You're embarrassing yourself, Bob. Stop.
Well, nothing new to see here then...
My mother taught me to always do what is right. Justice dictates that a man is fully responsible for the remarks he makes, and, is in no way responsible for remarks he did not make. The man in question simply did not say, "Disabled kids are God's punishment for abortions." Among other things, that remark presumes to speak on the behalf of God, while his actual remark does not.
I am fully aware of the tendency by some to exploit questionable remarks by deliberately exaggerating them, and, following up by accusing anyone whom points out the distortions of defending the indefensible. And, I fully expected to be accused of such, and subjected to the ad hominems attacks such as the one above. But, I posted my objections anyway because it was the right thing to do. My mother would be proud of my standing up for the truth in the face of such an expected onslaught. If you think I have "embarrassed" myself in any way I will only note I will gladly trade being held in higher esteem by my mother in exchange for being held in lower esteem by you or anyone here.
Have a nice day.
The point, Bob, is you a stretching the most trivial bit of semantics in an obtuse effort to redefine wht this guy said, despite his meaning being as plain as the nose on your face. There's a difference between bravely defending an unpopular but mistreated misanthrope, and just being obstinate to the obviousness of reality. Your posts in this threa have been entirely the latter.
You have a nice day too, and I mean that.
First of all, I haven't attempted to "define" or characterize what the man said at all. I have attempted to point out that he simply did not say, "Disabled kids are God's punishment for abortions."
Everyday, people pray to Jesus, YHWH, Allah, etc., to cure uncle Joe's cancer, or such. Implicit, in such requests is some belief that some God works in miraculous ways on earth. What the real issue here for many is a belief that it is socially gauche to assert that that divine intervention on earth may not always be so benevolent. I understand that for many whether he said what he actually said, or said, "Disabled kids are God's punishment for abortions," his crime is taking Christianity seriously in either case. To such people, the differences between what he actually said, and what was assigned to him is merely a difference in degree. But, to those that take Christianity seriously, to those whom take intellectual consistency seriously, or those that don't share such an antipathy to Christianity, the differences between the two remarks are much greater.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great Flood, and events concerning the Tower of Babel are all acts of divine punishment Christians/Jews know to be such because God said they were. If such acts were to have continued into the present [people still pray for God to cure uncle Joe's cancer], they can only be deduced, inferred or otherwise speculated upon. I understand that it is a difficult concept for you to grasp that he spoke in the language of probablity ["would suggest"] rather than the language of certainty ["are"] for a reason. The difference is as obvious of as the nose on my face to me.
If I were to offer a critique arguing from Christian principles on the assigned remark I would start by noting, "First of all, you don't speak for God," while in response to what he actually said, my response would be, "Maybe, or maybe not, but, what is being suggested is that God is also punishing the subsequent children."
