Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[1robin]

Sorry, but I have to be brief again.

Again, unless one has the originals to compare, the "95%" is worth no more than a hill of beans-- just sheer speculation. And even it if somehow were to be "95%" there's no way to tell if the originals had it right to begin with.

Then why do the textual scholars, even the critics suggest the opposite. If you have a time span and you have an absolutely extraordinary accuracy in copying over the vast majority of it. You have no reason to suspect something the complete opposite occurred in the remaining time span occurred then you have reasonable basis for confidence (a lot of it in this case). BTW that is the exact same rational used in secular history and even when the evidence is fractionally meaningless in comparison. No, a lack of absolute certainty does not equal a low probability.

I do believe it's likely that if you did some more reading on Einstein's religious approach you might well change your mind. Now, otoh, I have no clue whether he was right or wrong.

I have no reason to grant Einstein any more attention on theology than I would Billy Graham on physics. I have learned hard lessons on granting credibility in areas where it has not been earned based on areas where it has.

Karma is more based on actions than belief, although the latter certainly has major influence on the former. With the belief in "many paths to God", there is no "one size fits all" belief in Hinduism. So, obviously you're off on the wrong foot to begin with.

All beings are considered sentient in reincarnation process, so even if one is reborn into a lower form, that doesn't mean that they can't move up.

So, how is this now illogical? Is it any more illogical than a belief in heaven?

At least you found my response, I couldn't and thought I deleted it. The hierarchy IMO is not relevant here. Actions usually follow beliefs. There are many paths in Hinduism but one goal. Enlightenment. BTW I cannot find despite trying like crazy to ever find anyone who claims to be enlightened in this way. It is always someone else that is. It was not my claim they cannot move up it was that lower life forms don't know enough to do so. Do cows aspire to higher moral planes? A note on this and I will leave it here. Hinduism and the caste system are inherent to each other in mainstream India. The Portegese' missionaries who went there were terrible people and acted immorally many times but Hindus literally flocked to them in desperation. It was because the mere concept of Christianity made men equal. Even though the missionaries did not practice it the mere idea that men could be equal electrified the lower Hindu classes because they could not possibly move up. Now you might disagree and I have proven this to others with exhaustive posts but Hinduism is an off ramp here and I want to get back to the issue at hand.

I have asked before but I can't remember. Are you Jewish orthodox? How do you say are you orthodox Judaism in proper English anyway?

 

[1robin]

Ah, now you've painted yourself into a corner. You say that the texts overall are "95%" accurate from the originals with the "N.T." being even higher than that, but now you're claiming that John was copied so incorrectly that myriads of misspellings and grammatical errors emerged in the oldest copies we have.

I may have used the wrong terms. I claim nothing about giving perfect revelation. I usually debate 6-10 people at once and get in a hurry. I believe I have backed up and clarified this several times. Let me do so one last time.

Forget any semantic mistake I have or have not made.

1. Modern bibles are 95% (approx.) with the oldest extant significant manuscript traditions we have.
2. There are many ways to evaluate how reliably we can know what the original texts said. And I mean a lot of them. All of them suggest that error rate is a good assumption to make about the originals.
3. See below:

Actually I am just retyping stuff I have said over and over. I get in a hurry and may have used the wrong word here and there but I have also straightened this out in exhaustive detail. Why are you targeting what (if it exists) was an easy mistake to make but not including where I was far more meticulous in my explanation? If I made any mistake I have corrected it many times in just the last few hours, please look for the more detailed explanations.

Me thinks you gotta problem.

Anyhow, you get a break as I gotta go until tomorrow.

Take care.

I need one. Talk at you tomorrow.

 

[leibowde84]

I said nothing about your devotion. I said your claims have all contradicted simplistic doctrines. I have even said your faith is between you and God, not me. I have been doing this a long time and been watching others do it for many decades. If I see half a dozen posts and determine the person is an atheist I can be wrong about their actual faith but not wrong in the character of their posts. I don't know what your true faith is and I don't even want to, but I do know you have adopted the contradictory position to every essential Christian doctrine I have mentioned. Your not even drawing a neutral skeptical position but a contrary one. God knows if you belong to him, I only know what you have said. The same bible that says do not judge (and it means morally, which I did not do), says to test everything.

I am challenging your views in this instance because I find fault in them. I argue against atheistic ideas that I find fault with as well. I am very adamantly against assumptions and categorization of views. You only express Christian

I said nothing about your devotion. I said your claims have all contradicted simplistic doctrines. I have even said your faith is between you and God, not me. I have been doing this a long time and been watching others do it for many decades. If I see half a dozen posts and determine the person is an atheist I can be wrong about their actual faith but not wrong in the character of their posts. I don't know what your true faith is and I don't even want to, but I do know you have adopted the contradictory position to every essential Christian doctrine I have mentioned. Your not even drawing a neutral skeptical position but a contrary one. God knows if you belong to him, I only know what you have said. The same bible that says do not judge (and it means morally, which I did not do), says to test everything.

Why do you think that a Christian should not argue against Christian doctrine that he or she doesn't agree with?
Why do you think that the "character" of a person's comments/questions defines that person in any way?
This is a forum for discussing ideas it seems, so why would you think it wrong to take the opposing sides argument as an exercise in thinking?
I take a lot of pride in the fact that I am a thinking Christian, not bound by traditional thought, but always searching for the true spirit of the most important philosopher in history. I always try to look at things from all angles, and I find it to be pathetic when people refuse to realize that their own faith is always up for debate. Beliefs should always be questioned internally and externally. Comments from a Christian challenging Christian doctrine should be celebrated, as "the wisest man in the world is the one who realizes he knows nothing."

 

[1robin]

I am challenging your views in this instance because I find fault in them. I argue against atheistic ideas that I find fault with as well. I am very adamantly against assumptions and categorization of views. You only express Christian

That may be but I only have my perspective. Most of the views I have expressed are as fundamental to Christianity as water is to life. They are not very controversial even outside the mainstream. They basically compose what Christianity is. If you contradict them all then (while I have no idea what the ultimate fact of the matter is) I must conclude you contradict the faith. As I have said I do not even find that level of bias and contention among claimed by many atheists. It is between you and God but for my part I am certain something is not jiving here. Anyway you can forget it and I will try and do the same if you want after this post. I usually find that a persons world view and their claims go together, when they do not it is somehow off-putting.

Why do you think that a Christian should not argue against Christian doctrine that he or she doesn't agree with?

I did not say that. Disagree with the Trinity, disagree with transubstantiation, disagree with music in church, they are not central and core doctrines. What you argued against is, they are the most fundamental elements of Christianity and have been for over 2000 years. It is like saying your a professional golfer but think a putter is the only club there is and greens are to be avoided in preference to water hazards.

Why do you think that the "character" of a person's comments/questions defines that person in any way?

This is true in everything from science to legality. A thing is considered to be as it acts. If a lump of metal has wheels, and engine, and takes people to work everyday it is taken to be a vehicle, not a volcano. It is like saying your a duck then avoiding the water, saying flight is impossible and mooing.

This is a forum for discussing ideas it seems, so why would you think it wrong to take the opposing sides argument as an exercise in thinking?

You can't imagine how much you can tell from a dozen posts until you have done this for 20 years.

I take a lot of pride in the fact that I am a thinking Christian, not bound by traditional thought, but always searching for the true spirit of the most important philosopher in history. I always try to look at things from all angles, and I find it to be pathetic when people refuse to realize that their own faith is always up for debate. Beliefs should always be questioned internally and externally. Comments from a Christian challenging Christian doctrine should be celebrated, as "the wisest man in the world is the one who realizes he knows nothing."

How can you be a little Christ if you say they put words in his mouth? What are you following?

Lets forget we ever discussed anything and start with one question. That is if you even want to discuss this. This is a personal matter and so it is up to you.

On what basis do you claim to be a Christian?

 

[Madtown]

Either/or, rock on.



1. Neither availability or access is a property of objectivity. It appears you are not certain what objective means.

Generally, it means true independent of our opinion. Morally it means independent of the moral codes adherents. So if God said eating junk food was our moral duty, even if no one on earth knew it nor agreed it would still be true, and so objective.

2. Muslims born in Saudi Arabia do believe God is objective. They call him Allah. I happen to believe that Allah does not exist but if he did exist both he and his moral duties would be objectively true. Keep in mind I can do so, but am not claiming my God exists. I am making a deductive proposition. If God exists then objective morality exists. If objective morality exists then a very similar God to mine must exist. I am not assuming either exists. I am saying if either does then the other necessary must exist.

3. Your making a fundamental mistake so common that theists joke about it, as it is an intuitive but ultimately irrelevant mistake. To say X is objective is an ontological statement about X's nature. To respond with how I came to know X's nature is an epistemological issue and not relevant. It is the nature of objective things that how we come to know them is irrelevant. I can read about objective truths in the funny papers or the back of a cereal box and it is no less true because how I came to know it.

No, I know what objectivity means. The idea that only 1 flavor of man-made theology defines God's "universal truth", isn't it. Of course objectivity means the truth of something, is independent of our opinion. That's the point.....religion IS opinion.

Thanks, rock on yourself.

 

[metis]

Actions usually follow beliefs. There are many paths in Hinduism but one goal. Enlightenment.

Enlightenment is a means to an end but not the "goal", which is becoming one with God. Sorta similar to Christian teachings, wouldn't ya say?

I have asked before but I can't remember. Are you Jewish orthodox? How do you say are you orthodox Judaism in proper English anyway?

No, I'm not Orthodox-- Reform/Renewal.

If one mean the Orthodox branch, then "Orthodox Judaism" is fine and proper. If one mean the orthodox branches, then "orthodox Judaism" is fine and proper.

 

[1robin]

No, I know what objectivity means.

Just for the heck of it I will post the best definition of it I know of.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

This is objective morality and can only be true if God exists.

This is in contrast to the definition of subjective morality.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute.

This is subjective morality and can be had without God.

In order to make this less confusing keep in mind I call Mallum in se - morality, and I refer to Mallum prohibitum - ethics.

The idea that only 1 flavor of man-made theology defines God's "universal truth", isn't it.

This is absolutely not what I mean. No man made anything can produce God or what is true of him. Truth is an exclusive category, a benevolent God should have given one pure revelation about himself and not hid pieces of truth in piles of man-made garbage, most religions make contradictory claims to absolute truth. For these reasons it is highly probable that at most one faith is of divine origin. The evidence suggests that faith is Christianity.

Now, I am not assuming Christianity is true. My claims are if it is then what morality would necessarily be or if it is not what ethics would necessarily be. My claims have nothing to do with man made theologies.

Of course objectivity means the truth of something, is independent of our opinion. That's the point.....religion IS opinion.

Even if that was true you do not have anyway to know it. You can not even investigate just the faiths that exist to day, much less through out history. The evidence strongly suggests Christianity I snot man made but it would take a series of volumes to go through all of that. I am talking about what is true of a concept. The concept of Christianity has certain properties. If it exists those properties make morality objective. Now you can assume the evidence shows it is not true. In that case your left with at best ethics not Mallum in se. If you want to debate the strength of evidence for Christianity being true then that is fine but I can't debate both morality and the evidence for Christianity. God's existence is not a matter of opinion, especially the Christian God. He either objectively exists or he objectively does not. I have experienced him and know but for a debate the best I can do is evidence.

Thanks, rock on yourself.

You bet.

 

[leibowde84]

That may be but I only have my perspective. Most of the views I have expressed are as fundamental to Christianity as water is to life. They are not very controversial even outside the mainstream. They basically compose what Christianity is. If you contradict them all then (while I have no idea what the ultimate fact of the matter is) I must conclude you contradict the faith. As I have said I do not even find that level of bias and contention among claimed by many atheists. It is between you and God but for my part I am certain something is not jiving here. Anyway you can forget it and I will try and do the same if you want after this post. I usually find that a persons world view and their claims go together, when they do not it is somehow off-putting.

I did not say that. Disagree with the Trinity, disagree with transubstantiation, disagree with music in church, they are not central and core doctrines. What you argued against is, they are the most fundamental elements of Christianity and have been for over 2000 years. It is like saying your a professional golfer but think a putter is the only club there is and greens are to be avoided in preference to water hazards.

This is true in everything from science to legality. A thing is considered to be as it acts. If a lump of metal has wheels, and engine, and takes people to work everyday it is taken to be a vehicle, not a volcano. It is like saying your a duck then avoiding the water, saying flight is impossible and mooing.


You can't imagine how much you can tell from a dozen posts until you have done this for 20 years.

How can you be a little Christ if you say they put words in his mouth? What are you following?

Lets forget we ever discussed anything and start with one question. That is if you even want to discuss this. This is a personal matter and so it is up to you.

On what basis do you claim to be a Christian?

I call myself a Christian because my beliefs place me securely in that category. You are welcome to have your own opinion as to whether I am a "good" Christian, but I most certainly fit into the definition of the term. Here it is for reference:

Christian - noun

1. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
   
   The only place where we disagree is what portions of scripture accurately portray Jesus' teachings, and which were either false assumptions about his intentions or flat out dishonesties. Does that make sense?

 

[leibowde84]

Just for the heck of it I will post the best definition of it I know of.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.

This is objective morality and can only be true if God exists.

This is in contrast to the definition of subjective morality.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute.

This is subjective morality and can be had without God.

In order to make this less confusing keep in mind I call Mallum in se - morality, and I refer to Mallum prohibitum - ethics.


This is absolutely not what I mean. No man made anything can produce God or what is true of him. Truth is an exclusive category, a benevolent God should have given one pure revelation about himself and not hid pieces of truth in piles of man-made garbage, most religions make contradictory claims to absolute truth. For these reasons it is highly probable that at most one faith is of divine origin. The evidence suggests that faith is Christianity.

Now, I am not assuming Christianity is true. My claims are if it is then what morality would necessarily be or if it is not what ethics would necessarily be. My claims have nothing to do with man made theologies.


Even if that was true you do not have anyway to know it. You can not even investigate just the faiths that exist to day, much less through out history. The evidence strongly suggests Christianity I snot man made but it would take a series of volumes to go through all of that. I am talking about what is true of a concept. The concept of Christianity has certain properties. If it exists those properties make morality objective. Now you can assume the evidence shows it is not true. In that case your left with at best ethics not Mallum in se. If you want to debate the strength of evidence for Christianity being true then that is fine but I can't debate both morality and the evidence for Christianity. God's existence is not a matter of opinion, especially the Christian God. He either objectively exists or he objectively does not. I have experienced him and know but for a debate the best I can do is evidence.

You bet.

But, anything that can be put into this category could also be explained with societal evolution. For example, unless murder is considered "wrong" in a society, that society will collapse. Unless pedophelia is considered as "wrong" in a society, that society will collapse. So, these objective moralities, as you call them, could have developed over time as a way to better order society.

Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that God is not the source of objective morality, I am just saying that there are other possibilities.

 

[1robin]

Enlightenment is a means to an end but not the "goal", which is becoming one with God. Sorta similar to Christian teachings, wouldn't ya say?

That is what I have understood enlightenment to be in Hinduism.

It can be said to be similar to Christianity in some ways I guess but some very large differences exist. In many other faiths man is attempting to claw his way up to God through being moral, ceremony, vast knowledge, etc...... Christianity is unique in that it is God attempting to reach man. He enters into our suffering with us, he does not sit aloof and demand we earn our way up to him, he says what reason suggest, We cannot ever earn heaven, be perfect, offer anything that can actually pay our debt. So God was perfect for us, and he only could pay our debt. All religions are going to have similarities because they all have the same subject, but it is the sophistication and elegance of Christianity's solution that makes it unique in my mind. Add in the fact that I used the NT as a road map and found exactly the treasure it offered and I am kind of in one and only one camp on these kinds of things.

No, I'm not Orthodox-- Reform/Renewal.

If one mean the Orthodox branch, then "Orthodox Judaism" is fine and proper. If one mean the orthodox branches, then "orthodox Judaism" is fine and proper.

That was not really the problem I am having. Many times I want to ask a Jewish person if they follow Judaism. For several reasons I want to state the question in the form "Are you a Judaism" but that makes no sense. Like you could ask me am I a Christian, and that makes sense. How would I ask if a person is a Judaist/Judaism believer?

 

[JRMcC]

The legal issue (and it is most certainly a legal question) is whether the fetus' right to live and use the mother's body to do so outweighs the woman's right to bodily autonomy. There is currently no law that forces someone to give up the use of their body to another against their will. So, if the fetus' right to survive inside the woman's body outweighs the mother's, what other laws could be enacted as a result.

I'm not sure about specific laws, but if you leave your 6 month old baby sitting in the corner and it dies you're responsible. Why would the case be different when the baby is in the womb? (disclaimer: I don't believe life begins at conception in a meaningful way.

 

[1robin]

I call myself a Christian because my beliefs place me securely in that category. You are welcome to have your own opinion as to whether I am a "good" Christian, but I most certainly fit into the definition of the term. Here it is for reference:

Christian - noun

1. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
   
   The only place where we disagree is what portions of scripture accurately portray Jesus' teachings, and which were either false assumptions about his intentions or flat out dishonesties. Does that make sense?

This is a good example of what your not supposed to do. Christ defines what makes a person a Christian not Merriam Webster. Yet your denied the one (at least when I gave you what he said you did anything necessary to dismiss it) who is the final judge, and instead adopted some mere person's opinion.


Let's just forget this, you have dug this hole far too deep for my mind to be changed without an avalanche of contradictory data. It is exasperating to me and it is not really my business. If you feel certain you belong to God then by al means ignore me, but I have satisfied myself of what is going on and it has been confirmed so often that it is now a virtual certainty to me. So neither your view nor mine is likely to change. Lets go back to whatever the actual discussion was about.

 

[viole]

That was too easy.

Why? If it simplifies a specific thread of discussion I do not get too peaky about the correctness of the term. You could have called them X and Y for what I am concerned.

Even reducing them all to these that only leaves us with what is not what should be. No natural law or entity can tell us what we should do. Gravity can only say I will fall if I jump off the cliff. It can't say I shouldn't do so. For that we have to invent goals like maximizing human health. In most cases these would be universal and innocuous but in other they would have the greatest consequences and the least obvious conclusions imaginable.

I don't see why it shouldn't. Nature gave us the illusion of free will. So, why not the very realistic illusion of what we should do? How do you know that your shoulds are not the computational product of your brain and will perish together with the last available brain? There is not a mystic "ought" under naturalism. If there were evidence of it, you would have disproved naturalism, but you are not there, yet.

That is actually based on a quote by an atheist evolutionary scientist but requires a judgment call so I would bother defending it. Regardless evolution is balanced on a knife edge in many ways. If you want to see how non-intuitive evolution is just listen to an atheist like Dawkins discuss it. Despite being famous for denying them he will use words like design and intent constantly because the evidence argues so strongly for it. However these points were not critical, ignore them if you want to.

I was about to strongly suggest that you read "the selfish gene". So, I do it now, running the risk of talking to the wind. Simple tiny book for the layman. But I think you really should, if you want to seriously understand and debate the naturalistic side and what evolution really means today. Little spoiler: it does not involve anything near to bush development or kinds.

I thought evolution was about survival. That is the thing about it I can't stand the most. Everything no matter how contradictory is said to be evidence for it. I think you probably have in mind life surviving an asteroid or something but that is not what I mean. I am talking about one species wiping out another. No matter what you had in mind evolution is going to lose the race in the end. All life will be over come.

And how does a species wiping another does not involve survival? My survival does not necessarily entails yours, it might even be an obstacle, so to speak. Of course evolution will lose the race. But there is no race, there are just duplicating entities which duplicate and adapt as long as they can. Period. You see teleology everywhere, it seems.

Your talking about genetics, I am talking about the end result. Genes would be on one side of an equality and survival of the strongest or fittest on the other side. Your talking mechanism not result.

I am talking about genetics because that is the important part. They (genes) are subject to mutation and selection, not the final result. Final results do not mutate or "improve" in any way. The recepy to builds them does.

I would bet any amount of money I had that it would not, but I agree with you that it should. The theory evolves more than what it describes. But I am trying to steer this away from a biological debate. They are just to boring.

They might be boring, but they are relevant. If evolutionby natural selection is true then all teleological or natural theology arguments fall apart. I think it is rationally impossible to believe in a God who knows what He does (as it is to be expected from a God) if the current synthesis is correct. I also strongly believe that in order to get some truths we need to address and get knoweledge of counter evidence, despite it being boring or not comfortable.

How is the absence of a predator a success? Evolution just is, it does not try and meet goals. And by the way killer whales, other sharks, and man (the greatest predator in natural history) all hunt sharks. If the survival of something was the goal ten evolution is a good basis for patterning things, if human morality is the goal it is not.

I did not say it is a success. Its victims are a success too as long as they do not perish beyond a certain level. In that case we would have two not successes. Take a look at Volterra-Lotka equations that deals with equilibria between predetors and victimes. What I said is that it did not evolve much because it did not need to evolve an "arm race" in order to stay around the way it is.

Perhaps I am a Jesuit and have lived on top of a twenty foot pole since I was 13 years old. Their not caring about root canals brings up a point (I cannot remember what the original point was), morality can be like tooth care. You do not care about it until you find out those stories about it were true and you would give anything to go back and change your world view but it is to late in many cases.

Well, tooth care has a clear goal in mind: you should brush your teeth IF you want to reduce the chance of root canals. Is morality like that? Is there also an "If" that justifies our "oughts"?

The thing I appreciate about good humor is if I can not predict it coming. That is why I like Monty Python, no one can see what they do coming. However this reply I saw coming when I made my claim but figured you were too sophisticated to take the easy pot shot. I never learn.

I cannot imagine a baptist that likes MP. Lol. However, that was not intended to be humorous. Just a statement of facts. If God did not exist, we should invent Him. Obviously, that is what happened.

My impression is that you invoke a planned trap when you get an answer you do not expect.

That is my point. Without God there is no ultimate truth to our assumptions, with God there is. You can place as many biological, genetic, evolutionary, and whatever ideas even objective ones on one side of the equality but the other side will always be opinion and preference.

False dychotomy.

When I see a helpless child being beaten (as you see sometimes on those hidden cameras collecting evidence against violent baby sitters), I feel rage and I can sense the electrical impulses to my muscles that scream to do something, even if not possible from my location. Probably, a scan would show my brain areas responsible for disgust and fight light up like a Christmas tree. I cannot help it. I know that something is really wrong in that picture. Shoot that *******, arrest her, ... whatever. That is hardly an opinion or a preference. It is closer to an instinct.

However, that is not a sufficient condition to exclude a purely naturalistic explanation for my reaction. Quite the contrary, actually.

What we do and what we should do are not the same thing. What we do is grant that human life has sanctity, as Chesterton said we just disagree on when that sanctity can be cancelled.

Yes, but this grant can have naturalistic origins. I am sure Mr. Chesterton, whoever He was, had a brain that consumed a certain amounts of watts that allowed them to say what he said. Or not?

Nope, exactly backwards. Actually this is more complex. If God exists and grants property rights both would be in se if he does not both would be prohibitum.

Oh really? I thought I was correct

Indirectly it could. If life has inherent sacredness then God exists. If God exists he will not let an asteroid wipe us out at least according to my understanding of his word. I went back and read your claim and I have come to understand I don't understand what your saying.

Well, He did not do a lot to prevent an asteroid from executing the so called coup de grace to the dynosaurs. I can only imagine God thinking: those guys simply refused to get extinct, despite my elegant evolutionary fine tuning, so let us deploy the heavy weapons.

Understandable. Who wants to incarnate as a velociraptor or be called "the son of dyno" ? Apes are so much cuter.

That is an epistemological question to an ontological claim. Since we all disagree we obviously are in need of an objective fact of the matter. How we come to know what it is, is important but not relevant to my claim.

Your claim is equivalent to postulate the existence of blue fairies and reject all epistemological methods that are needed to prove their ontology.
Where are those blue fairies or how can we find them? Shut up, don't confuse ontology with epistemology, lol.

Who did you believe in Thor, Oden, or Getty Lee?

I was a born again. Now I am dead, not again, yet.

No one exists outside the planet to care as far as well can tell.

I am a big fan of our closest star. If I could care for it, I would.

That is the third time I didn't get it. With the one exception above maybe your sense of humor is so superior to even Monty Python that not only can I not see it before it gets here, I can't even get it when it is here.

Again, I was serious. You complain that evolution explains everything (ergo nothing) and you come out with similar all encompassing solutions.

But if you prefer to believe in all encompassing solutions (without evidence) rather than all encompassing ones (with evidence), it is your call, really.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Butting in here.....
I recall long ago having a conversation with a Xian fundie (avid Bible student) friend about abortion (which he opposes adamantlly). I asked him what references there were in the Bible. He thought & thought. He could only recall some instance where a woman was injured & lost a fetus. (Memory is murky, so I'll lack precise recollection.) The person who caused this loss was only required to pay some nominal amount of damages. It was far less than the punishment for murder.
Does anyone know more about this?

 

[viole]

Butting in here.....
I recall long ago having a conversation with a Xian fundie (avid Bible student) friend about abortion (which he opposes adamantlly). I asked him what references there were in the Bible. He thought & thought. He could only recall some instance where a woman was injured & lost a fetus. (Memory is murky, so I'll lack precise recollection.) The person who caused this loss was only required to pay some nominal amount of damages. It was far less than the punishment for murder.
Does anyone know more about this?

Exodus 21:22-23
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.

It depends on the judge, I guess. As long as no mischief follows.

But this is the old covenant. Objective Morality was objectively different back then. For some reason.

Didn't you know that objectivity depends on covenants, whatever they are? Shame on you

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no shame.
Everyone knows that.

 

[1robin]

But, anything that can be put into this category could also be explained with societal evolution. For example, unless murder is considered "wrong" in a society, that society will collapse. Unless pedophelia is considered as "wrong" in a society, that society will collapse. So, these objective moralities, as you call them, could have developed over time as a way to better order society.

The definition of objective is not whatever prevents a society from collapsing. The definition is a thing which is true regardless of whether anyone agrees with or even if every society on every planet collapses.

Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that God is not the source of objective morality, I am just saying that there are other possibilities.

There actually are not. Your picking a goal based on preference and then suggesting things that meat that goal are objective morality. I know exactly why your thinking that but it is wrong. Without God human social collapse or even the death of every life form in existence is not actually wrong. However you whipped human societal collapse out of a moral vacuum and in essence tried to suggest that whatever meets your invented goal is objectively moral.

Think of just you and another person existing on earth. You say societal functionality make anything that produces it objectively moral, the other person says no, individual liberty is the actual moral goal and libertarianism at all costs is what should be done. Neither are you are right unless God exists. There is no objective reference to determine which of you is right, there is no right at all. There are just two subjective opinions. This would remain the same even if all 6 billion of us agreed with or disagreed. Without God there is no actual truth to the matter.

 

[metis]

In many other faiths man is attempting to claw his way up to God through being moral, ceremony, vast knowledge, etc...... Christianity is unique in that it is God attempting to reach man.

And you seriously don't think this is true with Judaism and many other religions? Where do you think most religions derive their morality from? Where do you think the Decalogue and other Mosaiic Laws come from as they appear in Torah? Where do think Muslims say their Qur'an comes from? Where do you think Hindus think the Vedas and Upanishads come from? Every single religion teaches morality, and where do you think they believe that came from in most cases?

Each religion is "unique" in its own way, and yet they all do share some similarities, and the vast majority teach that morality comes to them from God(s), and that God(s) reaches out to them in different ways.

That was not really the problem I am having. Many times I want to ask a Jewish person if they follow Judaism. For several reasons I want to state the question in the form "Are you a Judaism" but that makes no sense. Like you could ask me am I a Christian, and that makes sense. How would I ask if a person is a Judaist/Judaism believer?

Ask "Are you and observant Jew?". Now in response, since we tend to represent different branches here and elsewhere, the issue of "observant" may have to be qualified by the person you're asking the question to.

With the different branches, the main divisions tend to center around how we perceive Torah and/or the Oral Law. We tend to be less divided over other issues such as that which you find in Christianity whereas even relatively minor issues often led to schism.

And Judaism thrives on diversity of opinions, with the exception of the Chasidim ("ultra-orthodox"). My rabbi and I are quite far apart theologically, and yet I have tremendous respect for him and he for I. When I informed him about 10 years ago that I'm more along the line of a more naturalistic approach (ala Spinoza/Einstein), not only didn't he have a problem with that, even thoough that's not his approach, he told me not to hide this information from the congregation, plus a couple of years later he selected me to co-run with him our Lunch & Learn program.

So, don't be afraid to ask what our approach is, but you're very likely to get different answers from different Jews, so be prepared.

 

[leibowde84]

But, anything that can be put into this category could also be explained with societal evolution. For example, unless murder is considered "wrong" in a society, that society will collapse. Unless pedophelia is considered as "wrong" in a society, that society will collapse. So, these objective moralities, as you call them, could have developed over time as a way to better order society.

I'm not sure about specific laws, but if you leave your 6 month old baby sitting in the corner and it dies you're responsible. Why would the case be different when the baby is in the womb? (disclaimer: I don't believe life begins at conception in a meaningful way.

Bodiily autonomy is not in question in this example, so the woman's rights are not being violated in a relateable way. Abortion rights are based on a woman's right to control what happens to and inside their body. Responsibilities are not the same, as they are agreed to, either explicitly or symbolically. A fetus inside the womb is 100% dependent on the direct use of the mother's body ... literally living inside it. If this is going on against the will of the mother, she has a right to refuse.

All in all, the woman cannot be forced to give up her body against her will to another living thing.

 

[leibowde84]

It doesn't surprise me that you are "

This is a good example of what your not supposed to do. Christ defines what makes a person a Christian not Merriam Webster. Yet your denied the one (at least when I gave you what he said you did anything necessary to dismiss it) who is the final judge, and instead adopted some mere person's opinion.


Let's just forget this, you have dug this hole far too deep for my mind to be changed without an avalanche of contradictory data. It is exasperating to me and it is not really my business. If you feel certain you belong to God then by al means ignore me, but I have satisfied myself of what is going on and it has been confirmed so often that it is now a virtual certainty to me. So neither your view nor mine is likely to change. Lets go back to whatever the actual discussion was about.

It doesn't surprise me that you are "certain," that's for sure. You asked me why I consider myself included in the classification "Christian." I explained why this was the case, and even explained what the word meant. It's frustrating to have a discussion with someone who refuses to go by the accepted meanings of terms in the English language. But, I would urge you to study your own faith, as it seems extremely distant from what Jesus taught. But, that is up to you. Keep it real!