Does the moral requirement not to kill innocent people require explanation? If so, what would it be? If you say that God has commanded us not to kill innocent people, what is His explanation for why he gave such a command. (The Bible does seem to include commands to kill innocent people, see I Sam. 15:3 as an example). Can he justify the Sixth Commandment? If so, how? If he can't, is his commandment invalid?
One response to this would be to ask "Are you saved? If you were, why would you dare ask such a question?" I find that the more I understand why something is wrong, the easier it is for me to avoid doing what is wrong.
30 comments:
If you say that God has commanded us not to kill innocent people, what is His explanation for why he gave such a command.
The historical Christian explanation is that all men are created in the image of God and are kept in being by God alone. And so only God has the right to determine when an innocent person will die.
Certainly God willed the deaths of certain people, but that doesn't mean they were innocent.
There is a distinction between "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not murder"
Here is I Samuel 15:3
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Children and infants. Opponents of abortion, when challenged by the fact that they support justifiable homicide in a range of cases, cite what I call the Innocence Rule. Those we are allowed to kill are guilty of some offense or threat against us (enemy combatants, attackers, capital criminals) while fetuses are innocent are have committed no offense. But Amalekite babies are targeted by Samuel's order from God to kill everyone, and therefore it doesn't seem as if Scripture supports the Innocence Rule as robustly as one might initially have thought.
If we say that Amalekite babies deserve death because they are Amalekites, and their ancestors committed a crime against Israel (which is what the text says), then we don't have a successful argument that fetuses today are similarly innocent, unless we give up the doctrine of Original Sin.
It seems you are ignoring this:
And so only God has the right to determine when an innocent person will die.
Unless you want to argue that women seeking abortion are on a mission from God.
And if anyone is arguing that, then I'd have to ask "exactly which god was she listening to?"
Could it be....
In Phoenix over the weekend: Students of Victor's?
Not everyone who is pro-choice holds such a preposterously deflationist view of the fetus.
So, killing an innocent person can be justified only with a direct divine command, such as wht Saul got from Samuel.
A person might become convinced that in getting an abortion, particularly if they are doing it out of love for the fetus that they are obeying, not defying, the second of the Great Commandments. Mind you, they might be wrong.
The Son of Sam thought he was talking to God also.
Let me get this straight. Are you seriously arguing, as a believing Christian, that there is some sort of moral parallel between a prophet of ancient Israel receiving and transmitting a message from God and some person actually believing God is telling them to love their offspring by murdering them? Really?
I've read a lot about the reasons women get abortions, but that's one that escaped all the articles I've read.
The historical Christian explanation is that all men are created in the image of God and are kept in being by God alone. And so only God has the right to determine when an innocent person will die.
Isn't this argument invalid? The premise can be true and the conclusion false.
I don't follow.
There is no argument.
1) All men are created in the image of God and are kept in being by God alone.
2) So (a conclusion indicator) only God has the right to determine when an innocent person will die.
That's an argument.
OK. The conclusion is an implied, that being the commandment against murder.
However, the argument is sound. People can and do intentionally kill other people illegitimately but just means they've violated a commandment.
But you avoided my question.
What I was thinking of was a loving parent believing that, given their unborn child's health prospects, the most loving thing to do would be to abort the child. To call this murder would be to beg the question against this mother. A parent is told that the child faces a short and tortuous existence if she carries the pregnancy to term. She can get an abortion and, (she thinks) send the child to the arms of Jesus now, or carry the child to term and put it through a few months of torture before dying anyway. I can see a mother praying about this and deciding that she is doing God's will by aborting the fetus. And while she might be mistaken, she would not be in the grip of some kind of Son of Sam delusion.
You put this entire post in the context of Samuel and Saul. This is not anything like that is it?
A parent is told that the child faces a short and tortuous existence if she carries the pregnancy to term.
First, abortion itself is a torturous death that normal people wouldn't wish on their worst enemy. I assume if a Dr told a parent that their child was ill and was suffering and so the best thing to do would be to rip the child limb from limb and crush his skull, the parent would call a cop (I hope). An ethical Dr would explain how to keep the child comfortable until the child would naturally die.
Second, if God's commandment is against intentionally killing an innocent human being and one does so, then one is breaking God's commandment. God has allowed us to be surrounded by people suffering all the time in this world. Perhaps it is so some people will have a chance to display the charity of God for those suffering and for others to experience that charity and thereby the love of God.
What Christian Church teaches it is better to kill those suffering so they may be with Jesus?
According to act utilitarianism, an act is good if it maximizes the total balance of pleasure over pain. (Notice dead or alive doesn't count--just pain and pleasure). If God is a utilitarian, then lit seems likely that God would regard it as the bounded duty before Him to get an abortion in many cases, in the name of Jesus. To love someone is to maximize their happiness. Since Jesus says that the commandment to love your neighbor was yourself is more fundamental than the Ten Commandments, if it is the loving thing to do to someone is to kill them, then your duty to kill them outweighs the Exodus commandment not to kill them. "
This might be the argument a Christian could use.
To love someone is to maximize their happiness.
I guess everyone will be maximally happy when they are in the arms of Jesus and so we should all do what Jesus taught us to do. Buy as much ammo as possible and gun down Christians.
They must have been reading the Sinister Translation of John 15:13.
Greater love has no one than this: to gun down one’s friends.
WHY Christians don't believe this takes some explanation. But the context here is a situation in which a child, if born, will endure a life of unbearable misery, where they won't have the maturity to understand the redemptive significance of their suffering.
I was thinking of cases like this.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/26/abortion-late-term-donald-trump-column/92691850/
WHY Christians don't believe this takes some explanation.
Why this "Christian" who supposedly does understand redemptive suffering (a pastor no less) takes a lot more explanation.
Her story sounds phony to say the least and probably politically motivated. She decided to save the child from a moment of excruciating pain (no explanation of the condition) he was bound to suffer after birth by ripping him to pieces (while alive and conscious) in the womb and crushing his skull to pulp? Please. If it's true, it's Satanic.
Unless the danger to her was a danger to her life. Then the mother's life exception would obtain according to most laws. But of course the child has no sense of the redemptiveness of the suffering he would have experienced.
What is more, you seem to be taking Trump's description of late-term abortions literally. This has been questioned.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2016/10/20/no-late-term-abortions-dont-rip-babies-out-of-wombs-but-they-are-needed/?sh=1a050a5e5cf8
I'm worried about the mercy killing justifications for abortions in virtue of the fact that you could end up justifying abortions because someone might be mentally or physically handicapped.
What I don't buy are across the board attempts to demonize abortion. Yes, there are women who get abortions for careless reasons. But some get them in response to gut-wrenching dilemmas.
Like I said, her story sounds phony. No description of the development issue or of any specific danger to her. Regardless, if she had a late term abortion it was most probably a D&E as described here. Bringing up Trump is an orange herring as always.
But of course the child has no sense of the redemptiveness of the suffering he would have experienced.
So what? Does your theology demand the recipients of grace sense it or it doesn't count?
What I don't buy are across the board attempts to demonize abortion.
Abortions are demonized because they are murder. But worse than that, they are the murder of someone who has no defense and relies completely on the murderer. It may be gut-wrenching for someone to kill an abusive spouse, but no one thinks the murderer shouldn't be arrested. How much more time should the murderer get for killing a spouse because it would mean she would have to drop out of school for a while. So much for redemptive suffering.
Of course all of this pish-posh about Christians loving their neighbor so much they kill them "so it's not really murder" sounds extremely silly (if not demonic). I think abortion defenders agree with the "Fetus=nice snack" protester regardless of protestations to the contrary. They don't think it's murder because the unborn are something other than selfish human beings like themselves.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/07/amy-butler-firing-riverside-church-harassment.html
There is always a more humane, compassionate and caring answer than abortion...Real healthcare saves lives. Real compassion doesn't kill!
Present-day abortionists induce fetal demise before removing the fetus.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf
To "induce fetal demise" is just a euphemism for killing the offspring. Something pro-abortionists are forced to use since normal people recoil when they are told what goes on in plain and descriptive language. In this case it means injections that cause a heart attack in the offspring. Not an enjoyable experience and something you would do to someone you loved.
There is also no evidence how often this is done or not done. There is an incentive to not kill the offspring first by injection since that spoils organ harvesting:
5. Planned Parenthood knows that if they do abortions without killing the baby first with Digoxin, the baby might be born alive. But they do it anyway, to obtain the best quality specimens.
Regardless, Amy had her abortion in the 90's, so not present day. But I doubt it matters to her or any other pro-abortionist. The goal is to get rid of him.
BTW, here is a working link: https://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf
This woman is in AZ. Wonder if Victor knows her.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/abortionist-describes-strength-needed-for-de-abortion-i-have-to-hit-the-gym/
bmiller,
To "induce fetal demise" is just a euphemism...
No, it's a pretty straightforward statement, that says exactly what it means.
Post a Comment