Republican Senate hopeful Richard Mourdock in rape row

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It's fairly easy to see what Mourdock was trying to say. It's pretty basic Christian/Pro-Life rote - life begins at conception and God has a hand in most things.

Anyone who honestly thought he meant that God intended rape needs to have their head examined.
Anyone using that interpretation against him politically needs to have their soul examined.
Anyone not using it against him should not be working in politics.

Christ, I'm depressed.

But you are well educated.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It's fairly easy to see what Mourdock was trying to say. It's pretty basic Christian/Pro-Life rote - life begins at conception and God has a hand in most things.

Anyone who honestly thought he meant that God intended rape needs to have their head examined.
Anyone using that interpretation against him politically needs to have their soul examined.
Anyone not using it against him should not be working in politics.

Christ, I'm depressed.

His statement highlights one fundamental flaw in his religious dogma. If his god has a hand in conception (or indeed "most things" as stated above), what does he not have a hand in? How can his god have responsibility for one (conception) without taking ownership for the other (rape)?

If mortals cannot know the mind of their god, how come religions all come with detailed but largely ambiguous instruction books (mostly dating from the Bronze Age)?

This clown (Mourdock) is just another American Taliban who's knowledge of biology and empathy for women in general is essentially non-existent.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

How can his god have responsibility for one (conception) without taking ownership for the other (rape)?

I think just a little investigation would reveal that most believers feel that God created everything to be good, but free will allows men to be evil. Thus it is very easy for God to create conception and Man to create rape.

I understand your disagreement and even your hostility, but your own bias and prejudice are also showing. Do we really need to have this hostile argument again?

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think just a little investigation would reveal that most believers feel that God created everything to be good, but free will allows men to be evil. Thus it is very easy for God to create conception and Man to create rape.

I understand your disagreement and even your hostility, but your own bias and prejudice are also showing. Do we really need to have this hostile argument again?

Yes but after the evil man's free will rape must He take part and allow the conception? Or is it that He doesn't have a hand in everything? Or is that conception meant to be and therefore the rape meant to be? This is the point where the devout usually sit back and say it's God's will and meaningful discussion ends.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

His statement highlights one fundamental flaw in his religious dogma. If his god has a hand in conception (or indeed "most things" as stated above), what does he not have a hand in? How can his god have responsibility for one (conception) without taking ownership for the other (rape)?

The misinterpretation here is that God has a hand in conception. In other words, it was His will that it happened. Humans have free will, given to them by God. God does not interfere with that free will, right or wrong. God is not responsible for either the rape or the conception. One is a crime and the other is biology.

This clown (Mourdock) is just another American Taliban who's knowledge of biology and empathy for women in general is essentially non-existent.

Can't disagree with that.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by u crank

The misinterpretation here is that God has a hand in conception. In other words, it was His will that it happened. Humans have free will, given to them by God. God does not interfere with that free will, right or wrong. God is not responsible for either the rape or the conception. One is a crime and the other is biology.



Can't disagree with that.

Merely biology seems to be a sticking point for creationists. There has been a soul created at the moment of conception no?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Merely biology seems to be a sticking point for creationists. There has been a soul created at the moment of conception no?

Correct. It is at that point that God would acknowledge a new life and be responsible. If God can interfere with our freewill, then you start a long list of 'what ifs and whys' that usually ends with 'why does God allow bad things to happen?' And we are right back to freewill.

Creationists could use the odd biology lesson.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Yes but after the evil man's free will rape must He take part and allow the conception? Or is it that He doesn't have a hand in everything? Or is that conception meant to be and therefore the rape meant to be? This is the point where the devout usually sit back and say it's God's will and meaningful discussion ends.

You're absolutely right. I was just disputing the idea of holding God responsible for the evil in the world. God or no God, we do quite well at that on our own. I'm not sure I believe that anything is meant to be. What we do is our choice.