Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition

Religions > Atheism > Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Budikka666"
Date:	09 Feb 2005 07:43:49 PM
Object:	Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition

Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 60
This is the tenth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/4plut
56.
Sirenomelia
This is a condition known as "mermaid syndrome" which typically kills
babies within days of birth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4235033.stm
Believers have to pretend this is their god's idea of a good laugh or
that humanity is somehow to blame for it, but it's really a problem of
lousy design. The genome isn't "designed" to make itself perfect. All
it's "designed" to do is reproduce itself. What happens after that, it
doesn't care.
It has no competent error correction, so it accumulates mutations and
babies pay for this big time. As long as a few survivors perpetuate
the species, many, even most offspring can be discarded. This is the
lesson we learn from nature: abortion is the rule, survival is the
exception.
Creationists have to fool themselves that the human genome was created
perfectly just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and then, somehow, this
perfection began inanely falling apart. But there is absolutely no
support for this self-deception any where in the Bible. It's merely a
microcosm of the planet itself, which was also supposed to have been
created in perfection. Repeatedly we are told that the god of the
Bible saw that it was good! Yet in the blink of an eye (in "god
years"), it was so badly degraded that this same god had to literally
flush it down the toilet!
So once again, to frame it with a standard creationist dichotomy:
either there is no god, or there is a god who is so stupid and
incompetent that he's not worth worshipping. Either there's a god who
shows his "love" by creating a natural world which is totally uncaring,
where children are randomly born deformed, where our lesson from nature
is the devil take the hindmost, where our moral compass is the strong
preying on the weak, the sick, the infirm, the very old, or the very
young, or we have a perfectly natural world in which no god was ever
involved, and humanity has shown its chops by continually striving to
rise above nature and create a new moral standard. It's your freedom
of choice.
57.
neo-natal alloimmune thrombocytopenia
This is where the child's mother's blood attacks the child she is
carrying. Nothing could be worse than a mother betraying her own child
- especially when it isn't her fault.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4246385.stm
Believers have no one to blame for this but their god's incompetence.
Either that or this is just nature's incompetence and there isn't any
god.
Then the so-called "right-to-life"rs whine until they're blue in the
face about abortion killing the innocent, even though the "innocent"
have less about them than the average cow, pig, fish or chicken that
these same so-called "right-to-life"rs sit down to eat each night.
Yes, the majority are so innocent that they have no nervous system and
feel nothing. They're so innocent that they have no brain function,
and therefore are not in even the remotest sense, a "person". Some 20
of every 100 pregnancies in North America are aborted like this. In
the third world, the rate is much higher, but why would so-called
"right-to-life"rs care about those particular abortions when they can
whine? The bulk of them take place in the first trimester and over 60
of every one hundred of these result from chromosomal defects.
And no, these aren't abortions carried out by doctors, but by god
himself - that is, if you believe in such myths. Or there isn't a god
and nature is simply, understandably, far from perfect.
58.
Two wombs - twins born two months apart
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4249203.stm
Another great design from this god. Why have only one womb, when you
can have two? You'd think a perfect, omnipotent god, with infinite
resources and all eternity to work in could have done better. Either
that or there isn't any god.
59.
And what happens to those that are not aborted?
God takes care of them:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/02/23/unicef.report/index.html
100 million children grow up alone. "...orphaned by disease, abused by
adults or stolen for profit, the world's children are increasingly
growing up without the love and security of a family and outside the
protection of the state..."
This is what the so-called "right-to-life"rs wish for these children -
children who ought not to have been born. The so-called
"right-to-life"rs make the point that "it's not a choice, it's a
child". So where are they when 100 million children needed caring for?
Children who ought to have been taken care of when they came into the
world *without any choice*? I'll tell you where they were, they were
protesting outside abortion clinics, claiming that their only interest
was the welfare of the child.
Do they truly wish for the welfare of these 100 million children, or
are they, by default, wishing for disease, abuse, and neglect?
100 million children. And the so-called "right-to-life"rs want to add
more to this tally.
In November 2004, CNN carried a report that 100,000 of these children
live in the USA. 100,000. They're waiting for adoption. Where are
the so-called "right-to-life"rs during this time of need? They're
protesting outside abortion clinics while real abuse of born, living
children is rife and they're ignoring it.
100 million children world-wide. Where is their concern for these
children that god put into this position without a semblence of free
will?
Either that or there is no god.
60.
And finally, who was it who invented "circumcision"?
Why god, of course - so His Omnisicence would be able to recognize his
own. Once again we see that believers would rather have a stupid,
incompetent, cruel, vindictive child-abusing god than no god at all.
Then we find this "same thing", circumcision, is being done to women.
And what's the result?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2055835.stm
"The babies of circumcised women are more likely to be stillborn and
their mothers to suffer serious problems..."
What, this god didn't see this coming? This god can't tell if a person
is a follower of his or not without demanding his followers are
mutilated like so many cattle? And he never proscribed it for women.
Is this the world's worse god, or is this no god at all?
Budikka
.

User: "Mr. Bla"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	12 Feb 2005 09:56:25 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1107999829.612923.216920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

A few problems with your logic; Believers don't have to "pretend" anything
of the sort you suggest. Within our theology we believe that disease is a
result of the fall of man and sin. Second problem is that you seem to be
suggesting by your connection that sirenomelia is a genetic disorder. It
isn't. It is a birth defect. Like Phocomelia caused by thalidomide is. I
think the error checking in dna replication is amazing. True, it cannot
replace lost data but the overall loss in replication is remarkably low

It has no competent error correction, so it accumulates mutations and
babies pay for this big time. As long as a few survivors perpetuate
the species, many, even most offspring can be discarded. This is the
lesson we learn from nature: abortion is the rule, survival is the
exception.

This is as foolish as saying that a hard drive being copied to another drive
has no error correction! True, if data is lost in the parent drive the other
drive will also lack the data, but there are a number of steps in data
transfer which check for data integrity and so it is with dna replication. I
think you also may be overplaying how often mutations lead to non-viable
offspring. Often wholesale chromosomal errors will occur, such as with with
Down syndrome, but by and large genetic diseases are rare events at least in
humans

Creationists have to fool themselves that the human genome was created
perfectly just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and then, somehow, this
perfection began inanely falling apart. But there is absolutely no
support for this self-deception any where in the Bible. It's merely a
microcosm of the planet itself, which was also supposed to have been
created in perfection. Repeatedly we are told that the god of the
Bible saw that it was good! Yet in the blink of an eye (in "god
years"), it was so badly degraded that this same god had to literally
flush it down the toilet!

Why do we have to "fool ourselves"? were you there? Can you verify that the
genome was already flawed 6000-10000 years ago. You also say that there is
no support for this self deception anywhere in the bible. I'm sorry your
bible is missing Genesis. Perhaps you can get a complete one eventually. As
to the flood, read Genesis 6 again. It was the behavior of man which
resulted in the curse. The bible doesn't talk about a "degraded" creation,
it talks about a corrupted one. It is a subtle but important diference.

So once again, to frame it with a standard creationist dichotomy:
either there is no god, or there is a god who is so stupid and
incompetent that he's not worth worshipping. Either there's a god who
shows his "love" by creating a natural world which is totally uncaring,
where children are randomly born deformed, where our lesson from nature
is the devil take the hindmost, where our moral compass is the strong
preying on the weak, the sick, the infirm, the very old, or the very
young, or we have a perfectly natural world in which no god was ever
involved, and humanity has shown its chops by continually striving to
rise above nature and create a new moral standard. It's your freedom
of choice.

Another option ( your dichotomy is perhaps a bit limited) would be to look
at the perfect creation of God prior to the fall/flood. To realize how
wonderfully perfect God created everything, and to realize how deep the
consequences of our sin go. In fact, look at your posting. It is a study in
the whole perspective.When you see the wonder of creation you choose to deny
the existence of the creator himself. Irony is, that you end the paragraph
by saying " It's your freedom of choice" It's that choice which got us
where we are and its your continual denial of him which is a continual
exercise of that choice, a freedom God gave to you.

57.
neo-natal alloimmune thrombocytopenia
This is where the child's mother's blood attacks the child she is
carrying. Nothing could be worse than a mother betraying her own child
- especially when it isn't her fault.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4246385.stm

Believers have no one to blame for this but their god's incompetence.
Either that or this is just nature's incompetence and there isn't any
god.

Do you blame mercedes when someone sets the cruise control, and reclines the
seat to take a nap? NO! Mercedes made the car safe, and printed a good
manual. But the owner decided to ignore the creator and do what he wanted
with his own free will. You seem to believe that all decisions are binary
and only include the 2 choices you supply; Either God is incompetent because
he isn't as smart as you, or there is no God.

Then the so-called "right-to-life"rs whine until they're blue in the
face about abortion killing the innocent, even though the "innocent"
have less about them than the average cow, pig, fish or chicken that
these same so-called "right-to-life"rs sit down to eat each night.

Your sentence is not logical.
"even though the "innocent"
have less about them than the average cow, pig, fish or chicken that
these same so-called "right-to-life"rs sit down to eat each night."
The word less modifies what? the innocent have less what?

Yes, the majority are so innocent that they have no nervous system and
feel nothing. They're so innocent that they have no brain function,
and therefore are not in even the remotest sense, a "person". Some 20
of every 100 pregnancies in North America are aborted like this. In
the third world, the rate is much higher, but why would so-called
"right-to-life"rs care about those particular abortions when they can
whine? The bulk of them take place in the first trimester and over 60
of every one hundred of these result from chromosomal defects.

No nervous system? When exactly does that form? When does a developing baby
begin to feel pain? By the way, they are "in the remotest sense" a person.
What is "the remotest sense"? Is it not genetic? Is a 1 celled fertilised
egg genetically human? yes it is. So in the remotest sense it IS a person.
Why don't "right to lifers" care about miscarriages? Are you on crack? There
is nothing we can do about it/them (other than prenatal care etc)

And no, these aren't abortions carried out by doctors, but by god
himself - that is, if you believe in such myths. Or there isn't a god
and nature is simply, understandably, far from perfect.

Or maybe they are carried out by the actions of sin at work in the world.
Think, a man could be said to have died at the wheel of a mercedes, if he
died when his head hit the "A" pillar it could be said the car "caused his
death. Now if he disabled the air bags, cut the seat belts and drove drunk
at 150mph then the car had little to do with his death, he died because he
was a moron. He made a choice and he died because it was a stupid choice.
The only thing worse is when his family sues mercedes because " they should
have made a safer car!!" Sound at all familiar? Someone named Buddika sins
as his ancestor Adam did, and when Buddika sees the consequences of that sin
he blames the creator for the consequences!

58.
Two wombs - twins born two months apart
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4249203.stm
Another great design from this god. Why have only one womb, when you
can have two? You'd think a perfect, omnipotent god, with infinite
resources and all eternity to work in could have done better. Either
that or there isn't any god.

Having taken embryology in undergrad, having taken OB/GYN in 3rd yr med
school, I would consider his creation to be adequtely designed.

59.
And what happens to those that are not aborted?
God takes care of them:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/02/23/unicef.report/index.html
100 million children grow up alone. "...orphaned by disease, abused by
adults or stolen for profit, the world's children are increasingly
growing up without the love and security of a family and outside the
protection of the state..."

This is what the so-called "right-to-life"rs wish for these children -
children who ought not to have been born. The so-called
"right-to-life"rs make the point that "it's not a choice, it's a
child". So where are they when 100 million children needed caring for?
Children who ought to have been taken care of when they came into the
world *without any choice*? I'll tell you where they were, they were
protesting outside abortion clinics, claiming that their only interest
was the welfare of the child.

Where indeed are they? Christian childrens fund, Mother Theresa, Feed the
children, etc, etc..

Do they truly wish for the welfare of these 100 million children, or
are they, by default, wishing for disease, abuse, and neglect?

100 million children. And the so-called "right-to-life"rs want to add
more to this tally.

In November 2004, CNN carried a report that 100,000 of these children
live in the USA. 100,000. They're waiting for adoption. Where are
the so-called "right-to-life"rs during this time of need? They're
protesting outside abortion clinics while real abuse of born, living
children is rife and they're ignoring it.

there must be no such thing as a church sponsored orphanige?

100 million children world-wide. Where is their concern for these
children that god put into this position without a semblence of free
will?

Either that or there is no god.

60.
And finally, who was it who invented "circumcision"?

Why god, of course - so His Omnisicence would be able to recognize his
own. Once again we see that believers would rather have a stupid,
incompetent, cruel, vindictive child-abusing god than no god at all.

?? do you remember the pain of your circumcision? By your estimation pierced
ears are also child abuse.

Then we find this "same thing", circumcision, is being done to women.
And what's the result?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2055835.stm
"The babies of circumcised women are more likely to be stillborn and
their mothers to suffer serious problems..."

I see your understanding of medicine is a bit limited. "Female circumcision"
is a euphemism. It is NOT analogous to male circumcision. If a woman were to
have a procedure analogous to a male circumcision it would likely highten
stimulation not lessen it. What "female circumcision" is is a clitorectomy.
The male analogy of this is not circumcision it is a penectomy... Yes,
removal of the entire penis.
I've never responded to you in the past but from this last paragraph it
seems you have no idea what you are talking about. At least not from a
medical standpoint. Anyone who thinks a male and female "circumcision" has
anything similar has not a clue about the mechanics of either procedure.

What, this god didn't see this coming? This god can't tell if a person
is a follower of his or not without demanding his followers are
mutilated like so many cattle? And he never proscribed it for women.

The sign of circumcision isn't so that God can identify who is his and who
isn't

Is this the world's worse god, or is this no god at all?

This is someone who pulls the fuse on the ABS, disables the air bags, drives
at 150 MPH while drunk, crashes the car and derides the car manufacturer for
building such a poor car.

Budikka

Christians are not all mindless twits. I think your dealings with Jabriol
have given you a bit of a skewed sample. There are those of us who believe
the bible and yet have doctoral level degrees and consider ourselves of more
than adequate intellect scientifically.
Bla
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	13 Feb 2005 07:42:36 AM

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:56:25 -0500, "Mr. Bla" <bla@bla.com> wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1107999829.612923.216920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Which is so stupid it has to be pretence.
You can't have it both ways.
.

User: "Raymond Griffith"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	12 Feb 2005 10:56:14 PM

in article sYmdnVPgZrlHUpPfRVn-qQ@comcast.com, Mr. Bla at

wrote
on 2/12/05 10:56 PM:
I snipped out the majority of the text to focus on this particular point.

You completely ignored Budikka's point, and thoroughly distorted it. The
mother is not at fault for this condition. Your response makes it look as if
the mother is somehow at fault.
The baby in question was saved to live only through the intervention of man
against nature. Was it God's will for the baby to die? Had the intervention
not been successful the baby certainly would have died.
So, why did God, Who according to Psalm 139 is intimately involved in the
creation of each new life, set up this situation?
I do not necessarily think Budikka has a good point on every one of her
objections. But you muffed an explanation on this one.
The fact is that the development and birth of a child is not "safe" for
child or mother. There are a host of things which can and do go wrong, most
of which have nothing to do with your nasty insinuation of operator error
via free will. Some babies are born without parts of their brain (my niece,
for example).
So then, explain the goodness of the situation, or else admit that you do
not know and have no answer (the honest approach). But you have no right to
insinuate that the mother did anything wrong in that situation. She and the
doctors did everything she could to *correct* the situation God had given to
her.
I am a Christian. That does not mean that I can explain everything. Indeed,
from Scripture I find that I will not be able to explain many things that
God does. If you examine Job, the Lord on a challenge from Satan almost
completely destroyed his servant without cause. The Lord allowed his
children to be murdered, his wife alienated, his reputation ruined, his
possessions (which he had used to serve God with) robbed, and his health
wrecked -- all without cause (as God admitted to Satan), and all without
explanation. It is not a comfortable thing to contemplate. And yet the Book
of Job is quite clear. God does allow bad things to happen to good people.
Yet we say that God is Good, by description and definition. There is a
dramatic tension involved, and one which Scripture does not give us much
help in resolving. Even Job remarked, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust
in Him" even while Job was protesting his innocence and declaring his wish
to ask God why He was doing this to him.
There is no shame in admitting that you do not know. There is significant
shame in blaming someone for a fault that does not exist, when, seeing that
you read the article (you *did* read it before answering, didn't you?) the
truth was anything but what you portrayed it as. Particularly if you are a
medical practitioner as you claim.
I think you owe some people an apology on this particular point.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.

User: "Mr. Bla"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	13 Feb 2005 08:41:15 AM

"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE34481E.C064%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...

in article sYmdnVPgZrlHUpPfRVn-qQ@comcast.com, Mr. Bla at

wrote

on 2/12/05 10:56 PM:

I snipped out the majority of the text to focus on this particular point.

Do you blame mercedes when someone sets the cruise control, and reclines

the

seat to take a nap? NO! Mercedes made the car safe, and printed a good
manual. But the owner decided to ignore the creator and do what he

wanted

with his own free will. You seem to believe that all decisions are

binary

and only include the 2 choices you supply; Either God is incompetent

because

he isn't as smart as you, or there is no God.

You completely ignored Budikka's point, and thoroughly distorted it. The
mother is not at fault for this condition. Your response makes it look as

the mother is somehow at fault.

Perhaps I was not specific enough. The mother is not specifically
responsible for this condition, however, sin, as the principal, is. The
reason why things like this happen is because of sin. Not specific sin done
by the person, but rather sin as a principle which has affected God's
perfect creation.

The baby in question was saved to live only through the intervention of

man

against nature. Was it God's will for the baby to die? Had the

intervention

not been successful the baby certainly would have died.

It is fairly obvious from scripture that God is willing that no one should
perish. Why God permits these things to occur is not specifically stated in
scripture. One thing we do know is that ultimately it is not his intention
for this to occur.

So, why did God, Who according to Psalm 139 is intimately involved in the
creation of each new life, set up this situation?

It's very important that you are specific regarding your language here. God
did not "set up" the situation. The situation God set up as the situation
which was present in the garden of Eden. In that situation there was no
disease, death, or consequence of sin. Once sin entered into the human
equation these things became consequences of that.

I do not necessarily think Budikka has a good point on every one of her
objections. But you muffed an explanation on this one.

The fact is that the development and birth of a child is not "safe" for
child or mother. There are a host of things which can and do go wrong,

most

of which have nothing to do with your nasty insinuation of operator error
via free will. Some babies are born without parts of their brain (my

niece,

for example).

You are making an overgeneralization. The development and birth of a child
is, overall, safe. Cars aren't safe because you can die in him. That does
not make them unsafe because most of the time you go for a ride in the car
you aren't injured or killed. Yes there can be complications with
development, and childbirth but that does not make it "unsafe". whether or
not something is safe is a statistical evaluation. Drinking water can be
unsafe,

So then, explain the goodness of the situation, or else admit that you do
not know and have no answer (the honest approach). But you have no right

insinuate that the mother did anything wrong in that situation. She and

the

doctors did everything she could to *correct* the situation God had given

her.

Again, you blame God for something. It's amazing how we as humans are quick
to point to finger to another to blame them for the consequences of our
actions. One thing that is unfortunate especially in American society is
that we are so individualistic that we fail to see how community sin affects
us. It is not the mother's specific sin which cause the problem, but it is
the sin of the mother combined with the current approximately 7 billion
people on Europe, as well as the ones who lived before her which ultimately
have resulted in the curse. Adam was more than the first man, he was also a
template. I think if there's anything we have seen as Christians from our
lives is that we would have done the same thing that Adam did. We would
have stubbornly refused to follow God's instructions and we would have sin,
and we would've reaped the consequences thereof.

I am a Christian. That does not mean that I can explain everything.

Indeed,

from Scripture I find that I will not be able to explain many things that
God does. If you examine Job, the Lord on a challenge from Satan almost
completely destroyed his servant without cause. The Lord allowed his
children to be murdered, his wife alienated, his reputation ruined, his
possessions (which he had used to serve God with) robbed, and his health
wrecked -- all without cause (as God admitted to Satan), and all without
explanation. It is not a comfortable thing to contemplate. And yet the

Book

of Job is quite clear. God does allow bad things to happen to good people.

As a Christian you may wish to consider actually reading the Job story
again. You state that the Lord almost completely destroyed his servant
without cause. Where exactly do you find that? Where do you find God
actively causing what happened to? Of course you don't. The individual
responsible for the calamities that came upon Job was the person of Satan.
Because God permitted it you choose to blame him as the ultimate cause. One
of the most important things for a Christian to do when approaching the book
of Job is too, for a moment, look at things from God's perspective rather
than the human perspective. Ultimately what bad happened to Job? And when
I say ultimately I mean in the eternal perspective. The answer is nothing
happened bad to Job in the eternal perspective. Certainly from a physical
human standpoint these were bad things however they ultimately amount to
nothing. Look at the perspective prior to the events in the book. The Job
has a wife, a family, and possessions. It is clear that Job is a righteous
man, and it is reasonable to believe that his family also is. So when Job's
children died they were immediately in paradise. The Job's physical
possessions were ultimately the property of God who did give them, or
withdraw them in a moment. So the loss of his cattle, and possessions was
irrelevant. If you claim to be a Christian let me ask you this; if you
asked Job today does he believes God was righteous to have done what he did
what do you think he would say? Do you think Job would have the same
perspective as you, blaming God for the calamity? I think not. Your last
sentence of the above paragraph is important; God does allow bad things to
happen to "good people" but ultimately the reason for the bad things comes
from sin, and the action of Satan.

Yet we say that God is Good, by description and definition. There is a
dramatic tension involved, and one which Scripture does not give us much
help in resolving. Even Job remarked, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust
in Him" even while Job was protesting his innocence and declaring his wish
to ask God why He was doing this to him.

Job had a wish to ask God why He was doing this to him? What happened in
the end of the book when God gave him the option to ask him? Try looking at
chapter 40 starting at verse 3. When Job was given the option of
questioning it appears as though he chose to remain silent.

There is no shame in admitting that you do not know. There is significant
shame in blaming someone for a fault that does not exist, when, seeing

that

you read the article (you *did* read it before answering, didn't you?) the
truth was anything but what you portrayed it as. Particularly if you are a
medical practitioner as you claim.

I think you owe some people an apology on this particular point.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

If there's anything I should apologize for it is for not being specific
enough regarding what I meant by "sin". This was a topic that was addressed
by Jesus to the apostles in the New Testament ones. When they saw someone
with a birth defect they asked a specific question; who sinned, the person,
or his parents. Jesus is clear that it was neither the specific sin of the
person, nor the parents which caused the child to be born the way he was.
In this case the reason was so that God's power through healing could be
demonstrated. Did the mother's sin specifically cause the problem? No.
Did sin as the principal ultimately result in the birth defect? Yes, if sin
is removed from the human equation there are no birth defects, there are no
diseases.
bla
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	13 Feb 2005 09:00:42 AM

"Mr. Bla" <bla@bla.com> wrote in
news:apydnRVe15dh-5LfRVn-ug@comcast.com:

It is fairly obvious from scripture that God is willing that no one
should perish. Why God permits these things to occur is not
specifically stated in scripture. One thing we do know is that
ultimately it is not his intention for this to occur.

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, everything that happens is His
will.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
-Don Hirschberg
.

User: "Grendel"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	15 Feb 2005 01:25:41 PM

Mr. Bla wrote:

"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE34481E.C064%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...

in article sYmdnVPgZrlHUpPfRVn-qQ@comcast.com, Mr. Bla at

wrote

on 2/12/05 10:56 PM:

I snipped out the majority of the text to focus on this particular point.

57.

bla, you are in serious error here.
You see, you are assuming that because you are able to reason from
scripture, (very eloquently I might add) that others will as well.
As you know by now, Raymond is not interested in reasoning from
scripture, Raymond is only interested in arguing from scripture.
P.S
I thought your explanation to Raymond about Job was fantastic. Any
reasonable person would have saw the wisdom in that answer. Should be a
wake-up call for Raymond, I hope.

User: "Mr. Bla"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	18 Feb 2005 05:58:49 PM

bla, you are in serious error here.
You see, you are assuming that because you are able to reason from
scripture, (very eloquently I might add) that others will as well.
As you know by now, Raymond is not interested in reasoning from
scripture, Raymond is only interested in arguing from scripture.

P.S
I thought your explanation to Raymond about Job was fantastic. Any
reasonable person would have saw the wisdom in that answer. Should be a
wake-up call for Raymond, I hope.

Thank you for your kind words. I must say I have had no prior dealings with
Raymond however I see no difference between "reasoning" from scripture, and
"arguing" from scripture. Any belief held by a bible believer should be able
to withstand an argument, a reasoning or any other counter. I hold my
theology loosely enough that a well structured biblical argument makes me
reexamine scripture and my preconceptions. Such has occurred with Raymond's
arguments which were all biblically valid and reasonable. I most certainly
intend to restudy Job. Pride must always take a back-seat to truth. What
matters isn't whether Raymond or I is correct, but rather that we both
return to the word of God to "test all things" I thank Raymond for his
input. When I came to the JW newsgroup my hope was to find someone who could
carry on an intelligent debate/argument. That was futile !! Its nice to see
intelligence and logic used for a change.
Again, thanks for your kind words
Bla
.

User: "_AnonCoward"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	18 Feb 2005 09:44:25 PM

"Mr. Bla" <bla@bla.com> wrote in message
news:vOidndqXgra1HIvfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
: >
: > bla, you are in serious error here.
: > You see, you are assuming that because you are able to reason
: > from scripture, (very eloquently I might add) that others will as
: > well. As you know by now, Raymond is not interested in reasoning
: > from scripture, Raymond is only interested in arguing from
: > scripture.
: >
: > P.S
: > I thought your explanation to Raymond about Job was fantastic.
: > Any reasonable person would have saw the wisdom in that answer.
: > Should be a wake-up call for Raymond, I hope.
:
:
:
: Thank you for your kind words. I must say I have had no prior dealings
: with Raymond however I see no difference between "reasoning" from
: scripture, and "arguing" from scripture. Any belief held by a bible
: believer should be able to withstand an argument, a reasoning or any
: other counter. I hold my theology loosely enough that a well
structured
: biblical argument makes me reexamine scripture and my preconceptions.
: Such has occurred with Raymond's arguments which were all biblically
: valid and reasonable. I most certainly intend to restudy Job. Pride
: must always take a back-seat to truth. What matters isn't whether
: Raymond or I is correct, but rather that we both return to the word
: of God to "test all things" I thank Raymond for his input. When I
: came to the JW newsgroup my hope was to find someone who could carry
: on an intelligent debate/argument. That was futile !! Its nice to
: see intelligence and logic used for a change.
:
: Again, thanks for your kind words
:
: Bla
Ralf:
I am not familiar with your history in these newsgroups, so forgive me
if I operate from any unintended assumptions. The sad fact of the matter
is, those weren't kind words for you. Grendel (a.k.a. "Jistaskin" or
just plain "Jist") has been in a running feud with Raymond for quite a
while now. While Raymond does occasionally slip and let his exasperation
show, he usually shows considerable restraint and patience in his
dealings with Jist. You weren't being complimented, you were being used
as a conduit for a back-handed slap at Raymond's expense.
That said, I felt your response was rather commendable. Whether you
ultimately come to agree with Raymond is irrelevant - what is note
worthy in my mind is the fact you are willing to consider his arguments
carefully without dismissing them out of hand simply because they don't
conform with your own beliefs. That is very uncommon in these exchanges
and I felt it was worth drawing attention to.
Ralf
--
----------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {~ ~} {~ ~} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
----------------------------------------------------------
There are no advanced students in Aikido - there are only
competent beginners. There are no advanced techniques -
only the correct application of basic principles.
.

User: "Raymond Griffith"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	18 Feb 2005 11:36:24 PM

in article tCyRd.2355$Yf5.543885@twister.southeast.rr.com, _AnonCoward at
abc@xyz.com wrote on 02/18/05 10:44 PM:

Guilty!

he usually shows considerable restraint and patience in his
dealings with Jist.

Thank you. I confess to it failing, at the last. Sigh. I certainly do not
have the patience I would like to have, nor the ability to let the barbs of
one like Jist pass with no effect.
Any ideas on how I can do better?

You weren't being complimented, you were being used
as a conduit for a back-handed slap at Raymond's expense.

That said, I felt your response was rather commendable. Whether you
ultimately come to agree with Raymond is irrelevant - what is note
worthy in my mind is the fact you are willing to consider his arguments
carefully without dismissing them out of hand simply because they don't
conform with your own beliefs. That is very uncommon in these exchanges
and I felt it was worth drawing attention to.

I very much appreciate Bla's words and spirit. Thank you for noting it.
I must say that I have always appreciated your writings. When you post, you
are always saying something worth reading. I am grateful for your kind words
as well.

Ralf

Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.

User: "_AnonCoward"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	19 Feb 2005 10:04:42 AM

"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE3C3A88.C876%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
:
: in article tCyRd.2355$Yf5.543885@twister.southeast.rr.com, _AnonCoward
: at

wrote on 02/18/05 10:44 PM:
:
: >
: > "Mr. Bla" <bla@bla.com> wrote in message
: > news:vOidndqXgra1HIvfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
: > : >
: > : > bla, you are in serious error here.
: > : > You see, you are assuming that because you are able to reason
: > : > from scripture, (very eloquently I might add) that others will
: > : > as well. As you know by now, Raymond is not interested in
: > : > reasoning from scripture, Raymond is only interested in arguing
: > : > from scripture.
: > : >
: > : > P.S
: > : > I thought your explanation to Raymond about Job was fantastic.
: > : > Any reasonable person would have saw the wisdom in that answer.
: > : > Should be a wake-up call for Raymond, I hope.
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > : Thank you for your kind words. I must say I have had no prior
: > : dealings with Raymond however I see no difference between
: > : "reasoning" from scripture, and "arguing" from scripture. Any
: > : belief held by a bible believer should be able to withstand an
: > : argument, a reasoning or any other counter. I hold my theology
: > : loosely enough that a well structured biblical argument makes
: > : me reexamine scripture and my preconceptions. Such has occurred
: > : with Raymond's arguments which were all biblically valid and
: > : reasonable. I most certainly intend to restudy Job. Pride must
: > : always take a back-seat to truth. What matters isn't whether
: > : Raymond or I is correct, but rather that we both return to the
: > : word of God to "test all things" I thank Raymond for his input.
: > : When I came to the JW newsgroup my hope was to find someone who
: > : could carry on an intelligent debate/argument. That was
: > : futile!! Its nice to see intelligence and logic used for a
: > : change.
: > :
: > : Again, thanks for your kind words
: > :
: > : Bla
: >
: >
: > Ralf:
: > I am not familiar with your history in these newsgroups, so forgive
: > me if I operate from any unintended assumptions. The sad fact of
: > the matter is, those weren't kind words for you. Grendel (a.k.a.
: > "Jistaskin" or just plain "Jist") has been in a running feud with
: > Raymond for quite a while now. While Raymond does occasionally slip
: > and let his exasperation show,
:
: Guilty!
:
: > he usually shows considerable restraint and patience in his
: > dealings with Jist.
:
: Thank you. I confess to it failing, at the last. Sigh. I certainly do
: not have the patience I would like to have, nor the ability to let
: the barbs of one like Jist pass with no effect.
:
: Any ideas on how I can do better?
Ralf:
I don't know if you can benefit from my approach - I genuinely don't
care what Jist thinks or says. He has a right to his opinions and there
is nothing within reason that can be done to prevent him from posting in
theese newsgroups (nor, in my opinion, should he be prevented from
posting even if it were possible to prevent him). I engaged in a few
exchanges with him in the past and when I reached the point where I
didn't feel like I was getting anything worthwhile out of the exercise,
I simply chose to ignore him.
I have a somewhat similar history to your own. I also come from a
fundamentalist background though I wasn't born into it as you seem to
have been but rather was a convert. In time I outgrew the mental
shackles this belief system imposed on me and I finally let them go. The
funny thing I discovered was, I wasn't bound by these chains so much as
I was clinging to them. (It reminds me of the story of how monkey
hunters will place peanuts in a gourd with a hole in it that is large
enough for the monkey to reach in with fingers extended but too small
for a clinched fist to go through. The monkey reaches in, grabs the
bait, but can't extract its hand - the monkey can't get away as long as
it continues to hold onto the bait and thus is imprisoned by its
behavior more than anything else. I discovered that if I released my
fear of damnation, I was set free - the truth is indeed a liberating
experience).
One important difference between us is that I have pretty much put away
all religious entanglements - while I'm not anti-religious, I'm
certainly non-theist. I gather you retained your faith and continue to
operate from within that framework. I suspect that is why you find it
difficult to ignore Jist - you actually do care what he says (if not
what he thinks). You seem to feel that his words in these exchanges does
harm by presenting a false facade of what genuine faith is all about. In
that case, I can see why you feel a need to counter his hateful and
damaging speech. I on the other hand consider him and his comments to be
irrelevant, and essentially harmless, so I'm content to let him rant
without giving his posts a 2nd thought.
Let me ask you this - is the substance of your faith so fragile that
Jist can actually do it any harm? The folks in these forums that Jist is
likely to influence with his rhetoric are those who are new to these
exchanges and those who are of a like mind. Fortunately, Jist isn't
preaching in a vacuum - there are a wide range of viewpoints on display.
Those with an open mind will see for themselves how Jist's narratives
stack up with others and will naturally be drawn to the more reasonable
and compassionate voices. Jist is far more likely to drive those folks
away with his comments than he is to attract them.
The 2nd group, those of a like mind, are already in his camp snd so he
does little harm with them. They are at the point where they, like Jist
himself, will either content themselves to remain where they are (out of
fear or self-righteousness) or they will confront the blatant hipocracy
of thier theological constructions and move away. Those few who choose
that latter course will, when they read Jist's posts, only be reminded
why they are doing it in the first place. Jist really is irrelevant and
it just isn't worth the psychic engergy expended by getting worked up
over him.
: > You weren't being complimented, you were being used
: > as a conduit for a back-handed slap at Raymond's expense.
: >
: >
: > That said, I felt your response was rather commendable. Whether you
: > ultimately come to agree with Raymond is irrelevant - what is note
: > worthy in my mind is the fact you are willing to consider his
: > arguments carefully without dismissing them out of hand simply
: > because they don't conform with your own beliefs. That is very
: > uncommon in these exchanges and I felt it was worth drawing
: > attention to.
:
: I very much appreciate Bla's words and spirit. Thank you for noting
: it.
:
: I must say that I have always appreciated your writings. When you
: post, you are always saying something worth reading. I am grateful
: for your kind words as well.
Ralf:
Your kinds words are appreciated in turn. Now, if all present are in
agreement, I think that concludes this meeting of the local chapter of
the Mutual Admiration Society (unless, of course, anyone has any new
business to bring up ... no?... good <whack!> - this meeting is now
adjourned).
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {~ ~} {~ ~} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assert that scripture is inerrant or is to be
understood literally invariably find themselves confronted
with the need to ignore or distort the plain meaning of the
text. In the process, they change the scriptures to bring
them into conformance with their doctrine rather than
modifying their doctrine to bring it into conformance with
scripture.
.

User: "cactus"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	19 Feb 2005 09:00:42 PM

Raymond Griffith wrote:

in article tCyRd.2355$Yf5.543885@twister.southeast.rr.com, _AnonCoward at
abc@xyz.com wrote on 02/18/05 10:44 PM:

Guilty!

he usually shows considerable restraint and patience in his
dealings with Jist.

Don't beat up on yourself. You are doing a great job. And sometimes
showing exasperation is appropriate.

I very much appreciate Bla's words and spirit. Thank you for noting it.

I must say that I have always appreciated your writings. When you post, you
are always saying something worth reading. I am grateful for your kind words
as well.

Ralf

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

User: "Raymond Griffith"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	18 Feb 2005 11:23:02 PM

in article vOidndqXgra1HIvfRVn-hA@comcast.com, Mr. Bla at

wrote
on 02/18/05 6:58 PM:

bla, you are in serious error here.
You see, you are assuming that because you are able to reason from
scripture, (very eloquently I might add) that others will as well.
As you know by now, Raymond is not interested in reasoning from
scripture, Raymond is only interested in arguing from scripture.

P.S
I thought your explanation to Raymond about Job was fantastic. Any
reasonable person would have saw the wisdom in that answer. Should be a
wake-up call for Raymond, I hope.

Thank you very much.

I most certainly intend to restudy Job.

It is worth doing.

Pride must always take a back-seat to truth. What
matters isn't whether Raymond or I is correct, but rather that we both
return to the word of God to "test all things". I thank Raymond for his
input. When I came to the JW newsgroup my hope was to find someone who could
carry on an intelligent debate/argument. That was futile !! Its nice to see
intelligence and logic used for a change.

I thank you very much. As a note, I am posting in alt.talk.creationism. May
your studies be profitable.
I find it interesting that further study will often gender more questions
than answers. Oh, one might get answers to certain questions, but the study
reveals that there is still more to learn, more mysteries to uncover.
In my own spiritual journey I often think about Abraham, to whom God said to
leave everything he had known and understood and travel to a land he had not
seen, a land to which God would not actually give *him*, but his
descendents. Abraham went. He wasn't really certain about when he arrived,
and even when He had arrived, God had to reassure him more than once. But
even in the Land he had no permanent place of residence. He did a good bit
of moving around.
I often feel like that.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith

Again, thanks for your kind words

Bla

User: "cactus"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	19 Feb 2005 09:00:36 PM

Raymond Griffith wrote:

in article vOidndqXgra1HIvfRVn-hA@comcast.com, Mr. Bla at

wrote
on 02/18/05 6:58 PM:

bla, you are in serious error here.
You see, you are assuming that because you are able to reason from
scripture, (very eloquently I might add) that others will as well.
As you know by now, Raymond is not interested in reasoning from
scripture, Raymond is only interested in arguing from scripture.

P.S
I thought your explanation to Raymond about Job was fantastic. Any
reasonable person would have saw the wisdom in that answer. Should be a
wake-up call for Raymond, I hope.

Thank you very much.

I most certainly intend to restudy Job.

It is worth doing.

I thank you very much. As a note, I am posting in alt.talk.creationism. May
your studies be profitable.

I find it interesting that further study will often gender more questions
than answers. Oh, one might get answers to certain questions, but the study
reveals that there is still more to learn, more mysteries to uncover.

In my own spiritual journey I often think about Abraham, to whom God said to
leave everything he had known and understood and travel to a land he had not
seen, a land to which God would not actually give *him*, but his
descendents. Abraham went. He wasn't really certain about when he arrived,
and even when He had arrived, God had to reassure him more than once. But
even in the Land he had no permanent place of residence. He did a good bit
of moving around.

I often feel like that.

Wherever Abraham went was home. He opened his tents to anyone who came
and was hospitable. There can be peace in movement, even if there is not
stability. And for all the temporal movement, the one thing that did
not move was his faith and his relationship with G-d.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

Again, thanks for your kind words

Bla

User: "Raymond Griffith"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	13 Feb 2005 02:41:16 PM

in article apydnRVe15dh-5LfRVn-ug@comcast.com, Mr. Bla at

wrote
on 02/13/05 9:41 AM:

"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE34481E.C064%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...

in article sYmdnVPgZrlHUpPfRVn-qQ@comcast.com, Mr. Bla at

wrote

on 2/12/05 10:56 PM:

I snipped out the majority of the text to focus on this particular point.

Do you blame mercedes when someone sets the cruise control, and reclines

the

seat to take a nap? NO! Mercedes made the car safe, and printed a good
manual. But the owner decided to ignore the creator and do what he

wanted

with his own free will. You seem to believe that all decisions are

binary

and only include the 2 choices you supply; Either God is incompetent

because

he isn't as smart as you, or there is no God.

You completely ignored Budikka's point, and thoroughly distorted it. The
mother is not at fault for this condition. Your response makes it look as

the mother is somehow at fault.

The baby in question was saved to live only through the intervention of

man

against nature. Was it God's will for the baby to die? Had the

intervention

not been successful the baby certainly would have died.

So, why did God, Who according to Psalm 139 is intimately involved in the
creation of each new life, set up this situation?

most

of which have nothing to do with your nasty insinuation of operator error
via free will. Some babies are born without parts of their brain (my

niece,

for example).

So then, explain the goodness of the situation, or else admit that you do
not know and have no answer (the honest approach). But you have no right

insinuate that the mother did anything wrong in that situation. She and

the

doctors did everything she could to *correct* the situation God had given

her.

I am a Christian. That does not mean that I can explain everything.

Indeed,

Book

of Job is quite clear. God does allow bad things to happen to good people.

As a Christian you may wish to consider actually reading the Job story
again. You state that the Lord almost completely destroyed his servant
without cause. Where exactly do you find that?

Perhaps *you* should read the Job story. Particularly 2:3 "And the Lord said
unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him
in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and
escheweth evil? And still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou
movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."
Read the Scripture. It is there.

Where do you find God
actively causing what happened to?

He takes the credit for it.

Of course you don't. The individual
responsible for the calamities that came upon Job was the person of Satan.
Because God permitted it you choose to blame him as the ultimate cause.

Sigh. If God takes the credit for it personally, don't you think *HE* sees
*HIMSELF* as the ultimate cause? And since God is Sovereign, don't you think
He sees Himself as the ultimate cause? Of course He does.
Yes, Satan moved God against Job. But God didn't have to be so moved. And
when Job complained that he was being destroyed for nothing, how did God
address him? "Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me,
that thou mayest be righteous?"
This is interesting. God never blames Satan for Job's condition. He
essentially tells Job that his condition was by His Judgment, and tells Job
to shut up. Yet God had praised the uprightness of Job to Satan.
Job ascribed what happened to him as from God. "Thou he slay me, yet will I
trust in Him." And ultimately, when rebuking Job's three friends, God
admitted that Job had said right things about Him.

One
of the most important things for a Christian to do when approaching the book
of Job is too, for a moment, look at things from God's perspective rather
than the human perspective. Ultimately what bad happened to Job? And when
I say ultimately I mean in the eternal perspective. The answer is nothing
happened bad to Job in the eternal perspective.

Of course, we are not told of the eternal condition of his children who God
allowed to be murdered for this adventure.
But the most important thing for a Christian to do when approaching the book
of Job is to actually read it.

Certainly from a physical
human standpoint these were bad things however they ultimately amount to
nothing.

Hmmm. I see. Then, if such things as death and destruction are "nothing",
why does God provide punishment for those who do them elsewhere in the
Scripture.
Now I *do* understand that there is an eternal perspective. And Romans
8:31-39 discusses this.

Look at the perspective prior to the events in the book. The Job
has a wife, a family, and possessions. It is clear that Job is a righteous
man, and it is reasonable to believe that his family also is. So when Job's
children died they were immediately in paradise.

Job was unsure of the state of his children before God, and was continually
making sacrifices on their behalf.

The Job's physical
possessions were ultimately the property of God who did give them, or
withdraw them in a moment. So the loss of his cattle, and possessions was
irrelevant. If you claim to be a Christian let me ask you this; if you
asked Job today does he believes God was righteous to have done what he did
what do you think he would say? Do you think Job would have the same
perspective as you, blaming God for the calamity? I think not. Your last
sentence of the above paragraph is important; God does allow bad things to
happen to "good people" but ultimately the reason for the bad things comes
from sin, and the action of Satan.

God claimed responsibility. And since He is above all things, Satan
included, He is right to do so. Blaming Satan is something Job did not do,
for he said, "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not
receive evil?"
And God says this in Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I
make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Job had a wish to ask God why He was doing this to him?

You don't know? Didn't you read the book? A quick skim, perhaps?
So, read the book. Why, in 10:2-3 Job says "I will say unto God, Do not
condemn me; shew me wherefore thou contendest with me. Is it good unto thee
that thou shouldest oppress, that thou shouldest despise the work of thine
hands, and shine upon the counsel of the wicked?" This theme is repeated
throughout the book.

What happened in
the end of the book when God gave him the option to ask him? Try looking at
chapter 40 starting at verse 3. When Job was given the option of
questioning it appears as though he chose to remain silent.

And why? Instead of beginning at 40:3, try starting at 40:1-2. God didn't
give him an option at all. God had already told him that questioning was
inappropriate: "Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? He
that reproveth God, let him answer it."
And God proceeded to answer Job "out of the whirlwind", demonstrating His
power and His ability to terrify. If God chose to answer you this way, even
if you were innocent of wrong as God admitted to Satan that Job was, how
would you answer? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God. Essentially, God told him to shut up. God's answer to Job was, "You
don't think I did the right thing to you? Well, where were you when I did
all this and what do you know anyway?" Of course Job didn't answer.
Really, you don't appear to know the book very well. I suggest you sit down
and parse out the book for yourself. It will take time. Job is not easy
reading, and it requires a lot more work than reading a gospel account.

There is no shame in admitting that you do not know. There is significant
shame in blaming someone for a fault that does not exist, when, seeing

that

If there's anything I should apologize for it is for not being specific
enough regarding what I meant by "sin".

You should realize that the way you put it and where you made the assertion
certainly appeared to put blame upon the mother herself as the cause of the
defect. You owe an apology for that, as well.

This was a topic that was addressed
by Jesus to the apostles in the New Testament ones. When they saw someone
with a birth defect they asked a specific question; who sinned, the person,
or his parents. Jesus is clear that it was neither the specific sin of the
person, nor the parents which caused the child to be born the way he was.
In this case the reason was so that God's power through healing could be
demonstrated.

In other words, God caused the disability so that He could heal it later.
Jesus claimed responsibility for God for the man's position. No, it isn't
comfortable. But theology isn't comfortable.

Did the mother's sin specifically cause the problem? No.
Did sin as the principal ultimately result in the birth defect?

No. Jesus claimed it was done so that God's works could be shown in him. Are
you trying to have it two ways? To say that God didn't cause it when Jesus
said that he was born blind so that the works of God might be manifest in
him?

Yes, if sin
is removed from the human equation there are no birth defects, there are no
diseases.

Next exercise: Read Psalm 139, and incorporate the idea of sin and birth
defects into the idea of "fearfully and wonderfully made", with the physical
person as a work of God.
And, perhaps you can explain how the flu virus and certain lethal bacteria
came into being? If God did not create them, how did they come into being?
Saying "sin" is not sufficient. If they were not a part of God's original
creation, then *how* did they come into being? "Sin" accounts for no
mechanism, where we know what biological mechanisms exist and what they do.
If you have a comfortable theology, it is likely that you have not thought
much about it. Much of the theology extant today is done by excising
uncomfortable passages of Scripture from consideration, or by
over-generalizing them, or by ripping Scripture out of context. The result
may look pretty, but is lacking in substance.

bla

Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	10 Feb 2005 12:53:20 AM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1107999829.612923.216920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 60

Hey, pig *****. Go kill yourself. Make Mommy and Daddy proud.
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	11 Feb 2005 06:26:48 PM

Chris Devol puked:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1107999829.612923.216920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 60

Hey, pig *****. Go kill yourself. Make Mommy and Daddy proud.

Thanks for your admission that you in your chronic impotence, cannot
refute even a single one of the evidences against god I've been
posting.
And mustn't Jesus be proud of you, loving your neighbor like that?
Budikka
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	13 Feb 2005 02:38:32 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1108168008.388986.210580@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol puked:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1107999829.612923.216920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Why There Isn't a God - Parts 56 - 60

Hey, pig *****. Go kill yourself. Make Mommy and Daddy proud.

Thanks for your admission that you in your chronic impotence, cannot
refute even a single one of the evidences against god I've been
posting.

Hey, Pig *****. You know you're gonna snuff yourself. No sense waiting. The
world is your toilet, and you're up to your neck in sewage. Take control of
your destiny and do it now, or else take the cowards way out, and suffocate
on your own waste like all your predecessors.

And mustn't Jesus be proud of you, loving your neighbor like that?

Hey, Pig *****, good call, pleading with Jesus to protect you. Let's see if
he'll clean up your mess for you, shall we?

Budikka

Kalki
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	14 Feb 2005 07:27:48 PM

Christ Deviant wrote:

Hey, Pig *****. You know you're gonna snuff yourself.

I've been speculating (along with all the other adults in the ng, I'm
sure) about your chronological age and every time I do, I have to lower
my previous guess because you post something even more dumb and
juvenile than the last turd you squeezed out, huffing and puffing with
your little face all red and screwed up at the effort.
Run along, Little Chris. You mommy needs to change your diaper again.
Budikka
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	14 Feb 2005 07:53:51 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1108430868.501910.203770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Christ Deviant wrote:

Hey, Pig *****. You know you're gonna snuff yourself.

I've been speculating (along with all the other adults in the ng, I'm
sure) about your chronological age and every time I do, I have to lower
my previous guess because you post something even more dumb and
juvenile than the last turd you squeezed out, huffing and puffing with
your little face all red and screwed up at the effort.

Run along, Little Chris. You mommy needs to change your diaper again.

Budikka

Hey, Pig *****, why you still here? Why not go to Hog Heaven, where all the
butts you sniff smell familiar? Come on, Pig *****, you know you're going to
go eventually. Why wait? Be a martyr to the cause, a hero of faithlessness,
an anti-saint to an anti-god in an anti-paradise. Go for it, Pig *****, give
it the old sty try, one last dump for posterity. Oink oink,
SooooooooEeeeeeeeee!!!!!! Can't you hear them calling your name?
Kalki
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	15 Feb 2005 04:45:07 AM

When you have something intelligent to say, by all means post. Until
then, snip! meantime I won't hold my breath waiting on signs of
intelligence to show in your underdeveloped "mind"
Budikka
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Abortion Edition	14 Feb 2005 08:17:32 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1108430868.501910.203770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Christ Deviant wrote:

Hey, Pig *****. You know you're gonna snuff yourself.