Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Kill the suffering babies



I can sympathize with the speechless, deer-in-the-headlights-looking lady as Virginia Ironside expresses her views on abortion.  God help us if this becomes the outspoken view of abortionists worldwide.  Of course, we've all heard that unwanted pregnancies are akin to "suffering" on behalf of the mother as well as a "suffering" child who might grow up living in the slums.  In both cases, the child is better off dead (according to abortionists).  To my utter shock, Ironside takes it a step further and would willingly kill a child outside of the womb.  The reason why this is a shock to me is because abortionists typically view children as human when their location is outside of the womb.  Of course, this makes no sense, which is why I think Ironside is a consistent abortionist.

This is what materialistic atheism leads to when it becomes consistent.  Children, whether inside the womb our outside, are nothing but bags of cells.  So why not put a pillow over their face when they have been diagnosed with a disease or mental illness?  Why not take it a step further and kill them when they act up in school?  Or maybe you lose your job and can no longer afford to feed this bag of cells; so drown it in the bathtub?

How consistent will unbelievers become?  I fear it will grow worse as God lifts His hand of restraint from them as they grow in their hatred of their Creator and Lord.

“So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” (Ephesians 4:17-18)

“To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both the mind and their conscience are defiled.” (Titus 1:15)

6 comments:

Chris said...

When I interviewed Sye on my show, he said he was thankful unbelievers don't act consistently, and I share that thankfulness. But yes, they do appear to be in increasing number acting consistent with their false world view, and it's terrifying and saddening.

Rey Discomfort said...

"How consistent will unbelievers become? I fear it will grow worse as God lifts His hand of restraint from them as they grow in their hatred of their Creator and Lord."

How do unbelievers came to hate something they don't believe in?

How is this consistent with "materialistic atheism".

Does a consistent biblical christian picket the funerals of dead soldiers holding signs that say "God Hates Fags"?

Didn't Jesus say (in matthew) that anyone who curses their parents should be put to death? Should a consistent Christian consider enforcing this command?

Rey Discomfort said...

Btw, I didn't bother responding to what Ironside said because I strongly disagree with her statements.

The Apologetic Front said...

How do unbelievers came to hate something they don't believe in?

Don't shoot the messenger. Its what Romans 1 teaches. You don't have to agree with me, because if you did, you'd be a Christian!

How is this consistent with "materialistic atheism"

Because if all we are is atoms banging around, then what is "wrong" with killing a complex bag of atoms (i.e. babies)?

Does a consistent biblical christian picket the funerals of dead soldiers holding signs that say "God Hates Fags"?

Nope, not one bit. Such goes against everything that Jesus Christ taught and is completely purposeless. The Bible never calls us to tell gays that God hates them and to protest the funerals of dead soldier who aren't even gay in the first place.

Didn't Jesus say (in matthew) that anyone who curses their parents should be put to death? Should a consistent Christian consider enforcing this command?

Chapter and verse please?

And why do you disagree with Ironside? Doesn't she have a right to create her own morality and do whatever makes her feel better even if that means smothering babies?

Rey Discomfort said...

[1] Obviously, but, I don't view the Bible as an inerrant word of God -- for obvious reasons that I've been over before --

[2] Let's assume that we're all just atoms banging around and that you could do anything you wanted e.g., killing, stealing, torturing, etc., none are productive i.e., we (you, me, i, them, us, etc.,) have nothing to gain by doing so; there are plenty of other species of animals that are possibly ignorant (I say possibly because I'm ignorant to what the bible has to say about this) to "absolute morality" yet display no desire to butcher their own species because they can i.e., it's not productive, it doesn't help anybody and contributes nothing to anyones overall happiness.

One thing I do recognize, is suffering -- and personally, that's all that really matters to me.

Abortion: If it was proven (i.e., evidence suggests) that an embryo was capable of feeling pain e.g., suffering, then I'd be wholly against, abortion (suffering).

Also, not all atheist cling onto this materialist worldview you have a habit of trying to get to stick; i'm very open to the possibility of an Creator, moral truths etc., just not the Christian God (or any other theistic God), not because I choose hate, dislike or am angry with a God that I don't believe exist, but, because a literal interpretation of The Bible cannot account for [1] age of the earth [2] evolution by means of natural selection.


[3] My understanding is that the Phelps choose to protest the soldiers funerals not because they're gay, but, because they fight for a country that allows sin to permeate.

[4]
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die Matthew 15:14

The Apologetic Front said...

2) Whether its productive or not says nothing as to whether its right or not. People do "unproductive" things all the time. Apparently, Stalin thought his actions were productive. What is there to gain? You'd have to ask the murderers. I agree that it is wicked and wrong. But what does "productive" and "helping others" mean in a raw, god-less universe?

As to suffering, why would pain have anything to do with it? Are you suggesting that its ok to murder someone as long as they don't feel pain?

I'm glad that you are open to a non-materialistic universe. But even so, what would such do for your morality? A deist god could care less if you murder babies. In fact, maybe this god would want you to? Who knows. But in reality, whether it is materialistic or metaphysical, this doesn't help the case unless you can provide an objective basis for morality.

3) You are right about Phelps, which make absolutely no rational sense. I'm sure you'd agree with me. If Phelps could show me how his actions are consistent within a biblical worldview, then I might give it a second thought.

4) Its actually Matthew 15:4, but just because Jesus is quoting a law/punishment that is under the Mosaic covenant doesn't mean that its applicable today. But even if it is applicable today, it could only be so within a theocracy. Some Christians would like to push for this, and they scare me.