This isn't going to be the typical argument that the fertilized egg is not a human being. This argument meets the christian on her own terms, and uses one of the most famous christian philosophers to do so, using the example of the slaughter of the Canaanites. I want everyone reading to remember that I am quoting extensively, so be careful not to confuse my words with Craig's quotes.
William Lane Craig asserts of the limits to God's morality, "According to the version of divine command ethics which I've defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn't issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses...What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him."
Craig continues, "So the problem isn't that God ended the Canaanites lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn't that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, its not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God's commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God's command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong." If God commands you to murder, you are MORALLY OBLIGATED to do so.
You might be asking how this is connected to abortion. The answer is coming.
In the slaughter of the Canaanites, God ordered children to be murdered. Given the recent elementary school shooting, the number of Canaanite children killed would be vastly higher. If the elementary school shooting is an outrage, this slaughter can only be more so! But I digress.
With regards to children, Craig asserts, "But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, "You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods" (Deut 7.3-4). This command is part and parcel of the whole fabric of complex Jewish ritual law distinguishing clean and unclean practices. To the contemporary Western mind many of the regulations in Old Testament law seem absolutely bizarre and pointless: not to mix linen with wool, not to use the same vessels for meat and for milk products, etc. The overriding thrust of these regulations is to prohibit various kinds of mixing. Clear lines of distinction are being drawn: this and not that. These serve as daily, tangible reminders that Israel is a special people set apart for God Himself."
Now, the relevance to abortion is about to unfold, and the justification for genocide Craig provides reveals an implication about christian theology that is often overlooked.
Craig proposes that the death of the Canaanite children was actually positive! "Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives." (My emphasis) Hmmmmm.
Who was actually harmed by the slaughter of the Canaanites, according to Craig? "So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing." (My emphasis again)The only people wronged are the people who had to do the killing! Only a religious mind could come to such a ridiculous conclusion.
What I think Craig has done is reveal the logical implications of conservative christianity for all to see.
Now, according to the horrific implication that a dead child who wasn't saved would go to hell, christian thinkers ingeniously came up with "the age of accountability," which is not biblical, but asserts that people who are mentally able to understand the Gospel and die before they reach this point get a free pass to heaven. This also applies to the mentally challenged, who can never obtain the necessary understanding of God's "love."
The way this applies to abortion is that, if one considers that every person born is not going to be saved, and every aborted "baby" is below the age of accountability and thus would be guaranteed to go to heaven, by the pure numbers game alone, if abortions were performed by all christian women next time they become pregnant, the results would be, as Craig claimed, "the death of these children was actually their salvation."
Here is the full link to his article. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughte … canaanites
Mr. Craig has some very good points. Certainly he is correct in saying that God has the right to do whatever He wants, while we humans do not. The only argument I might disagree with him about is when he includes the possible idea that God did something "wrong" by commanding the Israeli soldiers to kill children......but even that argument he qualifies in the succeeding sentences.
At any rate, there are several problems with your giant leap into saying Christians should be for abortion.
First of all, you said it's Christian women who should view aborting their own children as a good thing that guarantees the children eternal salvation........
If we Christians were to think that way, I think we'd be more inclined to think of nonChristian women's children being aborted as being a determining factor in their salvation! For it would be more likely that nonChristians would raise their children as pagans, not Christian women. However, even though both thoughts may have crossed our minds, we Christians don't conclude it that way when it comes to the value of human life, either naturally or spiritually. Because we know that Jesus sacrificed Himself for every person and every future person! He came to Spiritualize the old Law, to give each person the free-will choice to choose Him or to choose the Adversary.
While we would make sure our children are saved if we could control that, it is God's plan of free will that we view as the greater, simply because He is God and we are NOT. Our responsibility is to uphold the right of EVERY unborn child to live, to teach them right from wrong so that they themselves can make that choice when the "age of accountability" is reached. And only God really knows when that time is.
As far as the killing of the Canannite children, apparently God spoke in those days much more audibly and controlled the entire situation with a firmer hand, setting His plan for mankind in action, based on the fact that Israel were His chosen people, as Mr. Craig said. And indeed people listened to God more readily (it seems to me) and followed His directions much more readily. After Jesus came to earth, we humans are no longer told what to do as much as we are called upon to make choices based on Christ's teachings, and His teachings were about how much God Loves everyone and how to draw the conclusion that each person must make a personal decision to CHOOSE. He gave us innately the ability to make choices between right and wrong based upon the spoken word by God, the written word He gave the disciples, and the literal Word in the flesh (Jesus Christ himself).
I think people actually have much more personal responsibility today than back then. A thing that many do NOT want to have! Secular women (in general) have been swayed by the liberal activists who don't want to even think about their responsibilities to their children, especially their unborn children, and most especially they don't want to call anyone else out on their responsibilities to the unborn; that, to them, would be "judgemental"; and God forbid that anyone should view them as judgemental!
That's what makes it imperative that they make themselves think of a fetus as "a parasite" or "not valid" or "just a zygote" or whatever excuse they keep coming up with.
Sorry, but your suggestion doesn't sway me in the least. You cannot shame me (nor any other Christian who knows the value God places on a human soul) into thinking we should be for abortion, neither for ourselves nor for women in general. If this is your attempt to tell us to mind our own business and become "politically correct", you can forget it.
I will say this------I personally believe that there is a difference between considering abortion in cases of rape and/or incest, and other cases in general. A rape is something that is forced upon someone and was never meant to happen, the woman having no choice in the matter. Whereas the issue of abortion in general is simply a matter of a woman refusing to take responsibility for the act of sex that she participated in. Even if liberals don't care about the unborn, we Christians do, whether it's ours or theirs. Wide chasm there, just like your leap from God's actions to the conclusion that Christian women should abort their own children.
P.S. And oh yes this does include the typical argument about whether a fertilized egg is a human being! You can never get around that fact no matter how much ya try. (And actually you brought it into the discussion by mentioning abortion in the first place).
http://health.act.gov.au/health-service … -pregnancy
Only 5% of rape results in pregnancy
54,559,615 abortions 1973–2011
Reported abortions in the United States, by year
Reprting is not required by law, so these numbers obviously err to the lesser numbers.
Therefore, the actual pregnancies that would be "acceptable", to account for the said 5% would be
54,559,615 X .05 = 2,727,980. That's quite a high number of "legitimate" abortions.
What about the remaining 51,831,634 "babies", who NEVER had the chance to give life a go?
These represent double the current Australian population!!!!!!!!!!!!
"At any rate, there are several problems with your giant leap into saying Christians should be for abortion.
First of all, you said it's Christian women who should view aborting their own children as a good thing that guarantees the children eternal salvation........
If we Christians were to think that way, I think we'd be more inclined to think of nonChristian women's children being aborted as being a determining factor in their salvation! For it would be more likely that nonChristians would raise their children as pagans, not Christian women. However, even though both thoughts may have crossed our minds, we Christians don't conclude it that way when it comes to the value of human life, either naturally or spiritually. Because we know that Jesus sacrificed Himself for every person and every future person! He came to Spiritualize the old Law, to give each person the free-will choice to choose Him or to choose the Adversary. "
This doesn't affect anything. If all of the aborted "babies" would have been born, at least a small percentage of them, even if all were raised in "God-fearing" households, would still go to hell. However, if they were all aborted, all the babies would go to heaven, every last one. Instead, with your insistence on preventing abortion, you are thereby claiming that it's better for some of them to be born into this sinful world and go to hell,rather than ALL of them go to heaven. If your theology wasn't so anti-human, it wouldn't produce such odd implications.
"Sorry, but your suggestion doesn't sway me in the least. You cannot shame me (nor any other Christian who knows the value God places on a human soul) into thinking we should be for abortion, neither for ourselves nor for women in general. If this is your attempt to tell us to mind our own business and become "politically correct", you can forget it."
I'm not shaming anyone. It's not my religion that claims people go hell for believing in the wrong God, nor that there is some sort of ad hoc "age of accountability" exception that is not found anywhere in the Bible.
The pope said abortion is wrong, and he is infallible on moral matters. Also, the fetus is in fact a living human being. Abortion is murder.
Why is the Pope infallible on moral matters?
I'd like to know this too.
So far, I do agree with the Pope(s), with the Catholic Church, on the major moral issues. And I highly respect that Church for sticking to those principles! But indeed, so do most evangelical Churches stick to those principles.
And the Pope does supposedly devote his entire life to exhortation and good moral leadership and prayer to the Lord; all good things!
But in the end, he (they) is just a man as any other man, subject to temptation and fallibility. I suppose in a way it's good that his followers put so much trust in him. And in another way it's not good at all.
So the god, who is responsible for spontaneous abortions, is a murderer?
Nature. The natural cycle of life and death, illness and health, is in place........
God could have easily prevented all the cycle of illness, death, child mortality especially starvation death....
Three centuries back average life expectancy was 28 years. In stead of prescribing all the nonsense in bible he could have prescribed the treatment of tuberculosis, malaria and leprosy(well he didn't know that leprosy was caused by bacteria, how would he know its treatment?).....
You remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus? Rich man was sent to hell not because he did wrong but because he didn't do the right he could have done. So what punishment should you prescribe the god who could have prevented all untimely deaths and suffering, but didn't do it?
PS: While you refuse to give credit to nature for creating you, why do you find it easy to fault it?
All the good things are gods doing while for bad, scapegoats are aplenty, isn't it?
A deeply disturbing rationalization of genocide. Yes imagine the pain of the solders killing women and children. The poor souls. Directed by God my as^. Certainly a great way to rally the troops though, both the Christians and the Muslims followed the lesson. Do we say the same for muslims who murdered the British solder on a street. The poor souls were just following God's direction, imagine their pain.
Some you you should be ashamed for even entertaining the rationalization.
Sooner28 As usual quite a bit to digest but one brief comment I wanted to make is - ***Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."*** when I read this it reminded me of Andrea Yates (mother who drowned her children to save them from Satan and to give them an insured everlasting life.) Yates was severely mentally ill but embracing her ideology and Craig's seems the same to me...totally insane. Should God exist and life is the most sacred of gifts (as believed by most Christians) the death of children,infants or the unborn can not be justified as a God-driven act. Using God to justify a human action has never made sense to me.
In answer to the OP...... if anything is correct in Christian theology? is it wrong for a parent to take their children out of the playground and bring them home; for that is all that death of the mortal body constitutes according to Religious theology. It really is that plane and simple.... according to religious theology.
There are just as many christian denominations and beliefs as there are christians. I doubt all 2 billion will see the logic just what it says or what they think it says in the bible. like robots following a command
Rad Man controversial as always but well put and researched as well (although facts can always be found to support any argument,) as well you know from participating here as frequently as you do. Stir the pot you do it well and your forums usually turn in to the stuff soap-opera are made of which it seems those here crave like food to a hungry mob. maybe I too can be like you when I grow-up here among those with nothing better to do.
by Stump Parrish14 months ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas...
by Pratonix6 years ago
One of the greatest tricks of the devil is to get Christians wasting their time in arguing and debating with unbelievers. Unbelievers will not understand Christianity, unless God opens their eyes (the eyes of their...
by Martie Coetser6 years ago
Being a Christian, means being a follower of Jesus Christ. Not so? Does this means a Christian has to be a martyr, willing to DIE emotionally or physically in order for others to live, or to have a better life?In a...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
If so, what is the justification for it?
by Nicole Canfield6 weeks ago
Why is it that Christians believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, etc. are all wrong in their beliefs and that they'll all go somewhere horrible when they die? Why can't we just accept that other...
by JimLow4 years ago
This list of beliefs I wrote about 5 years ago, came from an approximate 20-year study of the Statements of Beliefs by many different Christian denominations. These were the beliefs I found that were of most common...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.