Religious views on abortion

[Unveiled Artist]

The Buddha did not deny deities but taught that any thought of a creator-god was irrelevant.

He rejected or denied Hindu deities as part of enlightenment. I'm sure he still believed in the existence of consciousness as deities, not onto themselves, it just wasn't part of his Dharma. I think deities, in Hermit's view, is talking about deity/creator and gods of the Western concept not Eastern. Creator-god from a western christian definition doesn't exist in Dharmic religions (So far I learned from Hindu here and my former Buddhist practice). To compare the two is inappropriate.

 

[metis]

He rejected or denied Hindu deities as part of enlightenment. I'm sure he still believed in the existence of consciousness as deities, not onto themselves, it just wasn't part of his Dharma. I think deities, in Hermit's view, is talking about deity/creator and gods of the Western concept not Eastern. Creator-god from a western christian definition doesn't exist in Dharmic religions (So far I learned from Hindu here and my former Buddhist practice). To compare the two is inappropriate.

Generally speaking, I do agree. But another way one could look at Buddhism is to see it as "Reformed Hinduism". So, in a sense I believe we can compare them, but by no means are they identical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Generally speaking, I do agree. But another way one could look at Buddhism is to see it as "Reformed Hinduism". So, in a sense I believe we can compare them, but by no means are they identical.

I can see comparing Hindu and Buddhism but not Abrahamic creator god with either religion. Even the word god isn't an Eastern word, so it would make little sense to use the word (other than convenience) when talking about either religion.

 

[metis]

I can see comparing Hindu and Buddhism but not Abrahamic creator god with either religion. Even the word god isn't an Eastern word, so it would make little sense to use the word (other than convenience) when talking about either religion.

Agreed.

In the comparative religions course I taught, I told my students that they would have to put their Abrahamic beliefs to the side as getting into the Eastern Religions is basically a new ballgame. [how appropriate after opening day, eh? ]

 

[thomas t]

So, if I do not promise to not kill anyone, and I do kill someone, I am more excusable?

Simple explanation: all those things do not have anything to do with God, since that God was just made up by that ancient paternalistic society, more terrified by their women cheating on them than by performing genocide. Don't you see how obvious that is?

Ciao

- viole

I believe in God... going one step further happily declaring my view that Bible is infallible.
The people of back then might be more terrified of women.
But God was not more terrified of women cheating on their husbands than of murderers, I think.
So why wasn't there a potion for suspected murderers, you may ask?
Since the potion of the text is for women suspected of having cheated only...

I think the reason is here: for the then society it was impossible to discover potential sex between a couple.
Murder, however, was easier to discover, even for the criminologists of back then.

 

[Clara Tea]

I was thinking from the other thread-to religious people only (which doesn't mean you have to believe in god)-what does your religious practice, tradition, scripture, "so have you" say about the value of life in relation to abortion?

In non-scripture focused religions, does your decision about abortion stim from morality you picked up in your practice, a societal law you agree with (if for or against), what are your standards that help you decide either way?

This is to those who do have an "either/or" scenario-justifications are fine but the justifications need to be backed up with reason(s) based on your practice or faith.

Those not religious, I can tell by the other thread what many of you believe... so...

Many view abortion as murder.

Barbara Bush (mother of President W. Bush) believes in abortion.

But, it is too difficult, at this late date, to stuff W. Bush back in and abort him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Many view abortion as murder.

Barbara Bush (mother of President W. Bush) believes in abortion.

But, it is too difficult, at this late date, to stuff W. Bush back in and abort him.

Interesting image. I do consider it murder but I guess that wouldn't be an appropriate word in a legal context. A lot of the arguments are from a moral or ethical one because it's dealing with the growth of a child not a fetus one can just toss in the trash (I wonder if they do that).

 

[viole]

I believe in God... going one step further happily declaring my view that Bible is infallible.
The people of back then might be more terrified of women.
But God was not more terrified of women cheating on their husbands than of murderers, I think.
So why wasn't there a potion for suspected murderers, you may ask?
Since the potion of the text is for women suspected of having cheated only...

I think the reason is here: for the then society it was impossible to discover potential sex between a couple.
Murder, however, was easier to discover, even for the criminologists of back then.

Bad design. Why not create women, and men, to turn, say, purple for a week after cheating on their spouse, instead of complicating things beyond necessity, by finding workarounds on something that He, omniscient, did not think about.

and by the way, was the same valid for men cheating on their wives? If not, why not?

ciao

- viole

 

[thomas t]

great points, Viole. Let me answer this one:

Bad design. Why not create women, and men, to turn, say, purple for a week after cheating on their spouse, instead of complicating things beyond necessity, by finding workarounds on something that He, omniscient, did not think about.

actually, if there was a default marker on cheating humans, women in this case... then there wouldn't be any potion necessary.
The potion scene is vital, though. At least in my opinion, this is for various reasons:

* it's quite an enterprise to do this. Maybe they had to travel an entire day. In my opinion they would have to go to the sanctuary since this is where a priest could be found. So hubby would need to think through how concrete his suspicion actually was. They would lose a day potentially. Or two.

* if people asked where they went, they would need to explain. So this, in turn, presents a risk for the jealous husband. If he comes back and potion did not have any effect... then the people seeing them departing would think "what the heck!"

* if it actually turns out that hubby was wrong and everything was in order... then he would have to answer questions. As to why he didn't just trust his wife and believe her.

* if he's just jealous up to the point that it gets on her nerves, the potion is the way to go. So the priest would be used to this method and get an overview about his people as to how much cases of jealousy there actually are in Israel.

No potion means no way of exposing unjustified jealousy.
So the absence of a default marker for infiedlity.... leads to exposing unjustfied jealousy in the end.

and by the way, was the same valid for men cheating on their wives? If not, why not?

ciao

ah ok. Here a can give my opinion. The women of back then were ok with that. They complained about a lot of things in the Bible.
Not getting children, not being loved by hubby, having not enough alcohol to drink... but they never complained about the lack of gender equality.
This changed until now, though.

 

[viole]

ah ok. Here a can give my opinion. The women of back then were ok with that. They complained about a lot of things in the Bible.
Not getting children, not being loved by hubby, having not enough alcohol to drink... but they never complained about the lack of gender equality.
This changed until now, though.

Does God, the alleged omnipotent moral giver, establish moral requirements, and commandments, on the basis of who complains, and who does not?

Could that explain why God indulged in slavery back then, too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[thomas t]

Does God, the alleged omnipotent moral giver, establish moral requirements, and commandments, on the basis of who complains, and who does not?

Could that explain why God indulged in slavery back then, too?

Ciao

- viole

good point, Viole.
I think you're right in that it does play a role. God is quite a democratic guy sometimes, it seems.
See Genesis 4:15 for example.

edited Bible verse

 

[viole]

good point, Viole.
I think you're right in that it does play a role. God is quite a democratic guy sometimes, it seems.
See Genesis 4:15 for example.

edited Bible verse

OK, so God given morality is what the majority believes to be true. Cool.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

We all agree that after 1 hour from conception, it will not.
So, would you be fine with that?

If you say that abortion is wrong at any time after conception, what are the reasons? For sure feeling pain cannot be one of them, since a few human cells do not feel pain when terminated. So, those reasons must be something else.

So, what is it?

Ciao

- viole

Life begins at conception, my secular friends want murderers to escape capital punishment and want innocent lives snuffed instead. Astonishing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And that becomes the point whereas capital punishment in today's societies is pro-death, not pro-life. Plus it stands to common sense, namely that people tend to change one way or the other as their life goes on, thus we've seen myriads of people over the years who changed their life for the better.

I can relate to that because, when I was in my 20's, I was an agnostic hunting for a sense of direction. It was then that I ran across a women also in her 20's that would end up changing my life forever even though we didn't end up together.

I understand, so to be consistent, if we want to give murderers a chance for realignment, we should also not abort children, and let them fulfill their destiny. Love avoids murder.

 

[viole]

Life begins at conception, my secular friends want murderers to escape capital punishment and want innocent lives snuffed instead. Astonishing.

Innocent? I thought they were also sinners. And what is the problem if they all go to heaven basically risk free? I would say that if they are really innocent, then according to salvation theory, it would be a moral imperative to terminate them before they become old enough.

Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

I understand, so to be consistent, if we want to give murderers a chance for realignment, we should also not abort children, and let them fulfill their destiny. Love avoids murder.

I am pro-life, and that includes abortion and some other issues as well, as abortion and capital punishment are certainly not the only pro-life issues that we face.

 

[thomas t]

OK, so God given morality is what the majority believes to be true. Cool.

Ciao

- viole

no, here I need to disagree.
It seems to me that you need to first have a relationship to God. Then your opinion is taken into account.
as hard as it seems, first step for anyone, includgin the Christians, is to repent and declare Jesus as Lord.

 

[viole]

no, here I need to disagree.
It seems to me that you need to first have a relationship to God. Then your opinion is taken into account.
as hard as it seems, first step for anyone, includgin the Christians, is to repent and declare Jesus as Lord.

Ergo, if We have 10 people who have a relationship with God, and one guy, then if the 10 decide to own that guy as a slave, then God will say yes?

ciao

- viole

 

[thomas t]

Ergo, if We have 10 people who have a relationship with God, and one guy, then if the 10 decide to own that guy as a slave, then God will say yes?

ciao

- viole

very good point.
The 10 want to invite the 11th to become a follower of Christ.
Paul was a Roman to convince the Romans. And a Greek to convince the Greek.
So, if the 11th guy is a fan of slavery, they will quickly make a slave out of him, for sure.

Gaining economic success is not what Christians shold be after. Christians should work for the kingdom of God first and for the rest last. If slavery serves the kingdom of God (hypothetically), it would be a good idea to get more slaves.
But if it just causes irritation with the non-Christians on this current earth, why resort to slavery? If it does not help (God's kingdom), leave it.

 

[viole]

very good point.
The 10 want to invite the 11th to become a follower of Christ.
Paul was a Roman to convince the Romans. And a Greek to convince the Greek.
So, if the 11th guy is a fan of slavery, they will quickly make a slave out of him, for sure.

But what if the 11th does not want to be a slave? If majority wins, and the majority has a relationship with God, then, for what I understand from previous posts, then democratic God will allow that.

ciao

- viole