• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Disabled kids are God's punishment

Elizabeth I said:
People say stuff like this and apparently never stop to think what it demonstrates about their God perversity and cowardice .
Click to expand...

People who say that kind of things essentially enjoy seeing harm and suffering happening to anybody they disapprove of, whatever the reason, but since they are hypocrites and cowards, they hide it behind a professed belief in a divinity.
 
bickerer said:
Putting aside the utter repulsiveness of Bob's statement, where on earth would he be getting the evidence to support this piece of offal? Are women in the States required to disclose whether they've had a prior abortion as they check into the maternity ward? Do the medical staff quiz the new Mother of a handicapped infant as to whether she has previously had an abortion? Or is he just shooting this out his backside to see who shows up to help him wipe?
Click to expand...


Actually, this IS part of the medical history we expect to see on a woman who's pregnant. Not something that gets asked only to women giving birth to handicapped infants either. Every mother gets that as part of her history. It's usually given in the record as something like G2, P1, A1 (been a long time since I've floated to OB, like decades, but that means, more or less, two pregnancies, one resulting in a live birth. Abortion in this context is any pregnancy that doesn't result in the live birth of an infant. If she was still pregnant, it would read G3, P1, A1.) As for that information being released so that fundamentalist preachers can pretend to run statistics on it and moralize? Not so much. Especially in these times of enhanced privacy laws, sue-happy patients, and the social stigma that still surrounds women's reproductive rights, not a chance in hell.

A
 
fuelair said:
As a human being I find it incredibly offensive. And, it essentially calls his god a malign thug.
Click to expand...

Well, his god IS a malign thug if that's the position he/she/it takes. The bigger question is how someone can handle the cognitive dissonance to realize that this is the god they've made for themselves, and still consider the bugger worthy of worship.

A
 
Some Christians don't appear to have discovered the NT, let alone Ezekiel repudiating the 'for generations' thing. It is sad and harmful and I wish they would stop it.
 
In defense of the whole God thingy, (oh no! I hate this!), it makes a bit more sense with past lives in the equation. You know, karma and all.

I can expect to have an awful next life. Ugh.
 
quarky said:
In defense of the whole God thingy, (oh no! I hate this!), it makes a bit more sense with past lives in the equation. You know, karma and all.

I can expect to have an awful next life. Ugh.
Click to expand...
However, Karma has no place in Judeo-Christian theology, except when fundies want to ass-pull something in order to make a point.
 
"Community mobile" but still mentally and physically disabled persons of all ages come to the Mall several days a week, with their care givers.
In a more Christian community, I expect they would be sequestered from the sight of good people.
 
To their credit, many, if not most, Christians will probably be as offended by Marshall's words as we are. However, in a 1997 essay titled "God's sovereignty and Genetic Anomalies" the author, Michael S. Bates, said that God allows genetic defects "for his glory." So, should we tell parents of an infant afflicted with Tay-Sachs syndrome that God condemned their child to a short life filled with pain "for his glory"?

To be fair to Bates, he also said that God did this to show us our brokenness and to make us care for the afflicted unconditionally. However, it seems to me that even the healthiest babies have to be cared for unconditionally. The same is true of four-year olds. The effects of aging will also put healthy people in te position of needing to be cared for unconditionally. In fact, the debilitating effects of diseases will at one time of our life or another, put all of us in the position of needing to be cared for unconditionally. So devastating birth defects are simply not needed in that regard.

As to the whole concept of "brokenness," that relates to the Fall, original sin and all that other crap. However, while I find the concept of original sin offensive, our finitude - a word I prefer to "brokenness" - is sufficient, particularly in the face of the many things that affect us that are totally beyond our control, to demonstrate our helplessness and to dispel any ideas of being supermen. We don't need an extra dose of suffering caused by birth defects.

In fact, the only possible argument for theodicy is to put human beings in the wrong: We suffer because of our fallen nature. Ultimately, no matter how kindly this argument is put forth, it's not that far from Marshall's callous, offensive assertion that God punishes mothers for their previous abortions by creating birth defects.
 
Yeah, at the other end of life, what's the "glory" in Alzheimer's?
The total destruction of the personality, making that person a genuine burden to their family.
"All-loving"!
HA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom