Friday, December 28, 2007 {News article}
The Observer (http://www.observertoday.com/articles.asp?articleID=18120)
Dunkirk New York 14048-0391
"Legislated morality is incapable of changing hearts (such laws just give us permission to be too lazy to love). In fact, Scripture indicates that when something is labeled as "forbidden," it makes us want to do it all the more. Intellectual arguments will not shut up a die-hard evolutionist or atheist. An old-fashioned shaming will not quell the driving lusts of the hetero and homosexual population. Shouting down a young woman going to have an abortion, is not going to increase her desire to bring the baby to term.
Unconditional love, the stuff that Jesus taught and lived, is the soil from which "life" and "choice" spring up. "
====
Now THAT's the kind of Christianity I can support, beause it supports us ALL.
Karen
Quality of life is rarely thought of in the heat of passion. About 4 billion people living the thoughtless mistakes of their parents will never enjoy the full fruits of life because they out strip the resources of the garden earth.
Well abortion is wrong because it is literally killing a baby. I used to think about that question and now I realize just how wrong it is. The whole problem is that people this day in age abuse what God made sex to be and now when one gets pregnant, she kills the baby? You probably shouldn't have had sex in the first place! That's why God says wait until marriage to avoid all of these struggles. Of course, if a girl has an abortion, that doesn't mean she's going to hell or what not because it is no one's place to judge except for God. Therefore, a true christian will still love this person no matter what, for if a person has God, they have love, and if they have love, they have God because God is love. He just wants to love us and when we suffer, it hurts Him.
God is apparently pro-God.
hi jasi. i agree with you about how all this stuff would be moot if we would just agree with God that sex isn't a plaything. the problem i have with the abortion thing is that i have no conviction about when the "biological material" becomes a baby. i mean...we could go back to saying that a woman who does not fertilize each and every egg she produces is killing a baby. or each time a man masterbates to ejaculation he's doing the same.
i guess it's the conviction thing. i can't argue very well with any point of view, so...i guess that makes me pro-choice...though personally way to uncomfortable with abortion myself to participate. if asked, i think i'd advise against it in most cases, but...not enough conviction to judge others who may have conviction.
i used to believe that any sex without the intention of procreation was nothing more then what i dubbed "cosmic masterbation." sure, it was easy for me to hold that opinion...i had no libido demanding i get out there and cosmically masterbate. today, older and wiser...i'm far more unsure about all this. one thing i can agree with you with much conviction...when it comes to judging...God said Jesus was to do that. <whew> as ignorant and unsure of things as i am...i'd hate like heck to have that responsibility!
Personally, I feel that all life is sacred. Even down to the cow that donated its life for my Sunday dinner. I don't relegate human life to the level of a cow, rather I am raisig my awareness of how valuable all life is.
I would think that an all powerful god could and would have controls on the soul dispenser so that all would have a chance at life.
I hate to do this... but.... I really resent the movement to push this to the forefront of all that is important in our government. Those who have been in power, controlling all branches of the government these past years, have pandered to those with faith and conviction and what have they done? Nothing. They have had complete control and have done nothing. I do hope that those who have voted based on this issue can see how they have been used. Government will not ever change the current laws unless we progress to a church run state.... like those terrorists we fight on the other side of the world.
Abortion has to be the most profound decision a woman must ever face. Sometimes it is an easy choice.... and sometimes it must be agonizing. I truly have sympathy for women in this situation. Even though I could never consider abortion for myself, I do realize that my feelings have nothing to do with other people in other situation. I can not dictate to them how to live their lives.
Cindi
Quote from: lisagurl on December 28, 2007, 07:52:16 AM
Quality of life is rarely thought of in the heat of passion. About 4 billion people living the thoughtless mistakes of their parents will never enjoy the full fruits of life because they out strip the resources of the garden earth.
Just skimming old posts as I lay awake at night. I hope this wasn't an argument for abortion, which would be rather silly; legal or not, most people do not opt for abortion for any number of reasons. It isn't practical as a solution and doesn't fit into the overpopulation issue, unless it is forced; which I forsee as a pretty terrifying scenerio. If for birth control, which I think you are suggesting; I offer the following perspective in relation to the above claim:
Who are the four billion people you are referring to? Who is included in the lucky other two billion? I agree in outstripping resources but think those four billion will disagree about what constitutes the "full fruits". They have the fruit of life, everything else is subjective. I doubt they regret being born, wrecking the place for us lucky westerners in their squalor. When talking of overpopulation, it is important to remember we are individuals, not just masses; and ALL of us are part of the problem, and individuals with equal value, whether we are walking mistakes or not.
I have never once heard a good solution to overpopulation, only moral platitudes from those of us who live in the privileged west. Educate birth control? Sure. Does it work? No. Enforced birth control?...Like China? Don't be concieved a girl, you won't ever be born. My point is, mistakes of the parents or not, the problem persists; but the problems still remain human beings worthy of living here every bit as much as you do.
hi aurelius. thank you for the thoughtful and provocative comments. some real food for thought in your post...so i'll go eat some. God bless with...
It boils down to education and opportunity. Less educated people are poorer but have more children. Poorer, less educated families are also more likely to be dysfunctional, their kids out on the streets without proper role-models to learn from. If the fundamentalist religious right wing really wants to cut the number of abortions taking place, protect the family and generally repair society, they should stop bashing their bibles, going after gay and tg people and that sorta crap, and instead of getting their government to spend so much money on weapons, warfare and all the rest of it, invest that money in universally better education, universally better healthcare and more social infrastructure to give kids the opportunities they need to build better lives for themselves. Kids get pregnant out of boredom and desperation, out of ignorance and through violence. Take those factors away and it wouldn't happen nearly as often.
But of course, it's NOT really about doing any of those things. It's about forcing their idea of "right and wrong" on everybody else. They don't really want to fix things for everybody so much as keep things the same so they can feel safe and secure.
Sorry if I offended anybody, but this is what I truly believe.
~Simone.
Whoa Simone! You snuck up right behind me! :o
No offense taken. I don't really care for the abortion thing, but for me it isn't an emotional or judgemental issue...and it is the law and I respect the law. And the religious right is a small minority with big mouths...we should do well to not pay attention to them, most of us who do believe do NOT feel that way but don't speak up enough.
I really don't have any solutions myselt to overpopulation, but I do understand its complexities. I was just raising the banner that these are people we are referring to, not hungry masses that we can judge out of hand. We are all part of the hungry masses who are all valued the same.
Chris
Oh, and thank you Peggy...and you're welcome
If god weren't PRO life there wouldn't be any (life).
Nearly every living being, given the choice of death or life for themselves would choose life. So, God is PRO choice.
Therefore God is both PRO life and PRO choice.
I understand that people play around too much, but that is how it's always been. ALSO, people have used abortion since someone first thought of it.
I saw a Discovery show that said it is thought that early humans killed their babies when times were lean. The females could not afford to use the calories.
The point of those 2 statements is that nothing is perfect. All a person can do in this life is make the effort to help someone who needs it in order to prevent such tragedies.
Energy is a precious thing. We can use our energies to make things better for others, or worse, or do nothing at all. The one thing we all need to learn is to not turn our energies inward and into ourselves because we see others performing actions that we personally find atrocious or else just wrong.
What I mean by that, and this is something I struggle with, is that there really is only so much you can do about anything. If you outlaw a certain act or behavior, you don't stop it; you only send it underground.
In the case of abortion, I can't see how anyone could believe they brought it all to an end with a law. It will still happen and the people who put all that energy into making the law, will have achieved next to nothing.
I read recently that Barry Goldwater allowed his pregnant daughter to get an abortion back when it was illegal. That is an example of a law doing nothing to prevent the death of an unborn. Being a rich guy, he could afford a good doctor and even knew what doctor to go to.
I'm not sure how I ended up serious here because it was my intention to make a joke. I won't do that, however, I will say that I don't believe in following laws. Some laws are pointless and just meaningless to me. You may ask where do I get off making a decision like that? All I can say is that I am an individual with the God given right to make my own decisions. Yes. I believe in God, though in the Jungian way.
Arguing Pro-choice vs PRO-life is pointless. You can outlaw it and it will happen. there will be some women whose health is destroyed because they didn't have the cash of Barry Goldwater. Women who may be made sterile, or sick, or dead.
Using God as a reason to stop abortions is pointless too. Many people couldn't care less what God's opinion is.
My head hurts.
I say, Good day,
Rebis
Quote from: Aurelius on November 06, 2008, 02:27:41 PM
Whoa Simone! You snuck up right behind me! :o
Hey Chris. Sorry hon. I get really emotional and, well frankly angry, and I tend to see black and white (or pure raging red maybe :P ) when confronted by anything pertaining to ... them. I suppose one too many campus ambush-debate where one of the little angels told me with a straight, honestly believing face that poor countries are poor because god is punishing them for whatever reason. That kinda logic gets my blood boiling.
I actually agreed with your post - overpopulation is a complex issue. I believe though that the root cause is poverty and ignorance. In South Africa the very poorest people are typically the ones with 13 kids. Why? Because aside from the obvious that men take what they want from women :( there is a traditional belief in this country that your wealth lies in your children - every girl you have is money in the bank, because when she marries, the groom has to pay you lobola. Additionally, the tradition is that adult children care for their parents, so obviously, the more kids you have, the better your retirement plan.
It takes education and opportunity to make people realise that the world has moved on, and that the paradigm they still follow is no longer practical. But yeah, on a global scale, uplifting 4 or 5 billion people is daunting no matter how you look at it. Scrapping all the military budgets of the world and making all armies local defense forces like in Japan might be a good place to start though. ;)
~Simone.
Regarding the comment about the four billion people.
I caught this right away.
There are right now more than 6 billion people alive today.
They are sustained by oil production, which gives us the raw stock to manufacture fertilizers, and the energy to farm and to transport water and harvested crops.
If you take away the oil input to the food cycle,
the earth will only be able to sustain 2 billion people.
Here's what I came up with on a cursory google, from Eating Fossil Fuels (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html) ;
QuoteAnd, for sustainability, global population will have to be reduced from the current 6.32 billion people to 2 billion-a reduction of 68% or over two-thirds. The end of this decade could see spiraling food prices without relief. And the coming decade could see massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before by the human race.
(Sorry to be such a downer...)
Karen
hi karen. i think the apocolypse you cite assumes removing oil from the mix without replacing it with anything. that can happen, if we keep our heads buried in the sand and don't face reality. we need to stop the moot arguement about just how desperate is the energy crisis and focus on the fact that it is a crisis.
oil producing and refining ventures around the world are a black hole sucking in all the other resources we have. whether we are standing on the edge of the event horizon or spiraling headlong towards it is not the question, the question is will we break free and head in a new direction.
it just dawned on me how out of place is this discussion. i'll shut up and be glad to move forward with this, what has to potential for being such a lucrative intercourse, over in general discussions.
thank you for making us think. God bless with...
"take away the oil input to the food cycle,
the earth will only be able to sustain 2 billion people."
Absolutley Karen. And, unfortunately, and issue many people fail to understand when it comes to fixing the environment. Oil is more than about money for big oil companies; for most people in the world, it is about survival.
It just occurred to me that if God were PRO-life; why create death?
hi rebis....death is a creation of man, not God.
But if there weren't people around, animals and plants would still be dying. Why can't everything live forever unless killed by an accident?
Simone:
Sorry, I have yet to figure out how to break up quotes. That's my Achilles heel, too...I try to detach myself and my own beliefs and learn something, and hopefully cause people like that to learn something too. People don't listen to emotion, but they will listen to reason if you are patient. I was once told by a young lady going to college that I was immoral for being in the military. It did not bother me because she did not know any better...but when an old man came up to me and told me "your war" is a mistake, that did, because he did know better.
"...I believe though that the root cause is poverty and ignorance. In South Africa the very poorest people are typically the ones with 13 kids. Why? Because aside from the obvious that men take what they want from women :( there is a traditional belief in this country that your wealth lies in your children..."
Yes, and I think it has alot to do with unchanged social and cultural conditions...remember the West was like that until doctors started washing their hands (child mortality rate). For their attitude to change, time (and exposure) is the only real answer...but how much time do we have? I don't have an answer to that.
"It takes education and opportunity to make people realise that the world has moved on, and that the paradigm they still follow is no longer practical. But yeah, on a global scale, uplifting 4 or 5 billion people is daunting no matter how you look at it. Scrapping all the military budgets of the world and making all armies local defense forces like in Japan might be a good place to start though. ;)"
100% agree with you. But not how things really are, only what we should strive to do: which is why I've spent so long in the military...my goal is for this to one day happen, which I believe will; and my own miniscule efforts and sacrifice contribute to this, and if there is a remote chance it could take my life in this part of the drama of human history, then it is for something good.
But with that said, "there is no other place I want to be, watching the world wake up from history"-->I want to be a part of that.
Chris
PS...I think we got way off the original subject, what was it...oh yeah, abortion. Sorry.
Quote from: Aurelius on November 07, 2008, 11:43:13 AMPS...I think we got way off the original subject, what was it...oh yeah, abortion. Sorry.
The other thing I got from that initial comment:
Quote from: lisagurl on December 28, 2007, 07:52:16 AM
Quality of life is rarely thought of in the heat of passion. About 4 billion people living the thoughtless mistakes of their parents will never enjoy the full fruits of life because they out strip the resources of the garden earth.
...was the part about 'living thoughtless mistakes'. I could have easily 'fathered' a child. And in fact, the macho, snarky comment, "I have no children -- that I
know of..." could apply to me. There's a slim chance that somewhere out there is a 30-year-old person, half of whose genes came from me.
I could have been a parent, but no way did I nor do I have the traditionalist qualities of a
FATHER. Dammit, I always wanted to be the mother, but I was too smart and understood that it could never be.
But for most people babies happen too automatically. You can conceive them when you didn't mean to.
But there's some sort of drive to procreate, come what may and damn the torpedoes. I think that drive is as much a juggernaut as the drive some of us have, or have had, to transition. It's not rational, but you're driven anyway.
And those who place so much credence in traditional families and raising your children properly so they turn out as successful, unspoiled adults - mythologize family/parenting to cover up the fact that producing a baby is really easy to do, and beyond the genetic material you provide, the next big thing you can do to influence how they will turn out boils down to location, location, location, and what goes on under your roof accounts for less than ten percent of their finished, adult personalities.
It's really a lot like a craps player who, when winning, believes it to be his/her skill as a shooter, and when losing, blames the dice/the table/the other players/the casino.
And so we go along 'making the world a better place' by taking the privilege of a legally-sanctioned marriage away from same-sex couples "because they can't procreate" (among other lame excuses, but this one's germane to the argument at hand), whilst the fuse on the no-more-oil bomb burns brighter and hotter and faster towards its' inevitable end because, y'know, people can't help but procreate.
Simone, on the 13 children you mentioned, primitive societies needed that strategy because maybe 3 or 4 would live to reproduce. And post-natal depression allows a mother to make a detached determination if
this child is worth the expenditure of her resources (production of breast milk, tethered to a totally dependent infant, temporary loss of fertility whilst breast feeding,) or if the child is too sickly, kill it and return quickly to fertility for another, perhaps more successful go.
Modern sanitation and medicine have reduced the need for bearing many children, but we conversely haven't reduced the
drive to procreate, and we are fast becoming the victims of the unintended consequences of our skill at healthcare and extracting and using the finite oil here on earth.
Karen
We have graveyards here with graves going back about 400 years.
If you look at the ones from the turn of the twentieth century, there are lots of baby graves. Sometimes the mother is buried there too. It used to be too easy to die.
Now you have to hire a good assassin. If you can find one. All the ones I've met tend to leave the job unfinished. ::)
Where did the article go?! Oh Well...
Well is God "Pro-Life" or "Pro Choice"? Depends on what you mean by God. If you mean the God as in Jesus, then I can't say for certain but I would guess "Pro-Life". If you mean Yahweh, then "Pro-Choice" for sure. We can tell by looking at his commandments (Not the primary ten, I mean Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy).
First of all, one of the laws says that (obviously not in these exact words) if there is a scuffle and someone causes a woman to miscarriage, a fine must be paid. If the woman is hurt though it will be "an eye for and eye". Whats interesting is that it says that a fine is to be paid if no one is hurt. Wasn't a baby killed? Doesn't that count as a person? Apparently not... Yet the brutal Assyrians didn't punished abortion by impaling the offender on a stake and refusing them burial.
In another commandment: it is said that if a woman becomes pregnant but her husband thinks she has been unfaithful; she is taken to the temple, where a priest gives her a potion to end the pregnancy. The idea is that if she wasn't faithful, it will work and abort the pregnancy, but if she was faithful then God would step in and stop it from working.
I am not arguing the merits of a "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice" stance here. In fact, I don't know where I stand on the issue. [Start Rant] It's just that I wish Conservative "Christians" would actually read their Bibles instead of declaring that they are against Abortion because it's a sin against God or some such. And yes, I put "Christian" in quotes because those people are totally not Christians. If anyone can be called a blasphemous than it is Conservative "Christians". I may get annoyed with hard core atheists (not agnostics mind you...) but Conservative "Christians" really truly piss me off. It's terrible, but I really find it comical how with near-death experiences, the only people who find themselves in a fire and brimstone hell are those people who were hard core fundamentalists at the time of their experience. It's like poetic justice. [End Rant]
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 03:48:22 PM
I may get annoyed with hard core atheists (not agnostics mind you...) but Conservative "Christians" really truly piss me off.
Why do you get annoyed with hard core atheists? Is it something about how specific atheists have behaved, or do you just strongly dislike their (un)belief? I'd really like to know, since I'm one myself.
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 03:48:22 PM
If you mean Yahweh, then "Pro-Choice" for sure. We can tell by looking at his commandments (Not the primary ten, I mean Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy).
You mean commandments from Deuteronomy like the one that says that men cannot wear female clothing and vice versa?
Rather a hypocritical stance on a site like this, yeah?
I think the Christian God is both anti-life and anti-choice, per a literal reading of the Bible. He seems to spend a lot of time cursing, slaughtering, and damning people for not doing what he says. It's really very much like an infinitely one-sided abusive relationship.
I know that people have different interpretations of Christianity, but the simple fact is that the God depicted in Scripture is not a nice or loving guy, and you have to discount most of Christianity's own history, teachings, and holy writings in order to claim otherwise - and if you're going to do that, why don't you call your religion something else? Stop trying to "reclaim" it from the people you disagree with, and just be the better person by walking away.
Even though I dislike uber-fundamentalist Christianity, I have to credit the fundies with being more consistent than mainstream Christians. The Christian (and Jewish) God described in Scripture really is an awful, hateful, violent, raving bastard lunatic, and the fundies understand and embrace that. If your God isn't like that, then stop trying to excuse or explain away all that stuff - it just doesn't wash. Walk away from it. Turn the other cheek, so to speak.
EDIT: This isn't directed at anyone here... it's just a general commentary on all the Christians IRL who don't seem to realize that they're wrestling with pigs by trying to take the "Christian" label away from the fundies.
QuoteWhy do you get annoyed with hard core atheists? Is it something about how specific atheists have behaved, or do you just strongly dislike their (un)belief? I'd really like to know, since I'm one myself.
I get annoyed with hard core atheists because so many of them like to claim that their point of view is the epitome of logic. I really don't think that is the case. The only way you can claim to be oh so logical is by being agnostic. Really, saying that you know for certain that there is no God is just as irrational as saying that it that you know for certain that there is one. I don't have any problem with people thinking one way or the other. I just can't stand it when people falsely claim superiority. It just seems like there are so many atheists who are just so much like the fundamentalists. It's kind of like how communists and fascists hate each other but they are so similar in practice.
QuoteYou mean commandments from Deuteronomy like the one that says that men cannot wear female clothing and vice versa?
Rather a hypocritical stance on a site like this, yeah?
I guess I should have been a little clearer. I don't think anyone should follow old testament law. I completely disapprove of it. I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous it is to use biblical morality to condemn abortion. At risk of offending most of the world; although I am a theist, I think that Yaweh (aka the god of the Old Testament) may in fact be "the devil". I do consider myself a Christian, but I also consider myself a practical theosophist. In my opinion, Yaweh is Angra Mainyu (aka Ahriman). My personal theology is a terribly complicated affair, and I can't cover it all here, but that's kind of off topic anyways. The point is that I really don't espouse any of that Old Testament stuff. I REALLY don't. I think that much of it was either the creation of evil people or maybe even inspired by "the devil". I feel so silly saying something like that. :D I find it hard to believe something like that, but I just wanted to leave it open. I am sure there are supernatural things but I'm not so sure about such a direct interaction. Evil people is a MUCH more likely scenario.
Quote from: Emme on December 14, 2008, 05:23:45 PM
I fail to see this "stance" that you speak of. She was pointing out that Old Testament wasn't explicitly against abortion, and said nothing about clothing.
You're right. I kneee-jerked when I saw the dreaded Deuteronomy mentioned.
QuoteAs to whether God is pro-life or pro-choice, I don't think that's answerable for certain.
If he'd kindly come down to Earth and tell us, that would be super.
In fact, there are thousands of things that could do with clarification by God himself.
How about it big fella? I'm sure John Stewart would be happy to make some room for you on his show :D
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 05:33:16 PM
I get annoyed with hard core atheists because so many of them like to claim that their point of view is the epitome of logic.
Well, it's unfortunate (for you) that their 'belief' is in fact the by-product of concrete logic.
You can be annoyed with them for having a logically consistent belief framework all you like.
QuoteI really don't think that is the case. The only way you can claim to be oh so logical is by being agnostic. Really, saying that you know for certain that there is no God is just as irrational as saying that it that you know for certain that there is one.
Okay then.
Really, saying that you know for certain that there is no Santa Claus is just as irrational as saying that you know for certain that there is one.
Replace Santa Claus with any deity or mythical creature of choice.
QuoteI don't have any problem with people thinking one way or the other. I just can't stand it when people falsely claim superiority.
Which seems sillier:
a) Believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns?
b) Not believing in them?
QuoteIt just seems like there are so many atheists who are just so much like the fundamentalists. It's kind of like how communists and fascists hate each other but they are so similar in practice.
You'll find that militant or hard-core atheists are a direct response to fundamentalist deists.
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 05:33:16 PM
I get annoyed with hard core atheists because so many of them like to claim that their point of view is the epitome of logic. I really don't think that is the case. The only way you can claim to be oh so logical is by being agnostic. Really, saying that you know for certain that there is no God is just as irrational as saying that it that you know for certain that there is one.
I see what you're saying, but I've got a different take on what it means to say, "There is no God", that has nothing to do with just lacking evidence. It's more about how the idea of God can't be defined with logical consistency, which is a prerequisite for existence. It's not about saying, "I don't understand God, so therefore he doesn't exist" - it's about the idea that the believer can't put forward a coherent definition of "God", so not only is talk of his existence right out, but I don't even know what I'm being asked to believe in.
Also, if I said "You can't say for certain whether or not there is a Santa Claus", people would start giving me funny looks. Why does the topic of God get special treatment?
Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 05:50:43 PM
Really, saying that you know for certain that there is no Santa Claus is just as irrational as saying that you know for certain that there is one.
Replace Santa Claus with any deity or mythical creature of choice.
Jinx!
Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 14, 2008, 05:53:14 PM
Also, if I said "You can't say for certain whether or not there is a Santa Claus", people would start giving me funny looks. Why does the topic of God get special treatment?
Which reminds me of another great mystery:
People who believe in Jesus are left to their own devices.
People who believe they
are Jesus are locked up.
Curious.
Is the Second Coming languishing in an asylum somewhere, turning the oatmeal into twinkies?
Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 05:58:07 PM
Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 14, 2008, 05:53:14 PM
Also, if I said "You can't say for certain whether or not there is a Santa Claus", people would start giving me funny looks. Why does the topic of God get special treatment?
Which reminds me of another great mystery:
People who believe in Jesus are left to their own devices.
People who believe they are Jesus are locked up.
Curious.
Is the Second Coming languishing in an asylum somewhere, turning the oatmeal into twinkies?
Another thing... lots of people say that God talks to them, but how can they know whether it's really God? Couldn't it be Satan?
QuoteI know that people have different interpretations of Christianity, but the simple fact is that the God depicted in Scripture is not a nice or loving guy, and you have to discount most of Christianity's own history, teachings, and holy writings in order to claim otherwise - and if you're going to do that, why don't you call your religion something else?
If you aren't going to call it Christian than what else are to supposed to call it... wait sec... scratch that Now that you mention it... Chrestian would be good. As is the original term Chrestos (Is that spelled right?) meaning benevolent one rather than the later Christos; meaning the anointed one or messiah.
Also I have TOTALLY disagree with this idea about discounting it's history. If you actually look at the history, Christianity's teachings are distinctly Zoroastrian and so the Torah can't really be called Christian. Now if you want to take issue with the Avesta then OK, I'm willing to listen. Modern Judaism is what emerged out of the confused mess that was the syncretism of the religion of Yaweh and the Zoroastrian tradition that was picked up during the Babylonian captivity. If are worried about the New Testament Canon, well why can't we look at things from a reasonable historical perspective, evaluating all documents from the period by there own merits? Why do we have to accept a few books that were probably chosen for political reasons in the third or fourth century? And honestly, are you going to say Paul wasn't Christian? He seems to espouse almost Manichean world view with Jesus as the Savior. I think he needs to be view with a special kind of skepticism due to the obvious Hellenic influence on his ideas, but does that mean he is or isn't Christian. Then there is the question of the authenticity of his later epistles. They change in style and start to go against all of the things that his earlier epistles talk about! Does accepting fraud make you more Christian?
In the end, so what if I recognize that Jesus does not fit the role of the Jewish Messiah but instead the fits the promised savior foretold in Zoroastrian tradition? Does that mean I'm not Christian? Do I have to make up a term so that I can be conveniently categorized! Do I just have to sit down and shut up and let them insult me, insult other, even insulting the very people that they quote their scriptures from?!
Edit: I'm sorry... I didn't mean to come across the way that I did. I'm not really angry at any of you.
Quote from: Cindi Jones on October 06, 2008, 12:58:40 AM
Personally, I feel that all life is sacred. Even down to the cow that donated its life for my Sunday dinner. I don't relegate human life to the level of a cow, rather I am raisig my awareness of how valuable all life is.
I would think that an all powerful god could and would have controls on the soul dispenser so that all would have a chance at life.
I hate to do this... but.... I really resent the movement to push this to the forefront of all that is important in our government. Those who have been in power, controlling all branches of the government these past years, have pandered to those with faith and conviction and what have they done? Nothing. They have had complete control and have done nothing. I do hope that those who have voted based on this issue can see how they have been used. Government will not ever change the current laws unless we progress to a church run state.... like those terrorists we fight on the other side of the world.
Abortion has to be the most profound decision a woman must ever face. Sometimes it is an easy choice.... and sometimes it must be agonizing. I truly have sympathy for women in this situation. Even though I could never consider abortion for myself, I do realize that my feelings have nothing to do with other people in other situation. I can not dictate to them how to live their lives.
Cindi
Bravo! I really wish my mother understood this. Her sole reason for voting is the abortion issue because she is very pro-life. I wish she understood that she's being used.
I, on the other hand, am pro-choice because I believe women should own all rights to their bodies, not the government.
Quote"You can't say for certain whether or not there is a Santa Claus"
Please flesh this out a little. To use this as a valid example you need to be a little more specific. Do you mean that there is some guy going around giving out presents? Do you mean that there is a guy on a sleigh with flying reindeer? This notion does really have much value to us as a thought experiment (or whatever it would technically be) unless we know what exactly we are disputing.
If you want to go with everything that's ever been said about Santa Claus then okay, here I go. Based on what I currently know, I cannot conceive of there being a real Santa because there is no conceivable way to explain his supposed attributes. There are so many real problems that I can think of, but most of them are inconsequential. The real problem is that some of his attributes have to suspend the laws of physics for them to happen. For examples, look at Santa from (an engineer?)'s perspective (sorry I forgot the exact name, but it was pretty popular so I'm sure it wouldn't be to hard to track down). A God however, can be conceived of in a completely naturalistic setting. I have yet to see any argument that showed otherwise.
The problem with taking the academic view of a religion is that it doesn't jive with how 99.9% of people actually treat the topic. How many believers are going to know what an ecumenical council is? How many can name even a single major heresy? Documentary Hypothesis... what's that?
The fact is that the important documents pertaining to modern-day Christianity are a bunch of fragmentary, dubious translations, chosen for political motives, and gathered together in a big book labeled "King James Version" or "New Revised Standard Version".
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 06:36:51 PM
The real problem is that some of his attributes have to suspend the laws of physics for them to happen.
You mean like conjuring a planet out of nothing?
Or perhaps making a living creature out of dust?
Flaming swords, burning bushes that talk, serpents that speak human language, rivers of blood, the sun standing still, setting a soaking wet altar alight with prayer, chariots of fire coming down from the sky, parting the sea?
A fat guy that can put presents under every household Xmas tree in one night sounds practically plausible by comparison!
Oh... the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is particular annoying to me because it plays on bias to short circuit rational thought. An invisible pink unicorn sounds utterly ridiculous. I honestly can't say that it doesn't exist but I am predisposed to saying it doesn't for no conceivable reason. If I really were oh so logical then I would say hey, maybe there are (once we get past the issue of why they would be invisible - after all what does it matter if you are pink if you are invisible, you don't need an earthy color for camoflauge since you are invisible!) It would be most logical to accept that there may be pink unicorns, but if we logical, then we would all look silly wouldn't we. Maybe logic isn't all it is cracked up to be? I don't like the argument, but only conclusion I can come up with from it though is that logic makes you silly; which doesn't really support the questions original purpose. But whatever, I don't like the argument because it makes logic look bad, and using it is as silly the idea of that invisible pink unicorn.
Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 06:36:51 PM
The real problem is that some of his attributes have to suspend the laws of physics for them to happen.
You mean like conjuring a planet out of nothing?
Or perhaps making a living creature out of dust?
Flaming swords, burning bushes that talk, serpents that speak human language, rivers of blood, the sun standing still, setting a soaking wet altar alight with prayer, chariots of fire coming down from the sky, parting the sea?
A fat guy that can put presents under every household Xmas tree in one night sounds practically plausible by comparison!
Where did I say that he did those things? Oh and conjuring a planet out nothing? What about energy? And don't try to tell me that you can't make matter out of energy, cause that's BS. Energy and matter are interchangeable. It is thought that before the "big bang" the universe consisted of a single point containing an infinite quantity of energy.
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 06:51:08 PM
Oh... the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is particular annoying to me because it plays on bias to short circuit rational thought. An invisible pink unicorn sounds utterly ridiculous. I honestly can't say that it doesn't exist but I am predisposed to saying it doesn't for no conceivable reason. If I really were oh so logical then I would say hey, maybe there are (once we get past the issue of why they would be invisible - after all what does it matter if you are pink if you are invisible, you don't need an earthy color for camoflauge since you are invisible!) It would be most logical to accept that there may be pink unicorns, but if we logical, then we would all look silly wouldn't we. Maybe logic isn't all it is cracked up to be? I don't like the argument, but only conclusion I can come up with from it though is that logic makes you silly; which doesn't really support the questions original purpose. But whatever, I don't like the argument because it makes logic look bad, and using it is as silly the idea of that invisible pink unicorn.
Eureka! Now you understand why atheists find the concept of God to be so ludicrous!
After all, the idea of an Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be her Hooves) is no less valid than an Invisible Space Daddy with Three Parts (Amen).
Quote from: Emme on December 14, 2008, 06:47:44 PM
Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 14, 2008, 06:40:31 PM
The problem with taking the academic view of a religion is that it doesn't jive with how 99.9% of people actually treat the topic. How many believers are going to know what an ecumenical council is? How many can name even a single major heresy? Documentary Hypothesis... what's that?
The fact is that the important documents pertaining to modern-day Christianity are a bunch of fragmentary, dubious translations, chosen for political motives, and gathered together in a big book labeled "King James Version" or "New Revised Standard Version".
I'm sitting here, with my incredulity on the tip of my tongue, I just can't ifnd the words to say what's in my head and make my intent understood.
We can't not view things from an academic standpoint because people can't be bothered to truly learn about their belief system regardless of whether it's from a sheep mentality, laziness, or some other reason. And on a deeper level, if people aren't taking the time to understand both the history and the theology of their belief system, then why are they so bent on creating laws around it the same?
I think you missed my point... I'm not saying that it's wrong to look at it from that standpoint, but that there are already
millions of believers who outright
reject that kind of viewpoint, and they're the ones that we
all seem to have problems with. How can you debate rationally with someone who thinks the Books of Moses were
literally written by Moses, word for word? In English?
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 06:54:22 PM
Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 06:36:51 PM
The real problem is that some of his attributes have to suspend the laws of physics for them to happen.
You mean like conjuring a planet out of nothing?
Or perhaps making a living creature out of dust?
Flaming swords, burning bushes that talk, serpents that speak human language, rivers of blood, the sun standing still, setting a soaking wet altar alight with prayer, chariots of fire coming down from the sky, parting the sea?
A fat guy that can put presents under every household Xmas tree in one night sounds practically plausible by comparison!
Where did I say that he did those things?
Is God omnipotent or not?
There is no such thing as Omnipotence. It's an artificial concept. If God exists, how powerful is he? I don't know. How do you gauge power. Like how many joules could he produce? Beats me.
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:00:39 PM
There is no such thing as Omnipotence. It's an artificial concept.
Do you have any tangible evidence to back this up?
Also, could God do Santa's job if he chose to?
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:00:39 PM
There is no such thing as Omnipotence. It's an artificial concept. If God exists, how powerful is he? I don't know. How do you gauge power. Like how many joules could he produce? Beats me.
OK, then you've got a very different idea of God from what I'm used to hearing. You mentioned before that your God is naturalistic?
Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:55:38 PM
Eureka! Now you understand why atheists find the concept of God to be so ludicrous!
Really now? Nothings changed... I haven't learned anything I didn't already know. Pretty much all I said was that Atheists were being irrational. Why would you say Eureka for me calling Atheists hypocrites?
QuoteOK, then you've got a very different idea of God from what I'm used to hearing. You mentioned before that your God is naturalistic?
Yeah. What about it? I don't understand the question. What exactly do you want to know?
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:55:38 PM
Eureka! Now you understand why atheists find the concept of God to be so ludicrous!
Really now? Nothings changed... I haven't learned anything I didn't already know. Pretty much all I said was that Atheists were being irrational. Why would you say Eureka for calling Atheists hypocrites?
I pointed out that you think the IPU is ridiculous.
Atheists feel the same about God.
There is just as much evidence for the IPU as there is for God, so logically, you think God is ridiculous. ;)
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 06:55:38 PM
Eureka! Now you understand why atheists find the concept of God to be so ludicrous!
Really now? Nothings changed... I haven't learned anything I didn't already know. Pretty much all I said was that Atheists were being irrational. Why would you say Eureka for me calling Atheists hypocrites?
QuoteOK, then you've got a very different idea of God from what I'm used to hearing. You mentioned before that your God is naturalistic?
Yeah. What about it? I don't understand the question.
It's just that if your idea of God is something completely natural, existing within and bound by the rules of the universe, then you're in the same boat as most atheists - i.e. you don't accept supernatural explanations. That being the case, even though I don't believe in your God, you're right in saying that I can't deny his existence without being illogical.
I still don't know what you mean by God, though... or why you'd use the word "God" when that's almost always associated with a supernatural being.
I pointed out that you think the IPU is ridiculous.
Atheists feel the same about God.
There is just as much evidence for the IPU as there is for God, so logically, you think God is ridiculous. ;)
[/quote]
However the problem the IPU is manufactured so that it's traits have been chosen specifically to be ridiculous to people of our culture. We have been preconditioned to think that unicorns are ridiculous, same with pink animals. The invisibility is the exception because we have not discovered any invisible life. (Note that invisibility was the one trait that I felt needed explanation before the concept really can be taken seriously). After all, what's so implausible about an equine animal with one horn. And as far as I know, there is no conceivable reason why it couldn't be pink, especially if it is capable of invisibility. The pink could just be a natural skin color, or maybe it has pink fur due to some kind of mutation. It's pink fur might even help it to attract mates. The only thing difficult to believe about the IPU is the invisibility because it is not posited as to how it could be done. I haven't been given any other details so that's about as far as my analysis can go. I would conclude that such a creature is not ridiculous with that one caveat.
It may not be ridiculous, but I don't know of any evidence to support the statement "IPU's exist". It's perfectly logical to say, "I do not believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns."
Now if we were to throw in some other qualities, like the old (but undefinable or contradictory) trilogy of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, wouldn't you feel justified in saying, "IPUs do not exist?"
EDIT: I'd really like to have a stuffed pink unicorn. Ever since Vexing mentioned it, I've been fighting this stupid girly-girl urge to go buy one and squeeze the heck out of it. :laugh:
I guess that Supernatural is kind of a meaningless term anyways. If it isn't artificial and it isn't natural doesn't that mean it's non-existent? If there is a God, I think that it is a sentience that has existed since the... well I don't think you can say that the universe ever really began but that is kind of a complicated philosophical point... but since the beginning of the universe. I am not sure if God would be of the universe or being part of the universe itself. I think that he\she\it set the universe into motion. God would be an expression of as the Zoroastrians say, "the creative principle", while "the devil" is the "destructive principle". As spirits go and such (which I do believe in for reasons I'm not going to go into) they might be a form of electromagnetic life - which IS theoretically possible. If I am wrong about all this, and yet there still is a God, the I would guess he is some kind of Boltzman Brain.
Also... It is perfectly logical to say you don't believe in something. It is a whole other matter entirely to deny it's existence outright. That is what bothers me. There are many Atheists that take this and make it into a declaration. A declaration of faith?
Oh also... If they told me that the IPU was those things... the trilogy of utterly meaningless terns. Then I would think that they were becoming a bit obsessed and had begun to ascribe superlative terms to it. I would think that they should calm down and try and be a little more level headed. I would also explain that those terms made no sense and hopefully help the person better define the thing they were trying to describe. If they said it's really powerful and knows everything blah blah blah, then I would be very skeptical and believe they were just passing on exaggerations. Another thing I would take note of is if anyone else claimed knowledge of the IPU and try and figure out where the idea came from. If only one person has ever known anything about it then I would say "I doesn't exist" even though it isn't logical, but nothing in life is absolute is it?
All sound like a heartfelt conversation about the origins of Superman to me.
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:41:38 PM
Also... It is perfectly logical to say you don't believe in something. It is a whole other matter entirely to deny it's existence outright. That is what bothers me. There are many Atheists that take this and make it into a declaration. A declaration of faith?
But it
is logical to deny the existence of things that are self-contradictory and incoherent - since they logically can't exist. Square circles don't exist, and neither does bright darkness. Benevolent wickedness is another. Or the triple threat of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. Assuming you can even define them clearly, it's going to be "Pick any two", as the saying goes. I feel perfectly justified in denying the existence of any being that is claimed to have these characteristics.
Quote from: tekla on December 14, 2008, 07:57:38 PM
All sound like a heartfelt conversation about the origins of Superman to me.
Which Superman, and pre or post-crisis? (and which crisis?). ::)
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 07:24:13 PM
However the problem the IPU is manufactured
So is God.
There is no difference at all.
You can substitute the IPU with Vampire Penguins, Smurfs, Gorgons, Giants, Fenris, Odin, Dread Wotan, Krishna, Vishnu, The Dagda, Balor, The Fomori, Eshu, etc, etc, etc.
They all have the same amount of evidence for their existence as God.
i.e. no evidence.
Why then don't you believe in ALL things that have no credible evidence if you believe in one?
Perhaps it is inaccurate to say that I believe. In fact you could say that I don't believe in anything, even the reality of my experience typing this post. I cannot prove that it is real. It would be more accurate to say that it is a guess. Nothing is certain, ever. I may make different guesses than you do, but you can't tell me that my guess is wrong and I can't tell you that your guess is wrong. The sad truth is that no matter what, we will never know anything about anything. I hope I didn't lose you there.
What a cop-op.
When in doubt, call on subjective reality.
*golf clap*
You guys should probably quit arguing now. You're not really getting anywhere.
Faith is the important missing componant here. I don't think faith is logical yet it seems to be an important part of the lives of many of us. Clearly on the face of it a 'god' is about as logical as the IPU. But nobody has faith in the IPU. For those that believe in god I don't think you should stick to logic because clearly it is a matter of faith.
That is not a cop-out!!! >:( I am really insulted by that!
See rule #15 - attack the position, not the person. - Emme
God is an onion. Whether you tear up or not depends upon how you handle it.
Maybe we should all just take a deep breath, here?
Come-on guys, chill out. No need to start trading insults here.
Aelita_Lynn, you seem to have been out debated and Vexing you should know better, you have had your fun stirring the pot. Perhaps it is time to walk away both of you.
Earlier on I would have admitted to being out debated (It was close but I stayed on my toes) but I am not going to to admit being out debated with a post that is nothing more than an insult! I was having fun until she decided to attack me out of the blue. I thought she was an nice person and that we were having a friendly debate. I am totally disgusted.
I didn't read enough to see that things were getting overheated. However, if anyone begins to feel bad, or attacked, please take a moment before making a response.
I always ask the person with whom I'm having a discussion if they meant what they said in the way that I took it.
Ideas aren't worth fighting about.
Nikki's right. Everybody was debating nicely. Let's not start attacking each other. I think at this point, it's probably better to agree to disagree.
Good debates are fun and useful; let's just remember to not get personal, ladies.
Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 14, 2008, 08:59:16 PM
That is not a cop-out!!! >:( I am really insulted by that!
If you are insulted, then don't end a debate by calling on subjective reality.
As soon as you do that, you invalidate your arguments and the arguments of everyone else in the debate.
It's like the kid who owns the Playstation saying to the other kids "I'm turning it off now" just because they don't like losing at Tekken. It ruins things for everyone.
Do you understand why people don't talk about subjective reality? It puts you in a position where facts become irrelevant. Therefore the debate becomes irrelevant - because you are now in a position to refute
everything because you can claim that nothing is actually real.
Uh. I actually believe that nothing IS real. Though that is grammatically wrong, I think.
Seriously. There is not a thing that is real. Ideas are not real. Matter is not real.
Though I understand what you are saying.
The AC has been turned on here. Topic locked until it's 30 degrees in here. ;)