Okay, I don't really think that Christians should be encouraging women to have more abortions. I don't think anyone should be encouraging women to have more abortions. The fewer abortions, the better. But I believe that Christians (or more specifically right-wing fundamentalist Christians) are trapped in a logical conundrum that maybe someone could explain to me.
These folks are against abortion. They are pro-life. They want every baby to be born. And once these babies are born, they want them to believe in Jesus, so that they'll be saved and go to Heaven. Say Amen.
Now if you've ever worried about what happens to the unborn "babies" who are aborted, you can relax. Christians will assure you that their souls will get a free pass into Heaven. (As well they should, for cryin' out loud. They didn't even have a chance to commit their first sin.) So even though they didn't get a chance to experience life on Earth, at least they'll spend eternity in Heaven. Say Amen.
So here's my question. What is the ultimate goal for Christians? Is it not to have as many souls as possible enter through the Pearly Gates? The more the merrier, right? In fact, I suspect that Heaven may have some kind of electronic counter that counts the souls as they enter The Kingdom.
Now let's assume that Christians get their way and abortion becomes illegal. Anybody who gets pregnant will be forced to have the baby, regardless of the circumstances. We'll have a surge in population as millions of babies will be born. And, according to Christian theology, it's unfortunate, but not all of those babies will grow up and find Jesus, and millions will have to spend eternity in the fiery pits of Hell.
Do you see where I'm going here? By outlawing abortion, Christians will have condemned millions of babies to Hell. For forever. And that's a long time. If, on the other hand, those millions of babies who ended up in Hell had been aborted, their souls would have caught a ride on the Heaven Express and would be partying with the angels above. Say Amen.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
While I sympathize, Doug, I'm afraid your theology is a bit weak. Those babies are born with original sin and will go to hell (where the roads are paved with their skulls) unless they live long enough to be baptized and cash in on Jesus "get out of hell free" deal.
Dave
2 - Roger Nowosielski
Wow. I had better read this. If comment #1 is a foretaste, this promises to be an interesting thread.
3 - Roger Nowosielski
Is this a thought-experiment, Doug? (Not appropriate subject for a satire).
Many levels of responding here, so let me just tackle one. Dave's right in that the theology is rather simple. But my argument would not be on account of the "original" sin but rather your positing the notion of "eternal life" (and all its virtues) as though it could be regarded as separate and discrete from the here and now.
Is it only because you present "eternal life" in this way that are able to set up a false dichotomy/set of choices between (1) "potentially sinful life of the unaborted" and (2) "uncorrupted (because aborted) fetuses." So that's just for starters.
4 - Roger Nowosielski
Doug,
Very nice idea setting up your weblog in a dialog form. I'm curious about your readership.
5 - jack
Is this the type of commentary that passes for intelligent discussion of issues. It's like a George Carlin schtick. "If God is all powerful, can he a make a rock so big he himself can't lift it?" His article reads like something a third grader might right. Do people get paid for writing drivel like this?
6 - Roger Nowosielski
Jack,
I don't think you're being fair. Just because it's so deceptively simple, it can also be misleading. I believe that Doug raises some very interesting questions in this "third-grade essay," as you choose to call it. And no, none of us get paid for posting on BC.
Roger
7 - El Bicho
Apparently jack doesn't know jack about Carlin if that's his example.
"His article reads like something a third grader might right."
That comment reads like something a first grader might write.
8 - Clavos
That comment reads like something a first grader might write.
But not a first grader in a government school -- they can't write at all.
9 - Dave Nalle
Roger, I think Doug was trying to make his argument within the confines of Christianity. The whole argument changes if you're going to address the bogus notion of an afterlife rather than taking it as a given.
Dave
10 - Roger Nowosielski
Tell you the truth, Dave, I'm not really sure what he's doing. I looked at his weblog - much of it in a dialog form. You can't make this kind of argument from within the confines of Christianity and make it stick without doing some violence to key concepts. So perhaps he's sort of pooh-poohing the whole idea from a non-Christian perspective. I'll wait for his comments.
Roger
11 - Gary
Maybe the right wing Christians are involved in a LOGICAL CONUNDRUM, but at least they are working with logic. This anti-logical mishmash indicates you wrote this after a few nights of insomnia and have lost any thread to clarity. Take a Sominex and try again in a few days.
12 - Roger Nowosielski
What I mean, the idea of "eternal life" derives meaning only from the here and now - the crucible or the test of fire we all must go through. Not to say that (a/c to Christian theology) we must earn to - because it's a matter of grace - but go through the here and now we must.
So to take this idea of "eternal life" as a disjunction - separate and apart from the here and now - is, in some sense, either to trivialize it (a very simplistic theology) or to second-guess God. (That's my initial reaction.)
13 - Doug DeLong
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I'll try to answer your questions.
Dave: I think I'm with you on the theology. Christians believe that the souls of aborted fetuses will go to Heaven, but once you're born, you have to find your way to Jesus to go to Heaven (although I believe there is an "age of accountability" clause that gives a child 7 or 8 years to realize what's going on). Am I wrong about that?
Roger: Yes, it's a thought experiment. It's definitely not a satire. My Preacher and Skeptic blog was just set up very recently, so I'm not sure about the readership. Maybe "very low" would be a good description.
Jack: Thanks for your thoughtful insult. Sorry you couldn't find time to address the question at hand. Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in God, but I do believe in George Carlin.
Gary: Thanks to you, too, for your participation via insult. If you get around to coming up with an answer to this problem, let me know. You say Christians are working with logic, but that's my point. They're NOT. There's nothing logical about what they believe regarding abortion or most of the rest of their theology, for that matter.
Anyway, my bottom -line question remains this: Isn't it true (according to Christian theology) that an aborted soul will go to Heaven, while the souls of the born may or may not go to Heaven, and therefore all those souls who were NOT aborted and ended up in Hell would have been better off being aborted and ending up in Heaven.
Of course the whole thing is ridiculous - which I guess is my point.
14 - Jordan Richardson
Isn't it true (according to Christian theology) that an aborted soul will go to Heaven, while the souls of the born may or may not go to Heaven, and therefore all those souls who were NOT aborted and ended up in Hell would have been better off being aborted and ending up in Heaven.
Ask ten different Christians, you'll get ten different answers to this depending on their theological understanding and whether or not they believe in original sin or what kinds of atonement doctrines they subscribe to.
By the way, what's this doing in politics?
15 - Dave Nalle
Doug, you can't class all Christians as believing the same thing. While some believe that aborted fetuses go to heaven, I'm not sure that's a universal belief. Some believe that fetuses don't even get a soul until the moment of birth. Others hold that all souls are tainted by original sin. There are a lot of sects and they definitely don't agree on this stuff.
Dave
16 - Doug DeLong
Dave,
That's why I specified "right-wing fundamentalist Christians." I think that particular demographic is probably pretty much in agreement, but who knows? Maybe some of our RWFC friends could straighten us out and tell us once and for all: What happens to the souls of aborted fetuses?
17 - Baronius
We Catholics don't have a set doctrine on the question. Many theologians speculate that the unbaptized who never had an opportunity to choose the Faith don't go to Hell, but are unable to enter Heaven. They would inhabit a place without suffering, but also without the eternal joy of the presence of God. Theologians call this state Limbo. Dante depicted it as the first ring of the Inferno: a place without screams of suffering, but with sighs of disappointment.
St. Augustine, on the other hand, believed that unbaptized babies go to Hell. A lot of evangelicals are fans of Augustine, so his thinking on this point might have rubbed off on them.
Catholics define the soul by its actions: reason, imagination, and will. The capacities of the soul increase as a child develops. The inclination of the soul's activity towards God increases as a person develops in holiness. The extent to which a person who has lived a long life dedicated to God can enjoy eternal life is greater than that of a soul which was never baptized nor grew to the age of reason. And if that seems like nonsensical theology, it's worth noting that it corresponds exactly to non-supernatural thinking: an an aborted baby never gets to fulfill his potential.
18 - Matthew T. Sussman
Doug, FTA: "What is the ultimate goal for Christians? Is it not to have as many souls as possible enter through the Pearly Gates?"
Not at all. Their "goal," I guess, is to ensure that every person in a community is the best person they can be. This is the goal of every religion, I'd think.
Doug, FTC: "Of course the whole thing is ridiculous - which I guess is my point."
Oh, never mind then.
19 - Roger Nowosielski
By his very admission, Doug had taken this discussion out of the realm of any Christian-based theological system.
I hoped that he wouldn't, because by doing so, he's debunking over 2000 years of serious religious thought by giants like St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Kierkegaard and the like. And under the circumstances, you can't just discuss such serious and life-defining (for Christians) issues as abortion, right to life, and salvation.
In short, Doug changed the rules of the game and he cannot therefore be debated in terms of Christian theology. He's debunking it lock, stock and barrel. In fact, he's arguing that the very theology is utter nonsense.
So these are the terms in which he's to be debated. Any other procedure is bound to be ineffective.
20 - Cindy
Their "goal," I guess, is to ensure that every person in a community is the best person they can be. This is the goal of every religion, I'd think.
Their goal seems more likely to be coercing people into obeying authority. They simply use the ideas of being 'good' (something that seems is a worthy inclination of many people throughout history, in contradiction to Mark Schannon's views) and other ideas like reward in an afterlife to corral and herd people.
This can be seen in the way the Church and the state acted like one. Besides, they teach people things like (according to Baronius), Christ made the church. Yeah, well, what would you expect the church to say?
People thus controlled just follow the church dogma. You can see this in how far Catholics and most other Christian stray from the actual teachings of Christ. They follow the dogma no matter what it says and know matter how far it goes. Just like the population of a fascist government--if the church says kill people, they'll rationalize it--and they do.
21 - roger nowosielski
That's why I'm ambivalent about "organized religion," Cindy. There's too much of a human, control element in the make up. For however well-intentioned the individuals may be, there's always the possibility of a "power play."
But having said all that, spirituality and the right kind of emotional makeup are at a premium insofar as the individuals are concerned. And this presents a dilemma. For it looks as though when all's said and done, we're solitary in our finest moments and ultimately, dependent on no one. All the accoutrements of human organization and grouping have very little to do with real faith. They're hazardous, in fact, to the person's spiritual health.
22 - leighann
Following this logic, all christians who believe that children do not reach the age of accountability until a certain age would think that these (chidren under this age) should also be killed in order to go to heaven rather than risk going to hell. I do believe that this was the thinking of the woman who drowned her children in the bathtub in Texas. I saw her in an interview and this is what she said her reasoning was at the time. Insanity.
A little off the topic I know but it just made me think of her.
23 - Doug DeLong
Roger: In fact, he's arguing that the very theology is utter nonsense.
You are correct, sir. But I don't think I'm buying your argument that you can't address my question outside the realm of Christian theology. The point of my article is to find someone who can give me some clarification on one particular aspect of Christian theology that seems somewhat contradictory to me. So far, I haven't heard anything that makes it seem any clearer.
24 - roger nowosielski
Doug,
I believe my initial remarks to your article hinted at just the kind of clarification you might be looking for.
To wit, the positing of "eternal life" as separate and distinct (in the sense of being conceptually disconnected) from the here and now is a bastardization in a way of the Christian theology,
and that's regardless of whether one believes in salvation by works of by faith (i.e., the grace of God); the point being that it's the here and now which serves as the crucible and the test of fire one must go through (the Christians believe) which determines salvation. Hence, separating the life on earth from the Kingdom of God - on the concept level - is a form of cheating. Which isn't to say that eternal life isn't the Christian's ultimate goal, but it's ultimate within the provided context.
Which also isn't to say that God isn't merciful, in that an infant who died of natural causes prior to baptism would be denied eternal life (some might disagree here); but this isn't to say that killing that infant (so they might have eternal life)is the same kind of event with the same attendant result. That's why the latter constitutes a form of cheating (or at least trying to second-guess God).
It was very clever of you, IMO, to pose this subject matter in the way that you did for the purpose of eliciting discussion; but you do realize of course, that you cannot debunk or altogether discard Christian theology without getting into the nitty-gritty. You can, however, posit the issue "from without" as it were in order to generate the discussion, which is what you did.
25 - Doug DeLong
Maybe I wrote this to watch people tie themselves in knots trying to justify their theology. Perhaps another reason was to make the case that the abortion debate is such a difficult and destructive issue in the U.S. because people insist on making it a religious issue.
Here in Japan, where I've lived since 1991, abortion is strictly a medical issue (which isn't to say that the Japanese don't recognize the moral questions involved). But Japan is a highly secular nation and demonstrates that there are benefits to being secular. Religion does nothing but get in the way when it comes to solving a nation's problems.