I think the real reason why Christians are pissed is that Mourdock is pointing out a very inconvenient truth: your God is an asshole.

I think the problem was with how he said it:

"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

God intended for that life to happen. The only way it could have happened is for the woman to be raped. Hard to avoid the conclusion that god wanted her to be raped.


It's not very difficult to come to that conclusion that god is an asshole. Just read the bible, for instance. It also seems very easy to ignore that fact. Mourdock pointed it out in a way that is very difficult to ignore.

So, after the latest flap with the Republicans and abortion, I'm left shaking my head. Not at what he said, but at the reactions to it.

As an atheist, I don't have any problem with what he said. It seems completely consistent with the standard Christian mumbo-jumbo.

I mean, Mourdock basically said: God put a soul there, he loves that person, it's God's will that that person live a full life, even if that person came from rape. Isn't that pretty much a no-brainer if you're Christian? I mean, if everyone has a soul, and God is the only one who can create new souls, then of *course* it's God's will that the raped girl got pregnant, right?

So yeah, no objection from me - it's all a bunch of bull, but it's entirely consistent. So, I wonder, why the anger from people who consider themselves to be Christian?

The only way I see for Christians to be outraged is if they feel that Mourdock is claiming that it's God's will that bad things happen in the world. Um, newsflash - if there's a God, and he's omnipotent, he's obviously fine with that, since a lot of really bad shit happens all the time. And who else but God would be putting that soul in the raped girl's fetus?

I think the real reason why Christians are pissed is that Mourdock is pointing out a very inconvenient truth: your God is an asshole.

GO

The logical conclusion of Mourdock's Argument:

Pregnancy is god's will. Pregnancy as a result of rape is god's will.
Therefore, rape is god's will. Furthermore, rapists are fulfilling god's will.

What a fucking troglodyte. How the fuck is this justifiable.

Justifiable? Seems more than justifiable, seems obvious. The only problem is if you want to stand up and come to God's defense, to claim that God is really a good guy, and Mourdock is slandering him. But that only works if you agree that God is good by definition. In which case, the only problem with Mourdock's argument is that he's doing it wrong: he's not supposed to say any naughty things about God, or he'll get a spanking.

It all seems so juvenile.

I mean, he obviously wasn't claiming that he's happy that women get raped. Rather he was simply saying that it's God's will. Now you wanna jump up and down to protect God's good name? How silly is that?

GO

I think you misinterpret the portion of my argument which needs justification. To the mouthbreathing, drooling, stuttering, fundamentalist right, this logic makes sense, as Mourdock expressly articulated.
I want these fucksticks to justify why they believe in a rapist enabling asshole of a deity, and, furthermore, why they feel the prerogative to impose this belief onto american society. I want them to justify their belief that rape is acceptable and is god's will. It obviously isn't going to happen, because this segment of society is of the Life Starts At Erection mentality, even if the god-given erection is in the penis of a god-loving and -fearing rapist.
It obviously is not going to happen, because it would require forming a sentence and facing their own hypocrisy, but hey, I can dream.

i thought god only intervenes in baseball and football games

Mourdock's "logic" creates another problem he would of course refuse to acknowledge. If the baby cannot be aborted because it's creation was gods will, then you also cannot punish the rapist. Clearly he lacks agency and is not accountable for his actions. The implications for our judicial system are profound.

Mourdock's "logic" creates another problem he would of course refuse to acknowledge. If the baby cannot be aborted because it's creation was gods will, then you also cannot punish the rapist. Clearly he lacks agency and is not accountable for his actions. The implications for our judicial system are profound.

The Cardinals did not return to the world series, ergo there is no God.

/fucking Giants

I completely agree.

Not a new idea, either:

if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Christians have a very contorted way of explaining why God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, yet very capricious in his choices of things to concern with, and things not to interfere with. the explanation never made sense to me.

You just have to remember: two guys living happily together and wanting to adopt a child-- God would love to prevent that. But a teenage girl getting pregnant after being raped by her stepfather-- that's a sign of God's miracle of life.

I don't know... did you see "game 6" last year? That was enough to make a believer out of me.

Was that the one that went for 11 innings? Because it struck me that God couldn't decide that night. I had to go to bed because the back-and-forth was killing me. And then got up half an hour later to watch the final play.

if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Only slightly tongue in cheek, for the existence, or not, of god is completely irrelevant to my life:

That begs the question. What are good and evil, exactly?

Perhaps to god, there are no good and evil things or events, there are just things or events.

Human inventions.


Very possible. If there was an intelligence that created this universe, I find it extremely unlikely that "he" would be the slightest bit interested in anything that we are doing on this planet.

You're right if talking about an unspecified god or godlike entity. The christian god is said to have created us with our capacity for suffering and empathy though, and he loves us unconditionally. He knows the nature of our plight and imposes it on us willfully. He is an asshole.

You COULD make a reasoned, constitutional argument for the overturning of RvW (the unborn are human, therefore are US Citizens, and entitled to all of the rights that the Constitution extends to US Citizens).