Dr. Brown interviews Rebecca Kiesling who was conceived by rape and targeted for abortion, addressing some of the toughest pro-life questions of the day and then raising vision about our calling as believers in the world today. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Why oh why, do you want to punish the baby in the womb for the sins of the father?
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: As I literally wipe tears away from my eyes; who can put a value on the life of a child? Healthy or sick, who could put a value on the life of a little one?
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, get Heidi Baker’s life-changing new book, Birthing the Miraculous, highly recommended by Dr. Brown, along with her interview on the Line of Fire for $25! Postage Paid (US ONLY)!
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
Other Resources:
I’m not going to listen to this show because I’ve heard enough nonsense from the people who want to turn back the clock on women’s rights and impose their oppressive religious authoritarian views on women. A women’s uterus is not public property. If the anti-choice crowd really wanted to stop abortion, they’d support access to contraception and comprehensive sex education, two things that have proved to reduce unwanted pregnancies. But the anti-choice crowd opposes these things too. Why? Once you see through their phony concern for the fetus you can clearly see what the true agenda of the religious right is. People are having sex outside of marriage and enjoying it while the religious are so guilt ridden over even desiring the earthly pleasures of sex they can’t enjoy sex even inside a marriage. And so they take their frustrations out on the rest of us. It’s not abortion that makes the religious so angry. It’s the rest of us having a good time while they cannot. As is always the case with the religious, they aren’t fooling anybody but themselves.
Van,
We already know that you do not want to be confused by listening to the facts. But here is the logical argument that you should read, but I am sure that you will find every reason to stay ignorant:
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/PhilosophicalAbortionEssay.html
And you have not answered a very easy challenge to admit your error, if you have the guts, here:
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/02/11/questions-concerning-the-possibility-of-an-openly-gay-nfl-player-and-dr-brown-takes-your-questions/comment-page-2/#comment-675544
Imagine finding Van here!
Van you just proved that your position is purposely blind and foolish. You sure have a long opinion for someone who can not even listen to another side. Positive for you 42 % of people like you are doing the same thing, but a real negative for our country. God bless you, God bless America!
Jon,
Greg will be showing up soon also.
It’s a stupid argument that says the reason some people don’t want a woman to have the right to kill her unborn child is because they themselves are not satisfied sexually in their own marriage.
What stupidity!
I believe a woman should have the right to do with her body as she sees fit, and that nobody has the right to tell her what she should do as long as she’s not harming herself or anyone else.
If women believe they may freely kill what is another life in their womb simply because it’s connected to their body, and they do just that, isn’t it time that the law steps in on behalf of the unborn?
Isn’t that simply fair? What laws right now protect the unborn enough to ensure they have every fair chance to be born healthy?
I believe there are a few, but not enough. I say this because of the number of abortions that have been happening.
We don’t allow people to simply decide to kill someone just because they happen to be riding in their car do we?
And we don’t allow someone to kill another simply because they happen to be living in their house at the time do we?
Are those laws unfair? I don’t think so.
Do you suppose if we were to turn around the things we hear that don’t make much sense, that we might get closer to the truth?
Maybe it’s those that have sex outside of marriage that are not happy, and they are most often the ones who repeatedly have abortions, out of their unhappiness.
I don’t have statistics to back that up, but it seems to make more sense than some of the things I hear.
Here is why I’m pro-choice:
1) The Bible doesn’t say when life begins.
2) I don’t know when life begins.
It’s that simple.
Of course, like you guys, I have my personal opinion about abortion.
But, unlike you guys, I think it’s incredibly presumptious to use the government to force my personal opinion on women.
PS: Hi, Bo! Love you too, brother.
I know this issue is not central to the abortion debate but it is bothersome to me.
If conservative Christians are correct the vast, _VAST_ majority of people in heaven will never have accepted Jesus as their savior. They won’t even have heard of Jesus or even have experience the world.
I’ll guess that none of you have ever thought about this. IMHO, this is because, in your heart of hearts, you don’t really believe that a fertilized egg or a blastocyst is an “unborn baby.”
40% or 50% of pregnancies are aborted — the vast majority naturally. It’s how God designed the female body.
So, almost half of the human race gets into heaven by miscarriage rather than by accepting Jesus. That’s billions of people in heaven who never actually lived in the world.
It’s just wierd to think about — that’s all.
I thought comment # 8 was funny, but can you prove it?
“We don’t allow people to simply decide to kill someone just because they happen to be riding in their car do we?
And we don’t allow someone to kill another simply because they happen to be living in their house at the time do we?”
> If they are there against the car or house owners will then we most certainly do allow the car or house owner to kill them.
Van,
You have not answered me on the other thread. It is about time you do.
Greg,
If we do not know if shooting at a target painted on the side of a house will kill someone or not, because we do not know if there is anyone in it, do we in good conscience riddle the house with holes with our hunting rifles? If we do not know when life begins, do we decide to tear to pieces the unborn baby and suction their body parts out? Do we excuse those that do such things? Do we make laws protecting the people that shoot indiscriminately?
The Bible does say when life begins…with YHWH breathing into Adam and that life has been passed on to every one of his descendants. I am happy with there being billions of people in heaven, if that is the way it works. I am not happy to be to take their life and future into my hands instead of leaving it in their Creator’s hands. I am not happy with making laws that give us the supposed “right” to play god in this way. I am not happy to allow a person to judge whether someone lives or dies when they are not impartial or when they have a conflict of interest. I am not happy to murder, or even possibly murder, an innocent party for my or another’s convenience or because it might be a financial burden to me or them or, or, or.
It is too bad that you do not care enough about people to help more than their feelings.
Van,
Do we allow someone to kill a young defenseless child that happens to have found his or her way into our car or house? Is it alright to kill them because they have drooled on the seat? What if they have put their sticky hands on our windshield? It is a terrible inconvenience to have to wipe a seat or clean a windshield…isn’t it? Killing to cover our shame and for our convenience is what your atheistic and humanistic morality leads to. And you will not even admit your error on a trivial matter like Joseph being sold to the Ismaelites. I guess when the personal stakes of shame are higher you would murder to cover yourself. To bad. Read the link:
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/PhilosophicalAbortionEssay.html
And you have not answered a very easy challenge to admit your error, if you have the guts, here:
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/02/11/questions-concerning-the-possibility-of-an-openly-gay-nfl-player-and-dr-brown-takes-your-questions/comment-page-2/#comment-675544
Greg,
Of this we are sure: The Bible speaks of the baby in the womb as a real person in a number of texts, and it makes clear that God formed that child in the womb. So, go ahead and look Jesus in the eyes and tell him you support this: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm
The problem folks like Rebecca Kiesling pose for the humanistic worldview is that they are real people. I would dare Van or any other atheist to say those kind of things to this woman’s face. Basically, if anyone does this, they are telling Kiesling that she needed to die for nothing other than that she was an inconvenience. That is evil-pure and simple.
Another person Michael Brown might want to have on his program on this topic is Gianna Jessen:
http://www.giannajessen.com/
Here is a woman whose mother did abort her with a saline abortion, but she survived it. It did have an ill effect on her. I guess she walks with a slight limp because, apparently, the saline solution eliminated the oxygen in the womb, causing a portion of her brain to die. As a result, she has a form of cerebral palsy. I heard an interview with her where she actually found her birth mother, and her birth mother still even to this day hates her life.
There is very little that is more evil than abortion. The cold-blooded, cold hearted, hateful person that would even think of this is deeply in sin. However, there is forgiveness in Jesus Christ. Even as wicked an act as abortion is, the grace of Jesus Christ can cover even that sin. What breaks my heart is when I see women who do finally realize the depth of their sin, and realize that it is a human life they have taken. There is a grieving process which sets in, and there is sorrow which returns every year on the day that child would have been born. Jesus Christ forgives, but even after forgiveness there are these consequences. It breaks my heart to even hear it. May Jesus Christ forgive our nation for such cruelty and brutality, and bring us all to mourn for the evil that is done daily in these abortion “clinics.”
Greg,
At what point would it have been fine for Mary to abort Y’shua? When did His life begin? What about John the Baptist? He leaped in his mother’s womb when Mary, bearing Y’shua, came into his presence. When would Elizabeth have been wrong to abort John? The answers to these questions give us every right to prohibit abortion as it is practiced in this country.
Van, if someone is riding in your car against your will, you have the right to stop the car at the next opportunity and ask the passenger to get out, but you do not have the right to kill them, just because they are riding with you and you decide you don’t want them to.
If someone is living in your house and you do not wish them to live there, you have the right to ask them to leave, but you do not have the right to kill them simply because they were living with you but you decided that they should leave.
The police have the authority to tell them to leave, but they don’t have the right to kill them simply because they were where they were not wanted by the owner of the property, and they do have the right to use whatever force may be necessary to enforce the law, but they do not have the right to kill them just because they were abiding where they were not wanted.
Babies are not guilty of trespassing simply because they abide in a womb.
Greg, do you really want to be a just person?
It seems to me that if a man is going to be for abortion, he had better be sure that what’s inside is not a living being which is being made in the image of God.
He had best be very sure, for you wouldn’t want someone going ahead without being absolutely sure would you?
(It seems to me that the judges of Roe V Wade didn’t think this point was worth much consideration by them, as if it just wasn’t important, and this is one point where they failed to be fair judges.)
Secondly, before a man should be for abortion, shouldn’t he be very sure that the baby is guilty of some kind of crime against humanity?
What I find interesting about Van is, here is man who unfairly complained about the killing of children when the Israelites entered the land of Canaan, but now he is perfectly okay with the killing of children, so long as it is done because the child violates the personal peace of the mother. To use the trespassing argument, what if the reason that the Israelites killed these babies is because they were trespassing on their land? That isn’t the reason, but the land was given to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance. Hence, because of this, Van has no complaint about the Israelite wars. The killing of babies is perfectly acceptable when it comes to trespassing on your property. Hence, even if Van wants to rip the context of those wars from the 500 years of these babies repeatedly and in a cycle growing up to do far worse then Hitler ever thought of doing, how can he complain? I mean, God is just being pro-choice here, isn’t he?
Maybe it would do us good to think about how evil always seems to be connected somehow.
Doesn’t life get cheapened by lots of abortions?
How might a cheapening of life in a society affect how many people are killed or beaten for a pocket full of change?
I wouldn’t be surprised if abortions might have an effect upon the price of a gallon of gasoline.
Sometimes we just have to think things through and do the math.
One thing often affects another, and all sin seems to have residual fallout doesn’t it?
Sometimes people talk about a cue ball effect, where one ball is often affected by the movement of another ball, which in turn begins to move, and who knows what’s in that one’s path?
All the abortions in America seem to me to be a rather strong hit against it.
America may seem to be on the dry side of the hill right now, but the other side of the hill is green.
“The answers to these questions give us every right to prohibit abortion as it is practiced in this country.”
>No, you don’t especially since none of those supposed personages actually existed anyway. You do not have the right to force parenthood on people who don’t want it or are not ready for it and you never will. Abortion is a human tragedy and your ideas about how to solve the problem would only make matters worse. The abortion laws that previously existed in the United States were found to be unconstitutional and so they were struck down. The Court can’t go back and decide that abortion laws are all of sudden going to be constitutional. That’s not the way our system works, never has, never will. So the politicians who tell you that they can reverse the Roe decision if you elect them are lying to you. Abortion is never going to be illegal in the United States again. You would have to rewrite the entire Constitution. You have seven anti-choice judges on the bench right now. That should tell you all you need to know.
You drone on about the rights of a fetus but a child has a right to be wanted by its parents, something you Bible believers never take into consideration. You’re to worried about foisting your ideology on the rest of us to think about the consequences of your actions on real people. Something else to take into consideration is what would happen if Bible believers got their way and abortions were illegal. There are still a few nations where abortions are illegal. Between 100 and 200 women die in these countries each and every day because of botched abortions, many self-inflicted. Is that what you want to see in this country? Women have been having abortions since they’ve been having children. There’s nothing that will stop a women who really wants an abortion from having one. This is why I don’t believe this guest that Dr. Brown had when she claims she was targeted for abortion. Had her mother wanted an abortion she surely would have gotten one. None of the states were enforcing any abortion laws around the time she was born. No one from the pro-choice side would ever tell a rape victim that they shouldn’t give birth to the child. But the people on the anti-choice side have no problem telling a rape victim that she must give birth to that child. From this we see which side is tolerant of the other’s views and which is not. Christians on the wrong side of an issue, on the wrong side of history AGAIN.
What you all choose to forget is that the interview is with someone who is a real person, already born and grown. Of course they are going to proclaim no abortion in cases of rape because if that was the law, then they would not be here. Common sense and case closed.
Regarding the Bible, I realize all of you regard it as God’s infallible word to mankind. It is most certainly not that at all. I realize you have convinced yourself of your belief, but if you TRULY would seek the truth where the evidence takes you, then you would see that the Bible is just a book produced by a committee from ancient manuscripts, some of unknown authors, many with loads of factual errors, and many self-contradictions throughout. It is still a great book! It has some factual history, some great poetry, some deep ethics and moral teachings, and Jesus (if we can pinpoint his actual words) has much to say about how we should relate to our fellow man and woman, and to God. But, it is not “divine” or “divinely inspired” any more than any other so-called “holy book” of other religions. If you can’t see this truth, then you choose to live the remainder of your lives in darkness and ignorance. All the best, George.
Abortion is a very serious, but personal, moral issue. The decision to abort a pregnancy must lie with the mother and the father; they both have rights and responsibilities except in cases of incest and rape. In those cases, the mother has to sole right to decide.
It seems to me that many people spend more time and effort trying to keep a fetus alive than helping children that are actually born, but in need of help.
Once you are born, the Republicans do not want to have anything to do with you if you are poor or needy.
Millions of young children die each year around the world from a variety of illnesses, but the “pro lifers” are not very “pro” when it comes to saving the lives of these children. The hypocrisy is astounding.
We are all pro life, so those labels should be cast out. Also, citing the Bible as an authoritative reference doesn’t mean a thing to a Hindu or Buddhist. Perhaps if a woman is contemplating an abortion, she should read Hindu “holy” books, the Vedas and the Gita, or maybe the Quran. Actually, she should read any of them. She should weigh the moral aspect and practical aspects within herself and her value system and make the wisest choice she can make.
Van,
Where are you to defend your arrogant and ignorant statements here:
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/02/11/questions-concerning-the-possibility-of-an-openly-gay-nfl-player-and-dr-brown-takes-your-questions/comment-page-2/#comment-676448
Van,
Yeah…your side is tolerant of murder. Must make you feel good.
To Michael L. Brown,
Have you ever been to a special nursery for profoundly malformed babies? For example, the Holy Angels Nursery in Belmont, NC. Go take a look and see what God produced.
Have you seen still births of babies born with no head, just a brain stem? Have you seen a baby born with its twin mangled within its body.
Mercifully, almost all of these babies die very quickly.
To claim that God formed the baby in the womb, and that the fetus has personhood, is ludicrous.
So, Michael, YOU look Jesus in the eye, and say that you want to force profoundly deformed babies to be born. http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f149/deformed-babies-12216/
Van, Making abortion illegal doesn’t impose years of parenthood on anybody, though it would require the mother to take responsibility for that life that is within her womb. They may give up the child for adoption if they want.
What making abortion illegal did was protect the unborn child from being killed.
The courts may certainly make right what it has done wrong. Abortion is unconstitutional as the constitution is presently written. Judges do make mistakes. Their decisions are not always right.
One of the themes of the constitution is fairness, equity, and a balance of power.
Where is the fairness, equity, and balance of power when the unborn may be killed by one parent, the mother?
To kill a baby in the womb simply isn’t fair.
It’s not right.
One of the ten commandments is “Thou shalt not kill.” Abortion isn’t self defense and it isn’t about protecting another life from threat of being killed.
It serves no purpose except to serve a self serving desire for a life with less responsibility, or for what seems to be easier, or more comfortable, in exchange for the life of another being which is human.
What in the constitution allows for, or protects that sort of thing?
Van, Presently constitutional law requires parental responsibility of parents, and it is imposed on parents of children, by law.
Good points Ray!
While thinking about Roe v Wade, I wish those judges would have pledged allegiance to the flag, with some real conviction before they made their decision, because I was thinking we sure could have used a little more liberty and justice for all, seeing how little justice was ensured unto the unborn child, and also how so much power being given to the mother, could be used.
Shouldn’t a president be able to strike down the Roe v Wade decision by executive order?
I mean, isn’t that what the 3 branches of government is about? Isn’t that what it’s for?
Isn’t that why power was divided by the constitution? Isn’t it because if one branch makes a mistake, there can be a remedy?
I wait for the day we see our constitution used the way it was meant to be, in this situation.
> It’s frightening that someone who knows so little about our government and our laws actually has the right to vote. Not to the Republicans though. They’re counting it. I guess it goes without saying that Ms. Keisling is good evidence that Todd Akin and the other Republicans who claimed rape victims can’t get pregnant were wrong. Lot’s of people voted for these politicians. I’ll just leave it at that.
Van-
Seems like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say you ground your morals in the sanctity of life and then dismiss the sanctity of life in the womb. How very interesting!
RE Georges post below Asking Dr. Brown a question
“Have you ever been to a special nursery for profoundly malformed babies? For example, the Holy Angels Nursery in Belmont, NC. Go take a look and see what God produced.
Have you seen still births of babies born with no head, just a brain stem? Have you seen a baby born with its twin mangled within its body.
Mercifully, almost all of these babies die very quickly.
To claim that God formed the baby in the womb, and that the fetus has person hood, is ludicrous.”\
George have you ever been to a seen of a fatal car accident? To say that God allowed this tragedy to happen is related to you argument. God knows the past present and future… How could this have happened to such lovely human beings???? This subject you bring up is profoundly so in depth that a post would not suffice. I will only say that your argument while a good question, you need to seek the comprehensiveness of it.
It is ok to ask questions, I just do not think you put Dr. Brown in check mate over your lack of understanding of your question.
Sorry George for the misspelling asking you if you have ever been to the scene of an accident- not seen.
A fetus in a womb is a potential life. As long as our Constitution is in effect that fetus will never be granted rights that conflict with a pregnant woman’s rights. In this nation rights are considered as a whole like that. Abortion is a human tragedy and we all would like them to stop. However that is not going to happen. Your solution of making abortions illegal has never worked in this nation or anywhere else. All that does is make abortion dangerous and would cause much needed suffering. Obviously you don’t care. You believe in a God that intentionally created a world in which there would be a tremendous amount of needless suffering. Bible believers like you feel it is their duty to help their God make this world an even more miserable place.
> George post to Michael Brown<
So, Michael, YOU look Jesus in the eye, and say that you want to force profoundly deformed babies to be born…
I can hear on the radio right now Michael Brown to this post…
ohhhhhh ahhhhh Are you kidding me? These post never cease to amaze.
Ok George, Get ready for the day you look up at the Messiah- Michael Brown will be just fine.
Re Van posted below
> Bible believers like you feel it is their duty to help their God make this world an even more miserable place.
________________________________________________
I agree with you on a couple of points Van- Abortion is not going to be over ruled any time soon. There is not going to be a change of heart in the 42 percent of people that view the world in such a secular way as same sex rights, and family planning. And Van I also agree with you on that Christianity as a whole has contributed much to our ills of today. We have bought into the green Kool aide of the 42 percent, and this has been a turning away from the truth. We are in the disease process and need healing. We will die of our disease, and the 42 percent will continue to grow until we seek a cure. Your positions are in a very comfortable lead.
Also if you look at secular Israel the Jewish people there have supported family planning. Kerry is basing his argument today that the Jewish population will be over run in the future. Kerry is seeking a settlement now with Israel to secure today what tomorrow is the inevitable change in population in Israel. Interesting, The only solutions for me and you Van is relying on the spiritual arm of God. If we follow the 42 percent we will destroy ourselves. In the United States the majority now will also fall to our short sighted family planning. Most of us will be the minority by 2050. We can vote for gay marriage, we can vote for legalization of drugs and murder. We can also wait for the disease to manifest itself, and be destroyed. Trust in the Lord for all things. Van, I think you are starting to get it!
Van you would enjoy the debate Brown vs. Shmuley.
where if anyone does make a great argument for your side, it is Boteach. If you want to see both sides laid out well and to spark your own intellectual argument, get a hold of these DVD’s.
While any G-d fearing individual should know that abortion is sin, many Christians have spent so much energy pointing fingers at a particular political party and have failed to acknowledge, out of either ignorance or social engineering, that both Republicans and Democrats are guilty alike.
It was a Republican Supreme Court that ruled on Roe v. Wade, thus establishing the legalization of abortion as the law of the land .
Under George W. Bush’s first Presidential term, he asked the Republican run congress to present him a bill that proposes a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. The Republican congress could not get enough votes and declared that this was going too far; hence it never happened. Dr. James Dobson was honest enough to acknowledge that the Republican party, when having control of the Government, did nothing to change any important moral laws of the land. We had a Republican President, a Republican Congress, and a Republican Supreme Court – and because of their failure we now have same sex marriages continuing to rise state by state, and abortion continuing to stand as the law of the land.
Notwithstanding, I find the besmirching of the Christian fight quite baffling. While we spend so much energy slamming presidents from an opposing political persuasion, we continue to give a free pass on others based on partisan affiliations.
Seriously, we fight for abortion, but disagree because some of you have defended murders like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn. Life isn’t precious only in the womb.
Good points Brian.
And the blame I give to ourselves is from the compromise on divorce in the Christian faith-
living together before getting married-
We have not stood up for the G_dly way in our western secular lives. We have western secular thinking in our politics. The Christian church as a whole does today still compromise on Israel, on family planning, and all the politial issues. Sure there is a minority in the Christian church that stands and speaks to truth, that is why I listen to this program. Shmuley makes this arguement and it deserves merit, he is correct in what he is saying. Scmuley makes the point that now that we have such a big moral problem on our hands that we isolate one particulair group. Where was the Christian church when these problems started in the break down of values? We actually have to point to our selves that our moral issues are from the source of divorce and the damage to our society from that. From the source of decades of moral morass we have let sin grow to the complete break down of any marriage. We look hypocritical when we point to the end result, and not what started this. We are likened today as Sodom and Gomorrah, but we started out as Adam and Eve. Sin left unchecked leads to total anarchy and destruction.
Van-
So it appears that you can now define when life begin, since in the womb it is a “potential life”. Please enlighten me as to the characteristic which must be obtained to be declared life, that very thing which you claim is the grounds for your morality.
Second point, where does the constitution say that in the womb there is no life? My copy doesn’t seem to address that.
Third point, you say that we believe in a God that created a world filled with needless suffering, yet this suffering is largely a result of our free will. If free will is to be more than an illusion then the potential to use it for evil must exist. God made evil possible, man made it actual. Evil is made possible for the greater good of the benefits of free will. Would you like to relinquish your free will and freedom to have a better world? And if all free will disappears how can there be love, for true love (a great good) must be free, as forced love is a contradiction. But of course since according to your world view, love is nothing but a physiological synaptic response based on random associations spawned by evolution, perhaps it is unimportant to you.
Fifth point: Any argument that indicts the goodness of God really reduces to this:
1. An all powerful and good God would not allow evil (suffering if you will) without a good purpose.
2. My finite mind cannot personally understand what good purpose an infinite mind has for allowing suffering.
3. Therefore, God either does not exist, is not powerful enough to control evil, or is not good.
But the argument really hinges on the finite assuming it can know all the good purposes of an infinite mind and so it fails.
Assumption (1): God exists.
Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.
Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.
Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.
Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.
Premise (2): Evil exists.
Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.
Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.
Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.
Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))
Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))
Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))
Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))
Van,
You assume that there is such a thing as evil. A non-moral universe that came about by chance, or should we say, by itself being itself, has no real, ultimate evil in it. It only has existence and happenings. Time, space and matter and that is all. Thus when we are ourselves being ourselves, no matter what that entails; then we are simply existing along with, and as a corollary to, the itself being itself universe. We are not really having any choice in the matter. So evil cannot exist in a naturalistic conception of the universe. There is no real choice.
If there is any kind of evil, it is either simply and only our individual self being itself perspective about a non-moral, itself being itself, universe or it exists because a moral creator exists that has set the bounds of correct vs incorrect, right vs wrong and good vs evil. Without the latter there is no big, ultimate, real evil.
If evil is only our perspective because of ourselves being ourselves, we have no right to use the concept as a determining factor as to whether a moral creator exists. We have no reason to argue for or against the idea of a creator or universal morality. But in this itself being itself universe we would only argue about such things because we are ourselves being ourselves. And there is no purpose, or anything to be gained in reality, concerning evil being lessened either now or later, but and only that we might have more of our personal preferences brought upon us, which cannot be real good or evil (because neither really exist), in universal reality.
But if we do have some kind of choice, that we got it in an itself being itself universe is an absurdity, then each one of us has a different idea about what is evil and whether or not we will participate in it to varying degrees.
If we choose to do that which we think is evil, then we are the creators of this small kind of hypothetical evil. As long as we never do anything that we think is evil, there is no actual or hypothetical evil. The ability to choose only produces evil when it is acted upon.
If we only and always do not participate in that which we think is evil (In my experience, this would mean that we think that by virtue of us doing it, it is good.) or if we have justifications about when certain things are evil in our personal circumstances, we cannot claim that evil is anything except what we personally do not prefer at the moment. Evil proves itself to be only the arbitrary and capricious whims of billions of non-moral beings that have made themselves out to be gods that have determined what is good and evil for themselves.
If everyone determines evil for himself, none of us has any universal right (Rights come from idea that we do not deserve to have real evil done to us.) to punish or retaliate against any atrocity committed by another one of these self-made gods because there is no real/universal evil. And so with evil only existing in the mind of the beholder, anarchy is the only logical and consistent outcome…if there is no real evil.
In this itself being itself universe, there is nothing that morally distinguishes between someone rescuing a drowning man from someone holding the man’s head under water, because there is no real evil just personal evil. The drowned man, only from his personal perspective, has had his concept of evil done to him…though now he does not know it and this evil does not exist anymore because he doesn’t exist anymore…or does he?
An itself being itself universe has no preferences. It does not live or know or feel. It has no conscience or perception. Now if real evil, or at least bigger and more universal evil than our individual, personal evil exists outside of our conception of it, it must be exist because of a bigger personal preference and/or a more powerful personal preference holder.
An outside owner of humanity or the universe, or both, must have created evil or at least determined what evil is on purpose or maybe, and I think so, by Himself being Himself. This kind of evil would seem like just another set of arbitrary and capricious whims of another self-made god to anyone that did not think that such a large or important or powerful, universe owning, being existed. Government, of some kind, is the materialist’s only option for a bigger preference holder. In true socialism, which is the outworking of a form of inconsistent atheist thought that is accepted for the sake of protection from or manipulation of other larger conglomerate selves (like banks and corporations and churches…not to mention the masses themselves), the state becomes a higher preference holder, but usually those at the top of the pyramid are the real gods that force their view of morality upon the masses. So these types of conglomerates become slightly larger selves determining good and evil, but still with no real basis to do so in materialistic thought. It is still arbitrary in the grand scheme of the itself being itself universe…except a materialistic universe cannot have a scheme…it just is itself being itself.
To be continued below:
Continued from above:
If there is no universe owner that is Himself being Himself, then there is no universal evil to be reckoned with. In this case we have no truly unambiguous concept of good and evil for us to participate in or to have foisted upon us or even to discuss. If there is this Himself being Himself universe owner, His view of evil is real evil…at least to us. Anything that does not line up with Himself being Himself in His universe is a rebellion.
If we have Billions of selves participating in this rebellion by being themselves instead of living as intended by the Himself, then we must determine if Himself, being Himself, would simply eliminate the evil by destroying all these small selves or not.
What if the Himself, as owner of this universe does not wish any of the little selves to perish? What if He knows that the evil is only temporary and small compared to the eternal evil that comes to all selves when they die in rebellion? What if He loves all selves and only allows a certain amount of evil to come about for a small amount of time before He, in His wisdom, removes the evil and the selves committed to the evil? What if it seems like too much evil for too much time to many of the small selves? What if there is a way for little selves to have the evil removed from them individually that the Himself offers for free?
What if the little selves do not want the evil removed from themselves? What if there is a certain temporal addictive pleasure in what the Himself calls evil? What if these small selves that are being themselves against the Himself’s wishes are so concerned with their own idea of evil, and so addicted to personal pleasure that comes from real evil, that they accuse the Himself, that is only being Himself, of being evil or inconsistent or imperfect? What if these little selves that are being themselves for themselves cannot bring themselves to concede that there is a real Himself because they do not want any self but themselves?
Why are we having this conversation about evil with a self that is being himself for himself because he believes that he is a miniscule part of a universe that is nothing more than an itself being itself which has nothing to say about evil and that evil cannot really exist in? Why is this self being himself for himself not smart enough to realize that to be consistent with his view of reality that there is no real evil and allow us to have our own conversations with ourselves without him accusing us of being evil?
Why? Because he is a little self being himself for himself and refuses to live out the logical conclusion of his belief and does not really want to live a life in a world that does so either. He takes full advantage of the ability to choose that an, itself being itself, universe could never provide and shakes his fist in the face of the Himself that is being Himself that has so graciously allowed him be free to choose by allowing that evil could happen if that is what he chooses. This little self being himself for himself does not really want real evil to end for he knows that that would be the end of himself getting to be himself for himself.
I am that I am (more literally: I will be what I will be) is the Himself being Himself. Part of Him being Himself is allowing us to rebel against Him. Allowing us to love Him or not. Allowing us choose knowing Him or being our own gods. That is what the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are. We have all chosen the latter tree. The evil that this brings upon our world is of our own doing, but it is His responsibility to make it right. We can still choose to ultimately eat from the tree of life.
The real problem with real evil existing if there is an all knowing, all powerful, and loving Creator is not that evil is allowed to exist at all, but only if it will be allowed to exist forever. The woman in labor does not want the suffering, but is very happy when her child is born. The suffering and evil are worth it, if it produces something much better and happier and fulfilling than the other option. The other option is a bunch of robots. The idea of an itself being itself universe could only produce mechanization and not real selves. If there is no real evil, there is no real Divine Creator. If there is real evil, there is no such thing as the materialist’s view of only matter, space and time.
The problem of the existence of evil is the materialist’s problem, not the YHWH believer’s problem. So, let’s be ourselves for Himself instead of for ourselves.
Matthew 16
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Van, if you want something better…something that will make the suffering of this life worth it and pleasures of sin worth shunning, then lose your life and start really living.
Shalom
Hello guys — yes, it’s a laydee weighing in!
Greg has an excuse for not being clear about when life begins, because he hasn’t ever been pregnant. So let me enlighten you. Unless a woman is frantically trying to get pregnant, she isn’t necessarily tracking her hormonal cycle, even if she has a vague idea that she’d like a baby soon. So, many ladies do not realise that they are pregnant for a while. This is especially likely if it is an unplanned pregnancy, or if the lady has given up trying to get pregnant. In my case, I do not get morning sickness, so I had no idea I was expecting at all.
Once a woman has taken her little test and seen the blue lines, she needs to see someone about it, whatever her feelings about the baby. She will need some medical advice, whether to book a scan or an abortion. By this time, she could be several weeks along.
Have you seen a baby that is 12, 14, 16 weeks old? I have, and boy, was it a shocker!
My baby was a baby, with all sorts of identifiable human features — and he wouldn’t keep still — the personality was in place, right from the start! All through my pregnancy, he kept dancing and also dodging away from the hand-held ultrasound — I saw a doctor chasing after my baby as he moved around the womb to get away from the sound waves. He is eleven years old now, and he is just like Tigger, on springs, jumpin’ around and full of beans.
Thanks to the invention of this Window into the Womb, we can’t keep making the excuse that there isn’t life there. We might decide that this or that life is dispensable, but that’s different. In Europe, euthanasia is legal; in the UK hospitals were secretly starving old people and disabled babies to death. There was no suggestion that these people were not human — it was just overlooked for a variety of reasons.
I think that it does not make much difference whether abortion is legal or not, because if I don’t want one I won’t ask for one. Abortion should be horrifying, unthinkable, and then it need not be made illegal.
PS To the point about unborn babies in heaven. The implication in that post was that the babies would not be accepted into heaven as they did not pass the ‘test’ of believing in Christ. I don’t know about you, Greg, but I know that I don’t deserve to be in heaven. My record isn’t so great, you know. Thankfully, God’s standards are REALLY LOW — and I’m the proof!
I wouldn’t worry about the lost little ones. They have found a Father who loves them.
Just because someone will end up in heaven when they die does not make it right to kill them.
Or even OK to kill them.