Question of the Week: Are Aborted Children Better Off In Heaven From A Christian Perspective?

Those who argue in favor of abortion do so because of a fundamental disagreement about what life is. Due to the fact that the Christian worldview does not allow their perspective regarding human identity after birth, many have attempted to reach over from our perspective in order to justify the act of purposely ending a baby’s life. The argument is usually phrased in a way similar to this; If God isn’t going to judge people to be separated from Him forever when they never had an opportunity to receive or reject Him, (or something along the lines of the Age of Accountability providing salvation to those too young to come to a decision on the matter), then aren’t those who abort their children simply sending those kids to Heaven? If Heaven is better than this life, then isn’t the act of aborting children better from a Christian perspective? They never had to suffer, experience pain, and only ever knew life present with Jesus. This is the argument point by point;

Premise 1: Children who die young go to Heaven. (Genesis 18:25)

Premise 2: Heaven is better than this World. (Philippians 1:23)

Conclusion: Causing the deaths of children is good because it sends them to Heaven. (Psalm 116:15)

Hopefully hearing these things out loud reveals to most just how horrific a claim it actually is. While modern culture has prided itself on indifference to most issues, the only reason most subscribe to this kind of thinking is hopefully because they haven’t fully thought the issue through. In the face of unfiltered and unapologetic evil, it’s best to not meet irrationality with more irrationality. Like any other claim about anything, they should be tested according to their own standards as well as the worldview they claim to be challenging. Is this a rational conclusion from a Biblical perspective, or is it just as Satanic as it sounds?

Problem #1: The Ends Justify the Means?

The first part of this argument that needs to be challenged is the fact that it’s based on a fallacy. The claim that “The Ends Justify the Means” is rejected in the realm of rational thought because of just how far it can be abused. People who justify their actions by claiming they meant well or are doing it in the name of a greater good are making the assumption that their reprehensible actions will, in fact, produce their intended outcome. People assumed at a certain point in history that the elimination of rights for certain groups of people were justified because it would produce a perfect society. They were not only wrong, but caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the process of a misguided goal. When applying this to abortion, there’s too many false assumptions that conflict with both parties interests in this conversation. Those who support abortion are in conflict with the Bible’s claims about this life and the afterlife. To justify your position with an outcome you fundamentally deny is insincere at best, and deceptive at worst. It’s not an end they acknowledge. People who argue this way demonstrate that they are simply indifferent about the death of a child. This is why the majority of those who argue in favor of abortion have to focus on the definition of life and the identity of the unborn as worthy of less rights than those who are born. Anything apart from the dehumanization of others puts them in a dilemma. Either they’re acknowledging the fact they are supporting the deaths of the innocent, or are proving they could care less about the outcome of their actions.

Problem #2: Why stop at Children?

The second problem this argument fails to take into consideration isn’t just the indifference it reveals about its speaker, but exactly why its conclusion is limited to children. If the conclusion is that causing the deaths of children are a good thing because it sends them to Heaven, why would that not apply to humanity in any other age group? Causing the deaths of young children would be a good thing as well because it spares them the pain and suffering that come with puberty, bills, and the stresses of later life. The deaths of teenagers would be seen as a good thing because it spares them the heartache of failed relationships and the anxiety that comes with the future. The deaths of adults would be seen as a good thing because it spares them the suffering that comes with old age. The deaths of the elderly would be seen as a good thing because it spares them a difficult transition into Heaven. If your system can be used to justify the extermination of the human race in any scenario, you either need to rethink your position or have yourself admitted for serious psychiatric evaluation. The potential for suffering is no excuse to end a human life.

Problem #3: What is the Christian Perspective?

The third problem with this argument is that it fundamentally misrepresents the worldview it’s claiming to meet halfway. Normally it’s a reasonable approach to argue your conclusion from the perspective that’s contrary to it. If you can demonstrate that we both agree on the fundamentals, then there ends up being no disagreement with what both people are saying. The only problem is when one or both views aren’t actually what’s being explained, you end up creating a whole new disagreement in addition to what the first argument was about in the first place. If the person you’re talking to won’t even let you explain what you believe, then they have demonstrated they’re not there to argue. They’re merely dictating and enforcing their own ideas onto you. Then when you refuse to fit yourself into their box, they shame you for not being what you weren’t to begin with. That’s not how reasonable conversations happen.

The Christian perspective in regard to life is as follows;

• Jesus of Nazareth is the example Christians consider following as the standard for right and wrong.

Imitate me as I imitate Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:1 (NKJV)

• Jesus of Nazareth lived the perfect life according to God’s standard.

For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;
1 Peter 2:20-22 (NKJV)

• Jesus of Nazareth didn’t distance Himself from our suffering, but voluntarily became a part of it.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
1 Peter 3:18 (NKJV)

• Jesus of Nazareth never justified the death/murder of anyone by claiming it would prevent them from suffering. In fact, just the opposite. He predicted the suffering of His followers and prayed they would be preserved through it.

I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
John 17:15 (NKJV)

The Christian perspective is not indifferent towards the intentional ending of someone’s life, regardless of age. The Christian perspective does not justify murder in order to prevent potential suffering. The Christian perspective is based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, not the summations of people who don’t believe His claims about life before and after birth.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Can Hypothetical Questions Help Us Study the Bible?

The question of hypothetical scenarios usually come in the form of “What if?” This can be entertaining to pass the time in long car rides, but at the end of the trip the fact remains that everything talked about didn’t actually happen. When people ask how would everything be if God had done things differently, it’s important to clarify two things;
1. He didn’t do things differently.
2. What is the reason this question is being asked?

Example: What if God had made mankind more durable? (Teflon lined arteries and titanium bones for example)

The first thing to clarify is that God didn’t make us that way. The reason this needs to be brought up first is because it brings the conversation back to reality. Imagination can make mincemeat of anything practical and lead to every possible conclusion. The includes the wrong one. We don’t want to end up wasting time on a question that has no answer, because by the time we realize that’s the case there may be a temptation to justify the time with a conclusion that’s based on something that wasn’t true to begin with. That is why the second clarification is also key. Why is this being asked? This example in particular was taken from the book “The Panda’s Thumb” by Stephen Jay Gould. The reason this hypothetical question was being asked was to challenge the idea of intelligent design by suggesting that God could have done a better job according to Gould’s hypothetical and imaginary scenarios. A response was given by Frank Turek and Norm Geisler by drawing attention to two key facts. Stephen Jay Gould wasn’t our Creator, therefore didn’t know what that Creator had in mind when He made us. Using the example of a car or iphone, there are certain things in designing something that require tradeoffs. Making an iphone small and light requires there to be less room for data storage and battery life. Likewise, making a car safe and able to carry more people requires the tradeoff of small size and light weight. In order to be practical in the universe we live in, certain things had to be true about us that excluded the possibility of the other things Gould suggested could have been done “better.” They also make several side comments to make the issue more light-hearted. What exactly did Gould intend to do with his body that would require the Creator to make him so durable? This is what brought the whole issue back to reality. The reason Gould wrote his book was to demonstrate through the inferior design of the Panda’s Thumb that there was no designer. It doesn’t function like Gould’s thumbs. The only purpose it serves is to strip bamboo. This is the real problem with these kind of hypotheticals. “What if God doesn’t exist since I could think of more things a Panda could do with a thumb?” can be responded to with “What if God does exist since the only thing He intended for the Panda’s thumb than what they’ve always done with it?” It never gets us anywhere and is therefore unproductive.

The only positive that could potentially be produced from hypothetical questions and scenarios is to test bad thinking. Like math problems train thought to take place in multiple steps within a set structure, logic problems can also train these “mental muscles” for where they’ll be needed in real life. What needs to be in place before this happens is a complete understanding of reality so at the end of the exercise you can still tell the difference between what was thought about and what actually is.

Hypothetical questions do not aid us in studying the Bible. What needs to be studied is what actually happened. Not what number of infinite possibilities could have happened were things different. The only use hypothetical questions have in any productive sense is to learn how to test good thinking. The person who spends all of their time thinking needs to ask themselves what they’re thinking about. Are they examining reality or exploring everything apart from it? That’s the difference between good and bad thinking. Does it lead you away from or closer to the truth?

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: If God Is Against Abortion, Why Does He Allow Miscarriages?

In order to properly respond to these kind of questions, the reason this objection came up first needs to be examined. If the moral equivocation of Abortion and allowing a Miscarriage are made out to be the same because the result is the death of a child, then there’s no argument to be had. Both of us agree that abortion is ending a child’s life and is therefore a bad thing to consciously pursue.
If the moral accusation is being made against God for violating His own standards by committing murder, the point still stands that the person trying to justify abortion has admitted to it being murder.
And if the moral justification is being made that God ends the lives of children, therefore we also share that right; then the issue is that of clarifying to the person that they do not share exclusive rights that God has.

The goal in any conversation should be for both parties involved to listen to each other. The problem is that like many terms used in arguments in favor of abortion, definitions of terms are changed on a whim. Listening doesn’t mean agreeing. Talking doesn’t mean that there isn’t going to be a conflict of ideas. And conflict isn’t a bad thing when it’s addressing a serious issue. If those in favor of abortion are correct and legitimate rights are being taken away from people in the name of a lie, that needs to be addressed and corrected. Likewise, if those against abortion are correct and human lives are being ended at the hands and will of their own mothers, that also needs to be addressed and corrected as well.

Good Philosophy has to exist if for no other reason than that bad philosophy needs to be answered. -C.S. Lewis

Claim #1: God Allowing a Miscarriage and a Mother Allowing an Abortion are the same thing.

The goal of this claim is meant to prove that if our beliefs are consistent, then we’re believing in a God who permits the same thing that takes place during abortions. We obviously don’t want to disagree with our God. But we need to be careful to define our terms as well. A Mother aborting her child is a decision she consciously pursues. A Miscarriage is not something God consciously pursues. There is not a single example in scripture of God causing a miscarriage in scripture the way those trying to prove its virtue make it out to be. The loss of the child is the only common factor between a miscarriage and abortion. The only assumption being made in both arguments is that a child is being lost, which is what the person supporting abortion is hopefully trying to disprove and not prove. And ironically, that leaves the actual topic of the conversation on the losing end of the person using this to support abortion. If there is actually something wrong with ending a child’s life, then they’ve admitted what the Pro-Life position is trying to prove. At worst, all that’s been established is that God is as cruel as a mother pursuing an abortion for killing their child. At best, they’ve proven that God’s inaction is the same thing as a Mother’s action. Either way, it’s a nonsensical claim to make.

Claim #2: If Abortion is Murder Then God is a Murderer.

The goal of this claim is meant to prove that the act of taking a child’s life is immoral for all people at all places at all times. This includes God. The problem with this attempt to dodge the issue is the same as the previous blunder. It fails to understand that there is a difference between us and God. God can create out of nothing. We can’t. God existed before the universe without a beginning. We didn’t. God is the standard for morality and ethics. We aren’t. God is the giver and taker of life. We aren’t. If the accusation of biblical murder is being leveled against the God of the Bible for ending lives, then at least define the term murder biblically. The only reason why taking someone’s life is ultimately deemed an evil is because it’s taking an exclusive right of God into our hands. If you’re going to accuse God of a crime you decided was evil, He isn’t going to care about your opinions. If you’re going to accuse God of a violation of His character without understanding what is meant by; “God, violation, and His character” then we shouldn’t pay any mind to their conclusions. Ultimately, the problem with this claim is that it falsely equivocates murder with killing, and grants the Pro-Life position the main point it’s trying to prove. People shouldn’t be given the power to determine when their baby dies. That power belongs to God alone.

 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
Genesis 9:5-6 (NKJV)

“The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up.”
1 Samuel 2:6 (NKJV)

Claim #3: God Kills Babies So Why Can’t Their Mothers?

Hopefully anyone reading this out loud can conclude why that doesn’t make any sense. In light of what’s been said, the problems the assumptions behind these claims cause for the person trying to prove something from them, and the fact that the real issue is granted to the Pro-Life position in every one of them, these aren’t the kind of arguments that someone trying to justify abortion should make unanswered and uncorrected. Just because God allows something doesn’t mean He’s the cause of it. Just because God does something doesn’t give us the right to do it. And just because a life is ended in one instance without being anyone’s fault doesn’t mean that ending the lives of children in every instance should be viewed the same way.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: How do you respond to the accusation that Christians tampered with the Old Testament in order to fit prophecies of Jesus into Jewish scriptures?

Whenever an accusation is made, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. In internet circles, it is often presented the other way around. If Christians can be accused of anything, it is our responsibility to provide evidence that their claim is wrong. That isn’t how conversation and debate work. The best and only way to respond to an accusation, usually made without evidence, is to ask where and when these corruptions took place. Once we establish that the person making the accusation doesn’t have any evidence to support their claim, you then have the opportunity to respond with evidence to the contrary.

What evidence do we have that the Christians didn’t tamper with Old Testament texts? The answer is the Dead Sea Scrolls. We have physical copies of the Old Testament over 200 years before the time of Jesus and the authors of the New Testament. The physical copies we have available are both in fragments and whole copies, the most significant of which is a full copy of the book of Isaiah. Every single prophecy that modern Jews would reject as referring to Jesus, and that internet skeptics would claim were inserted later by Christians are in those copies the exact same place we find them in our Bibles today. On top of these, we have fragments of every single book in the Old Testament that we find in the Christian Bibles today with the exception of Esther. And given the fact that Jews still celebrate Purim honoring the lives of Esther and Mordecai, they wouldn’t take the side of the skeptics on this. You can’t insert books, verses, and statements into scripture if they were already there centuries before you existed. Unless the skeptic wants to argue that Christians invented a time machine and altered these texts centuries before the time of Christ, this claim is worth less than the air it took to claim it. There is not only no evidence to support it, but direct and publicly available evidence against it.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.