(January 9, 2016 at 5:17 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: It would be irresponsible for sin to not be punished and I agree it would be unjust for God to do so. That is why "He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." This is the great exchange and we see both God's wrath (punishment of sin) and His mercy in the same event without violating His holiness.
It is irresponsible for God to create sin when there is no need for it. See? It's all spin. It's especially all spin when the entire narrative is being driven by a being that has an infinite number of choices it could have made.
(January 9, 2016 at 5:17 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Because you're conflating the two events. The result of the person's choice is a dead person. The result of God's choice is resurrection and eternal life. The person's choice does not resurrect nor give eternal life to the child, it only sends the child to the grave.
If we know with 100% certainty how God will act*, then the person absolutely can take that into account when taking their action. Saying this isn't the case is like saying I can shoot people with a gun with impunity because I didn't kill the person; I just pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. The trigger hit the firing pin, which ignited the powder, which propelled the bullet that killed the person, but I didn't kill them. You absolutely can hold me accountable for things when I know full well what the consequences would be.
*If God doesn't do this 100% of the time, then you're worshiping an entity that arbitrarily consigns infants to torture.
(January 9, 2016 at 5:17 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I would agree that both are dispensing justice, but this is a false analogy. The multiple people acting in this situation have both been given the authority to achieve the same end. Both the judge and executioner have been given authority to dispense justice. A person having an abortion has not been given the authority to resurrect nor to give eternal life.
So, morality isn't what you do, but who does it?
(January 9, 2016 at 5:17 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: That's my point. You have to assume that the suffering of a person is without good reason in order to consider an abortion merciful under these definitions. With our limited understanding of the world and the future we can't make this assertion.
If god is all powerful, the only reason for the suffering is because God wants it. I don't consider that "good reason".
(January 9, 2016 at 5:17 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: 2) How do you know the child who would have developed that technology wasn't aborted?
If that technology is so important, why doesn't God invent it? I thought he was merciful.
(January 9, 2016 at 5:17 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: I appreciate that you don't want to put words in my mouth. I would agree with you here, that's not a good argument nor do I think it is an accurate representation of God. The reason God was justified in killing the people in the flood is clearly stated in Genesis and it's not because some of them would end up in heaven. Our modern society has no problem with the concept of mercy. We struggle to accept justice.
Again, morality isn't what you do, but who does it? That's not justice; that's some people (one entity) getting their way.
