Ep. 106: Is pro-life compatible with Christianity?

[Emery]

Same re-run, different channel, but somehow relevant nonetheless.

[humanguy]

LIFE isn't compatible with Christianity, HUMAN LIFE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY.

I kept wondering what the hell you guys were talking about. All over the place, let's spend an hour with a couple of Bible- thumping Christers. Seriously? BORING.

[Pauly]

I thought the discussion was good. I kept thinking it’s important to remember that we’ll never reach the full understanding of God’s ways. I believe his thoughts transcend our understanding and that’s where as Christians we must live out your life in faith, not through understanding. In much of Proverbs Solomon says to pray for wisdom, not understanding which I think we can differentiate. At some point you have to take what appears to be the character of God into consideration which is derived from scripture and your relationship with him and apply that to what is clearly proclaimed throughout scripture. Within that context, I think you can make a successful argument to support Christianity as pro-life. Now going in a different direction, to say ‘if I terminate my child then he must be saved’ is, I believe, elevating yourself to God’s position in understanding and power over who is saved and who isn’t. I think elevating yourself like that is a dangerous place to put yourself. God is no fool and he can’t be played. He is God. He alone determines who is saved and who isn’t. That’s not for us to decide and that’s a good thing because I believe we aren’t smart enough. We can’t see the whole picture nor plunge its depths as he does so naturally it’s confusing to us. As a result, the default must be to simply obey and follow in faith trusting he will do what is best.

[Keep The Reason]

I thought the discussion was good. I kept thinking it’s important to remember that we’ll never reach the full understanding of God’s ways. I believe his thoughts transcend our understanding and that’s where as Christians we must live out your life in faith, not through understanding.

We can’t see the whole picture nor plunge its depths as he does so naturally it’s confusing to us. As a result, the default must be to simply obey and follow in faith trusting he will do what is best.

First I say hello and welcome.

Now, don't take it personally but I'm going to eviscerate your commentary, ok?

Of course, if he doesn't exist (and he doesn't), you've just adopted a way to walk around in circles, making excuses for just about any and everything.

So let us "just obey". How's that for self-determination and a mature outlook? Obey. That's all. Just obey.

[Emery]

LIFE isn't compatible with Christianity, HUMAN LIFE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY.

I kept wondering what the hell you guys were talking about. All over the place, let's spend an hour with a couple of Bible- thumping Christers. Seriously? BORING.

LOL, it's funny you found this one boring, I thought it would be one of the more interesting ones. But I agree with you, human life is incompatible with Christianity because ultimately our transgression is just that: being human.

[yjoeyh]

I believe his thoughts transcend our understanding and that’s where as Christians we must live out your life in faith, not through understanding.

Hi Pauly,

First, thanks for saying you though it was a good discussion. Although I too thought it was good, I understand that it might be difficult to follow the conversation, or at least my contribution to it when my ADHD kicks in. I think there were a lot of interesting points that we didn't even get the opportunity to scratch the surface on.

I do have to say that I'm not only going to agree with KTR's point (other than the God does not exist part,) but raise the objection even further. Although you make a few good points, the overall theme in your comment seems to be "have faith even when you don't understand." At best, that attitude is very misleading as it draws a distinction between faith and understanding, which only works if you use a non-Biblical meaning of the word "faith." It all depend on why you obey and place your trust. For example, I may not know a lot about dentistry, but when my dentist tells me I need a filling, I put my faith and trust in him and obey him when he tells me what I need to do. If the guy in the drive-thru at Starbucks tells me the same thing, I'm not going to obey him.

I 'understand' the dentist's credentials, and I also understand that I have no reason to think the guy at Starbucks has equal credentials, therefore I put my 'faith' in the dentist. Even if we say a blind guess is our reason, I think we should call that for what it is and not try to use the word "faith" in its place.

That's a big part of why I do not accept that Christians necessarily should be pro-life, and also why I do not believe in unbiblical doctrines like the age of accountability. Those are pretty much just blind guesses with not much if anything of substance to back them up. I get that God is "just" according to our shared worldview, but to try and describe particulars about how his justice works itself out in heaven and/or hell is not much different than the Sadduceeism that Jesus dealt with (Mark 12:23.)

So to say that God is just is one thing, but to insist that must mean that he brings fetuses, infants, and children who have not reached a certain age into heaven, is not only non sequitor and non-Biblical, but from my perspective that seems to seriously undermine the idea that God actually is just, as well as the whole concepts of atonement, repentance and free-will, which seem to loose significance if its possible to have a real and meaningful eternal life without those things.

So yes, faith is critically important, but not "faithism" or "fideism," which seems to be more what you were describing. If I misunderstood what you meant in your post, then I apologize, but one of my biggest peave's is using the word "faith" to mean belief without evidence when referring to the Bible's usage of the term, which clearly means to trust what you know.

[Keep The Reason]

I'm sort of with hg here. Not quite boring, but kind of half-baked from the Christian side. It's like watching a person trying to drive out of a neighborhood that is nothing but a myriad of cul-de-sacs. Down one road-- oops, dead end, so ya gotta back up, try another, oops-- nother dead end... and so on.

When Christians argue, "well maybe this is the way god wants it because of his greater plan" then I say, "Great! Leave things be then."

It has also reminded me of the council of bishops a few years back gathering in the Vatican to "debate the disposition of souls and babies -- do they go to Heaven, Hell or Limmmmmbooooooooooowww?" As Sam Harris points out, "Can anyone imagine anything as forlorn as this exercise?

So -- to play it out:

If god condemns babies to Hell if they die in utero or at some point before they can say, "Yay, Jesus!" -- then he's a monster.

If god doesn't put "souls in the one he knows are going to be aborted" then -- no worries-- because, uh, that aborted baby? It's doesn't have a soul.

If babies are "robbed of the chance to make decisions" and this somehow translates into how they will function in heaven? Well, that's just crazy but so sorry for all those miscarried cherubs.

And mentally deficient people too.

By the way-- the best solution was found by joey -- DON'T HAVE ANY KIDS! (I'm talking to Christians, here). That solves it. Become celibates, but for god's sake don't become RC Priests.

If babies go to heaven when they die regardless of how they die, or by whose hand, then the logic of Emery's position holds.

But what really gets me in discussion like this is the litany of "Urp, I don't know!"'s that comes from the theistic side. You don't know if there's an age of accountability. You don't know what god does with the bambinos. You don't know if he plants souls in pre-natals who might be aborted or miscarry. You don't know the "bigger picture" or "plan god has". You don't really know much of anything.

Which is actually refreshing because we get it that you don't know anything. You Just put your trust in this thing you do not know and actually cannot know.

And then a very large segment of people like you tell atheists why they should do likewise.

[mitchellmckain]

LIFE isn't compatible with Christianity, HUMAN LIFE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY.

I kept wondering what the hell you guys were talking about. All over the place, let's spend an hour with a couple of Bible- thumping Christers. Seriously? BORING.

LOL, it's funny you found this one boring, I thought it would be one of the more interesting ones. But I agree with you, human life is incompatible with Christianity because ultimately our transgression is just that: being human.

Oh this is a lovely excuse. We cannot blame anyone for doing anything wrong because they are just being human. Wonderful!

Oh wait? Are there things which this excuse doesn't work for? What??? You mean there are things that are actually wrong?

But if you think there are things that are actually wrong then does that mean that YOUR thinking is incompatible with human life?

If not then what about Christians who actually agree with exactly the same things that YOU think are wrong? Would that not mean that their Christianity is no more or less incompatible with human life than YOUR thinking?

So your argument boil down to this?

1. I know some Christians who think some things are wrong which doesn't agree with what I think is wrong.
2. Let's label all THOSE things as "being human".
3. Therefore, Christianity is incompatible with human life.

Does anyone else see what an incredibly piss poor argument that is? Just how many logical fallacies can't you identify in that argument? eh?

[sayak]

Keep the Reason is being sarcastic....but those are the options. Of course that requires the hell-fire concept. For those who do not believe in hell, its not a problem.
Apart from that I was wondering what the humanist position ought to be in this issue. Here are some thoughts....
1) You cannot extend human rights just after conception (at least for a few weeks) because under a naturalistic account a Central Nervous System with some rudimentary brain at least is necessary to even have animal like sensations of pain etc. That would we why brain death is the current legal definition of death of a human person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death. So that takes care of the issue of morning after pills and very early abortions.
2) By the second month however brain structures have begun to take shape, so its difficult to sustain withholding right to life at that point. (above 6 weeks?)
http://www.dana.org/news/brainhealth/de ... x?id=10050

This will rule out most abortions (unless medical technology is good enough to detect it in the 1st month). But can't see any way out (except cases like severe deformity, disease etc.)

[sayak]

One other fact. Majority of humans who have died historically have been miscarried fetuses or early infants (due to very high infant mortality rates.) More than 70% is a good guess? If so what happens to fetuses and infants should be THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION...right? "I don't know is unsatisfactory"....like the status of cosmology with dark matter and dark energy

[mitchellmckain]

Apart from that I was wondering what the humanist position ought to be in this issue. Here are some thoughts....
1) You cannot extend human rights just after conception (at least for a few weeks) because under a naturalistic account a Central Nervous System with some rudimentary brain at least is necessary to even have animal like sensations of pain etc. That would we why brain death is the current legal definition of death of a human person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death. So that takes care of the issue of morning after pills and very early abortions.

Yep, we are on much the same wavelength in this. ...but, I am a Trinitarian Christian not a humanist.

2) By the second month however brain structures have begun to take shape, so its difficult to sustain withholding right to life at that point. (above 6 weeks?)
http://www.dana.org/news/brainhealth/de ... x?id=10050

This will rule out most abortions (unless medical technology is good enough to detect it in the 1st month). But can't see any way out (except cases like severe deformity, disease etc.)

But there is no measurable brain activity until the 20th week at the earliest. (I remember 20-23 weeks from a previous inquiry into this question and the internet searches I am making now give the number of 25 weeks.) And personally, I would not be interested in the nerve activity equivalent of a flatworm (such as the sensitivity of light), but rather brain activity that is recognizably human. Without brain activity I frankly do not see any possibility for life that I would consider human at all. This suggests that the current legal limit at the end of the second trimester is quite reasonable and that moving this legal limit to anything less than 20 weeks is not scientifically supportable and that the reduction of this limit to something before the end of the first trimester is a completely unreasonable imposition of the personal moral whims of some people upon other people.

The victims of rape MUST have some way to reassert some personal control over their lives and to deny them this, effectively amounts to joining with the rapist to continue the rape of his victim. It is completely inhuman.

[Keep The Reason]

Keep the Reason is being sarcastic....but those are the options. Of course that requires the hell-fire concept. For those who do not believe in hell, its not a problem.
Apart from that I was wondering what the humanist position ought to be in this issue. Here are some thoughts....
1) You cannot extend human rights just after conception (at least for a few weeks) because under a naturalistic account a Central Nervous System with some rudimentary brain at least is necessary to even have animal like sensations of pain etc. That would we why brain death is the current legal definition of death of a human person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death. So that takes care of the issue of morning after pills and very early abortions.
2) By the second month however brain structures have begun to take shape, so its difficult to sustain withholding right to life at that point. (above 6 weeks?)
http://www.dana.org/news/brainhealth/de ... x?id=10050

This will rule out most abortions (unless medical technology is good enough to detect it in the 1st month). But can't see any way out (except cases like severe deformity, disease etc.)

As a mater of fact, I'm completely in sync with the slippery slope problems that happen later on. My approach is this: what makes us human is our brains. Once the brain is actually functional, you now have a human being. The 20 week mark is sound. Much further than that and my support for abortion dips precipitously. Rape victims who wait until the end of the secnd trimester are creating their own hell as far as I'm concerned. But terminating any fetus before its brain is functioning presents no dilemma to me.

Choice, with limits.

Oh, and I wasn't being sarcastic, I was just having some fun with the smileys.

[Emery]

Oh this is a lovely excuse. We cannot blame anyone for doing anything wrong because they are just being human. Wonderful!

Depends what you define as wrong, Mitch. If by wrong you mean imperfect by God's standards, then yes, we are being punished for being human, because to be human means we cannot act perfectly as your God would have us do. He is punishing us for being the imperfect beings he created us to be.

[mitchellmckain]

Oh this is a lovely excuse. We cannot blame anyone for doing anything wrong because they are just being human. Wonderful!

Depends what you define as wrong, Mitch.

Well defining any differences of opinion (with some Christian about what you think is right and wrong) as human nature certainly does not make a case that Christianity is incompatible with human life. It is frankly obvious that Christianity most certainly IS compatible with human life. NOW, whether it is compatible with YOUR life is different matter.

If by wrong you mean imperfect by God's standards, then yes, we are being punished for being human, because to be human means we cannot act perfectly as your God would have us do. He is punishing us for being the imperfect beings he created us to be.

No I certainly do not and I don't think that most other Christians do either. Obviously so. Christians just are not so absurdly irrational as you seem to want to paint them. I don't define moral wrong as imperfection. I don't believe that we are punished for being human. I don't believe that being human means that we cannot act as God would have us do. I don't believe that punishing us has anything whatsoever to do with hell. And I think that the vast majority of Christians do not believe the majority of these things either let alone all of them.

Punishment is a means of behavior modification - its what parents do to teach their children that their actions have consequences. So punishment is a good thing. If God wants to teach me about the consequences of my actions I certainly welcome it. Why wouldn't I learn such things? It is as natural for me to want to avoid negative consequences as it is for a parent to want to teach their children to avoid the negative consequences of some actions.

[yjoeyh]

LIFE isn't compatible with Christianity, HUMAN LIFE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY.

I kept wondering what the hell you guys were talking about. All over the place, let's spend an hour with a couple of Bible- thumping Christers. Seriously? BORING.

LOL, it's funny you found this one boring, I thought it would be one of the more interesting ones. But I agree with you, human life is incompatible with Christianity because ultimately our transgression is just that: being human.

There are some definite truths in what you guys are saying, even though you are saying it a prejudicial way, putting the broad spectrum of what we might consider human life and what we might consider to be Christian.
But the idea that the standard "pro-life" position is ultimately incompatible with Christianity, I think is pretty valid. It's an excellent point, and I really wish more Christians would begin to see it that way.

When Christians argue, "well maybe this is the way god wants it because of his greater plan" then I say, "Great! Leave things be then."

Yes, I couldn't agree more! (except I would leave out the word "maybe" and also capitalize the "G" in God seeing that you are using it in that sentence as a proper name as in "Santa Clause" ) I wish I had the clarity to put it that way during the show.

If god condemns babies to Hell if they die in utero or at some point before they can say, "Yay, Jesus!" -- then he's a monster

Yes, I think if you look at it like that, that is the only conclusion you can come to. My point is that, the way I see it, God is pretty much still a "monster" if he "condemns" babies to Heaven in an eternally infant state. The only other way of thinking about such an eternal state in human terms, which we didn't get into on the show, is that they exist in Heaven as facsimiles of what they would have been had they had the chance to grow and mature physically. That opens up a whole spectrum of theological problems, and pretty much makes God a clown at the very least.
Such speculation I think it pretty pointless, and leads to the imagination of all these kinds of strange and outrageous scenarios, which is why I wish Christians would just drop it.

If god doesn't put "souls in the one he knows are going to be aborted" then -- no worries-- because, uh, that aborted baby? It's doesn't have a soul.

Aren't we on the same page here? Don't you think that aborted babies are soul-less?

If babies are "robbed of the chance to make decisions" and this somehow translates into how they will function in heaven? Well, that's just crazy

What is crazy about that? Isn't that pretty much the human perspective in general? If a person is in a coma or is otherwise not able to make decisions, does that not affect how they will function on earth? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

but so sorry for all those miscarried

I'm very sorry for those that miscarried too. But what does that have to do with your point? Are you sorry because their unborn child didn't go to heaven? Don't you believe that too?

If babies go to heaven when they die regardless of how they die, or by whose hand, then the logic of Emery's position holds.

Pretty much… yes I agree.

You don't know if there's an age of accountability. You don't know what god does with the bambinos. You don't know if he plants souls in pre-natals who might be aborted or miscarry. You don't know the "bigger picture" or "plan god has". You don't really know much of anything.

Take out the theistic stuff and by your own standard, you don't "know much of anything" either, do you? So the question then becomes, why do you think a Christian ought to know the answer to these questions?

You Just put your trust in this thing you do not know and actually cannot know.

This is the ultimate hypocrisy. No one is doing that more than you.

And then a very large segment of people like you tell atheists why they should do likewise.

Yes… another thing I wish a lot of them would stop doing.

One other fact. Majority of humans who have died historically have been miscarried fetuses or early infants (due to very high infant mortality rates.) More than 70% is a good guess? If so what happens to fetuses and infants should be THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION...right? "I don't know is unsatisfactory"....like the status of cosmology with dark matter and dark energy

If all human life is equal, then yes that is a good point. It also makes the Bible's silence on the bulk of the issue, seem very strange at the least, and actually brings a lot of discredit to its reliability and authority for Christians. It's not only a problem for Christians, but for all who hold that all human life is equally valuable. My other beef is with the Humanists out there who are being hypocrites for not dealing with what should be THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION for them according to their worldview as well. "I don't know" is just as "unsatisfactory" in their case.

So the answer to both sides, which I think is pretty obvious is that all human life, most particularly those at early stages of pregnancy, is simply not as valueable (to themselves, to other people, to governments, or even to God) as other humans are. I'm not saying that fetuses are not of any value to anyone. I very much think they are and a parent might indeed value their own zygote almost as much as they value adult humans. But this gets into the issue of intrinsic value vs. extrinsic value. That would definitely be considered an extrinsic value. The law can assign a minimal value to all human life as it sees fit to define it, but again that is an extrinsic value. Even how God would value them would be an extrinsic value. So the only thing left I can see that would make sense from an intrinsic value is how much the individual values themselves, and I don't think anyone can argue that fetuses, especially at such early stages of development, have much value for themselves.

So there's not much value for these "human lives" on the table, which makes it not even close to being the "most important question." That's why most people, even the most zealous of pro-lifer's don't consider it to be that critically important by the way they respond to it.

Bottom line, I think both Christians and Humanists just need to stop being such hypocrites by saying they value all human life equally, then showing that they clearly do not. Perhaps some rethinking of worldviews in is order.