|
PeonForHer -> RE: Now God intended rape to happen. (10/29/2012 6:32:17 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
You need to explain this better, Aswad. It isn't acceptable just to say 'that's wrong' in this medium, I think.
I'll spell this out, once.
The premise of conventional theology, to which I don't subscribe, but of which I have some grasp, is that there are three possibilities for everything: (a) God did it, or (b) Satan did it, or (c) Humans did it. In some minority theologies, the third option does not exist, because they believe in predestination. Some who believe in predestination also believe in free will, but that's about as hard to grasp as the wave particle duality (i.e. not very, but it confounds most who try, apparently). WBC is ultracalvinist, which is a theological term referring to an extreme form of predestination belief, about as gloomy as it gets. [ Three choices. ]
Thank you for spelling this out, 'this once'.
Now, Aswad, please don't get testy with me. I might get annoyed and bar you from my church in the future. [;)]
The premise of conventional Christian assumptions - to which neither of us, clearly, subscribe - is of course that God did it, Satan did it, or humans did it. OK, let's forget for Satan for the moment, because Mourdock hasn't, so far as I know, invoked his name in relation to rape. Also, he's not an ultracalvinist. He's just (or so I read) a non-aligned white, evangelical protestant. In which case, though, he's still on thin ice. From the above link, my bolds:
"If we start with Mourdock’s basic affirmation that all events, even terrible ones, are part of God’s will, Mourdock has considerable company, both historically and among white evangelical Protestants. This conundrum has vexed Christian theologians enough that the debate has a name: “theodicy” describes various strategies for reconciling the belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God with the undeniable existence of evil in the world. And today, most Americans affirm the basic premise of an omnipotent God. According to a survey conducted by Public Religion Research Institute last year, most Americans (56%) agree that “God is in control of everything in the world,” while 34% disagree and 8% say they do not believe in God. Among white evangelical Protestants, this number rises to 84%, with only 15% in disagreement."
Going on that, there does seem to be a healthy chance that somewhere in Mourdock's head *is indeed* some belief that God intends rape to occur and this is what lies behind the particular wording of his comment, which does, after all, have the effect of tying rape and conception together in *some* way that's fundamental to his belief-system. But, to be charitable to the man, he's no doubt not got to grips with much, if any, of the great theodicy debate and hasn't consciously and logically reconciled his views on the matter of compatibility of free will (your, theological, sense - I'll come to that) and determinism. So, assume that it's his view that it's neither Satan nor God that is behind rape, but just human volition. If that's the case, though, we're just left with a human choice, rape, against abortion versus carrying-to-term resulting from that rape, which is not a choice (in his book).
Which brings me to this comment:
"JHCOAFS-ZOMFG-WTF ?
"Free will" has a specific meaning. Please look it up.
Sorry, but you are testing my patience this time.
Google will be more forbearing, no doubt.
I nevertheless still wish you well.
— Aswad. "
Now, you will remember not to become impatient with me, at pain of incurring my wrath and being cast out from my flock, won't you? [;)]
Actually 'Free will' has various meanings, depending on the context. In the case of Mourdock's comments, we have (at least) two contexts - that of religion and that of politics. When I use the term 'free will' I tend to use it in the political context as, for example, in the idea of humans who are able to act on free will and those who are not (slaves). My apologies for not having made that clear. However, these two contexts are frequently intermingled, and especially so when it comes to American politics and the culture of which Mourdock is a part. You see, it seems clear to me that when a woman is raped, she has, during the time that she's been raped (and after, if Mourdock were to have his way) been enslaved by the rapist in one of the vilest of ways.
And such enslavement seems to be against God's will. As Lincoln used to argue, we're all made in the image of God, we're all equal in the eyes of Him, and so forth. It's evil and immoral to enslave a person, or so I thought Americans of any political or religious hue accepted.
|
|
|
|
