Jump to content
IGNORED

A Question For Any Quiverful Followers Who Lurk Here


debrand

Recommended Posts

Totally nonsensical. In that case, should we never treat any kind of disease? I mean, if God gives us cancer, obviously it's his will that we be sick. If we intervene and get chemo, are we trying to control God's will?

A Christian Scientist would agree with your claim. While I disagree with the assumptions that led them to their conclusion, it is true that they are using a logical system to reach their beliefs.

That's why you will never be able to logically explain to a CS why they should get chemo. The only way to break through to him would be to undercut his assumption that everything that happens, good or bad, is God's will. Likewise, the only way to break through to a QF person would be to undercut her assumption that God is directly in control of every conception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The logic is unsound. Do you know what logic? Can someone way smarter and less cranky than me take this one on?

I'm cranky and I've had two glasses of chardonnay - a very fine chardonnay at that - but you can't argue with people who make up their own fantasy worlds in their minds and then insist their conclusions are perfectly logical. Logic simply doesn't exist in their world, so you can't argue logically with them.

For instance, as an obvious Muggle, prove to me that JK Rowling's wizarding world doesn't exist outside of the realm of our observation.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Christian Scientist would agree with your claim. While I disagree with the assumptions that led them to their conclusion, it is true that they are using a logical system to reach their beliefs.

That's why you will never be able to logically explain to a CS why they should get chemo. The only way to break through to him would be to undercut his assumption that everything that happens, good or bad, is God's will. Likewise, the only way to break through to a QF person would be to undercut her assumption that God is directly in control of every conception.

Actually no they wouldn't because they don't think god created disease. They think it is an illusion.

Also, that is not logical either. Just because someone can connect the dots doesn't make it a logical progression of thought, it simply makes it a progression of thought,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It follows the form of a logical argument. There's no formal fallacies in it that I can see off the bat.

But if one or both of the premises is unsound, the conclusion is unsound.

The hard part would be to argue that conception happens according to God's will and can't be prevented, but other stuff that happens, like illness, etc. can be prevented. Is that stuff not God's will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to make an OT comment. I accidentally edited one of Vera's earlier posts because i am an idiot. I added a comment, the one I added to my Christian science comment above. I reversed it and commented that it was an accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no they wouldn't because they don't think god created disease. They think it is an illusion.

Perhaps everything is an illusion.

Can anyone prove it isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps everything is an illusion.

Can anyone prove it isn't?

Cs gets really close to that. I reccomend reading fathermothergod if anyone is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hard part would be to argue that conception happens according to God's will and can't be prevented, but other stuff that happens, like illness, etc. can be prevented. Is that stuff not God's will?

Most Christians would say that disease isn't God's will because of several scriptures that state that God is the author of life and not death ect.

Obviously all of the premises are based on scriptural interpretation, and thus are difficult to prove or disprove, but my argument is more that the premises do follow logically from an individal's understanding of scripture.

Treemom: As for the CS, I honestly don't know much of anything about their beliefs other than that the don't use doctors, so I guess I should have said that their assumption is that disease is simply an illusion and that you would have to undercut that assumption rather than the assumption that the disease is God's will. However, my underlying point still stands. If there is a group that believes that disease is God's will, that would be the belief that needed to be challanged.

However, most Christians believe that disease isn't a part of God's will for the reason I stated above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cs gets really close to that. I reccomend reading fathermothergod if anyone is interested.

OT, but my office parking lot adjoins a Christian Science church and when I go in on days when they have their "services" or whatever they call them, I very much enjoy chatting with the members. I don't agree with them for the most part, but they come as close to a "logical" sect as I've ever encountered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Christians would say that disease isn't God's will because of several scriptures that state that God is the author of life and not death ect.

Obviously all of the premises are based on scriptural interpretation, and thus are difficult to prove or disprove, but my argument is more that the premises do follow logically from an individal's understanding of scripture.

Treemom: As for the CS, I honestly don't know much of anything about their beliefs other than that the don't use doctors, so I guess I should have said that their assumption is that disease is simply an illusion and that you would have to undercut that assumption rather than the assumption that the disease is God's will. However, my underlying point still stands. If there is a group that believes that disease is God's will, that would be the belief that needed to be challanged.

However, most Christians believe that disease isn't a part of God's will for the reason I stated above.

I don't know most mainstream Christians think god has a plan when it goes bad. And that bad thing was in his plan.

But regardless, it isn't a logical progression of thought, it is just a progression of thought. I have those two, I just don't claim they are logical. Or moralize them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT, but my office parking lot adjoins a Christian Science church and when I go in on days when they have their "services" or whatever they call them, I very much enjoy chatting with the members. I don't agree with them for the most part, but they come as close to a "logical" sect as I've ever encountered.

Hey they are great people! Like most people...and maybe even logical but their beliefs are not based on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Vera addresses my questions about all the children born who are not white, speshul snowflake, American babies. Are they blessings, too? If so, why does God allow them to suffer so much and die so soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If QF'ers really believed that God opens and closes the womb, they wouldn't take hormones to prevent miscarriage or take corrective measures for incompetent cervix. But they do.

most Christians believe that disease isn't a part of God's will for the reason I stated above

I don't think this is what Calvinists believe. Is it? I thought Calvinists were really invested in the idea of God being able to control everything.

And you do have to admit that the idea that a God who can only make sperms and eggs get together, but can't control viruses or bacteria, seems like kind of a wuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is logical. It follows the form of a logical argument. They have premises that support their conclusions, and those premises aren't objectively flawed.

Granted, the premises are based on an understanding of a source document, but that doesn't make them inherently illogical. I'm just trying to explain that these issues are actually well thought out, at least for the people at the top of the QF movement. If you honestly want to sway someone away from being QF, or even just understand WHY someone would be QF, you need to attack the assumption about God's role in conception. That's the corner stone holding the entire thing together, and honestly I don't know that it's on very solid theological ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let me break it down then. Here is the bare bones argument.

Premise 1: God creates human beings according to his will.

Premise 2: As Christians we should not intervene in a way that attempts to usurp God's Will

Conclusion: Since the creation of life is God's will, and we should not intervene in a way that attempts to usurp God's will, we should not intervene in the creation of life.

Here's my problem with this logical progression: it assumes that birth control is an act that is attempting to usurp God's will, which is not inherently logical. Premise 2 is flawed even if you are a Bible-thumping Protestant. If birth control is usurping God's will in this argument, then any medical care is. Really, taking any action that is not specifically approved in the Bible would be usurping God's will. Your baby has an ear infection? God's Will, so antibiotics are usurping it. A tree falls into your house? Don't bother fixing it, maybe God wants a hole in your roof. Planting seeds? Don't do that; God should decide when and where a plant should grow, and you just need to trust that there will be enough food for the winter.

At some point, God clearly expects you to take responsibility for yourself. We read the parable about the sparrows, but most of us have a job, right? Or at the least, we believe that people who work are not sinning against God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my problem with this logical progression: it assumes that birth control is an act that is attempting to usurp God's will, which is not inherently logical. Premise 2 is flawed even if you are a Bible-thumping Protestant. If birth control is usurping God's will in this argument, then any medical care is. Really, taking any action that is not specifically approved in the Bible would be usurping God's will. Your baby has an ear infection? God's Will, so antibiotics are usurping it. A tree falls into your house? Don't bother fixing it, maybe God wants a hole in your roof. Planting seeds? Don't do that; God should decide when and where a plant should grow, and you just need to trust that there will be enough food for the winter.

At some point, God clearly expects you to take responsibility for yourself. We read the parable about the sparrows, but most of us have a job, right? Or at the least, we believe that people who work are not sinning against God.

I love you emmie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey they are great people! Like most people...and maybe even logical but their beliefs are not based on that.

Which is why I don't agree with them, but most of them are pretty awesome and very bright. Growing up in New England I've always known some members. My sister lives two doors down from one of Mary Baker Eddy's homes, so we don't tend to look at members with any more askance than we would Lutherens or Methodists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Vera addresses my questions about all the children born who are not white, speshul snowflake, American babies. Are they blessings, too? If so, why does God allow them to suffer so much and die so soon?

Sorry I missed this. Yes, the QF movement believes that they are blessings as well. As I stated earlier, disease is perceived to be the result of the fall of man. It is God's will for the child to be born, but sin (in general, not a specific sin of any individual) has resulted in a world in which disease and death have corrupted that will.

That's also the view on miscarriage btw.

(also, a lot of this is playing devil's advocate. I'm not really QF)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my problem with this logical progression: it assumes that birth control is an act that is attempting to usurp God's will, which is not inherently logical. Premise 2 is flawed even if you are a Bible-thumping Protestant. If birth control is usurping God's will in this argument, then any medical care is. Really, taking any action that is not specifically approved in the Bible would be usurping God's will. Your baby has an ear infection? God's Will, so antibiotics are usurping it. A tree falls into your house? Don't bother fixing it, maybe God wants a hole in your roof. Planting seeds? Don't do that; God should decide when and where a plant should grow, and you just need to trust that there will be enough food for the winter.

At some point, God clearly expects you to take responsibility for yourself. We read the parable about the sparrows, but most of us have a job, right? Or at the least, we believe that people who work are not sinning against God.

THIS x 1 frillion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

emmiedahl:

Like I said above, most Christians have a very different understanding of birth and death and how they relate to God's will. Children are spoken of only as blessings in how they relate to God. Disease, however, is understood to be outside of God's will because of the way God speaks of Himself of the author of Life and Satan as the author of Death. (and some other things, but I'm just trying to give a base understanding here, not go into a huge theological excavation)

Thus, curing disease is not outside of God's will, because it is God's will that none should parish. Preventing birth, however, directly prevents something that clearly falls under God's realm as the "author of life."

(now this is largely from an Evangelical perspective which is where I come from. As FloraPaste said, a Calvinist might have a different interpretation, and a Catholic would probably have another. However, I'm sure that they could all come to a understanding regarding God's will and death that could be logically applied to the sitaution.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I missed this. Yes, the QF movement believes that they are blessings as well. As I stated earlier, disease is perceived to be the result of the fall of man. It is God's will for the child to be born, but sin (in general, not a specific sin of any individual) has resulted in a world in which disease and death have corrupted that will.

That's also the view on miscarriage btw.

(also, a lot of this is playing devil's advocate. I'm not really QF)

Not if they're Reformed (Calvinist) they don't. That's not what Calvinists believe. Doug Wilson says Christians should not intervene to save unbelievers' children.

.

We must remember the antithesis. Scripture always remembers that deep chasm between those seeking to honor God and those who hate him. But this has not been a part of contemporary pro-life rhetoric

The unbelievers are destroying themselves in a frenzy of child-murder and fruitless sodomy. Let them go. These are hard words. But Christians must learn to say them. Paul taught us that the children of God-haters are “foul†or “unclean†(1Cor. 7:14). We must come to the day when the Christian can truly rebuke those who are, “without natural affection†and say: “The ancient psalmist blessed the one who would take little ones of those who hate God and dash them against the rock (Ps. 137:9). We see by your pro-abortion position that you clearly agree with this kind of treatment. And we in the Church, in a way you cannot truly comprehend, are now prepared to say amen."

Edited to fix quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up:

1. Shit happens.

2. Some of the shit that happens is God's will, and other shit that happens is not God's will.

3. Just coincidentally, the shit that I want to happen*, happens because of God's will. How convenient.

Despite what you say, VeraAnne, most evangelicals are quite happy to say that if someone they don't like gets ill, it is God's judgement. AIDS was god's way of punishing gays, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not real fond of Calvinism. However, not all QFers are Calvinists. I'm coming from a UPCish background (Oneness theology, no standards) so my scriptual interpretations may not (Hell, they probably don't) represent other groups. However, I do know that all Christians have doctrines to address suffering and death, and can probably give specific answers regarding their own unique interpretations. Since most Christians do treat disease, (including Calvinists) I think it is safe to say that they do not consider doing so to be outside of God's will.

As an aside, I really hate the "God chose me to be saved but he hates you!" doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a convenient way of letting "God" off the hook for what he supposedly created.

At 8 years old I was very ill (modern medicine saved me, but that's not relevant to the story) and I was in a children's ward with a lot of sick kids. A priest came to see me once in the hospital, clicking away on his rosary beads and I asked why God let so many kids suffer. (and what the beads had to do with anything, but that's not relevant to the story) He babbled on about Adam and Eve and sin. This guy's clueless, I thought. Became an agnostic right then and there, and as an adult a full blown atheist.

I believe we can only move forward as human beings when we let go of ancient beliefs and superstitions. The QV movement has nothing to do with advancing us as a species and everything to do with modern day politics coupled with a strong desire to subjugate women. As such, I find it completely despicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.