Is a Suboptimal World a Problem?

[whag]

So, that would mean abortion is a good thing for babies, correct?

All the subtlely of a jackhammer.

[whag]

Christians will go to heaven. Does that make murdering Christians okay just because we will end up in a better place????

I don't advocate abortion, but I can clarify here. A baby makes no commitment and is more like to adopt irreligion or another religion as it grows up, whereas a Christian would be destined to salvation. Two different things.

[JimL]

Every once in a while, you reach a new low.

You implied it CP, I'm just calling you on it. If its true that babies get a free pass to heaven, no chance of failing the test, no chance of going to hell like the rest of us, wouldn't you have wanted that for yourself? I'm not saying its a good thing, nor am I agreeing that fetuses are babies, but if your theory about babies/fetuses going straight to heaven is true, wouldn't you say that its a good thing?

[JimL]

All the subtlely of a jackhammer.

Do you know of a subtler way of phrasing that question. I didn't imply that abortion would be the best of options for us all, CP did.

[JimL]

Christians will go to heaven. Does that make murdering Christians okay just because we will end up in a better place????

I didn't ask whether or not it was a good thing to do, I asked if it was a good thing for the baby/fetus. Going straight to heaven, isn't that the best?

[shunyadragon]

If Satan or Adam and Eve chose the right fork in the road, wouldn't the problem of a suboptimal world still exist? Let's say Satan behaved himself until God created Adam and Eve. Let's say Adam and Eve lived obediently. In those hypothetical cases, the problem of a world with the potential of evil is ever present and very likely to be expressed (given how easily A&E fell into temptation). It seems to me that falls short of God's ultimate goal of an optimized "perfect" world.

It is not really an argument of a suboptimal Imperfect" world versus some hypothetical optimized "perfect" world of the nature of our existence and humany's relationship with God. The argument is whether an ancient mythical view of Creation and the reality of our "real objective" nature of our physical world has an relationship to a natural existence. The question of the existence of God, Creation, and Revelation should not be based on ancient myth of an anthropomorphic hands on God(s) that plays chess with humans

In reality by the evidence the nature of physical world is as perfect and works well without contradictions based on the evidence. Embracing the harmony of science and religion puts the argument of the reality and existence of God in the present context.

[Christianbookworm]

I didn't ask whether or not it was a good thing to do, I asked if it was a good thing for the baby/fetus. Going straight to heaven, isn't that the best?

Considering that they would have zero honor and zero shame, it's not ideal. They didn't really get the chance to make their own choice. If they had grown up and made the choice to be a Christian, they could have done good and accrued rewards as a result.

[Sparko]

I addressed this in OP and posts #29 and #83.



In the anthropomorphic sense--which is the principle way in which God's described--yes. I'd feel guilty for not properly judging the character of a family I entrusted to adopt my child if that family then molested my child. Moreover, there's no epistemic justification whatsoever to presume monotheism antedated animism. The earliest cultures arose with a riot of gods.



There's no epistemic justification to call you an equal sinner to Charles Manson or equal saint to Enoch.

But let's say there's a penitent Hindu or Muslim who's mostly righteous who sins occasionally like you. You go to heaven and she gets punished eternally for being enculturated to believe her particular religion. Yup, that's weird.



I'll let that hideously unparallel analogy speak for itself and await the response to the above points.

There is nothing to respond to. Your points are nothing but argument from outrage.

[Cow Poke]

You implied it CP,

No, your sick mind went there. No surprise at all.

[Cow Poke]

Do you know of a subtler way of phrasing that question. I didn't imply that abortion would be the best of options for us all, CP did.

That is a lie of the devil. Again, no surprise.

[Sparko]

JimL, let me answer it in simple terms for you.

Murder is bad. Even if your victim goes to heaven. You cut out the rest of their entire life, everything good or bad they could have done. Possibly their children, and descendants for all time. Canceled every contact they could have had with hundreds and thousands of people. Stopped all of the good they could have brought to the world. Could that person have become President? Cured Cancer? Been the father of the person who first steps foot on Mars? People don't exist in isolation, they affect the rest of society good or bad, so when you murder someone you are not snipping a single thread, but an entire web of connections.

Human life is precious. We don't exist just to go to heaven. We exist to care and love for one another, to do good. God wants us to help and love others, here and now. Otherwise he would just make us drop dead the moment we become Christians and poof us into heaven.

So no, abortion is not "good" because the children go to heaven. They never even had a chance at life.

[whag]

There is nothing to respond to. Your points are nothing but argument from outrage.

It's no more an argument from outrage than your belief babies go to heaven. The alternative (babies infected with sin nature going to hell) would be cruel, and so you determine that God translates them directly.

Also, the OP and posts #29 and #83, aren't arguments from outrage. Please explain how they are.

[Cow Poke]

It's no more an argument from outrage than your belief babies go to heaven.

How is that an argument from outrage?

[Christianbookworm]

How is that an argument from outrage?

Dunno... maybe he thinks emotional appeal is the only reason we believe that babies go to heaven?

[whag]

How is that an argument from outrage?

If you can't accept that a loving God would send babies to hell, then you must think it would be a cruel act to condemn them, even despite their sin nature.


BTW, how is what I said an argument from outrage? Many learned theologians wrestled with the same question about enculturated people. This indicates critical thought, not the expression of outrage.