Top 10 Reasons Why Religion is a Negative Force in the World (part 1)
Kieth Murphy, a user in the ThinkAtheist Forums, posted his Top Ten reasons why religion is a negative force in the world. Not surprisingly, every single reason is a non-starter. Let’s dive in with #10:
Religion and religious persons impose their faith into public policy and politics. Where it clearly doesn’t belong.
There’s a problem with this line of thought. Faith is more properly thought of as loyalty, not blindly accepting premises without proof. So if one is loyal to God, then religion “done right” is going to affect every single decision you make, and that includes what public policies to vote on.
For all the talk about religious hypocrites and how they make religion look like a sham, it seems that this objection is asking the genuine follower of a religion to become a hypocrite when voting.
In other words, “You religious people are wrong, so vote like us. Conform.”
Number 9:
Religion is still very much mediatory in the schools of nations such as Republic of Ireland, where it has no place. Churches were built for a reason. This makes many members of other faiths and no faiths feel uncomfortable and excluded during a time when young persons find it difficult to fit in as it is. It isn’t a matter of talking about religion, but actively telling young persons to practice it mandatory.
This is a hypocritical complaint. Atheists generally defend the position that society creates morals. Well, if society feels its in their best interest to teach the practice of a state religion in schools, then who are we to judge or try to change that?
On the other hand, if morals are independent of society (a position theists most often defend), then a moral reformer can come along and challenge society’s mores and act as a catalyst for change. There isn’t a place for that in moral relativism; there is only what society decides is right for its situation.
To issue this complaint makes the defender of relativism a hypocrite.
If the complaint is made by the rare atheist who defends objective morality, then it begs the question. Why is it best to leave to religious education in churches, but not in schools? True religion done correctly changes the core of your being; you are a new person through the power of the Holy Spirit. That should touch every facet of your life, even your schooling. Therefore, a society primarily Christian should teach Christianity in schools, a society primarily Muslim should teach Islam in schools.
Moving on down to #8:
Many nations make it difficult for the non-religous to have any sort of successful career in politics (and being honest about their lack of faith at the same time)
This is my favorite. This is roughly equivalent to an ardent supporter of Nazism complaining that he can’t get elected to represent a Jewish borough. The people will elect a representative that will vote as they would. So if you are unlike your community in some way, then you aren’t going to get elected.
Then we have #7:
Many religious groups impose their views of abortion on others and seek to make abortion illegal. Because of religion in other nations it now is or has been for sometime, outlawed medial practice. Abortion is not murder, murder is the illegal killing of a human being, not a pre-human being.
This begs the question. First we need to prove that abortion is the best alternative and that life doesn’t begin at conception. There are, in fact, many reasons to think the opposite of both points.
Number 6:
Religion demonises many educational fields in contrast with its doctrine, such as certain aspects of history and many accepted theories
I’d love to know what he’s talking about here. Most likely Creation vs. Evolution. But there are many documented cases of Intelligent Design proponents being bullied, terminated, or forced to resign for supporting ID.
In my experience, our side is much more open to free inquiry than the other side. Question evolution respectfully and reasonably on PZ Myers’s blog and see if you get a polite education on the fundamentals of evolutionary theory and how well it’s supported in multiple branches of science, with helpful links and suggested reading. (Spoiler alert: You won’t. They’ll try to make you cry by calling you names with crass descriptions of bodily orifices combined with colorful metaphors for excrement.)
Tomorrow, we’ll look at what this user put at the top of his list.
Share this:
Posted on April 3, 2013, in Religion and tagged atheism. Bookmark the permalink. 29 Comments.
Josiah Concept Ministries 
>>>>>So if you are unlike your community in some way, then you aren’t going to get elected.
This is why democracy needs to die. Not just die, but ignite and then fall down into a pile of ashes. I like how followers of democratic and republic systems of government contend that they look out for the values of everyone. Which is bullshit. They look out for the values of the majority and persecute the minority. Which is not to suggest an other form of government is good.
>>>>>First we need to prove that abortion is the best alternative and that life doesn’t begin at conception.
Proof – the baby will never be neglected or abandoned. Proof – what if giving birth will kill the mother? Proof – Ecclesiastes 6:5-7 (“Moreover, it has not seen the sun or known anything, yet it finds rest rather than he.”).
>>>>>I’d love to know what he’s talking about here. Most likely Creation vs. Evolution. But there are many documented cases of Intelligent Design proponents being bullied, terminated, or forced to resign for supporting ID.
If you are referring to Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, you might want to know that a lot of these cases were actually faked and/or parroted. So ironic that people defending “truth” would use lies in order to do so.
See the following works exposing Expelled.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Additionally, Stein’s movie pushes out Raelians by insisting aliens are fiction and that God did it at the end.
I’d hate for YOU to be neglected or abandoned, so why don’t I just kill you? Would that be fair to you? If not, then how is it fair for a defenseless baby to be killed for the same reason?
“What if” scenarios aren’t proof. They muddy the water. It also shows me that you have no understanding of the difference between morality and ethics. Morality is concerned with universal right and wrong, while ethics govern behavior. The moral thing to do may not be the ethical thing to do, and that has everything to do with the circumstances of living in a fallen world.
I did not KNOWINGLY propagate a lie, if Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a lie. I will happily examine your links at a later date. I, unlike many, do not continue to use things that I know are untrue. As it happens, I don’t know that anything in Expelled is untrue as I have never seen any case refuted (until these links).
So don’t you DARE accuse me of lying in defense of the truth. I did no such thing. Lying is intentionally spreading falsehood. I didn’t intentionally spread falsehood; I unknowingly did so and if by further research I discover that what you say is correct then I will retract what I have written.
You are dangerously close to being banned. If you don’t know the difference between an honest mistake and an outright lie, then you are obviously NOT a reasonable person and therefore not someone I wish to spend anymore time talking to. Choose your words carefully from now on. You’re on notice.
>>>>>If you don’t know the difference between an honest mistake and an outright lie, then you are obviously NOT a reasonable person and therefore not someone I wish to spend anymore time talking to. Choose your words carefully from now on. You’re on notice.
I would like to repeat what I said because I never accused you of deliberately spreading falsehood. In fact, my statement assumed you were ignorant on the issue and needed enlightening.
“If you are referring to Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, you might want to know that a lot of these cases were actually faked and/or parroted. So ironic that people defending “truth” would use lies in order to do so.”
Note: I never said you deliberately were spreading falsehood. I said you probably should be informed that some of the stuff in Ben Stein’s movie is falsehood. It is Ben Stein, not you, that I was accusing of spreading deliberate falsehood.
Now I see where you were going with that. Here’s how I read it:
When I read it the second time, I saw how you actually meant it before I read the explanation. Looks like a simple miscommunication. I’m sorry! I take away your strike.
Yes, morality is concerned with universal right and wrong. My argument about abortion was more so on the issue that at the very least, the baby itself does not have to experience suffering. Yes, Ecclesiastes 6 deals with stillborns and not aborted children but the two can actually be quivocated.
“If pro-life Christians truly believe what their churches teach about hell, what motivates them to fight abortion? What is the better strategy to get the most people into heaven—evangelism or abortion? Well, most Christians would say abortion has a 100 percent success rate;” (Hope Beyond Hell, Kindle Edition, Richard and Beauchemin 155)
I’ve heard this before and I think it’s terrible. It makes a false assumption and bypasses the REAL issue with abortion.
False Assumption: God’s goal is to get the greatest number of people to heaven possible.
God’s goal is to glorify himself through creation, and that (unfortunately) means that some people glorify God by eternal fellowship while others glorify God by experiencing his wrath in hell. God is both loving and judging, vengeful and merciful. To see all sides of his character, to truly glorify God as God, both heaven and hell must exist and must be populated.
Don’t like it? I don’t. I wish all could join God in heaven, but that is not the way he has ordained it.
So with the correct assumption in place, we understand that this fails because getting the greatest number of people to heaven as possible is NOT the point. But to really make it an epic fail, we have to understand that it dodges the REAL issue with abortion: that it is murder. We NEVER have the right to take another human life.
In conclusion, I’m not impressed by this argument.
I am not making a false assumption that God wants to get the greatest number of people into Heaven as possible. It says in the Bible that God wills ALL to be saved (1 Tim. 4:1-2).
If there is an eternal Hell, then a loving god did not make it. If some people exist only to go to this Hell for all eternity, then why would I serve that God, he sounds like a selfish, insecure bitch.
No, abortion is not murder because we’re not even really certain when the person becomes a human and at this, you are largely unsuccessful in convincing me.
God gets what God wants, because God is omnipotent. If God wills all to be saved, then why are not all saved?
The thing is, he doesn’t will that. You are misquoting the verse. It says that God desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. However, that is not what is going to happen. You fail to distinguish between proscription and description. Proscription would be that which God decrees as so, and description is the ideal circumstance, willed by a purely loving and benevolent God.
For reasons God has chosen not to reveal, it is not his proscription to save everyone. It is descriptive of his disposition, but he must have a greater reason NOT to save all of humanity. Sometimes we need punishment. I don’t like to punish my own kids, but it is necessary that I do it.
Romans 9 has the definitive word on this. I’d reread that chapter for some background.
You’re thinking like a rebellious child who is currently up to his eyeballs in trouble. “If Mom and Dad were really loving, they wouldn’t ground me.” Not true — the loving parent WILL punish the disobedient child, because it is only by such discipline that we can grow. Hell is less for the benefit of the unrepentent sinners than it is for the glory of God and the privileged position given to the vessels of mercy. Again, read Romans 9.
A human is a human is a human; call it a zygote, a fetus, a baby, a toddler, an adolescent, a young adult, or an octogenarian. It is a human at all stages of development. The scientific and philosophical conclusion being reached more and more is that life begins at conception.
Those are the words of Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Jerome LeJeuene, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris and discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome, concurs. “[A]fter fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” This “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and is “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”
For full details, read this article by Randy Alcorn.
Will
“to wish; desire; like”
source: dictionary.com
God wills all to be saved.
Hell is eternal torment. My friend, no one deserves eternal torture for simply not believing in god. No one. And does it not disturb you that Fred Phelps and Adolf Hitler will make it into Heaven. Both believed they were doing Christ a service. Or do you not agree with sola fide?
Fallacy – appeal to authority. Just because one guy believes it, does not make him correct.
Oh, yes, what about abortion to save someone’s life or someone who has been raped?
I once heard that a person only resorts to quibbling over definitions when he has already lost the argument. So I win, then? Unless you care to do something other than quote a dictionary. Because you need to dismantle the two differentiated ideas of “will,” proscriptive and descriptive. I’ll make it easy for you: all you have to do is answer the simple question — “If God is omnipotent and can make anything he desires happen come to pass, and God wills for everyone to be saved, then why isn’t everyone saved?” If you can’t answer that, admit defeat.
Another question — “Why don’t people deserve eternal torment for not believing in God?” Please elaborate on and argue for that. My guess is you can’t, because your picture of God is derived not from God himself. You look at EXTERNAL factors and judge God by them. What you need to do is derive your ideas of Goodness, Morality, and Justice from God himself and judge all other instances by that. For if God is not the embodiment of the Good, then something greater than God exists.
Oh, and by the way — unbelief is rarely by itself in a list of sins. Often, unbelief is merely a symptom of the sin one is already steeped in. It is a commitment in and of itself; a punishment meted by God himself for wandering so far afield from what he has proscribed for man (see 2 The 2:9-12).
As for Fred and Adolf, I understand that good works are natural outgrowths of a true saving faith. Have you not read that faith without works is dead? Fred and Adolf have no good works. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin and you cannot have one without the other. Saving faith always manifests in good works. The faith saves you, then the good works follow. No good works, then the person is NOT in communion with God. It’s as simple as that.
So I won’t be asking Fred or Adolf to pass the salt at the Lamb’s Supper.
Appeal to authority is a legitimate form of argument. There are two determining factors. First is that the authority is an expert in the field in question. Obviously, I met that criterion. Second is that there is sufficient consensus in the field on that topic. That criteria may not have been met, but I’m confident that the pendulum of scientific opinion is swinging in that direction. At least enough to warrant this appeal. There appears to be a growing consensus in the fields of obstetrics, pediatrics, and genetics (as there is already, I believe, in philosophy) that life begins at conception.
Therefore, my appeal to authority is NOT fallacious as used here.
Finally, the inevitable rape/incest or life-of-the-mother question that vexes me so. Statistically, 90%+ of all abortions are performed for convenience. “We wanted a boy.” “I don’t have enough money.” “I’m too young to be tied down with a kid.” “The baby has all the markers for Down syndrome.” Less than 2% of abortions are for rape or incest. Let’s not quibble over statistically insignificant questions and keep this focused on the real issue — the murder of an innocent child.
I think that saving the life of the mother is admirable, but wouldn’t a mother die to save her own child? If the baby’s survival were guaranteed, wouldn’t a mother rather the kid, even a kid still in the womb, have a chance at life and willingly lay down her own life? I’m afraid that there’s no easy answer to this one, but I also believe it is statistically insignificant and therefore not a valid retort.
1. You don’t know that not everyone is saved. It is very possible (it is so) that your conception of God is wrong. You are discrediting universalism.
2. No one deserves eternal torment because no one has done anything so wrong that this would constitute deserving eternal torment. We live finite lives and can only do finite things. Thus, we only deserve finite punishments.
In regard to Hitler and Phelps, how is a guy like David any better than them? I mean the David from the Bible? David had no good works. He was an adulterer. He had seven wives and killed a man. Are you really any better than Phelps and Hitler?
Okay, what about stem cell research? Stem cell research can save lives of people who have cancer. This is a good thing.
You can say that I am in sin if it makes you feel better. I abandoned the Bible because it took away human dignity and stood in the way of human rights. I revently ripped pages out of one of my Bibles that contained stuff commonly used to hinder the rights of LGBT people. This is not a sin I have committed, it is standing up for human rights.
1. Jesus said:
This echoes Daniel 12:2. So there is an example in both Old and New Testaments of not everyone being saved. Then, of course, you have Romans 9 (I’ve mentioned this one several times already).
I’m not discrediting universalism. I’m denying it. The Bible doesn’t teach it.
Suggesting that everyone MIGHT be saved isn’t an adequate answer to my question. So I’ll ask it again, and this time ANSWER it: “If God wants everyone to be saved and God brings to pass everything he desires, then why isn’t everyone saved?”
2. You are wrong. Our existence is designed to be eternal, not this single finite life. Sin — disobedience to God — is a pattern. Faith — obedience to God — is also a pattern. Think of eternal existence as an object in 3 dimensional space and the span of human life as a single dimension of that. If your life is a square on earth, it will eternally be a cube. If it’s a triangle, in eternity it is a pyramid.
Meaning that your destination after this life — heaven or hell — is laid now. You don’t get what you “deserve” so much as what you “build.” This is why C.S. Lewis once famously remarked that no one is in hell that doesn’t WANT to be there; that the doors of hell are locked from the inside. Left on our own, we erect an eternal hell. It is only by the mercy of God that anyone can obtain heaven.
3. I’ve said again and again that we’re ALL sinners and ALL deserve hell. Last I checked, I’m included in “all.” So I’m no better than Phelps in that my actions have somewhere brought disrespect and disrepute to Christianity. For example, on this blog I frequently employ sarcasm. That in and of itself isn’t wrong, but sometimes I can get insulting and condescending. That has undoubtedly turned many off from Christianity.
There IS a difference between King David and I versus Fred and Adolf. The difference can be summed up in one word: REPENTANCE. You are the type of commenter that, in the past, would have brought on my condescension and I would have resorted to insults and ridicule quickly. Instead, I have been very patient and have continued to rebut you with gentleness and (I hope) a little kindness. Reason? I hope that I’ll reach you. That isn’t going to happen if I drive you screaming into the wilderness because I’m overly sarcastic and condescending.
When King David messed up, he sought repentance. He admitted his mistake, he prayed, he fasted, he tore his robes in lament for the sin he committed. During that time, he wrote Psalm 51 (you might want to look at that one). When none of it worked, he accepted the earthly punishment his sin brought (the death of his child), and he moved forward.
As to King David having no good works, that’s a joke. He was obedient to God’s call to battle Goliath, he wouldn’t strike down Saul because Saul was God’s anointed, he brought the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem and was blessed for it. His house is the line of Jesus, God’s Son. David’s faith and repentance is a model for us all. Hopefully none of us commit so grievous a sin as he did, but the point stands — he repented and MEANT it.
I don’t see any of that from Fred or Adolf. Do you?
4. You’re ushered into a dark room and a guy you know nothing about is strapped to an electric chair. If you throw the switch and kill him, you MIGHT help advance medical science to the point where we can cure AIDS, reverse aging, and regrow tissues and organs. But, then again, it might also be a dead end. You have no way to know right now. Do you throw the switch and kill this guy?
There are serious ethical problems with this.
You don’t know anything about the guy. Maybe he’s the future leader that will negotiate peace between Israel and other Middle Eastern nations, getting all to lay down their arms. Or maybe he’s a humanitarian that contributes time and money to causes aimed at ending world hunger. Both scenarios advance mankind in a much different way than scientific knowledge.
But the bigger question that needs to be asked about sacrificing one to POTENTIALLY save many: Who are you to make the decision?
That’s the problem with stem cell research. The scientific advances are promised without guarantee; they may or may not work. But to start the process, we have to be willing to end another human life. And that, to me, is both inhuman AND unethical; not to mention hypocritical. To be a true humanitarian is to SAVE lives, not end them before they begin. Even if a potential benefit might be greater than one life. But, you don’t know what impact the life you ended may have had if allowed to live.
5. That you are in sin most assuredly does NOT make me feel better. It is neither my gift nor place to bring you into God’s family. I have no delusions about what I do. I can help you understand why Christians believe as they do. I can show you the errors in your reasoning and in your belief about what Christians believe. Seeds I pray God will use to bring you into his family when (or if) the time is right.
We’re a long way from that. While you admit you are in sin according to the precepts of the Bible, you think that is the solution rather than the problem. You don’t see the Bible as I do; I believe its rules elevate human dignity and free us from oppression. You see the opposite, and that makes me sad. I pray I CAN show you why you are in error. I may not lead you down the road to the Cross, but I can fill in the potholes along the way — opening your heart to a call from God in the future.
I’m doing my part, and I’m trusting God to do the rest.
Sorry, I thought I typed in Ecclesiastes 6:3-7. This is the correct citation.
Perhaps you could put that in its historical and cultural context to explain why that would apply to an abortion and not mean that a child dead in the womb is better off than people who are unsatisfied with what they have in this life.
Go on, amuse me.
1. In regard to that verse from Jesus, Jesus is also saying he would return in the disciples’ generation in Matt. 24. Perhaps he is simply separating them from the atrocities of the Roman Empire? Further, your interpretation of Romans 9 contradicts human logic and reasoning. I am not a puppet being controlled by an invisible puppeteer as that passage suggests.
2. Your reasoning is again arguing that god is the one who pretty much picks and chooses people’s eternal fate. If some are already chosen as you seem to suggest from Romans 9 and that the eternal torment of some is for god’s greater glory, then I honestly have no say in the manner as to whether I repent or not meaning that god is to blame for my torment in hell, not myself. Again, no one deserves eternal torment. We only had a finite amount of time to “sin”.
3. Fred and Adolf arrived at their conclusions from what they believe/believed to be the Bible’s most accurate interpretation. They use god to justify their actions. As such, there is no need for them to repent to be accepted into heaven since what they did was follow what god wanted of them. Sorry, you lose.
4. If the man has a certain type of tissue or some sort that might be able to save millions from dying of unnecessary disease, I would do so. There are no ethical problems with my making that decision. I would probably feel worse if I didn’t kill him and people died because I didn’t kill him. Someone else will be able to arise to make peace.
5. If you believe the Bible’s rules elevate human dignity and free us from oppression that you might want to reconsider. A couple years ago, there were Biblical followers in Uganda that launched a “Kill the Gays!” bill following Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Racism and slavery has been the result of following the Bible’s rules. In addition to that, sexism (another form of oppression), has arrived from following the Bible’s “rules” (1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34, 1 Tim. 2:11-12, Eph. 5:22-31).
1a. Matthew 24 has Jesus vindicated as a prophet of God by the destruction of the Second Temple, which he predicts. This isn’t referring to the timing of Jesus’ Second Coming.
1b. Why elevate human logic and reasoning above the divine revelation of Scripture? That’s the PROBLEM, not the solution.
2. I’m Reformed (Calvinist), so it shouldn’t surprise you that I argue that God has his chosen elect. But, again, I’m a firm believer that our free will choices (contingent though they are) carry with them real moral implications and therefore we are responsible for them. How? There’s a divine mystery we may not soon solve. Whether you believe that or not isn’t my concern. I can only impart truth; I can’t force you to believe it. You can, as you have, choose to completely ignore it and repeat your previous argument.
I feel like a dungeon delver who approaches an ogre, and gives a well-reasoned argument for why the ogre should let the delver by, only to have the ogre smash the unlucky delver with his great club. Like the ogre, you ignored everything I just said and beat me with same club I shot down.
3. Fred and Adolf may have felt a call from God and may have interpreted the Scriptures to the best of their understanding, but that doesn’t make them any less wrong in what they did. Even though they sincerely believe they are in the right, they are not. Therefore, their need for repentance remains. YOU lose.
4. Your ethics suck.
5. Your examples are all of people misinterpreting Scripture. Try again.
Actually, what scares me about number 5 is that these people are actually consistent in their Biblical interpretations. What scares me about Fred Phelps is similar. Not that he exists but that he isn’t a hypocrite.
In regard to my ethics allegedly “sucking”, I would rather kill one in order to potentially save millions then just let millions die. Who’s ethics “suck”?
In regard to Calvinism, there is no free will in Calvinism so we make no free will choices. Calvinism flies in the face of human logic and reasoning. Therefore, if Calvinism is true, then God, by definition, does not exist.
You’re going to have to argue that those people are more consistent than others, not just state it. What, for example, makes Fred Phelps more accurate than orthodox Christianity in his interpretations of the Bible? And what makes the rest of us hypocritical?
You would be willing to kill someone, in cold blood, if there is the POTENTIAL, but not the GUARANTEE, to save millions? What if nothing comes of it? And what gives you the right to make that decision?
Why do you say there is no free will in Calvinism? Have you bothered to study it? And so what if it flies in the face of human logic? Because human logic is the PROBLEM, not the solution.
For starters, Phelps practices what he preaches. Unlike the child molestors in the Catholick Corporation Industry. Unlike the abortion clinic bombers in the Protestant Business and unlike the arrogant morons proclaiming “they know all” in the Eastern Orthodox of Industrial Businesses. Thus, Westboro Baptist Corporated actually isn’t just pretending to be a “church” similar to that Witchtower Babble and Trick So-so-sigh-entity.
Yes. If there is the potential that many can be saved. I would rather have only one innocent blood on my hands then millions of innocents die because what I could have and probably should have done. The right for me to make that decision is what I deem best for humanity. Don’t risk millions of lives just because of one.
I have studied Calvinism and have talked with a former Calvinist. I had thought there was free will in it too but he claimed otherwise, that we are all puppets. This is the result of Calvinism my friend. You are getting Calvinism confused with Arminianism.
What WBC preaches is a message of hatred — hardly the Christian message.
Ever read “Watchmen?” Would you argue then, that since it was motivated by an altruistic goal of uniting mankind and ending violence and strife, that what Ozymandias did was morally justified? If not, why not?
Oh, you’ve studied Calvinism AND talked to a former Calvinist. That completely refutes my use of actual Calvinistic confessions and argument. Please enlighten me as to how the sources I’ve quoted show that humans are puppets at the behest of God. Because I don’t get that out of what I read.
I also would like to point out in regard to rape cases that God was very “pro-life” in 2 Samuel 12 in regard to David’s rape of Bathsheba.
Are we reading the same Bible? Because sometimes it doesn’t seem like it. David didn’t rape Bathsheba. And what the deuce does that passage have to do with abortion?
The baby Bathsheba gives birth to is killed by god.
How is that abortion? Abortion is the willful killing of the child by the parents in utero. The child was a) not killed by his parents and b) not killed in utero.
Try again.
Then you’re an Arminian. A fake Calvinist. A wannabe Calvinist.
WBC preaches the Bible (Rom. 9:13). Ever been to their website?
What does a work of fiction have to do with real life?
Not worth responding to.
Pending on the definition of abortion. According to the World English Dictionary, it is a failure to develop to maturity. It’s not always a medical definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion?s=t
But my point was that God ordered the baby killed before it was born so it might as well be considered “abortion by his hand”.
Pingback: Top 10 Reasons Why Religion is a Negative Force in the World (part 1) | ChristianBookBarn.com