Matt TreacyLast night (Monday) the Stormont Assembly voted 48 to 12 in support of a Democratic Unionist Party Bill that would ban abortion of unborn children with ‘non-fatal’ disabilities. There were 27 abstentions including all of the Sinn Féin MLAs.


One wonders what the party bosses in the “core group” would have ordered the sheep to do had the Shinner votes been sufficient to defeat the Bill and further their new agenda of maximising abortions amongst other woke causes. The old agenda has long been abandoned, of course.


Deputy First Minister O’Neill did her usual stunt of turning the vote into something that it is not: an alleged assault on the right to “compassionate healthcare.” It is a wonder she did not portray it as an attack on herself, as has been her wont in the past.

Of course, by abstaining Sinn Féin can also continue to tag along the les-aware voters who still haven’t woken up and copped on to what this outfit are now really about. When a republican in Tyrone or Belfast asks their local Gauleiter about aborting babies with disabilities, assuming they even hear about it; the reply will be “Oh, sure we didn’t vote against that.”

Likewise, anyone who believes that McDonald’s press announcement that she was seeking a meeting with Micheál Martin about Leo the Leak was not timed as a distraction really knows nothing about how Sinn Féin operates. The McDonald demand was issued at exactly the same time the debate and the vote on the abortion Bill were taking place in Belfast and of course got all the mainstream coverage.

Meanwhile, the Shinners can carry on as before because they have the apparatus of the British state behind them on this issue. The party not just acquiesced in the extension of the 1967 legislation by

Westminster to the north of Ireland – it asked for direct rule on abortion while the colonial administration was on paid leave. And having engaged in similar dishonest semantics regarding their stance when that took place, they are now brazenly defending the London diktat as “progressive liberalisation.”

As one Fermanagh republican said to me vis a vis the DUP’s opposition to abortion, “When you have two parties agreeing on running the north for the Brits, why would anyone choose the abortion party?”

Time will tell whether other northern nationalists will awaken to the same conclusion.

Matt Treacy has published a number of books including histories of 
the Republican Movement and of the Communist Party of Ireland. 

Sinn Féin Fail To Support Ban On Disability Abortion At Assembly

Matt TreacyLast night (Monday) the Stormont Assembly voted 48 to 12 in support of a Democratic Unionist Party Bill that would ban abortion of unborn children with ‘non-fatal’ disabilities. There were 27 abstentions including all of the Sinn Féin MLAs.


One wonders what the party bosses in the “core group” would have ordered the sheep to do had the Shinner votes been sufficient to defeat the Bill and further their new agenda of maximising abortions amongst other woke causes. The old agenda has long been abandoned, of course.


Deputy First Minister O’Neill did her usual stunt of turning the vote into something that it is not: an alleged assault on the right to “compassionate healthcare.” It is a wonder she did not portray it as an attack on herself, as has been her wont in the past.

Of course, by abstaining Sinn Féin can also continue to tag along the les-aware voters who still haven’t woken up and copped on to what this outfit are now really about. When a republican in Tyrone or Belfast asks their local Gauleiter about aborting babies with disabilities, assuming they even hear about it; the reply will be “Oh, sure we didn’t vote against that.”

Likewise, anyone who believes that McDonald’s press announcement that she was seeking a meeting with Micheál Martin about Leo the Leak was not timed as a distraction really knows nothing about how Sinn Féin operates. The McDonald demand was issued at exactly the same time the debate and the vote on the abortion Bill were taking place in Belfast and of course got all the mainstream coverage.

Meanwhile, the Shinners can carry on as before because they have the apparatus of the British state behind them on this issue. The party not just acquiesced in the extension of the 1967 legislation by

Westminster to the north of Ireland – it asked for direct rule on abortion while the colonial administration was on paid leave. And having engaged in similar dishonest semantics regarding their stance when that took place, they are now brazenly defending the London diktat as “progressive liberalisation.”

As one Fermanagh republican said to me vis a vis the DUP’s opposition to abortion, “When you have two parties agreeing on running the north for the Brits, why would anyone choose the abortion party?”

Time will tell whether other northern nationalists will awaken to the same conclusion.

Matt Treacy has published a number of books including histories of 
the Republican Movement and of the Communist Party of Ireland. 

44 comments:

  1. I would come at this from the opposite direction. SF should have voted against the DUP motion. Abortion should be available because a woman decides she needs it. Society should leave the difficult choice to her.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said, AM. The woman's body, the woman's choice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Choice is always involved - people who wish to deny women access to abortion insist on making the choice for women: they wish to choose what options are available for the woman. The best solution is for society to be wholly flexible - a person who does not want an abortion should not be compelled to have one. No one who wants an abortion should be denied access.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well said, Matt. This violation of devolved government, in the cause of violating a child's life, needs every pro-life person in NI to unite to prevent it. If we are outvoted, at least all will know that it is Not in our Name.

    Many Unionists like myself will demand our Unionist politicians, of whatever party, undertake to end devolved government immediately the British Government impose this measure. Whatever follows from that is a price worth paying to defend the defenceless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfie - I defend your right not to have an abortion. It would be most wrong!!!

      Delete
  5. AM, the right of ownership - that I can do what I like with my own body - is a bogus argument regarding abortion. The baby in the womb is not her body. It requires a complex shielding biochemical arrangement to prevent the body's immune system from attacking the alien in the womb. The baby is another body, another person.

    Nor does the fact of the baby being an alien confer the right to kill it in order to get rid of an unwanted guest. Such a right does not exist even in the case of our property and a dog - I do not have the right to kill a dog that comes unwanted into my driveway. Much less do I have the right to inject it with poison, nor tear it limb from limb to get rid of it. But abortionists insist they have that right to act on behalf of the woman presenting for abortion - the right to kill a human being, not a dog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfie - you don't get to define what rights are in this situation. Society does. And society in general defends the right of a woman to abortion. I am never a fan of abortion but very much a supporter of a woman's right to choose to make the difficult decision.
      If my twenty year old daughter feels she does not want to proceed with a pregnancy, who will be empowered to make that choice - you, me or her? I agree with her, not you or I choosing for her.
      Where the anti-choice lobby lose the argument is in its inability to distinguish between the morning after pill and a late term abortion. That makes their argument sound like religion. And once religion is the basis for demanding a right to drive public policy, only a minority will listen.
      I still fail to see how you can claim to have any regard for the life of the unborn when you still enthusiastically support your god culling the infant population of Egypt during the Passover.
      I imagine your adversaries in the debate should at least see some consistency. If you at least acknowledge that the biblical god's merry murdering of infants was wrong I for one would be prepared to give your opinion more consideration. I am open to every opinion opposing abortion (no pro-life article was ever refused space on this blog) other than a religious one. What you might think the unicorn might think about a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy is of absolutely no value to me and of about as much interest.

      Delete
  6. AM, correct, I don't get to define the rights on abortion - nor anything else. Only the governments of this world get to determine the rights of their people. Murdering babies in the womb, or outside the womb alongside their mothers in gas-chambers.

    That's the operational rights society confers. But society does not necessarily identify the actual rights intrinsic to each human being. Of course atheists cannot logically hold to the reality of intrinsic rights, just the changeable whims of society.

    Theists do have a logical argument for intrinsic rights - the rights conferred by the Creator of all.

    As to your objection to the Creator having the right to take back the life He has given, especially in a rebel world, you have no right as a creature to object to the rights of your Creator.



    There is a d

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfie - again you do not get to define what rights I have in relation to what you believe is the Creator. Society affords me every right to object to your Creator.

      Society gives me as much right to object to your creator as it gives me the right to object to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      What you might think of that is pretty much of no bearing on the question of rights.

      Delete
  7. Wolfie - not sure you finished your comment.

    The citizens get to define rights through a complicated and often convoluted process. You get the same access as me to how rights are defined. As limited as that process might be it is better than allowing you or me to decide for everybody else what their rights are.

    There is an immediate problem with your analysis - society in general does not view abortion as murder. If it did there would be a life sentence for all those participating. Even in societies where abortion is illegal how many can you think of that send women and doctors down for life on conviction of murder?

    There are no rights intrinsic to human beings other than the rights society crafts for them. I wish it were not so but the history of rights has been a fight to establish them and to try to make them as intrinsic as possible.

    There are no rights conferred by a Creator. There were few rights for slaves in the bible or the women raped and murdered, the adulterers stoned to death, the gays massacred.

    You wholeheartedly agree with the slaughter of infants because a book men claimed was divinely dictated said it was right.

    You don't have a respect for the lives of children but have a respect for a book that celebrates the murder of children. And until you reject the slaughter of infants in the bible as wrong, you will not be taken seriously when you talk about abortion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM

      I don't know if you saw the excellent BBC drama It's a sin? But it reminded me how the religious welcomed AIDS as punishment for gays. Know them by their deeds.

      Delete
    2. Peter - I didn't see it.

      That is a good example of Hate Theology. Few there to share the Gandhi thought “I call him religious who understands the suffering of others.”

      Theirs is the Christian love that just loves the thought of people suffering the torment of fire for eternity, merely because of who they had sex with.

      Most of us lead moral lives to the best extent we can by rejecting the bible. I don't believe Iris Robinson should be stoned to death although she might believe gays it is a fate Gays deserve.

      One of the great things about society is that despite all its shortcomings and disadvantages it has at least made sure that the effects of Hate Theology have been seriously curbed.

      Delete
  8. @ Wolfsbane

    "Theists do have a logical argument for intrinsic rights - the rights conferred by the Creator of all."

    The self-declared servants and missionaries of that Creator, in Ireland and elsewhere, victimised, abused, stigmatised and condemned to a living Hell, in laundries and homes for "fallen" women, those who became pregnant outside of theologically accepted structures.

    The children born in women trapped in these oppressive and barbaric institutions were also stigmatised.

    Religious people seem very concerned with the rights of an "unborn child" when exercising those rights involves controlling women. Religious people seem far less concerned with the rights of children once they are born, if their parents are deemed to have transgressed.

    There are many good and decent religious people. It is such a pity that the most powerful ones are the corrupt, immoral, sadistic trash that seek to control and abuse the vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon - I agree that there are many good religious people. I would say that the person I have most admired since my 20s has been the late Brazilian Archbishop Helder Camara, who seemed genuinely motivated by a concept of love beyond my grasp.
      I contrast him strongly with those who thrive on a Hate Theology grounded in the bible. I saw one on Facebook welcoming the pandemic as a manifestation of god's wrath against people he, rather than his make believe god, hated. You would need to be brimming with religious hatred to welcome the pandemic.

      Delete
  9. " The baby in the womb is not her body. It requires a complex shielding biochemical arrangement to prevent the body's immune system from attacking the alien in the womb. The baby is another body, another person."

    Wolfie, what is a miscarriage in your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  10. AM said:
    ‘Wolfie - again you do not get to define what rights I have in relation to what you believe is the Creator. Society affords me every right to object to your Creator.
    Society gives me as much right to object to your creator as it gives me the right to object to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.'

    I wouldn't have it any other way. Civil and religious liberty for all!

    ‘What you might think of that is pretty much of no bearing on the question of rights.’

    That's what I said. Society gives operational rights as it sees fit. But the Creator is the one who determines actual rights, and who will bring everyone to account for all they have done.

    ‘Wolfie - not sure you finished your comment.’

    Hmm. Can't remember.

    ‘The citizens get to define rights through a complicated and often convoluted process. You get the same access as me to how rights are defined. As limited as that process might be it is better than allowing you or me to decide for everybody else what their rights are.’

    Agreed. Anarchy is the worst option, evil worse than a Nazi or Marxist state.

    ‘There is an immediate problem with your analysis - society in general does not view abortion as murder. If it did there would be a life sentence for all those participating. Even in societies where abortion is illegal how many can you think of that send women and doctors down for life on conviction of murder?’

    Same applies to societies that did not view genocide as murder. You appear to be the one approving society as the arbiter of rights. I recognise society as the human arbiter, but say their decisions may well be evil. The only truly moral standard is that given by God.

    ‘There are no rights intrinsic to human beings other than the rights society crafts for them. I wish it were not so but the history of rights has been a fight to establish them and to try to make them as intrinsic as possible.’

    If those are intrinsic rights, then it was right for society to sacrifice children in the fire as an act of worship to Molech. The parents and the priest had an intrinsic right to do what they did.

    ‘There are no rights conferred by a Creator. There were few rights for slaves in the bible or the women raped and murdered, the adulterers stoned to death, the gays massacred.’

    Only the Creator has the right to decide what conduct is sinful. And what sins are tolerated for a time and what demand immediate punishment. Your judgment on what should be approved, or tolerated for a time, or punished is of no consequence.

    ‘You wholeheartedly agree with the slaughter of infants because a book men claimed was divinely dictated said it was right.’

    No, I approve of that action back then because I know it was God who inspired the writers to record it.

    ‘You don't have a respect for the lives of children but have a respect for a book that celebrates the murder of children.’

    The killing of those children was not murder – for the highest Judge ordered it as a punishment on the evil adults. Not only would the adults die for their crimes against God, their children would be cut-off too, leaving the wicked no posterity. The children were not being punished, just being called home before their time.

    ‘And until you reject the slaughter of infants in the bible as wrong, you will not be taken seriously when you talk about abortion.’

    Those who think so need to think deeper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfie,

      I wouldn't have it any other way. Civil and religious liberty for all!

      Not really given that you told me I had no right!

      Your Creator can no more give rights than Spiderman can. It is just something you imagine to be so.

      There is a d is how you ended off. Looked to me as if it was mid sentence.

      Marxist, Nazi, theocratic states are all to be avoided given our experience of them.

      It is not right for priests to burn children: we have moved on from biblical days and morality. Over the course of hundreds of thousands of years human society has saw its morality evolve to the point that nobody can stand over priests slaughtering children.
      There is no such thing as sin. It is a religious opinion and one people like me are free to ignore much like we are free to ignore every other religious opinion.
      As you can't possibly know that any god prompted men to write a book all we can say is that you believed that men wrote a book and you believed their claim that God was the hand behind the pen. Whatever way it is looked at this book justified the slaughter of infants and you support their slaughter. In your own words your Creator slaughtered children as a punishment on the parents of the children. And you have no idea just how evil that is?
      I thin most of us think deeply enough. If you thought deeply rather than thought faithfully you too might conclude that the slaughter of infants by your god was a monstrous crime against humanity.
      Not that I for a minute believe any of it happened. Problem is you do and you welcome it.




      Delete
  11. Brandon Sullivan said:

    ["Theists do have a logical argument for intrinsic rights - the rights conferred by the Creator of all."]

    ‘The self-declared servants and missionaries of that Creator, in Ireland and elsewhere, victimised, abused, stigmatised and condemned to a living Hell, in laundries and homes for "fallen" women, those who became pregnant outside of theologically accepted structures.’

    Indeed. ‘Self-declared' is the crucial element. The behaviour of these institutions/individuals marks them out as fakes. The authentic mark is found in those who founded Spurgeon's Orphanages, Dr Barnardo Homes, Fry's prison works, etc. Compassion for sinners and the needy. That's what should have been done all along for unwed girls and their babies. Practical help to enable them to either raise the child or gave it adopted, as the *mother* saw fit. Instead they were treated as the scum of society and virtually enslaved.

    Not that their parents were without blame. They should gave stood by their pregnant daughters, whether their neighbours or church agreed or not. But so many were weak, cowardly in the face of society's condemnation.

    ‘The children born in women trapped in these oppressive and barbaric institutions were also stigmatised.’

    Yes, very hypocritical of society to do so – for the at-least-equally guilty father of the baby suffered little consequences. Seen as a bit of a lad, maybe. Or totally shielded if he was related to the girl, or a married man.

    ‘Religious people seem very concerned with the rights of an "unborn child" when exercising those rights involves controlling women. Religious people seem far less concerned with the rights of children once they are born, if their parents are deemed to have transgressed.’

    I'm sure that is true of many false believers. But the pro-life people of Evangelical persuasion are concerned for them born and unborn.

    ‘There are many good and decent religious people. It is such a pity that the most powerful ones are the corrupt, immoral, sadistic trash that seek to control and abuse the vulnerable.’

    Yes, corrupt religious people and institutions are a sad fact in this evil generation. It is up to the true believers to aid the mum and baby, before and after the birth of her baby.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve R said:

    'Wolfie, what is a miscarriage in your opinion?'

    A spontaneous abortion. Like any illness or affliction.

    Like a heart attack is spontaneous, but a knife to the heart is murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK if it's spontaneous why does your God allow it?

      Delete
    2. murder is murder ... unless Big Evil does it

      Delete
  13. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

    This is what Big Evil has in his book - it really stretches the concept of late term abortion!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve R said:
    'OK if it's spontaneous why does your God allow it?'

    Because He has appointed all of us to physical death, a consequence of our first parents' rebellion. Some of us live more than a century, others never make it out of the womb. Most are in between, but all are certain to die at His appointed time.

    The good news is that we can have eternal life. Resurrection from the dead in a glorified body, to live forever with the One who forgives our sins and makes us His sons and daughters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfie - can you grasp how people like myself and Steve see this as being religiously unhinged?

      Delete
    2. "Because He has appointed all of us to physical death, a consequence of our first parents' rebellion. "

      So your God punishes for the sins of ancestors? And not just Adults but even before they leave the womb?

      That's a bit Evil Wolfie, do you really not think so?

      Delete
    3. Steve - the biblical god is unspeakably evil.
      Religion or more specifically Hate Theology has tried to put a shine on a turd in its endeavour to manufacture a culture straight out of the 1984 Playbook which holds the monster as a benign loving deity.
      In the end it is a god created both in the image of those who hate and by them.
      As Annie Lamont quipped, you know god is on your side when he hates the same people you do.

      Delete
  15. AM said:
    "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

    'This is what Big Evil has in his book - it really stretches the concept of late term abortion!'

    That prophecy describes the judgment those wicked would face at the hands of their enemies, for doing the exact same to the Israelites.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfie - and your religious blinkers prevent you seeing that the slaughter of children for the purposes of revenge is savagery.
      I don't believe you are a bad type but you so fit the
      Steven Weinberg observation

      Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

      I prefer the atheist Camus, seeing him as a much more moral person than the biblical moralists: "even in destruction, there's a right way and a wrong way—and there are limits."

      If you agree with people slaughtering infants because they told you God allows them to, it hardly equips you with the ethic required to make a compelling case against pro-choice. You aren't really pro-Life at all, just pro-bible.

      Delete
    2. Wolfie,

      Why all the punishment? Why not simply be a loving forgiving God?

      Why all the threats of abject torture? And why are these threats bandied about to anyone who dares question? Why is questioning seen as such a sin by your God? This rings enormous alarm bells for people like Anthony and myself and as it should.

      Delete
  16. I am wondering if Wolfsbane is a parody account?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I isn't. He is a real guy and has written for TPQ. He makes no secret of his identity. What he writes he believes but if you were not to know that you would think it a parody because the sentiment is so far off the wall to our perspective.

      Delete
    2. Barry,

      He's definetly real, and the type of Evangelical Prod that gets my hackles up. I've little patience for them.

      Delete
  17. I don't do religion. I think abortion for the sake of it or just because you can, is wrong. It's only my opinion and based on my own experiences of having the abortion convo with the mothers of my kids and one time there was an abortion the other the wasn't...

    ReplyDelete
  18. AM said:
    'If you agree with people slaughtering infants because they told you God allows them to, it hardly equips you with the ethic required to make a compelling case against pro-choice. You aren't really pro-Life at all, just pro-bible.'

    Correct. I'm prolife on the abortion issue, not as an absolute principle. I believe in the legitimacy of killing in defence of one's nation in a just war. And in judicial executions for the worst crimes.

    That's as far as mankind has to make the decision. However, we are not God. He is free to determine the how and when every life ends. He gave the life, He takes it back, as everything belongs to Him. And He is always just in His actions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wolfie,

    which means you are not pro-life but just anti-abortion.
    You are not for the life of the child, just against a woman's right to choose and for your own right to choose for her.

    The child's life is not a factor in your consideration as you endorse the slaughter of children, their lives meaning nothing to you, just your bible.

    There is never a just reason for the deliberate targeting of infants in a war. You think your god deserves to be in Heaven whereas if he existed at all I think he would deserve to be in the Hague.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Steve R said:

    'Why all the punishment? Why not simply be a loving forgiving God?'

    Would you approve a judge who acquitted criminals, just because he/she loves mankind? If he/she forgave their paedophilia, for example? Of course not. Wickedness has to be punished in any just society.

    But let's assume all the crimes were committed against the judge. Would you think it OK for the wicked to walk back into society, without any sanction? I doubt it - you would fear these criminal s continuing their exploits on the rest of us.

    Neither can a holy Creator permit sins (crimes against man and God) to go unpunished. He would be unjust.

    God has found a way to be both just and the justifier of the wicked - His Son came to bear the punishment due to them, and God changed their hearts/nature to make them holy. All who repent and trust in Christ are justified and forgiven.

    'Why all the threats of abject torture?'

    Because that is the just punishment for the wicked. Men may have a light view of sin, but God sees it for what it is, desperately wicked.

    'And why are these threats bandied about to anyone who dares question? Why is questioning seen as such a sin by your God? This rings enormous alarm bells for people like Anthony and myself and as it should.'

    I can only speak for the Christian faith I hold to. No one is threatening nor condemning sinners who question the faith. Of course sinners need to question the gospel when it is presented to them. Any problems they think they see deserve to be answered.

    So we are not threatening sinners. Just warning them of the reality that will fall on unrepentant sinners if they depart this life still in their sins. We are calling them to eternal life, showing them how they can escape the wrath to come.

    If I knew that a tsunami would overrun Newcastle beach next Saturday, I would do my utmost to warn you and anyone else who might think of walking there. I would not be threatening you. I would be acting in love.

    But of course if you believed there was no chance of a tsunami in our part of the world, nor that I could know one was coming, then you would ignore the warning and stroll along the beach without concern.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But who other than those already wicked and hateful would regard gay people as wicked and meriting burning for trillions of years and more?
      Not all Christians are motivated by hatred. In my voluntarily work I cooperate with Christians every day and not one of them cares a toss about what people's sexual preferences are. Their only concern is alleviating disadvantage. If they hate anything it is poverty. Nor do they care about my penchant for mockery of religion.
      People who waste the time they believe their god gave them wearing sandwich boards and screaming "sinner" are most unlikely to get into the Heaven of a good god and more than likely into that one run by their Heavenly Hitler. Would you want that lot as eternal companions, having to listen to them cheer and shout Hallelujah every time somebody is burned? The flames would be preferable to that.

      I find it amusing that Hate Theology poses as love and thinks nobody catches on.

      My approach to life is to get up every morning with the aim of getting thru the day without being a cunt (the Frankie-type philosophy), Most days I succeed but every day would be a failure if I was of the Hate Theology school.

      Delete
  21. "Would you approve a judge who acquitted criminals, just because he/she loves mankind? If he/she forgave their paedophilia, for example? Of course not. Wickedness has to be punished in any just society."

    And if we are all from the Creator then it follows that the Creator created those sins. Why?

    Why allow the rape and murder of innocents? Of Children?

    Free will? That's an asinine excuse when your God is supposed to be all seeing, all knowing, all tap-dancing....

    In fact, if your God knows the future then there is NO FREE WILL, and we are all just meat puppets waiting to die to get glory in perpetual servitude or agonizing pain in spiteful retribution neither of which we will choose.

    One day Wolfie you will realize you are an adherent to Sun worship masquerading as divinty via bronze age desert myths that were the sole proviso of a bunch of illiterate goat herders in some desert flea pit.

    Never wonder why it's the "Son (Sun of God)", 12 diciples (star signs), Easter always changes in regards to the New Moon, the 'Star' of the East, the Three Wise Kings (Orion's Belt) and many, many other astrological "Co-incidents"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve R said:
      ‘And if we are all from the Creator then it follows that the Creator created those sins. Why?’

      No, God made man with a will free to choose to obey or not. They created their own sins.

      ‘Why allow the rape and murder of innocents? Of Children?’

      Why should rebel mankind be free from their own sins? Why should God let them do the sins everyone likes, but make them free from the worse aspects of their nature? They need to be freed from their love of sin if the world is to be a truly happy place, and the afterlife free from God's wrath against sin.

      ‘Free will? That's an asinine excuse when your God is supposed to be all seeing, all knowing, all tap-dancing....’

      Are you suggesting He should not have created man, knowing that they would rebel? That's reasonable enough from a human standpoint – but we must remember that we are not the infinitely holy and wise Creator. We should leave such decisions with the One who knows everything, and not imagine we might know better.

      ‘In fact, if your God knows the future then there is NO FREE WILL, and we are all just meat puppets waiting to die to get glory in perpetual servitude or agonizing pain in spiteful retribution neither of which we will choose.’

      Prior knowledge does not negate freewill. The choice that will be made is the basis of the prior knowledge. But only Adam and Eve had that truly free will. We have been born with their fallen nature, and our wills are bound to our nature – we gladly choose rebellion against God because that is what we desire. Only if God intervenes and changes our sinful nature to a new one, a heart of stone changed to a heart of flesh, will we gladly choose to love and obey Him. In both cases our choice flows freely from our natures.

      ‘One day Wolfie you will realize you are an adherent to Sun worship masquerading as divinty via bronze age desert myths that were the sole proviso of a bunch of illiterate goat herders in some desert flea pit.’

      You can't know that will happen, given your worldview. In it we die and know nothing. We cease to exist, so no chance of knowing I was wrong. But I can confidently say, from my worldview, that if you die in unbelief, you will certainly know you were wrong. You will lift up your eyes in Hades, being in torments. My prayer for you is that you will think clearly about the meaning of life and the universe, and recognise that we are spiritual as well as physical beings, made by the Creator of all things and answerable to Him. You then will see that we are alienated from Him, our sinful ways keeping us from peace and fellowship with Him. And you will gladly receive His call to repent and believe in His Son as your Lord and Saviour.

      ‘Never wonder why it's the "Son (Sun of God)", 12 diciples (star signs), Easter always changes in regards to the New Moon, the 'Star' of the East, the Three Wise Kings (Orion's Belt) and many, many other astrological "Co-incidents"?’

      You are assuming English was the language the Bible was written in, and the closeness in spelling and sound between ‘son’ and ‘sun’ is significant. It's not. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, with a bit of Aramaic thrown in. Those languages have very different words for ‘son' and ‘sun’.
      Hebrew:
      For son is bēn
      For sun it is šemeš
      Greek:
      For ‘son’ is yhios
      For ‘sun’ is hēlios

      12 is significant only in there being 12 tribes of Israel/12 apostles of Christ. No need to read coincidences as significant.

      Easter is a pagan festival. The Jewish/Christian remembrance is Passover, which falls on the 14th of the Jewish month Abib. Long after apostolic times the term Easter came in vogue, and the dates varied.

      A star as a sign was and will be used to denote crucial events.

      The Bible doesn't say there were 3 wise men (magi). Whatever their number they recognised the spiritual significance of the star.

      Delete
  22. AM, the people who do good acts for their neighbours are doing good - but that doesn't make them Christian.

    Christians should do good acts, but also must love God as well as their neighbours.

    Calling sinners to repent, in a loving and gracious manner, is also what Christians are called by God to do. We don't want them to leave this life and spend eternity in hell. That's love in action.

    Pretending sinners are safe is an act of hatred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfie - why would people doing good for their neighbours want to be Christian? They might see so much hatred in Christianity that becoming a Christian is the last thing on their minds. You and I were involved in the same thread when somebody else popped up welcoming the virus because it was his god punishing sinners. That is unadulterated hatred.
      It is this type of hatred contrasted with the love of non-Christians that led to Karl Rahner developing the concept of Anonymous Christians and Bonhoeffer exploring Religionless Christianity. They were theologians concerned with saving what was good in Christianity from the practitioners of Hate Theology.
      Anyone loving the Biblical god after all his massacres, endorsement of slavery, treatment of women can never in my view claim they are acting out of love.
      A Christian has as much right to be listened to when calling sinners to repent as Batman does when calling for the people of Gotham City to rise up and strike down criminals.
      People should treat their neighbours well. That is all that is needed. Spending their day deluding themselves that the supreme creator of the universe is getting upset over what people do with their willies might be satisfying to some, but to the rest of us it is a sign of being unhinged.
      Labelling people sinners for being gay is in my view closer to an act of hatred.

      Delete
    2. AM said:
      ‘Wolfie - why would people doing good for their neighbours want to be Christian? They might see so much hatred in Christianity that becoming a Christian is the last thing on their minds. You and I were involved in the same thread when somebody else popped up welcoming the virus because it was his god punishing sinners. That is unadulterated hatred.’

      My point was that they have no right to name themselves Christian. I'm not denying their good works.

      We do not hate our fellowman. We want to see them saved from the wrath that is coming on the unrepentant. If we hated them, we would keep silent.

      Yes, the man made the point that calamities are one of God's means of warning mankind to turn from the evil ways. We don't rejoice at the calamity, but do recognise that it may waken many up to their danger of dying and facing the Judgment. I don't recall his exact words, but that is the common view among Christians. We bring help and care to the suffering, but also pray they may take heed before it us too late.

      ‘It is this type of hatred contrasted with the love of non-Christians that led to Karl Rahner developing the concept of Anonymous Christians and Bonhoeffer exploring Religionless Christianity. They were theologians concerned with saving what was good in Christianity from the practitioners of Hate Theology.’

      If either of them denied the eternal punishment of those dying unrepentant, they have no claim to being Christian. Good works are not enough to get anyone into Heaven. Only the atonement made by Christ can do that. Good works follow from saving faith, and are not the cause of it.

      ‘Anyone loving the Biblical god after all his massacres, endorsement of slavery, treatment of women can never in my view claim they are acting out of love.’

      God's regime for rebel man tolerated some of their hard-heartedness. Otherwise He would have had to keep repeating the Flood. Slavery was part of that toleration, as was divorce. Not His standard, but better than the alternatives at the time.

      Same for polygamy and the subjection of women. But when Christ came, He required of His people His standards, with no toleration of abuses.

      ‘A Christian has as much right to be listened to when calling sinners to repent as Batman does when calling for the people of Gotham City to rise up and strike down criminals.’

      Batman isn't real. Christians are. Sinners are. The gospel call and repentance are.

      ‘People should treat their neighbours well.’

      Agreed.

      ‘That is all that is needed.’

      Ignoring their Creator is the path to Hell.

      ‘Spending their day deluding themselves that the supreme creator of the universe is getting upset over what people do with their willies might be satisfying to some, but to the rest of us it is a sign of being unhinged.’

      Sinners justify their sin, and bunge their ears against God’s calls.

      ‘Labelling people sinners for being gay is in my view closer to an act of hatred.’

      It would be if homosexuality was acceptable to God. It isn't. It takes its place with all the other sins mankind is prone to, which will bring them to Hell if the sinner does not repent.

      Telling skiers they are stupid for ignoring the warnings about going off piste is not abusive. If there was no danger, then calling them stupid would be abusive . So too with warning people about the danger of staying in their sins.

      Delete
    3. Wolfie - they can names themselves Christians if they choose to. That you might choose not to recognise them as Christians is not going to matter much. Sounds like The Life Of Brian to me.

      Bonhoeffer and Rahner can deny eternal punishment and be Christians. They have no need to take the bible literally. It was written by fishermen who had little understanding of the world compared to what is known today and even thought the earth was 6000 years old. Bonhoeffer and Rahner just don't get membership of whatever cult you belong to but that hardly makes them non Christian.
      The bible justified slavery. It laid down rules for it. It even discriminated between slaves. Read Slavery in the Bible by Dr Josh Bowen. The biblical god is an evil monster who massacred infants - no need for any decent human being to worship either it or Hitler.

      Well, at least you have not been duped by Batman books. All we need to do now is to get you to start thinking about the Bible. Batman is as real as the biblical god.

      There is no path to hell.

      If there is a Supreme Creator of the universe (science cannot rule it out) you know as much about it as I do - which is nothing. What you know about is the biblical god. Might as well know about Batman.
      If there is a Supreme Creator of the universe he created gay people. And from the start of time he knew they were for hell. That he created them in the first place knowing that could never change is the act of a fiend.
      Being gay is only objectionable to the biblical god - which means fishermen did not like gay people.
      It is an act of pure hatred to want gay people to burn forever because fishermen 2000 years ago didn't like them.

      Call people sinners all you want - I guess by now you understand the reception sandwich board men get.

      Delete
  23. Wolfsbane

    Since homosexuality is as much a choice as disability, neurodiversity and skin pigmentation (none) do you believe these human characteristics are also sinful and contrary to (your) God's law?

    ReplyDelete