A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

[Atothetheist]

What if you replace the Tycoon with God? Does that change things?

Putting God into a hypothetical that violates his nature is a logical incoherency akin to saying that 'hypothetically if bachelors were married...'. God cannot make coercive deals if Mary were to kill herself. God is defined by his nature and it limits the things he can do.

More fun is the fact that you likely think this is analogous to the doctrines of redemption, incarnation, resurrection, and the trinity. If so, it seems you fundamentally misunderstand Christianity. It would be interesting to see if you could articulate why redemption was necessary, actually accurately describe the incarnation, and what it technically accomplished. It seems to me that if one claims to be a thoughtful atheist, one must be able to accurately describe the core belief of the world's largest and most influential religion don't you think? Whether you think there is a God or not, Jesus was the most influential person in all of human history and it would be difficult to even suggest a second because of the gap. Can you do it?

You keep drawing back curtains for "Gotchas!" that don't exist. However, it seems I struck some sort of a nerve. I wasn't going to draw the comparison of the death and resurrection of Jesus. I was merely probing into whether or not your objective morality is limited when it comes to God. In fact, you answered the opposite way about. Instead you argue that God could not go against his nature. Let me highlight something:

All "offers" and commands God makes, by virtue of the immense power imbalance, are coercive. 

A more oblique inspiration for the hypothetical was when God had Gabriel tell mother Mary (the name should have given you a clue) that she would conceive a child. I stuck with the suicide angle because I didn't want to confuse you further. In the story, it isn't an offer. Its a summary of what *will* happen. She agrees to it after the fact, but what was she going to really do? Say "no" to God? Not even you would dare.

You bring up and interesting question: Can God kill himself? If he can't directly do it, can he through intermediaries? Would it be against his very nature?

How do you determine what is against his very nature? Does he tell you?

But fine, I'll try my hand at your game. Understand, I was raised Catholic, so most of my Christian understanding comes from that particular fabric of the cloth.

Redemption: necessary because humanity's nature (as a result of the fall) is fundamentally sinful. Through the death and subsequent resurrection of Christ, a path towards redemption is possible. Humanity, without Jesus, struggles to live up to "godliness" and to live up to God's commandments. The death of Christ opens the opportunity for humanity to be cleansed from their sins and redeem their nature through Jesus.

Incarnation: The Incarnation is when God became (human) flesh through the birth of Jesus. As a consequence, God is both Divine and Human. Its important to note that Jesus is not a demigod, but rather fully God and fully Human. Without the incarnation, Christ could not die (via crucifixion but method probably not necessary), and therefore could not (through his death) redeem humanity and open a path towards salvation.

On a minor, personal note, I don't believe Jesus is the most influential person even in Christianity. If that were the case, we'd likely see a Christianity that might be unfamiliar to most. Primarily because we don't actually know what he said or did, only what other people (with their own lens and goals) say he said or did. I would consider Paul to be the most influential person in Christianity (and subsequently the world), considering that he (and anonymous writers) speak on behalf of Jesus.

[Dānu]

Before 1840 abortion was a widespread, largely stigma-free experience for American women. During that period, the American legal system used the quickening doctrine from British common law to decide the legality of abortion. Quickening occurred when the pregnant woman could feel the fetus move, typically between the fourth and sixth month of pregnancy. This was the only sure way to confirm pregnancy; before this time, any fetus was considered only a potential life. Women most often used herbal concoctions they had learned from other women, healers, or physicians to cure their “obstructed menses” before quickening. Post-quickening abortion was a crime, but only a misdemeanor. Some historians have suggested that laws against post-quickening abortions were primarily intended to protect the health of the pregnant woman—not fetal life—as it was much more common for women to die during abortions that used instruments rather than herbal abortifacients. Whatever the rationale, few abortions were prosecuted before the mid-nineteenth century because quickening was so difficult to prove. Only women themselves could testify to fetal movement.

This system of legal but quiet abortions fell apart in the mid-nineteenth century. The first “right-to-life” movement was not led by grassroots activists, but rather physicians, anxious about their professional status. Before then, physicians had been a largely unregulated bunch, without the institutional or cultural authority to corner the market on healing. In the early nineteenth century, a variety of other healers competed with physicians for business, especially the business of women’s reproductive healthcare. While many physicians believed that scientific medicine would benefit their patients, some, in order to hurt lay healers’ business, sought governmental licensing and regulation to weed out the competition. Physicians used anti-abortion laws, pushed in state legislatures, to increase their own stature and undermine their opponents.[1]

Of course, many would have narrated this story very differently. Some physicians claimed that this campaign was a product of superior medical knowledge. Many argued that women (and rag-tag group of healers who offered abortion) did not have adequate embryonic knowledge to determine when life began. But historians have noted that this medical insight was not a result of any advancements in embryonic knowledge. In fact, there were none during these campaigns.[2] Instead, the fetus was merely a stand-in for a broader cultural project. Here, the movement tapped into concerns over women’s increasing education, autonomy, and the extension of rights, as it reasserted women’s connection to and limitation by their own reproductive anatomy. Women’s bodies, not their words or actions, confessed to doctors the “naturalness” of uninterrupted reproduction and the “truth” about fetal life.[3] Bodily processes could “speak for themselves,” though they did need doctors to translate.

This effort largely succeeded. By 1900 every state had a law forbidding abortion at any stage, whether through the use of drugs or procedures. Almost all the laws passed during this time included a therapeutic exception, where licensed physicians could provide abortions at their own discretion as long as the abortion preserved the life of the mother. While this loophole allowed many women to obtain abortions, it also made doctors the ultimate arbiters of the morality and legality of abortions. These laws also created a large black market for women who could not access or obtain abortions through medical channels.

There was not much of an antiabortion movement between 1900 and 1965 because the state did its work. Police, courts, and lawmakers prosecuted abortionists and harassed women who procured the procedure. [4] But in the 1960s, some Americans began to demand change from their states. In 1959 the American Law Institute, a group of professionals that put together model legislation, advocated for the liberalization of abortion law. They suggested that the law should make exceptions for women who were raped, whose fetuses were deformed, and whose mental or physical health was at stake. The abortion reform movement was made possible by a larger cultural shift in Americans’ ideas about reproduction and abortion. In the 1960s Americans witnessed the heartbreak of infant death and extreme fetal deformity. Thalidomide, a sleeping pill, caused thousands of birth defects in Europe and the United States. Later, an outbreak of German measles produced thousands of stillbirths and cases of babies born with major abnormalities. Images of white middle-class women and their deformed infants peppered American media, capturing the imaginations and parental fears of many Americans. [5] In the late 1960s a nascent feminist movement began to argue that women could not be full citizens unless they could control reproduction. Together these shifts helped push state legislatures to reform their abortion laws. Colorado was the first to amend its law in 1967, followed quickly by others, most famously California in 1967 and New York in 1970.

In the midst of states’ efforts at abortion reform, the modern antiabortion political movement was born. Small groups of Catholic doctors, nurses, lawyers, and housewives joined together to oppose liberalization. In 1967 the National Council of Catholic Bishops aided their campaigns with support, money, and the formation of the National Right to Life Committee. Early Catholic activists were often joined by a handful of non-Catholics, usually Protestants, Mormons, or Orthodox Christians. Supporters of abortion reform argued that “right-to-life” forces were attempting to push Catholic values on a diverse American populace, and consequently many antiabortion groups worked to present themselves as ecumenical or non-denominational. Most of these early groups failed to stop changes in their state’s abortion law but they did have some successes in the early 1970s, suggesting that not every state was ready for abortion reform.[6]

Organization of American Historians || Abolishing Abortion: The History of the Pro-Life Movement in America

[Dānu]

It's not a scientific fact.

Human life can't begin at conception because to do so first it would have to not be alive, All the cells of the mother are alive and from this some of them go on to form a foetus. So there is no beginning. It's a process. Human life never began, it evolved.

And you can't point to the moment a unique genetic identity is also formed because many different changes occur to your DNA throughout your life time.

Easily fixed: A particular human's life begins at conception.

This points to the central problem with this. Are we talking life, a particular life, human life, life as in there is a being -- the phrase itself is overloaded with meanings, none of which indicates clearly what is meant. Depending upon what is actually meant, it may not even be a scientific question. In my experience, the meaning shifts regularly in discussions of abortion, resulting in equivocations. The central question in my mind is, is it 'life' in the same sense that a birthed person is clearly human life, the answer to which is no.

Btw, your fix doesn't work. We could go down the rabbit hole of essences and identity, but it's sufficient to note that the identity of the individual is not complete at this stage.

[AutisticWill]

Easily fixed: A particular human's life begins at conception.

...

Btw, your fix doesn't work.  We could go down the rabbit hole of essences and identity, but it's sufficient to note that the identity of the individual is not complete at this stage.

Cold. Dānu doesn't let this guy go home alive.....

[Deesse23]

Well, that's a scientific fact so it is unclear why the Bible would have to be clear about it.

P2. Human life begins at conception (scientifically established)

Consequently, due to the sanctity of human life (Steves words, not mine), every woman needs to be examined every 4 weeks (or so) for new human life that needs your protection. Not doing so would be involuntary manslaughter and would need to be punished accordingly.

[AutisticWill]

Well, that's a scientific fact so it is unclear why the Bible would have to be clear about it.

P2. Human life begins at conception (scientifically established)

Consequently, due to the sanctity of human life (Steves words, not mine), every woman needs to be examined every 4 weeks (or so) for new human life that needs your protection. Not doing so would be involuntary manslaughter and would need to be punished accordingly.

lock 'er up.

chattel solved.

[AutisticWill]

Putting God into a hypothetical that violates his nature is a logical incoherency akin to saying that 'hypothetically if bachelors were married...'. God cannot make coercive deals if Mary were to kill herself. God is defined by his nature and it limits the things he can do.

More fun is the fact that you likely think this is analogous to the doctrines of redemption, incarnation, resurrection, and the trinity. If so, it seems you fundamentally misunderstand Christianity. ...

You keep drawing back curtains for "Gotchas!" that don't exist. However, it seems I struck some sort of a nerve. I wasn't going to draw the comparison of the death and resurrection of Jesus. I was merely probing into whether or not your objective morality is limited when it comes to God. In fact, you answered the opposite way about. Instead you argue that God could not go against his nature. Let me highlight something:

All "offers" and commands God makes, by virtue of the immense power imbalance, are coercive. 

A more oblique inspiration for the hypothetical was when God had Gabriel tell mother Mary (the name should have given you a clue) that she would conceive a child. I stuck with the suicide angle because I didn't want to confuse you further. In the story, it isn't an offer. Its a summary of what *will* happen. She agrees to it after the fact, but what was she going to really do? Say "no" to God? Not even you would dare.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw.................................

I wanted a gold star for figuring out Atothetheist's analogy before Stevo did.

but i fail. T.T

[Mathilda]

It's not a scientific fact.

Human life can't begin at conception because to do so first it would have to not be alive, All the cells of the mother are alive and from this some of them go on to form a foetus. So there is no beginning. It's a process. Human life never began, it evolved.

And you can't point to the moment a unique genetic identity is also formed because many different changes occur to your DNA throughout your life time.

Easily fixed: A particular human's life begins at conception.

But you keep saying it's a scientific fact as if we're supposed to be impressed by such a phrase. It's your subjective opinion that life begins at conception. It's not a scientific fact. At most it could be called a scientific opinion but it could just as easily be argued against with equal validity.

Science doesn't state as fact that life begins at conception and neither does your Bible. So why is it so important to you to think that it does?

Because the concept of evolutionary fitness also applies to ideologies. An ideology that forces the birth rate higher means that it can grow in population size and out compete other ideologies. It's why Catholicism is anti-contraception. It's why Nazis brought in Lebensborn and why white supremacists are motivated by the white replacement conspiracy theory. It's why republicans bring in anti-trans bathroom bills and why they are against gay marriage. And it's why you prioritise the sanctity of life over quality of life. It all stems an evolved instinct of men to proliferate their own genes and not let them be replaced by those of other men.

Your so-called objective morality stems from an evolved instinct that has collectively manifested itself as a political ideology.

[OakTree500]

Can't recall if I've already replied here, so apologies if so -

Mini story time: I'm a guy, 35 years old. My mother is currently 52. Doing the math there, she was 17 when I was born. And that also overlaps a bit as she was 16 when pregnant.

Where this comes in for me: Even though things were slightly different then, Abortion was still 100% an option. Am i glad she didn't do that? Of course I am. But thats because I'm a fully grown adult. I have kids of my own as well. HOWEVER, to be that age and in a relationship [which she was, it wasn't anything bad] and to have this thrust upon you - the choice is a hard one to make and I would honestly completely understand if she had chosen to not go through with having a baby at all. Thats possibly odd to say/read because its.....me, but at the same time a woman's body is her choice.

NOW - personally, I belive if you are having a baby and there are no major issues arounds that [the reason for conception being a negative one or medical issues] that you probably should have said baby, pending all persons involved agree'ing, but in fairness, most of all the mothers opinion ultimately outweighs everything else as she'll be carrying it for 9 months etc. However, the ultimate of ALL of this is that it IS an option regardless of all circumstances.

My understand of ACTUAL medical fact is that during the time frames allowed for abortion the "baby" is no where near grown enough to basically function as a human being in its own right. This "alive at conception" stuff is just bollocks as its just simply not.

I have known people who have lost potential children due to miscarriage. I have known people who have had to abort due to medical reasons. I know people that have chosen to abort due to simple circumstance. And of course I know people, and am the product of, those that decieded to go ahead with everything.

For me: If you believe that its wrong, its a personal belief as science tells us otherwise. If the country you live in wants to go full anti abortion, I would say it needs caveats: 1) allow for those who are raped/have medical illness issues to abort if they wish to do so. 2) Have "something" in place for all the babies you force out into the world. Its not enough to say its murder, when millions of new children are born and then neglected by not being adopted because their parents didn't want them in the first place.

[Dānu]

...it’s easy to think that the premise that life begins at conception is a timeless theological component of Christian belief. But it’s not.

The idea that life begins at conception is neither a unanimous belief in the history of Christianity, nor a classic American Protestant doctrine. When Parker writes about protecting the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, he is not carrying on a longstanding Protestant theological tradition by basing his decision on stalwarts of American evangelicalism like Cotton Mather or John Wesley or Jonathan Edwards. Those Protestant forefathers were more likely to believe that abortion, while inadvisable, was not murder until the “quickening” of the child — when the mother feels it move — somewhere near 18 weeks of the pregnancy.

Instead, Parker is repeating a political mantra concocted by Republican operatives in the late 20th century in a successful effort to create a conservative Catholic-Protestant voting bloc capable of taking over the GOP — and implementing their religious-political vision throughout the country.

‘Why Christians — and Republicans — Should Reconsider the Premise that ‘Life Begins at Conception’

[Minimalist]

Instead, Parker is repeating a political mantra concocted by Republican operatives in the late 20th century

And so is fucking Stevie.....in spite of all the bullshit he writes.

[SteveII]

Well, that's a scientific fact so it is unclear why the Bible would have to be clear about it.

P2. Human life begins at conception (scientifically established)
In Support of Premise 2:
• At the moment of conception, a unique genetic identity is formed, combining DNA from both the egg and sperm, creating a distinct human organism with its own individual and unrepeatable genetic code, separate from both the mother and father. Scientifically, conception marks the beginning of a continuous developmental process; the zygote, the earliest stage of human development, fulfills the basic biological criteria for life, including the ability to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, and reproduce cells. The zygote, formed at conception, is the initial stage of a human being's life cycle, initiating a complex process of development that, if uninterrupted by natural or external factors, will lead to the birth of a human child.

Further defense of the claim in Post #30

But you almost certainly mean where do we derive the idea of 'value from conception' from the Bible (and how clear that might be).

Human life as sacred and valuable is reiterated all through the Bible and is at the core of many key doctrines (imago dei,  a path to redemption, the incarnation, salvation/grace, and eternal life). But in support of the concept of pre-birth value, we find a few things in the Bible:

Psalm 139:13-16: This Psalm is often referenced for its depiction of God's intimate knowledge and care for the psalmist even from the womb. Verse 13, for instance, says, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."

Jeremiah 1:5: This verse records God's words to Jeremiah, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." It's often cited as evidence that God's relationship with and plans for a person begin before birth.

Luke 1:41-44: This New Testament passage describes John the Baptist leaping in his mother Elizabeth's womb when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, greets her. Some see this as recognition of the presence and significance of life before birth.

Exodus 21:22-25: This passage from the Law of Moses is sometimes brought into discussions about the value of life before birth. It describes penalties associated with harming a pregnant woman and causing harm to the fetus. This conveys value of the unborn and moral consequences of harming it.

In total, what is the Christian to believe? All the arguments I presented earlier become significantly stronger grounded in a biblically-sound understanding of human life. It seems to me that if one wants to be pro-abortion and faithful to robust biblical doctrine on the sanctity of human life, you need to import some ideas about personhood (and the attainment thereof) not grounded in the Bible. Given the subject and the consequences of being wrong, it does not seem advisable to import such rationales.

In answer to your question, what I am asking is whether there is good evidence that the pro-life position is God's design, a position you made a central question in the second half of your reply.  As I'm sure that you are aware, Exodus 21:22-25 actually argues against the idea that abortion is murder, and the rest of the passages you cite are vague interpretive claims about the value of life in the womb which aren't conclusive, nor do they address what value the life in the womb has, only that it has value; that alone is insufficient for the argument you are making.  Even pro-choice people acknowledge that the life in the womb has value, so the passages you cite don't go nearly far enough.  Unless there are some passages not yet cited, the situation is largely analogous to the debate about chattel slavery in 19th century America, wherein both pro and anti slavery Christians could point to the bible for support.  What's clear in hindsight is that the morals as they apply to slavery had their origin outside the bible and people were simply trying to inherit the imprimatur of divine authority with claims that the bible, and therefore God, did or did not support chattel slavery.  Which brings us back to the second paragraph of your response in which you maintain that your stance is motivated by a concern for God's design and that the secular arguments simply reinforce the theological implications.  However, if this is analogous to the slavery question -- and I think it clearly is -- then the notion that this God's design business can ground your secular arguments is pure malarkey because the morals of the pro-life movement are clearly coming from outside the bible.  This leaves us again with the central question I asked earlier as to how you reconcile making is-ought arguments while simultaneously claiming that is-ought arguments cannot be made?  You appealed to your religious beliefs as a trap-door out of the dilemma and it appears from inspection that this was just a smokescreen.  If I'm correct here, then you still need to explain this central inconsistency in the arguments that you've made.

I think the syllogism format would be useful. Here is my basic religious argument:

P1. All human life is sacred and valuable, as affirmed by explicit biblical teachings and implicit foundational doctrines (Imago Dei, a path to redemption, the incarnation, salvation/grace, and provisions for eternal life).

In support of Premise 1
There are verses and narratives that do indicate a recognition that life begins in the womb and that our size and location seemed irrelevant as to purpose and value from God's perspective. Additionally, there is nothing in the Bible that would suggest that considering an unborn child as something other than an early human in the normal arc of development was the proper perspective. Following are representative samples:

Psalm 139:13-16: This Psalm is often referenced for its depiction of God's intimate knowledge and care for the psalmist even from the womb.
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Jeremiah 1:5: This verse is often cited as evidence that God's relationship with and plans for a person begin before birth.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

The interpretation objection: While individual verses might be interpreted in various ways, the overarching narrative of scripture consistently supports the value of life from its earliest stages -- preempting objections based on interpretive differences.

P2. Human life begins at conception, evidenced by the formation of a unique genetic identity and the initiation of the normal arc of human development.

In support of Premise 2
[From the OP] At the moment of conception, a unique genetic identity is formed, combining DNA from both the egg and sperm, creating a distinct human organism with its own individual and unrepeatable genetic code, separate from both the mother and father. Scientifically, conception marks the beginning of a continuous developmental process; the zygote, the earliest stage of human development, fulfills the basic biological criteria for life, including the ability to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, and reproduce cells. The zygote, formed at conception, is the initial stage of a human being's life cycle, initiating a complex process of development that, if uninterrupted by natural or external factors, will lead to the birth of a human child.

[From Post #30] In the fields of biology, developmental biology and embryology, the consensus is pretty firm. The denial that the above describes life is more ideologically based than scientific.

First, the embryo is a) growing, b) metabolizing, c) responding to stimuli, and d)reproducing cells. It seems to me that this is a basic definition of something living. Further, you can't confuse the mother's function with the embryos because we can develop viable embryo artificially outside the womb for weeks. Second, to deny this is life on a ideological basis entails proposing an alternative. Obviously at some point within the gestational window, the unborn human has basically all the traits of a new born. No one denies a newborn is alive so the viable fetus must be alive. Going backwards, what particular cell division would put it over the line? Every point going back is needlessly arbitrary made purely to further some agenda or justify some action.

There is also an lengthy addendum in Post #61 with more sources and 7 arguments against "personhood" as the appropriate concept.

C. Therefore, human life from the moment of conception is sacred and valuable, deserving of protection.

All the counterarguments I addressed in the OP apply to this argument:
--Bodily Autonomy
--Quality of Life (of child)
--Required for Equality with Men
--Hypocrisy
--Hard Cases

Epistemic Issues for Pro-life morality:
As has been pointed out, abortion is a recent issue of concern for Christians. How are we to understand such evolving positions? The concept is called "doctrinal development." This theological principle acknowledges that while the core truths of faith as revealed in the Bible remain constant, our understanding, interpretation, and application of these truths can grow and evolve over time in light of new knowledge, including scientific advancements, deeper theological reflection, and changing social and historical contexts.

The Christian's understanding of faith and morals is not static but can deepen and expand. This does not mean that core doctrines change in their essence but that the understanding and expression of these doctrines can become more nuanced and comprehensive. Theologian John Henry Newman's seminal work, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" (1845), argued that doctrinal development is a natural and necessary process within the Church, analogous to the organic growth of a living organism.

So we should come to understand that theological insights, ethical norms, and pastoral practices can be re-evaluated and re-interpreted in response to new questions, challenges, and insights from various fields, including science, philosophy, and history. This approach allows for a dynamic engagement with the world, ensuring that the teachings of faith remain relevant and are understood in a way that resonates with contemporary human experience and knowledge. To be clear, doctrinal development is grounded in a deeper exploration of unchanging biblical truths, not an adaptation to societal changes. This ensures that the core truths of faith inform our understanding of new issues.

Specific Responses:
Slavery Debate Analogy: I'll start by saying that you seem to imply that anti- and pro-slavery Christians were both appealing to the Bible illegitimately. I think that the anti-slavery Christians were appealing to fundamental concepts I referred to in P1 to derive a biblically consistent position whereas the pro-slavery position was seeking to justify their position post hoc. I think the "doctrinal development" process I just described explains the arc of change in Christian thought from the start of the abolition movement, through the end of slavery, through the Jim Crow era, the civil right era and right up to today. It is an understatement to say William Wilberforce was instrumental in abolishing the slave trade in the British Empire and his motivations were deeply rooted in biblical principles and Christian ethics--his application of which isn't even questioned today. So, although not for the same reasons, your slavery analogy is apropos to the abortion issue.

So rather than a "trapdoor," foundational biblical principles can and does ground most of the consequential moral positions of the day. Even though you can't do a word search for 'abortion' and find the verse, it is not particular mysterious to start with a well-established moral truth (P1), examine our facts and context (P2) and derive a biblically consistent position that honors the underlying principle. Is it a perfect process: no.  

I hope this covers most of your questions. Let me know what new ones you have.

[AutisticWill]

Steveo keeps bringing up this 'god's image' shit.

Australopithecus afarensis.

Homo habilis.

Homo erectus.

Killing which of the above is murder? Why do they even exist??

If a male Homo habilis beat a pregnant female Homo habilis using some stone tools, beating her until she miscarried, would this not be an abortion?

Lemme guess, wait, waiiiit -- I love this part!

Earth is 6,000 years old, right? Am I right!?

What do I win!?

[SteveII]

Putting God into a hypothetical that violates his nature is a logical incoherency akin to saying that 'hypothetically if bachelors were married...'. God cannot make coercive deals if Mary were to kill herself. God is defined by his nature and it limits the things he can do.

More fun is the fact that you likely think this is analogous to the doctrines of redemption, incarnation, resurrection, and the trinity. If so, it seems you fundamentally misunderstand Christianity. It would be interesting to see if you could articulate why redemption was necessary, actually accurately describe the incarnation, and what it technically accomplished. It seems to me that if one claims to be a thoughtful atheist, one must be able to accurately describe the core belief of the world's largest and most influential religion don't you think? Whether you think there is a God or not, Jesus was the most influential person in all of human history and it would be difficult to even suggest a second because of the gap. Can you do it?

You keep drawing back curtains for "Gotchas!" that don't exist. However, it seems I struck some sort of a nerve. I wasn't going to draw the comparison of the death and resurrection of Jesus. I was merely probing into whether or not your objective morality is limited when it comes to God. In fact, you answered the opposite way about. Instead you argue that God could not go against his nature. Let me highlight something:

All "offers" and commands God makes, by virtue of the immense power imbalance, are coercive. 

"Offer" isn't the right word. Because of God's nature--specifically, holiness and justice, sin necessarily (as in must be the case) separates us from God. We are in need of some form of redemption to restore us positionally with God. There was no 'choice' of God's that resulted in our status or the conditions necessary for restoration (as both proceed from the holiness and justice attributes). It seems a choice of ours is needed to start the process of the offered restoration (see Gospel, etc.). I can't see how that can be construed as anything near coercive. It all seems like an unavoidable fact.

A more oblique inspiration for the hypothetical was when God had Gabriel tell mother Mary (the name should have given you a clue) that she would conceive a child. I stuck with the suicide angle because I didn't want to confuse you further. In the story, it isn't an offer. Its a summary of what *will* happen. She agrees to it after the fact, but what was she going to really do? Say "no" to God? Not even you would dare.

Well, being all-knowing and all, why would God come to a young woman who wasn't willing, able, and a perfect fit for his purpose? Omniscience has a way of making most things pretty straightforward.

You bring up and interesting question: Can God kill himself? If he can't directly do it, can he through intermediaries? Would it be against his very nature?

How do you determine what is against his very nature? Does he tell you?

I think your conception of God is off. If an eternal God created the universe and all material reality, what would the word 'kill' even mean. Before anything else existed, there was God. He would literally be the very definition of ultimate reality: all things hold together because he wills it.

God is conceived as the greatest possible being. The 'omni' in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent contain that notion. Although lacking the spiffy omni-prefix, his holiness and justice attributes are also perfect and cannot be separated or set aside. It is unnecessary to know exactly what that means but we do get a glimpse from the Bible, natural theology, etc.

[Mathilda]

Before anything else existed, there was God.

[Citation needed]

[Szuchow]

Before anything else existed, there was God.

[Citation needed]

Everybody knows that, though Steve forgot important part: in the beginning tovarisch god was walking through the streets of Moscow*.

*From a old joke about Soviet edition of bible.

[Astreja]

God is conceived as the greatest possible being. The 'omni' in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent contain that notion.  Although lacking the spiffy omni-prefix, his holiness and justice attributes are also perfect and cannot be separated or set aside. It is unnecessary to know exactly what that means but we do get a glimpse from the Bible, natural theology, etc.

Steve, you can't philosophize a god into existence.  Even if your conception of God was the greatest possible being, it's still possible for it to be a fiction.

The god of the Bible is definitely not the "greatest possible."  That particular god is an evil-minded hack that screws up multiple times between Genesis and Revelation.  It's absolutely risible to think of such a ludicrous character in terms of "holiness" and "justice."  The foundational beliefs of Christianity - Original Sin and substitutionary atonement - completely torpedo both the holiness and the claim to being just.

All you're doing, really, is making unconvincing excuses for a particularly weak mythology.

[Atothetheist]

You keep drawing back curtains for "Gotchas!" that don't exist. However, it seems I struck some sort of a nerve. I wasn't going to draw the comparison of the death and resurrection of Jesus. I was merely probing into whether or not your objective morality is limited when it comes to God. In fact, you answered the opposite way about. Instead you argue that God could not go against his nature. Let me highlight something:

All "offers" and commands God makes, by virtue of the immense power imbalance, are coercive. 

"Offer" isn't the right word. Because of God's nature--specifically, holiness and justice, sin necessarily (as in must be the case) separates us from God. We are in need of some form of redemption to restore us positionally with God. There was no 'choice' of God's that resulted in our status or the conditions necessary for restoration (as both proceed from the holiness and justice attributes). It seems a choice of ours is needed to start the process of the offered restoration (see Gospel, etc.). I can't see how that can be construed as anything near coercive. It all seems like an unavoidable fact.

A more oblique inspiration for the hypothetical was when God had Gabriel tell mother Mary (the name should have given you a clue) that she would conceive a child. I stuck with the suicide angle because I didn't want to confuse you further. In the story, it isn't an offer. Its a summary of what *will* happen. She agrees to it after the fact, but what was she going to really do? Say "no" to God? Not even you would dare.

Well, being all-knowing and all, why would God come to a young woman who wasn't willing, able, and a perfect fit for his purpose? Omniscience has a way of making most things pretty straightforward.

You bring up and interesting question: Can God kill himself? If he can't directly do it, can he through intermediaries? Would it be against his very nature?

How do you determine what is against his very nature? Does he tell you?

I think your conception of God is off. If an eternal God created the universe and all material reality, what would the word 'kill' even mean. Before anything else existed, there was God. He would literally be the very definition of ultimate reality: all things hold together because he wills it.

God is conceived as the greatest possible being. The 'omni' in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent contain that notion.  Although lacking the spiffy omni-prefix, his holiness and justice attributes are also perfect and cannot be separated or set aside. It is unnecessary to know exactly what that means but we do get a glimpse from the Bible, natural theology, etc.

You missed my point entirely and numerously. 

By “offers” I was talking about any and all direct commands from God to any character in the Bible. However, even still God set up the conditions of the Fall to happen, even if he didn’t intend to happen (which he would know would happen. Pesky Omnis!). Regardless, Redemption is only part of the deal. You’re missing the other part: Damnation. Hell didn’t *just* exist. It was created as the stick to the Heaven’s carrot. 

Hell is a coercive mechanic. 


His omniscience doesn’t negate the coercive nature of the interaction. Ancient Jews are taught to fear their God. Plenty of evidence supports why they should if the Bible is taken as true, but even if it isn’t, it’s sufficient that Mary believe these stories, which one would imagine she does. Either way, it doesn't matter if she was 100% not afraid and willing, that doesn't level out the power dynamic at play here.

You are so eager to propose your grand vision of God, you stumble at answering even a simple question. 

I’ll ask another one. Please answer in a simple yes or no. If you can’t, explain in 2 sentences why it’s impossible or possible: Can God die?

[SteveII]

"Offer" isn't the right word. Because of God's nature--specifically, holiness and justice, sin necessarily (as in must be the case) separates us from God. We are in need of some form of redemption to restore us positionally with God. There was no 'choice' of God's that resulted in our status or the conditions necessary for restoration (as both proceed from the holiness and justice attributes). It seems a choice of ours is needed to start the process of the offered restoration (see Gospel, etc.). I can't see how that can be construed as anything near coercive. It all seems like an unavoidable fact.


Well, being all-knowing and all, why would God come to a young woman who wasn't willing, able, and a perfect fit for his purpose? Omniscience has a way of making most things pretty straightforward.


I think your conception of God is off. If an eternal God created the universe and all material reality, what would the word 'kill' even mean. Before anything else existed, there was God. He would literally be the very definition of ultimate reality: all things hold together because he wills it.

God is conceived as the greatest possible being. The 'omni' in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent contain that notion.  Although lacking the spiffy omni-prefix, his holiness and justice attributes are also perfect and cannot be separated or set aside. It is unnecessary to know exactly what that means but we do get a glimpse from the Bible, natural theology, etc.

You missed my point entirely and numerously. 

By “offers” I was talking about any and all direct commands from God to any character in the Bible. However, even still God set up the conditions of the Fall to happen, even if he didn’t intend to happen (which he would know would happen. Pesky Omnis!). Regardless, Redemption is only part of the deal. You’re missing the other part: Damnation. Hell didn’t *just* exist. It was created as the stick to the Heaven’s carrot. 

Hell is a coercive mechanic. 

No, it's not. You are ignoring the existential framework of what is actually going on. God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided. For hell to be coercive, God would have had to have options that he could pursue that would be less undesirable (although that seems subjective). Annihilation might not be an option--there is no mention of any personage in the pantheon of personages where annihilation was a consideration. Additionally, if you simple characterize Hell as tormenting because that is what happens in an absolute separation from God (which seems likely) all the objections disappear.

His omniscience doesn’t negate the coercive nature of the interaction. Ancient Jews are taught to fear their God. Plenty of evidence supports why they should if the Bible is taken as true, but even if it isn’t, it’s sufficient that Mary believe these stories, which one would imagine she does. Either way, it doesn't matter if she was 100% not afraid and willing, that doesn't level out the power dynamic at play here.

You are so eager to propose your grand vision of God, you stumble at answering even a simple question. 

I’ll ask another one. Please answer in a simple yes or no. If you can’t, explain in 2 sentences why it’s impossible or possible: Can God die?

No, it is an incoherent concept to even consider.

[airportkid]

Can God die?

"God" so-called is in its death throes right now.  Development of scientific method was the fatal pathogen that irreversibly dooms the entirety of religion.  It's not quick.  But it's steady.

[Atothetheist]

You missed my point entirely and numerously. 

By “offers” I was talking about any and all direct commands from God to any character in the Bible. However, even still God set up the conditions of the Fall to happen, even if he didn’t intend to happen (which he would know would happen. Pesky Omnis!). Regardless, Redemption is only part of the deal. You’re missing the other part: Damnation. Hell didn’t *just* exist. It was created as the stick to the Heaven’s carrot. 

Hell is a coercive mechanic. 

No, it's not. You are ignoring the existential framework of what is actually going on. God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided. For hell to be coercive, God would have had to have options that he could pursue that would be less undesirable (although that seems subjective). Annihilation might not be an option--there is no mention of any personage in the pantheon of personages where annihilation was a consideration. Additionally, if you simple characterize Hell as tormenting because that is what happens in an absolute separation from God (which seems likely) all the objections disappear.

His omniscience doesn’t negate the coercive nature of the interaction. Ancient Jews are taught to fear their God. Plenty of evidence supports why they should if the Bible is taken as true, but even if it isn’t, it’s sufficient that Mary believe these stories, which one would imagine she does. Either way, it doesn't matter if she was 100% not afraid and willing, that doesn't level out the power dynamic at play here.

You are so eager to propose your grand vision of God, you stumble at answering even a simple question. 

I’ll ask another one. Please answer in a simple yes or no. If you can’t, explain in 2 sentences why it’s impossible or possible: Can God die?

No, it is an incoherent concept to even consider.

Are you saying that God *couldn’t* make a less undesirable punishment for people who aren’t saved through Jesus? 

Did Jesus die when he was crucified?

[Deesse23]

God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided.

Who is responsible for this automatism?

[airportkid]

@SteveII says "God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided".



It's remarkable that not a single person who believes there's a hell also believes they'll wind up there, even as they acknowledge they might deserve it.

[Cavebear]

Can God die?

"God" so-called is in its death throes right now.  Development of scientific method was the fatal pathogen that irreversibly dooms the entirety of religion.  It's not quick.  But it's steady.

And humanity is slowly escaping the idea of deities. But another question is "Can something that never actually existed quite "die"? I think the idea of a deity more "fades away" into the non-existence from which it arose. Like Zeus and Odin...

[SteveII]

No, it's not. You are ignoring the existential framework of what is actually going on. God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided. For hell to be coercive, God would have had to have options that he could pursue that would be less undesirable (although that seems subjective). Annihilation might not be an option--there is no mention of any personage in the pantheon of personages where annihilation was a consideration. Additionally, if you simple characterize Hell as tormenting because that is what happens in an absolute separation from God (which seems likely) all the objections disappear.


No, it is an incoherent concept to even consider.

Are you saying that God *couldn’t* make a less undesirable punishment for people who aren’t saved through Jesus? 

It is certainly not clear that he could. I seems that his intrinsic property of perfect justice might have something to do with it. Of course you can make an argument that he could and explain how your scenario would satisfy all the moving parts. I would happy be critique it.

Did Jesus die when he was crucified?

Yes.

You know, I'm not missing the leading nature of the your questions and where you will go next. You could just skip that part and be more efficient.

Ah...

Omnipotence only means the ability to do what is logically possible and not in violation of his nature. Perfect justice is part of his nature.

The person of Jesus, as the doctrine of the incarnation explicates, has a complete God nature and complete human nature. Guess which one died on the cross.