, but not okay when someone else does it.

It's a feeble argument due to the fact that the reasons are completely different. He's assuming it's about convenience with God when the actual stated reason is that God is condemning to death those who are "continually evil", and their offspring will likewise be continually evil.

God's method may be convenient, but it isn't the reason he's wiping them off the face of the earth.

Digging a little deeper, we might note that Noah proclaimed the gospel message, and all the while he was proclaiming the gospel, no one could hear it. They could only mock Noah for building such a useless vessel. This is how evil deceives people to their own destruction.

The biblical authors saw life as well as the ability to procreate as a blessing, but today the wicked and depraved heart of humanity only views it as a curse to be blotted out along with the ability to reproduce ever again.
This is a good summation.
You might also note that God did save Noah who was judged by God as righteous. It shows how wicked the people were during that time in that only one man and his immediate family were saved.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
This is a good summation.
You might also note that God did save Noah who was judged by God as righteous.
Only because of his pedigree and the fact that he "walked with God".
It shows how wicked the people were during that time in that only one man and his immediate family were saved.
I think it shows how wickedness blinds people to reality which has disastrous effects over one's sense of self preservation.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I think future generations of atheists will think their ancestors were barbarians for killing off their own kind with abortion.
The trend doesn't look that way. The modern-day atheist is more of a cult follower than a critical thinker like their old school predecessors.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I can empathize with how annoying their argument is.

They're pointing out what they see as a double standard. They see people who are capricious about murder. It's okay when their god kills people, but not okay when someone else does it.

It's a feeble argument due to the fact that the reasons are completely different. He's assuming it's about convenience with God when the actual stated reason is that God is condemning to death those who are "continually evil", and their offspring will likewise be continually evil.

God's method may be convenient, but it isn't the reason he's wiping them off the face of the earth.

Digging a little deeper, we might note that Noah proclaimed the gospel message, and all the while he was proclaiming the gospel, no one could hear it. They could only mock Noah for building such a useless vessel. This is how evil deceives people to their own destruction.

The biblical authors saw life as well as the ability to procreate as a blessing, but today the wicked and depraved heart of humanity only views it as a curse to be blotted out along with the ability to reproduce ever again.
I certainly agree, and I know this--though you explained it better than I would have.

But this again--is precisely why I avoid the Bible and religion in debates about abortion and attempt to keep the arguments secular. Debating the God of the Old Testament is fun and it is interesting. One can learn a lot. But it is a Red Herring when it comes to abortion.

Even IF it was true, namely, that Christians are hypocrites--giving a vengeful, blood thirsty God a pass for all kinds of moral atrocities while being against abortion, all that proves is that Christians are hypocrites. It does not prove that abortion is morally justifiable. In the second place, none of the abortion supporters would change their minds and be pro-life if the Bible was clear that abortion is horrible sin that cries out to God for vengeance, and even if there were no wars, etc in the OT. So once again, it is a Red Herring.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I spent time explaining how.

Abortion for the sake of convenience is bad, but drowning a planet full of people for the sake of convenience is good.
That isn't why God put people to death in the Old Testament.
Okay--here is what I am going to do: I am going to grant your argument. You are right: the Old Testament God is vengeful and blood thirsty, He loves wiping out populations----just for fun!

I, sir, do not bring in my Catholic Christian beliefs to defend the pro-life position. I keep my religion out of it. For the purposes of discussion, just assume I am atheist.

So--just pretend I am atheist and do not care about the Bible.

If you pretend I am atheist, you now know that what the Bible or the Old Testament God did or undid--is simply not relevant to this discussion.

What if the Bible clearly condemned abortion? What if there were no wars, etc. in the Old Testament? Would you become pro-life? No. Thus, what difference does it make what the Bible says?

And even IF I am a hypocrite---so what? All you have proven is that I am a hypocrite. You have not proven abortion morally justifiable.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I certainly agree, and I know this--though you explained it better than I would have.

But this again--is precisely why I avoid the Bible and religion in debates about abortion and attempt to keep the arguments secular. Debating the God of the Old Testament is fun and it is interesting. One can learn a lot. But it is a Red Herring when it comes to abortion.

Even IF it was true, namely, that Christians are hypocrites--giving a vengeful, blood thirsty God a pass for all kinds of moral atrocities while being against abortion, all that proves is that Christians are hypocrites.
Likewise, if we look at it from the other end of the spectrum, i.e. those who pass judgment on this mythological god who is destroying his own creation don't seem to have a problem allowing anyone to destroy their own creations. Why the double standard? In other words, we can just as easily take their argument and turn it against them. What's their excuse? They don't seem to have one. They're pointing their fingers at the bible thumper and don't see that they're just as guilty of hypocrisy as anyone else.
It does not prove that abortion is morally justifiable.
If they think it's immoral for a mythological god to do it, then by their own logic, it necessarily does prove it's just as immoral for anyone else to abort their own offspring as well.

Their argument caves in on itself.
 

mikeT

Well-known member
That isn't why God put people to death in the Old Testament.

Okay--here is what I am going to do: I am going to grant your argument. You are right: the Old Testament God is vengeful and blood thirsty, He loves wiping out populations----just for fun!

I, sir, do not bring in my Catholic Christian beliefs to defend the pro-life position. I keep my religion out of it. For the purposes of discussion, just assume I am atheist.

So--just pretend I am atheist and do not care about the Bible.

If you pretend I am atheist, you now know that what the Bible or the Old Testament God did or undid--is simply not relevant to this discussion.
While I appreciate/respect your desire to reason through this discussion, becoming an "honorary" atheist for the sake of it doesn't take care of the problem. The biblical flood is still seen by all Christians as a moral Good.

Rule 25

Freedom of Speech:

Your freedom of speech here comes with the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.

In other words, by registering, you agree not to be vulgar, divisive, insulting, profane, etc. (read all the rules). It helps to try and treat others as you want to be treated. And just as you want people to treat you, treat them in the same way (Luke 6:31).

You have NO unspoken right to speak in a perverted, offensive, profane, foul, or blasphemous manner. This is a Christian website, and you may not post words in mockery of Christian beliefs or terms offensive in descriptions of our Lord God. You may certainly challenge Christian teaching but do so respectfully.

Includes all the Secular Forums, politics as well. Most Evangelical Christians attempt to reach posters through social-political issues, such as homosexuality, abortions, transgender. Be aware, referring to conservatives/
Christians with the “racist,” “homophobic,” or “bigot” comments, or any insults for their political positions related to their Christian beliefs, will result in infraction points and suspensions. This is a Christian website. If you want to promote liberal propaganda, take it elsewhere. Christians on the forums permitted their free ideas and opinions on social issues and will not have to tolerate insults, divisive comments from the more liberal posters. Homosexuality/Lesbian/Transgender topics are restricted to Secular forums.

There are many diverse opinions expressed on the CARM boards. But,
CARM is not responsible for the opinions posted by anyone on the CARM discussion boards.

What if the Bible clearly condemned abortion? What if there were no wars, etc. in the Old Testament? Would you become pro-life? No. Thus, what difference does it make what the Bible says?
It makes a difference in how Christians justify their pro-life stance. Given that this pro-life stance just helped reinterpret the US constitution, it affects me fundamentally. Not as much as if I were female, of course, but enough that I can now safely say religion is shaping the laws of our land - and I'm definitely not OK with that. If your holy book can be used to change the law of the land, so can all other holy books - and that's just a mess.

Comment removed per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
While I appreciate/respect your desire to reason through this discussion, becoming an "honorary" atheist for the sake of it doesn't take care of the problem. The biblical flood is still seen by all Christians as a moral Good.
1) The flood was God's judgement on sin. 2) The people were given ample warning and ample opportunity to avoid God's wrath. Instead of listening to Noah, they mocked him, they made fun of him. This is, you know, sort of similar to what abortion supporters do to Christians now. God gives people ample time to repent, to come to Him, to seek His mercy. At some point, however, sin and evil are judged and punished by God. The only difference between the Old Testament and now is that God's judgement is delayed and often comes in the next life, rather than this life--because God's people are no longer a nation state. Thus, there are no civil penalties for sin.

The point, however, sir, is that God did not wipe people out arbitrarily, He did not wipe them out because He was blood thirsty and vengeful. He did not wipe them out becasue they were an inconvenience to Him. He wiped them out as a judgement on their sin, mockery of Noah and his message, and because of their utter refusal to repent of their wicked ways. In short--the people deserved what they got.

How does this in any way compare to abortion on demand--where--women get to murder their pre-born off-spring---simply becasue--they don't want them, or because they are an inconvenience? You are suggesting a pre-born child DESERVES death? For what does a pre-born child deserve death, sir? Existing in the wrong place? That is why they deserve death?
If - as a Christian - you're willing to condemn the biblical flood as a moral evil (or if you otherwise don't think the biblical flood actually happened), then this thread suddenly stops applying to you. I mean that sincerely. You and I haven't had too much interaction; you may indeed be the first Christian I've encountered who'd agree with me on the morality of that event. I leave it up to you as to whether you wish to take a stance on it or not, but I'm not asking. I'm assuming you're an average Christian, who believes that God is Good and always does good things (sometimes for his own inscrutable purposes), and thus sees the biblical flood as one of them.
There was nothing inscrutable about why God wiped out the people in the OT flood. It was judgment on sin.

Sir, when God gives the people every opportunity to repent, seek His face, come to Him and receive mercy, and not only do they NOT do that, but they make fun of the prophet and mock him, and then God eventually punishes them--how is that God's fault?

Are you one of these people who sees no connection between actions and consequences--like many of the abortion supporters on this site?

But again, even if you are right--and the Old Testament God is evil, and I support what He did--you have proven only that I am a hypocrite. You have not proven that my position on abortion is wrong---hence why even discussing the Old Testament God is a Red Herring.
It makes a difference in how Christians justify their pro-life stance.
Sir, let's change out the word "abortion" with the word "slavery."

So now your statement reads "It makes a difference in how Christians justify their anti-slavery stance." Are Christians hypocrites for condemning racism and being against slavery if, arguably the Bible tolerated slavery?
Given that this pro-life stance just helped reinterpret the US constitution, it affects me fundamentally.
Where is the right to abortion in the Constitution? See--that is the thing. Abortion supporters based on Roe love telling everyone that the right to abortion is in the Constitution. Fine. Where does the Constitution mention abortion?
Not as much as if I were female, of course, but enough that I can now safely say religion is shaping the laws of our land
How? Again, should we bring back slavery becasue slavery has religious and moral implications?
and I'm definitely not OK with that.
Sir, almost any issue you can think of has religious or moral implications. That does not entail that the issue is solely religious and that the nation is becoming a theocracy.

Are pro-life atheists seeking to impose a theocracy on the nation?
If your holy book can be used to change the law of the land, so can all other holy books - and that's just a mess.
Where have I argued that abortion needs to be outlawed based on the authority of my religion, my god or gods, or my holy book? The only reason I am saying anything about my religion and holy book is becasue YOU are inserting that into the discussion.

Again, are pro-life atheists seeking to create a theocracy sir? Do we have to bring back slavery since the issue has religious connotations? Should we allow racism becasue many religions condemn racism, sir?
According to Christian theology and zeitgeist, abortions of convenience are bad - but God aborting an entire planet for the sake of convenience is good.
No, God aborting an entire planet for the sake of convenience is not good at all. I would not worship such a God, sir.

But God exercising judgement on sin and moral evil is a good thing. Evil deserves to be punished.
I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy; I'm accusing Christian contemporary thought of being fundamentally flawed in a very obvious way.
Fine. But the only reason I am even arguing religion with you is becasue YOU, sir, are the one forcing the issue by inserting it into the discussion.

As I said, for the sake of these discussion, you can treat me as a pro-life atheist.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I'm not going to respond to everything you wrote. Breaking up paragraphs into several small tit-for-tat responses kills the discussion, and is tedious to read. If there's anything I've skipped that you'd like me to respond to, simply ask and I will.


So, the fetuses in the mothers who were drowned to death deserved it too? Little children barely old enough to speak?

I think not.


You boil all of the reasons for an abortion down to "the mothers simply didn't want children", and that's unfair. As I explained, the reasons for abortion are most often much more complicated and serious, but since you've labeled this a simple desire to not be pregnant, I'll label the global flood a simple desire to not have the earth be populated. God's creation had become an inconvenience to him. After all, he failed to create the kind of world he wanted, so it was time to reboot and try it again.


Until you see the biblical flood as the moral evil it was, you cannot be considered an atheist in this discussion. Sorry. I'm not trying to be obnoxious; you simply don't have the POV an atheist would have about the subject.
Its not just the flood though, Jesus is often an offense to anyone who doesnt see the need for a saviour.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I'm not going to respond to everything you wrote. Breaking up paragraphs into several small tit-for-tat responses kills the discussion, and is tedious to read. If there's anything I've skipped that you'd like me to respond to, simply ask and I will.
Let me get this straight: I respond to your ridiculous assertions and comparisons about God in the Old Testament and Noah, and now you won't respond?

So typical of abortion supporters. Give them reasoned, rational argument--and they shut down and refuse to respond. I am 44 years old, sir. I have been debating abortion supporters since I have been in high school--and this is so typical of them.
So, the fetuses in the mothers who were drowned to death deserved it too? Little children barely old enough to speak?
First: have you ever read the Bible? Sin is like a cancer. What happens when you do not remove all of the cancer? Cancer comes back.

God had no choice but to wipe out even the unborn. The sin of the people had taken such root--that even the unborn were effected. God was stopping the spread of sin and attempting to start over with Noah.

Second: Remember again, God did not arbitrarily wipe out the people. By their own refusal to repent and heed Noah's warnings, the people brought God's judgement on themselves. That means, ultimately, pregnant women who mocked Noah and did not heed his warnings and calls to repent--were the ones responsible for their own death and that of their children, not God. Again, sir, I realize abortion supporters have a difficult time grasping this one truism, but ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

If a pregnant woman smokes or drinks heavily, and her doctor warns her that continues to do so risks the death of her child, and the woman ignores the doctors advice and her child dies, who is ultimately responsible for the death of the child? The woman or the doctor?

Now, a pregnant woman is warned by God's prophet "Hey, God's judgment against sin is coming. Repent and God will be merciful. God does not want you to die. God does not want to punish you, but if you continue in your sin, you will be punished. Please repent." The pregnant woman laughs at Noah, mocks Noah, makes fun of Him and does not repent. Whose fault in the ultimate sense is it when the woman and the child die? God's or the woman's?

What more should God have done, sir, that he did not do? Why were the warnings not enough, from your view, sir?
I think not.
Typical of liberals and abortion supporters. Liberals, again, for whatever reason, do not seem to make the connection between poor choices and poor outcomes. They seem to want to blame anything and everything else besides the person for making poor choices.

Thus, liberals tend to see criminals not as criminals, but as victims. They also tend to see things in terms of oppressed and oppressor. For liberals, criminals are not engaging in criminal activity because they want to, or becasue they choose to, or becasue they are criminals, but becasue they are victims of society. They are oppressed. For liberals, it is societies fault that there are criminals. We have criminals because they are acting out against tyranny and unjust oppression.

Thus, it is no wonder why an abortion supporter like you would have a difficult time understanding why a sinful, evil people, given every warning and opportunity to repent--and do not--and also make fun of the person giving the warnings---would be at fault for their own demise. It is little wonder why you would blame God and not the people for why they were destroyed. The people are the victims, Noah and God the oppressors.
You boil all of the reasons for an abortion down to "the mothers simply didn't want children", and that's unfair.
Sir, that is ultimately what abortion on demand is. Women may have an abortion for any reason they choose, or no reason at all. I am not talking about rare cases like rape, incest, or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.
As I explained, the reasons for abortion are most often much more complicated and serious, but since you've labeled this a simple desire to not be pregnant.
I am not talking about rare instances of rape, incest of life of the mother.
I'll label the global flood a simple desire to not have the earth be populated. God's creation had become an inconvenience to him. After all, he failed to create the kind of world he wanted, so it was time to reboot and try it again.
Again, for reasons that have been well explained--you are comparing apples and oranges.
Until you see the biblical flood as the moral evil it was, you cannot be considered an atheist in this discussion. Sorry. I'm not trying to be obnoxious; you simply don't have the POV an atheist would have about the subject.
How convenient.

Fine. The flood was evil, the Christian God is evil. Happy?

Now can we please talk about the actual subject at hand, or do you want to keep distracting from the issue so you do not actually have to think critically?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Let me get this straight: I respond to your ridiculous assertions and comparisons about God in the Old Testament and Noah, and now you won't respond?
Typical "hit and run" technique used by all spine donors who think they've got a good argument.
Fine. The flood was evil, the Christian God is evil. Happy?

Now can we please talk about the actual subject at hand, or do you want to keep distracting from the issue so you do not actually have to think critically?
A few years ago, I was listening to an apologist who claimed that the overwhelming majority of arguments presented by atheists, skeptics, etc. are never logical, but instead based almost entirely on their own emotions. I thought this was an odd claim, but as he continued, it became clear that not only is this the case with atheists, but its the default modus operandi of the mainstream media, politics, etc.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Typical "hit and run" technique used by all spine donors who think they've got a good argument.

A few years ago, I was listening to an apologist who claimed that the overwhelming majority of arguments presented by atheists, skeptics, etc. are never logical, but instead based almost entirely on their own emotions. I thought this was an odd claim, but as he continued, it became clear that not only is this the case with atheists, but its the default modus operandi of the mainstream media, politics, etc.
Amen.

All one need to do to look for proof of this is watch the mainstream media outlets after Roe was overturned. It is all emotion. "Women will die..." "The SCOTUS is coming for you next..." The left is in literal meltdown. Abortion supporters, including the president present no rational arguments. All they do is meltdown and panic---and it is all emotion. Of course the media is perfectly happy to allow this---and you will see the media ask no critical, thought provoking questions about support for abortion. The media just shouts down pro-lifers and thinks because they yell the loudest, that makes them right.

No, women are not going to die, no the SCOTUS is not coming for you next, and no, the world is not ending.

All that happened is by the decision to overturn Roe is that the SCOTUS is now saying--the judiciary now is neutral on the question of abortion. Let the statues figure it out for themselves---and or----let the Democratic process play out at the federal level and get legislation passed allowing for abortion. That is it. Now I say "all that happened" not to minimize the overturning of Roe, as that is a big deal. I say "all that happened" merely to illustrate that the world is not ending like many abortion supporters think.

Besides, abortion supporters continue to love telling everyone that most Americans love abortion, they think there should be more, not less abortions, Roe should stay, blah, blah, blah. Well, their meltdowns would suggest otherwise.

If Americans loved abortion as much as abortion supporters claimed, then there would be no reason to meltdown--since abortion supporters should easily be able to get law passed legalizing abortion---even perhaps a Constitutional Amendment. Their meltdowns suggest that Americans may not love abortion as much as abortion supporters claims they do.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Amen.

All one need to do to look for proof of this is watch the mainstream media outlets after Roe was overturned. It is all emotion. "Women will die..." "The SCOTUS is coming for you next..." The left is in literal meltdown. Abortion supporters, including the president present no rational arguments. All they do is meltdown and panic---and it is all emotion. Of course the media is perfectly happy to allow this---and you will see the media ask no critical, thought provoking questions about support for abortion. The media just shouts down pro-lifers and thinks because they yell the loudest, that makes them right.

No, women are not going to die, no the SCOTUS is not coming for you next, and no, the world is not ending.

All that happened is by the decision to overturn Roe is that the SCOTUS is now saying--the judiciary now is neutral on the question of abortion. Let the statues figure it out for themselves---and or----let the Democratic process play out at the federal level and get legislation passed allowing for abortion. That is it. Now I say "all that happened" not to minimize the overturning of Roe, as that is a big deal. I say "all that happened" merely to illustrate that the world is not ending like many abortion supporters think.

Besides, abortion supporters continue to love telling everyone that most Americans love abortion, they think there should be more, not less abortions, Roe should stay, blah, blah, blah. Well, their meltdowns would suggest otherwise.

If Americans loved abortion as much as abortion supporters claimed, then there would be no reason to meltdown--since abortion supporters should easily be able to get law passed legalizing abortion---even perhaps a Constitutional Amendment. Their meltdowns suggest that Americans may not love abortion as much as abortion supporters claims they do.
Too many are becoming desensitized to how horrific this legalized murder really is though.
 

Attachments

  • no one is coming for your abortions.jpg
    336 KB · Views: 2

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Too many are becoming desensitized to how horrific this legalized murder really is though.
Actually-----I dare say-----it isn't that people are becoming desensitized to legalized murder, it is that they don't care.

One abortion supporter on this site---sees the pre-born child as a parasite. It is the mother's body--and the child is living off of her body. Thus, the woman is justified in murdering her pre-born child for that reason. No one has the right to live off another's body without her consent. The person sees no connection between the choice of the woman to have sex and the pregnancy that resulted.

Yeah--the person argues this with a straight face and thinks it makes for a good argument. This is the level that abortion supporters are at--this is how desperate they are.

Sad, isn't it? If a child isn't safe in the womb of their mother, how can anyone be safe anywhere?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Actually-----I dare say-----it isn't that people are becoming desensitized to legalized murder, it is that they don't care.
What effective difference is there? Desensitized people don't see the unborn of any worth as human beings. They obviously don't care.
One abortion supporter on this site---sees the pre-born child as a parasite. It is the mother's body--and the child is living off of her body. Thus, the woman is justified in murdering her pre-born child for that reason. No one has the right to live off another's body without her consent. The person sees no connection between the choice of the woman to have sex and the pregnancy that resulted.
Again, this is the result of the "stone cold dead forever" heart of humanity. What emerges from the heart can only desensitize us until society as a whole couldn't care less about one another.

I spent years living and working in large cities. It was impossible to take into consideration any of the numerous people who would be routinely sprawled across sidewalks, entranceways, etc. Many were sleeping off a bender, overdosed on God knows what drugs, or dead. It's impossible to deal with something like that. The only solution is to just ignore it as best as one can. It is a willful hardening of the heart.

After moving back to the country, I became immediately aware of just how far I had descended into a hell of my own making.
Yeah--the person argues this with a straight face and thinks it makes for a good argument. This is the level that abortion supporters are at--this is how desperate they are.
As Jeremiah says, how "desperately wicked" they are.
Sad, isn't it? If a child isn't safe in the womb of their mother, how can anyone be safe anywhere?
I live in the wilderness which has always been viewed as dangerous, yet I've never felt safer. It isn't just sad, it's tragic and hopelessly bewildering to follow in the tracks of the scapegoat for safety and security.
 
Top