Explain this logically christians....

[Koldo]

You have made the distinction that evil is intended, I get that. Bad is...what then? Undesirable consequences?

Bad has many meanings.
Consequences, desirable or not, can be bad.

But circumstances sometimes do not allow us to do what want.

Example fitting the "evil" thematic?

 

[Frank Merton]

We have a strong disagreement on what counts as "sophisticated".

I have the feeling you have the habit of going through messages looking for overstatements or errors (or things you can interpret as overstatements or errors) and pouncing on them, rather than looking for genuine discussion.

As a result, in this particular case, you seem to have missed or ignored my real message and diverted it onto a useless sideline as to the meaning of "sophisticated." This is, to me at least, a complete waste of time. You haven't even persuaded me that my description of animism as sophisticated is in the least incorrect.

Let me repeat my real point. We suffer from a distortion of "primitive" religions because the only ones we are really familiar with are all from the Indo-European language group of cultures (folk Hinduism, Homeric Greek myth, Norse myth, etc.).

Animism, for example, gets distorted by this frame of thinking (as does -- and your other remarks on this confirmed it to me in spades -- our view of folk religion in China and in Buddhist SE Asia). Nineteenth century anthropologists described the greetings an animist will typically make to the sun, a physical feature of his environment, etc., as "worship," leading to the incorrect conclusion that the animist thinks these things are "gods."

This is of course taken from the Indo-European type of paganism as a model, but it misses the reality by a wide margin. Animists animate nature, they do not deify it.

Again, we have a strong disagreement. Bodhisattvas, like gods, can be anything that we imagine them to be. My position is against endorsing the worship of mythical beings, no matter how benevolent they are claimed to be.

Here again you interpret things in terms of your own cultural notions -- especially the word "worship." I have no problem kneeling and bowing to a statue of a Buddha or of a Bodhisattva (the main one in Vietnam is, of course, Quan Yin -- showing Chinese influence).

Typical Westerners, of course, have no end of problems with this, probably because they have a superstitious fear of "idolatry," and because they interpret the behavior as worship. The Buddhist, even the uneducated Buddhist, knows the Buddha is dead, as are the Bodhisattvas one might find statues of, so there is no worship here, not of the stature nor even what it represents.

That Bodhisattvas (and the Buddha himself, for that matter) are mainly matters of myth has no effect on me. The myths are uplifting, full of compassionate messages, and informative as to the human condition. Linking them with ritual can be seen as emotional and aesthetic, and optional.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I put forth in the definition that they are not intending to do evil. But I think that it is possible to do evil without intending to, or even whilst intending to do good. Does that make the person evil? Their actions evil? Or both?

IMO, "evil" is defined in terms of bad intent, so I don't think that it's possible to commit evil unintentionally.

Acts with bad outcomes? Sure. Evil acts? No.

 

[Copernicus]

Let me repeat my real point. We suffer from a distortion of "primitive" religions because the only ones we are really familiar with are all from the Indo-European language group of cultures (folk Hinduism, Homeric Greek myth, Norse myth, etc.).

You can repeat the point all you like, but it is still a fallacious sweeping generalization. Basically you are saying that my argument is based on a flawed assumption that you impute to Westerners. I told you why I objected to your word "sophisticated" when applied to animism. Animism ignores the mind-brain connection, which I think you understand clearly and agree with me on. Telling me that I have a naive view of animism does not advance the discussion.

Animism, for example, gets distorted by this frame of thinking (as does -- and your other remarks on this confirmed it to me in spades -- our view of folk religion in China and in Buddhist SE Asia). Nineteenth century anthropologists described the greetings an animist will typically make to the sun, a physical feature of his environment, etc., as "worship," leading to the incorrect conclusion that the animist thinks these things are "gods."

That's all very nice, but it has nothing to do with anything I said. I am not a nineteenth century anthropologist, although you seem to think that I am a throwback to that era. :areyoucra

This is of course taken from the Indo-European type of paganism as a model, but it misses the reality by a wide margin. Animists animate nature, they do not deify it.

Did I say that they did? You are attributing this position to me without bothering to show how it refutes what I actually did say.

Here again you interpret things in terms of your own cultural notions -- especially the word "worship." I have no problem kneeling and bowing to a statue of a Buddha or of a Bodhisattva (the main one in Vietnam is, of course, Quan Yin -- showing Chinese influence).

I am not saying that your act of obeisance is the same as an act of worship, nor am I endorsing any implicit claim that your act of obeisance is equivalent to those of other people in the same temple. I have been around and about in the world. I have noticed people paying obeisance to gods in Hindu and Buddhist temples. Some strike me as going through the motions for purely traditional reasons. Others appear to be devout believers in gods and are engaged in genuine acts of worship. They expect their prayers to get the attention of a bona fide god. Buddhists quite often treat Boddhisatvas as objects of worship that are little different from traditional gods. If they did not, then other Buddhists would find no need to tell them to stop doing that.

Typical Westerners, of course, have no end of problems with this, probably because they have a superstitious fear of "idolatry," and because they interpret the behavior as worship. The Buddhist, even the uneducated Buddhist, knows the Buddha is dead, as are the Bodhisattvas one might find statues of, so there is no worship here, not of the stature nor even what it represents.

Frank, what makes you call me a "typical Westerner"? Is it that I am a Westerner and I say things that you disagree with? I can think of no other reason for basing an argument on a stereotype. I would prefer that you did not condescend to me like that.

That Bodhisattvas (and the Buddha himself, for that matter) are mainly matters of myth has no effect on me. The myths are uplifting, full of compassionate messages, and informative as to the human condition. Linking them with ritual can be seen as emotional and aesthetic, and optional.

Quite so. Are you saying that all Buddhists share your opinion in this matter?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Bad has many meanings.
Consequences, desirable or not, can be bad.

Again the question is to whom. Consequences are different according to perspective. Thus a good action can be perceived as an evil one based on perspective.

Example fitting the "evil" thematic?

Abortion, perhaps.

 

[Koldo]

Again the question is to whom. Consequences are different according to perspective. Thus a good action can be perceived as an evil one based on perspective.

You mixed every bad and evil in the same bag. You have to decide what you want to talk about. I was talking about "bad" and then you reply with "evil".
Go ahead and say an example of a good action that can be perceived as evil.
Keep in mind that just because a good action had a bad result, it doesn't qualify as evil.

Abortion, perhaps.

I fail to see a connection between 'abortion' and 'circumstances that sometimes don't allow us to do what we want'. Would you care to explain?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You mixed every bad and evil in the same bag. You have to decide what you want to talk about. I was talking about "bad" and then you reply with "evil".
Go ahead and say an example of a good action that can be perceived as evil.
Keep in mind that just because a good action had a bad result, it doesn't qualify as evil.

It does to the person that the bad result happens to, which is what I've been saying. IMO, bad and evil are only different in perception. Abortion is percieved as evil by many. It is perceived as 'bad' by others, but is a basic right (the right of choice), and taking away that right is even worse, i.e. 'evil'.
Those who see abortion as murder think it is evil, regardless of intent (the most conservative do, at least). Others allow for some intents to be seen as 'necessary' (such as if the mother's life was in danger), based on their perception of the intent.

I fail to see a connection between 'abortion' and 'circumstances that sometimes don't allow us to do what we want'. Would you care to explain?

The oath of a doctor to respect a patient's wishes, and to protect life. Which do you choose? You want to do both, but cannot, thus you are forced to do something you don't want.

 

[Koldo]

It does to the person that the bad result happens to, which is what I've been saying. IMO, bad and evil are only different in perception. Abortion is percieved as evil by many. It is perceived as 'bad' by others, but is a basic right (the right of choice), and taking away that right is even worse, i.e. 'evil'.

You are very wrong about bad and evil being only different in perception. There are many bad things that don't come even close to being evil. As bad quality products and bad results , for example.

Those who see abortion as murder think it is evil, regardless of intent (the most conservative do, at least). Others allow for some intents to be seen as 'necessary' (such as if the mother's life was in danger), based on their perception of the intent.

They don't see abortion as evil regardless of intent. That is a misconception. They see it as evil exactly because of the intent. Also, very often, the others see it as a necessary evil.

The oath of a doctor to respect a patient's wishes, and to protect life. Which do you choose? You want to do both, but cannot, thus you are forced to do something you don't want.

The term 'forced' is used quite loosely.
We usually use it to express a state where a bad outcome happens if we don't do a certain action.

However, nobody is seriously forced to do anything they don't want to.
Nobody. Ever. [ Exception to this are the involuntary body movements , obviously]

Even with laws against murder, stealing, and even if you have a gun pointed to your head, you are always free to choose what you want to do.

In your example, the doctor is free to do as he wishes. He will only make the abortion ,or not , if he wants to.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Every day someone is the [innocent] victim of someone else’s direct/indirect thoughtlessness, selfishness – perhaps even meanness –, etc. Believers sometimes speak about “sinful” conduct, spreading tragedy onto others and hurting all encountered. To me, it seems that also non-believers may agree that certain actions – e.g. drunk-driving – so obviously risk contributing to other’s suffering that, at the very least, they’d be viewed as selfish and undesirable (I know; not everyone considers selfishness undesirable but that, perhaps is another issue J).
Without needing to “solve” the free-will vs. determined causality dilemma, one could say that people mentioned in OP, in any case, were not run over and killed by/because of an eventual god, but by/because of a particular human being’s “sinful” conduct. Whether conduct is freely chosen or not, wouldn’t perhaps make much difference to this kind of argument...
Of course, if one believes in God but thinks of life in general (existence) as being specifically about oneself [+ one’s loved ones], ninerbuff’s question in OP will seem justifiable and, the idea of “leaning on faith/God” in context of personal tragedy, will appear most problematic.
Yet, belief in God is often accompanied by a view of life in general (existence), as something about a much larger, collective picture, in which it seems unreasonable to assume that experiences we come across (some, indeed affecting us greatly), be intended for anyone, individually speaking at all...
As every incident involves many, many people and a huge chain of human interaction, God deals with mankind as a whole, far more often than with man as individual, yes?

 

[Copernicus]

Of course, if one believes in God but thinks of life in general (existence) as being specifically about oneself [+ one’s loved ones], ninerbuff’s question in OP will seem justifiable and, the idea of “leaning on faith/God” in context of personal tragedy, will appear most problematic.

Indeed. And this does appear to be what people believe about God--that he relates to each of us on an individual basis.

Yet, belief in God is often accompanied by a view of life in general (existence), as something about a much larger, collective picture, in which it seems unreasonable to assume that experiences we come across (some, indeed affecting us greatly), be intended for anyone, individually speaking at all...

That's a thought, but it is not the one that most people seem to have when they pray for individual treatment--e.g. the strength to overcome hardships. They believe that they can communicate directly with God through prayer, and that is an individual relationship.

As every incident involves many, many people and a huge chain of human interaction, God deals with mankind as a whole, far more often than with man as individual, yes?

No. Generally speaking, God is thought to be omniscient and capable of interacting on a personal basis with human beings. Of course, you could promote this different idea about God and see if it flies. God is such an implausible being that people are open to all sorts of mental strategies for maintaining faith, and the belief that God is both benevolent and unwilling or unable to intervene to prevent suffering is very difficult to explain. Your idea seems to be that God is a "big picture" kind of guy who cannot be bothered dealing with little people.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You are very wrong about bad and evil being only different in perception. There are many bad things that don't come even close to being evil. As bad quality products and bad results , for example.

But if someone perceives these bad results as intentional, even when they are not, then it is seen as evil.

They don't see abortion as evil regardless of intent. That is a misconception. They see it as evil exactly because of the intent. Also, very often, the others see it as a necessary evil.

What intent? You assume every abortion has the intent of killing a child. And you said it yourself, result and intent are very different things.

The term 'forced' is used quite loosely.
We usually use it to express a state where a bad outcome happens if we don't do a certain action.

However, nobody is seriously forced to do anything they don't want to.
Nobody. Ever. [ Exception to this are the involuntary body movements , obviously]

Even with laws against murder, stealing, and even if you have a gun pointed to your head, you are always free to choose what you want to do.

In your example, the doctor is free to do as he wishes. He will only make the abortion ,or not , if he wants to.

You're splitting hairs. If you do nothing, then the patient will simply go to another doctor and give that doctor the choice. Nice way to hide your head in the sand. A very nice strawman as well.

 

[PolyHedral]

You assume every abortion has the intent of killing a child.

...Isn't killing something the whole point of the procedure?

 

[Koldo]

But if someone perceives these bad results as intentional, even when they are not, then it is seen as evil.

I doubt it is possible for the wrongly perceived evil to exist if the actual evil does not.

What intent? You assume every abortion has the intent of killing a child. And you said it yourself, result and intent are very different things.

And they are. The intent of killing the "child" is always there during an abortion. There can be, and such is usually the case, multiple intents behind an abortion.

You're splitting hairs. If you do nothing, then the patient will simply go to another doctor and give that doctor the choice. Nice way to hide your head in the sand. A very nice strawman as well.

Everyone has its own choices. So what?
How is this a strawman?

So you are saying that if someone asks me to murder another person i should accept, because oh well, this person is going to keep looking for people until he finds someone who accepts. That is a completely flawed line of thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those who see abortion as murder think it is evil, regardless of intent (the most conservative do, at least).

This only makes sense in the context of divine command theory: aside from an authoritative pronouncement (e.g. from God) specifically declaring that this is good and that is evil, there's no way that a person can say that an act is evil regardless of intent.

And divine command theory has its own set of problems. IMO, it's probably not even reasonable to say that it's a logically coherent concept, let alone that we must accept it as true.

The oath of a doctor to respect a patient's wishes, and to protect life. Which do you choose? You want to do both, but cannot, thus you are forced to do something you don't want.

The conflict only arises if the doctor believes that abortion goes against the principle of "protecting life". A person needs to accept several non-obvious things as true before this is necessarily the case.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

...Isn't killing something the whole point of the procedure?

The procedure will result in that, but it is not the intent. It could be that the mother does not have the resources to care for the child, and is very much intending to save the child from that lack, or the overworked adoption system.

 

[ninerbuff]

okay back on topic.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The procedure will result in that, but it is not the intent. It could be that the mother does not have the resources to care for the child, and is very much intending to save the child from that lack, or the overworked adoption system.

Exodus [21vs22-24] is viewed as a moral and religious issue because the unborn is considered a life just as the born are.

So, for a Christian to have an abortion for the sole purpose of getting rid of an unwanted child is a high crime in the eyes of God.

This does not mean Christians should force or impose their thinking on another. Jesus gave the commission to teach to make more followers,
Not to force or coerce non-followers to conform against their will.
-Matt 28vs19,20;24v14

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, for a Christian to have an abortion for the sole purpose of getting rid of an unwanted child is a high crime in the eyes of God.

Right - it's much more God's style to wait until the child is born and then torture him for a week before getting rid of him: 2 samuel 12:15-19 - Passage Lookup - New International Version, ©2011 - BibleGateway.com