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

[leibowde84]

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.

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.

I guess I am arguing that the importance you put on having objective morality (requiring an eternal source) is unfounded. You claim that if there is no objective morality, there is no meaning or value in anything, which I don't think is the case. I just think that the value you describe become personal or subjective, but are still shared by a vast majority of people.

 

[1robin]

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.

What does peaky mean? Did you mean picky?

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.

Hold the phone. Are you a determinist in the sense we actually have no freewill? I can actual prove that one wrong. A realistic illusion is still not objectively true. If David Copperfield made everyone believe the statue of liberty disappeared it objectively did not. I am not arguing which one is true. I am saying on which basis can either be true. Maybe no God exists, maybe there are no objective moral duties. I have subjective proof otherwise but it is not available for a debate so in theory I can grant that either may be the case.

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 know of it and can theoretically grant it without any effect on my argument. BTW I was talking about the biological improbabilities of evolution in that case not it's role in morality.



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.

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 know, and it is important but it is also very very boring and as much theory as fact.

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.

What arguments fall apart? BTW this also assumes that not only are they true but they are the only relevant truth. The bible combined God and mutation thousands of years before anyone mistakenly said they were contradictory. Evolution just is not threat to my theology.

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.

Since I said I don't want to get into biology because it is boring, you seem to have locked us in a genetics lab and threaten to shoot me if I try to escape. In that case whatever you do, don't send me any money.

Mathematical equations are simply description of what is. They are descriptions not prescription. They can create anything. 1 + 1 never created two anything's.

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"?

depends on what aspect of it your referring to. It is no like that in that it's nature is unaffected by whether I want to comply with it. It is like that in that I can obey it in part to avoid or attain consequences. This is a motivation versus foundation difference.

There may be an if that justifies your ought's but they are subjective. God's morality is not true because I should obey it, it is true so I should obey it.

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.

Oh, I agree. I love them but they did something that really damaged their imagine in my eyes. For some reasons they decided to debate some cardinals about the "Life of Brian". They defended their movie in a way that really let me down. They actually claimed they were only offering an alternative. The idea being that we should not simply swallow what we are told by authorities which I agree with. However the life of Brian was not a historical alternate it was an effort to make fun of the Gospels. You might be surprised to find that it was no their making fun of Jesus that bothered me (he can take it), it was the lie that they were actually serving some kind of virtuous function that bothered me so much,. It was simply a lie because the cardinals were all over them like a swallow on a coconut. If your going to joke on God that is fine by me, but don't dress it up. Have the courage of your convictions. That really damaged my respect for them, though they are quite funny without my respect.

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

That is such an overstatement of my care and intelligence I am almost attempted to agree with it even though I am not that careful or smart. Where is this trap and where is what would have threw me into such a panic at exactly?

False dychotomy.

Do you mean the equation thing? If so, how?

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.

You mistaken a biological artifact with a moral truth. Morality (as in the definitions we agreed to) is not an artifact of an instinct. Your basically saying evolution produced a desire so acting on that desire is to approach an objective moral. It isn't. It is to approach a natural byproduct. To be morally objective it must agree with a transcendent truth of the matter in a moral context. In fact a whole lot of morality is to counter instincts. I am not saying there are no objective instincts but it would be debatable as to what they were, I am saying instincts are not objectively moral.

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

I have no problem granting even pure naturalistic explanations for your behavior or desire. I am saying your desire to be objectively moral must be compared to an objective moral reference which can't be found in instinct.

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?

I do not deny naturalistic explanations for ethics.

Oh really? I thought I was correct

As I thought about it, it was not simple, it was so complex the only thing I know is you were not correct. I can't figure out which mistake you made but it was a mistake. It's also conditional. IOW "it was right out".

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.

The dinosaurs were not the objective to creation. One way of looking at it could be that he sent it here to make a way for us to come about. I don't make arguments that absurd but just to point out the massive assumptions in your claims. Man is the apple of God's eye not a Utah raptor. In fact if he had not wiped them out then you would have a real complaint. Armadillos are bad enough at one foot long, imagine one a big as a car.

I got to break this up, it' so long my CPU is screwing up:

 

[1robin]

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

I actually got this one. Not bad.

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.

"No it isn't, well what is hat then?"

We cannot resolve God's, fairies (maleficent's), pixies, or dragon's, etc..... to a certainty. What we can do is evaluate the evidence we have for them and determine if we have enough to justify reasonable faith in them. I find that God has many times over (in order's of magnitude) enough evidence and non of his competitors to have. Now what is necessary for reasonable faith is subjective but the disparity in evidence between these entities, is not.

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

You ever heard the song dead but rising?

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

Our closest star is like a teenager, damaging to anything it contacts unless built to harness it. Two of the necessary thing for life, light and oxygen are also among the most destructive things in the universe.

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

Let me clarify this.

1. Of course evolution does not explain everything. I meant only that is so elastic it gets stretched over whatever is found that is or can be said to be relevant to it. It is like global warming in that sense. It's 10 below in Florida, "Oh that is global warming".
2. I have never said God explains everything, or better said he is not required to do so. The closest I ever get is to say all truth has it's source in God.

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

I think you understand the problem I mentioned despite the mandatory dismissal.

 

[1robin]

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?

I am confused. I made a comment about the mechanism by which man unites with God and you asking where religions get their morality from. That would be irrelevant to what I was saying. I will show it's uniqueness and irrelevance in the most improbable way possible. The two religions that theoretically be the closest is Christianity and Judaism. In answer to your question we would both get our morality from revelation. However it is irrelevant where we got it because we cannot unite with God by effort, or at least that is true of the Christian faith. That is why I said it unique. A Christian can please God by being moral but cannot earn salvation. I cannot possibly be good enough to merit perfection. So as I said we are unique, God gave us morality but we cannot get to heaven by being obedient (that is not even a coherent idea but I won't go deeper here) God came to earth in order to unite us with the father. He paid the price, it is his obedience that is in question, I don't do anything but believe and then receive. Judaism is not that much different than other faiths in this context. We must merit or earn our way up to God. The only major differences are in what different faiths claim we must do to earn it. Your entire paragraph above assumes we can get to God by being obedient enough, I believe your wrong but that is not the important thing, the important thing is Christianity claims the opposite. We claim we can't bridge an infinite gap, so God did it for us. We should be obedient but only God could pay the price and re-unite us. Our view eliminates any basis for pride or boasting.

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.

I agree most religions claim God(s) are the source of morality but I was talking about salvation or uniting with God and how Christianity is unique.

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.

I would have thought that asking if they were a Jew was a racial question. It seems that if I add observant to the word Jew it is an automatic they know I am referring to Judaism. I can take that on your word but let me make sure I understand it correctly. Why don't they think I am asking if they are observant of something else? Maybe Catholicism for instance. How can something this simple be this confusing?

I have another question. If I ask someone if they are a Jew or I say that someone is a Jew. Would anyone take the word Jew as offensive. I personally think the Jewish race to be the most fascinating in history but typing the word Jew always makes me wonder (and I have no idea why if it was offensive). Of course we live in the great age of being offended by anything and everything.

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.

Do you live in Israel?

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.

Now here I have a potential disagreement. I of course know of Judaism from the OT. A huge portion of it is about the horrific outcomes of the Hebrews being tolerant of other faiths. God seems to have had an especially big problem with that. Over the course of time the Hebrews appeared to have grown tired of bad outcomes from foreign theological influences and the consequences. By Christ's time they seem to have become very inclusive, running off, or punishing even un orthodox but followers of Judaism and I don't blame them. If God kept punishing me for something I would eventually stop doing it to (at least I would hope). At that time they remind me of the age of Catholicism where everyone was excommunicating everyone else. Now you say they are very tolerant. Do you mean that they simply don't harm anyone because they have a different faith, or they actually hold other faiths to have real theological value and worth? IOW are they passively tolerant or actively accepting?

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.

Ok, one last question. I know a lot about modern Jewish military history, technological advancement, and economic excellence but I heard that modern Jewish people are among the most secular in existence and found that to be surprising. Is that true. BTW I mean in Israel proper.

 

[1robin]

It doesn't surprise me that you are "
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!

If you research hermeneutics, biblical textual criticism, and proper exegesis among the first things you learn is that using modern or even ancient non-biblical definitions turns the bible into a literary train wreck. The bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and the core in Koine Greek (possibly the most descriptive language in history). It defines it's own terms, sets up it's own phrasing, and establishes it's own contexts. It must be so, it was intended to be so, not doing so is responsible for more interpretational mistakes than any other single factor. I spent ten years getting a math degree but will readily admit I am not good at it, I have been working in electronics for 20 years and was trained by the military and yet admit to being only average at it, I am not even what I would call a good Christian. The two things I do claim to be very competent in is military history and biblical evaluation. I would almost defer to anyone learned in any subject but not those two. This is not a question of two people disagreeing. This is a matter where one of them is in contradiction with 2000 years of the best scholarship on the most scrutinized book in human history.

I suggest we just skip this entire subject. I will let you get in the last word if you agree to stop it after that point. Trust me adding to this is not doing you any favors IMO.

 

[1robin]

I guess I am arguing that the importance you put on having objective morality (requiring an eternal source) is unfounded. You claim that if there is no objective morality, there is no meaning or value in anything, which I don't think is the case. I just think that the value you describe become personal or subjective, but are still shared by a vast majority of people.

If you think that asking a million mothers to potential sacrifice a million sons to stop a tyrant from persecuting a million men the former million people have never even met can be justified just as well by that tyrant only acting against your opinions as it can by that person violating objective moral duties and values then that is truly depressing and it I snot grounds that allow debate. If you prefer your preference over the potential fact of the matter no argument ever formed can change that. What you want is not going to bow to reason.

As for value that is not a function of morality. Morality is usually a function of it. It is so important that even those without a source for it assume it exists so they can make rules and call those rules moral. However a few atheists are honest enough to admit they have no source for inherent values and rightly deny them. I will give you a couple of atheism's best.

To those who ask ‘what is the nature of good?’ he has little to say, except that they’re asking the wrong question. He’s an anti-realist about values: that is, for Nietzsche there are no moral facts, and there is nothing in nature that has value in itself. Rather, to speak of good or evil is to speak of human illusions, of lies according to which we find it necessary to live. He tells us that “man needs to supplement reality by an ideal world of his own creation.” That is, we are compelled by our biological natures to see the world through moral lenses, judging it in terms of good and bad, although the world is neither in itself.
Nietzsche and Morality | Issue 70 | Philosophy Now

I hope you know who this is. Hitler presented his book to both Mussolini and Stalin. It was evolution and Nietzsche that Hitler founded most of his practices upon.

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Quote by Richard Dawkins: “The total amount of suffering per year in the n...”

Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, 1991.

"The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called 'ethical principles'. The question is not whether biology- specifically, our evolution-is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God's will ...In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding... Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place."
Michael Ruse

This man's title is "The philosopher of science."


I can find hundreds of atheism's best minds who say this exact thing. And to their credit they are right, if God does not exist this is what is left. If you look at this and contrast it to biblical morality and claim that my stating one has advantages over the other is unfounded then yet gain I have no idea what to say.

 

[metis]

That is why I said it unique. A Christian can please God by being moral but cannot earn salvation. I cannot possibly be good enough to merit perfection. So as I said we are unique, God gave us morality but we cannot get to heaven by being obedient (that is not even a coherent idea but I won't go deeper here) God came to earth in order to unite us with the father. He paid the price, it is his obedience that is in question, I don't do anything but believe and then receive. Judaism is not that much different than other faiths in this context. We must merit or earn our way up to God. The only major differences are in what different faiths claim we must do to earn it. Your entire paragraph above assumes we can get to God by being obedient enough, I believe your wrong but that is not the important thing, the important thing is Christianity claims the opposite. We claim we can't bridge an infinite gap, so God did it for us. We should be obedient but only God could pay the price and re-unite us. Our view eliminates any basis for pride or boasting.

I grew up believing that as a fundamentalist Protestant but rejected it quite early on. The idea that somehow just a belief about Jesus would grant one heaven and everybody else is going to hell I felt was both illogical and morally despicable for any church to teach that. Plus it defies what's found in Torah, and if one believes that God inspired Torah, then why would God suddenly reverse everything he told us? [this is a rhetorical question as I have no desire to get into this]

I would have thought that asking if they were a Jew was a racial question. It seems that if I add observant to the word Jew it is an automatic they know I am referring to Judaism. I can take that on your word but let me make sure I understand it correctly. Why don't they think I am asking if they are observant of something else? Maybe Catholicism for instance. How can something this simple be this confusing?

"Jew" is a nationality, not a race. If you ask a Jew is (s)he "observant", they will know what you're referring to.

I have another question. If I ask someone if they are a Jew or I say that someone is a Jew. Would anyone take the word Jew as offensive.

Not unless it is being used in a insulting manner.

Do you live in Israel?

No. Michigan. Been to Israel twice, 1991 and 1999. Love the place.

Now here I have a potential disagreement. I of course know of Judaism from the OT. A huge portion of it is about the horrific outcomes of the Hebrews being tolerant of other faiths. God seems to have had an especially big problem with that. Over the course of time the Hebrews appeared to have grown tired of bad outcomes from foreign theological influences and the consequences. By Christ's time they seem to have become very inclusive, running off, or punishing even un orthodox but followers of Judaism and I don't blame them. If God kept punishing me for something I would eventually stop doing it to (at least I would hope). At that time they remind me of the age of Catholicism where everyone was excommunicating everyone else. Now you say they are very tolerant. Do you mean that they simply don't harm anyone because they have a different faith, or they actually hold other faiths to have real theological value and worth? IOW are they passively tolerant or actively accepting?

All religions are a work in progress, and Judaism is no different. Generally speaking, the belief is that God's inspiration went beyond Torah as time went on, and the Talmud is an example. The Talmud does not negate any of the Law as its main purposes in to clarify the Law and deal with the application of the Law, which sometimes is not clear within the Torah itself. Generally speaking, there's no reason to believe that divine inspiration came to some sort of grinding halt at some point in time. [I'm giving you the "company line" here-- not what I personally believe, which can be summed up in these three words: "I don't know"]

Ok, one last question. I know a lot about modern Jewish military history, technological advancement, and economic excellence but I heard that modern Jewish people are among the most secular in existence and found that to be surprising. Is that true. BTW I mean in Israel proper.

Depends on what one means by "secular". Most Israeli Jews do believe in God, but most are not affiliated with any particular branch.

Glad you asking good questions, but we're not only getting away from the OP by miles, and I also think that this is better discussed on another thread(s).

shalom

 

[1robin]

I grew up believing that as a fundamentalist Protestant but rejected it quite early on. The idea that somehow just a belief about Jesus would grant one heaven and everybody else is going to hell I felt was both illogical and morally despicable for any church to teach that. Plus it defies what's found in Torah, and if one believes that God inspired Torah, then why would God suddenly reverse everything he told us? [this is a rhetorical question as I have no desire to get into this]

I can certainly grant that the way God resolves the problem in Christian/protestant doctrine clashes with the way mankind operates. However if the way God operates and man operates were too the same I would be suspicious that ancient man made God in his own image. God's ways are NOT our ways.
Anyway the issue was not proving the Protestantism is correct, it was merely that Protestantism is unique.

"Jew" is a nationality, not a race. If you ask a Jew is (s)he "observant", they will know what you're referring to.

Ok, I will adopt this.

Not unless it is being used in a insulting manner.

I guess it is because every time I hear an anti-Semitic insult it is the word "Jew" in it. It is always Jew this or Jew that, instead of Jewish this or that.

No. Michigan. Been to Israel twice, 1991 and 1999. Love the place.

My family has all been. I might be going to Saudi Arabia soon, maybe I can visit.

All religions are a work in progress, and Judaism is no different. Generally speaking, the belief is that God's inspiration went beyond Torah as time went on, and the Talmud is an example. The Talmud does not negate any of the Law as its main purposes in to clarify the Law and deal with the application of the Law, which sometimes is not clear within the Torah itself. Generally speaking, there's no reason to believe that divine inspiration came to some sort of grinding halt at some point in time. [I'm giving you the "company line" here-- not what I personally believe, which can be summed up in these three words: "I don't know"]

That is very rational but it does conflict with my limited and dated OT understanding.
They seemed to have either been very exclusivist back then, or have supposed to have been and suffered terribly because they were not. Is it not reasonable to believe God spoke through the same people under one covenant or testament from the beginning until his greatest prophet and the new covenant or testament. Then that revelation since it dealt with from Christ's time to the end time was the end of the revealed text proper. That is not to say he does not speak to people but if he is hiding bits of truth in confliction religions composed of mainly man made garbage he would lose credibility IMO. IOW I see in the OT plus the NT all the revelation necessary in textual form. Is that not a rational position.

Depends on what one means by "secular". Most Israeli Jews do believe in God, but most are not affiliated with any particular branch.

That would not be secular in my view. I do not remember the context of the original statement I had heard. I am relieved to hear they have no abandoned God.

Glad you asking good questions, but we're not only getting away from the OP by miles, and I also think that this is better discussed on another thread(s).

shalom

Actually that was about it. That's everything I had on my mind anyway. So what was the original subject anyway?

 

[leibowde84]

If you research hermeneutics, biblical textual criticism, and proper exegesis among the first things you learn is that using modern or even ancient non-biblical definitions turns the bible into a literary train wreck. The bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and the core in Koine Greek (possibly the most descriptive language in history). It defines it's own terms, sets up it's own phrasing, and establishes it's own contexts. It must be so, it was intended to be so, not doing so is responsible for more interpretational mistakes than any other single factor. I spent ten years getting a math degree but will readily admit I am not good at it, I have been working in electronics for 20 years and was trained by the military and yet admit to being only average at it, I am not even what I would call a good Christian. The two things I do claim to be very competent in is military history and biblical evaluation. I would almost defer to anyone learned in any subject but not those two. This is not a question of two people disagreeing. This is a matter where one of them is in contradiction with 2000 years of the best scholarship on the most scrutinized book in human history.

I suggest we just skip this entire subject. I will let you get in the last word if you agree to stop it after that point. Trust me adding to this is not doing you any favors IMO.

We are having a discussion in modern English last time I checked.

 

[leibowde84]

If you think that asking a million mothers to potential sacrifice a million sons to stop a tyrant from persecuting a million men the former million people have never even met can be justified just as well by that tyrant only acting against your opinions as it can by that person violating objective moral duties and values then that is truly depressing and it I snot grounds that allow debate. If you prefer your preference over the potential fact of the matter no argument ever formed can change that. What you want is not going to bow to reason.

As for value that is not a function of morality. Morality is usually a function of it. It is so important that even those without a source for it assume it exists so they can make rules and call those rules moral. However a few atheists are honest enough to admit they have no source for inherent values and rightly deny them. I will give you a couple of atheism's best.

To those who ask ‘what is the nature of good?’ he has little to say, except that they’re asking the wrong question. He’s an anti-realist about values: that is, for Nietzsche there are no moral facts, and there is nothing in nature that has value in itself. Rather, to speak of good or evil is to speak of human illusions, of lies according to which we find it necessary to live. He tells us that “man needs to supplement reality by an ideal world of his own creation.” That is, we are compelled by our biological natures to see the world through moral lenses, judging it in terms of good and bad, although the world is neither in itself.
Nietzsche and Morality | Issue 70 | Philosophy Now

I hope you know who this is. Hitler presented his book to both Mussolini and Stalin. It was evolution and Nietzsche that Hitler founded most of his practices upon.

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Quote by Richard Dawkins: “The total amount of suffering per year in the n...”

Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, 1991.

"The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called 'ethical principles'. The question is not whether biology- specifically, our evolution-is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God's will ...In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding... Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place."
Michael Ruse

This man's title is "The philosopher of science."


I can find hundreds of atheism's best minds who say this exact thing. And to their credit they are right, if God does not exist this is what is left. If you look at this and contrast it to biblical morality and claim that my stating one has advantages over the other is unfounded then yet gain I have no idea what to say.

The tyrant isn't just acting against my opinion, he is acting against the good of the human race. That is an objective measurement, btw.

 

[Smart_Guy]

In my beliefs, the bodily anatomy of women gives them special rights over men. Rights that no man on earth should take away from them.

Also in my beliefs, abortion is neutral (neither moral nor immoral) and has its own uses. Generally what I believe in is that both the mother and the baby have rights that under normal circumstances no one should take away. Both are living beings and both should be considered. Tho I'm still in favor of the welfare of the mother more.

Btw, I don't even know what pro-life means!

 

[leibowde84]

In my beliefs, the bodily anatomy of women gives them special rights over men. Rights that no man on earth should take away from them.

Also in my beliefs, abortion is neutral (neither moral nor immoral) and has its own uses. Generally what I believe in is that both the mother and the baby have rights that under normal circumstances no one should take away. Both are living beings and both should be considered. Tho I'm still in favor of the welfare of the mother more.

Btw, I don't even know what pro-life means!

That is valid reasoning. "Pro-life" simply means that they do not recognize the bodily autonomy of the mother as being necessary to preserve ... or, in other words, they are "anti-choice," as they do not believe that this right of the mother should guarantee them the right to control what lives inside their body.

 

[leibowde84]

If you think that asking a million mothers to potential sacrifice a million sons to stop a tyrant from persecuting a million men the former million people have never even met can be justified just as well by that tyrant only acting against your opinions as it can by that person violating objective moral duties and values then that is truly depressing and it I snot grounds that allow debate. If you prefer your preference over the potential fact of the matter no argument ever formed can change that. What you want is not going to bow to reason.

As for value that is not a function of morality. Morality is usually a function of it. It is so important that even those without a source for it assume it exists so they can make rules and call those rules moral. However a few atheists are honest enough to admit they have no source for inherent values and rightly deny them. I will give you a couple of atheism's best.

To those who ask ‘what is the nature of good?’ he has little to say, except that they’re asking the wrong question. He’s an anti-realist about values: that is, for Nietzsche there are no moral facts, and there is nothing in nature that has value in itself. Rather, to speak of good or evil is to speak of human illusions, of lies according to which we find it necessary to live. He tells us that “man needs to supplement reality by an ideal world of his own creation.” That is, we are compelled by our biological natures to see the world through moral lenses, judging it in terms of good and bad, although the world is neither in itself.
Nietzsche and Morality | Issue 70 | Philosophy Now

I hope you know who this is. Hitler presented his book to both Mussolini and Stalin. It was evolution and Nietzsche that Hitler founded most of his practices upon.

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Quote by Richard Dawkins: “The total amount of suffering per year in the n...”

Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, in Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, 1991.

"The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called 'ethical principles'. The question is not whether biology- specifically, our evolution-is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God's will ...In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding... Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place."
Michael Ruse

This man's title is "The philosopher of science."


I can find hundreds of atheism's best minds who say this exact thing. And to their credit they are right, if God does not exist this is what is left. If you look at this and contrast it to biblical morality and claim that my stating one has advantages over the other is unfounded then yet gain I have no idea what to say.

Wait a minute ... I never said that arguing one would be a "better situation" than the other is unfounded. I agree that objective morality coming from a perfect God would be better than merely having subjective morality. But, this doesn't prove that it is more plausible.

 

[metis]

That is very rational but it does conflict with my limited and dated OT understanding.
They seemed to have either been very exclusivist back then, or have supposed to have been and suffered terribly because they were not. Is it not reasonable to believe God spoke through the same people under one covenant or testament from the beginning until his greatest prophet and the new covenant or testament. Then that revelation since it dealt with from Christ's time to the end time was the end of the revealed text proper. That is not to say he does not speak to people but if he is hiding bits of truth in confliction religions composed of mainly man made garbage he would lose credibility IMO. IOW I see in the OT plus the NT all the revelation necessary in textual form. Is that not a rational position.

I was reluctant to respond to the above because I thought we might be better off if we dealt with this on another thread. However, the more I thought about that, the more I realized that this can lead to problems as all too often we see a few people here who will turn such a thread into a "Let's Bash Jews, Judaism, and/or Israel" thread. So, based on the questions you've asked, let me give a short list of where observant Jews tend to believe, while at the same time reminding you that we often disagree amongst ourselves.

-the Abrahamic Covenant was promised to us to be "forever" and "perpetual", so it cannot be replaced-- added to is possible, however

-we do not see Jesus as the messiah, a prophet, nor a literal "son of God"

-Judaism does not condemn other religions, and we believe that any religion that teaches that there's a God along with what is often called "the Golden Rule" is probably acceptable to God

-the issue of "chosen" tends to be viewed as us choosing a belief in one God through Abraham, along with God's promise that we would be "a light unto the nations"-- iow, the spread of moral monotheism, which obviously has happened

-Gentiles are not obligated to try and follow the Mosaiic Law (613 of them), but we and all Jews are, according to Torah

-we do not judge who's going to be "saved" as that's God's domain

-most of the moral teaching found in the "N.T." is classic Judaism, such as what one reads in the Sermon On the Mount

-we put very strong emphasis on helping the poor and helpless, and this is to be done through individuals but also governmental actions as mandated in Torah for Israel


Obviously, there's much more, but maybe this short list will help you out.

 

[viole]

What does peaky mean? Did you mean picky?

You are mean. And I mean mean. Or is it: your mean?

Hold the phone. Are you a determinist in the sense we actually have no freewill? I can actual prove that one wrong.

Of course I am a determinist. And I mean everything is deterministic, including quantum mechanics.

But the subject of free will has moral relevance. So, if you can prove, as you claim, that is exists (pending a precise definition of what you mean with free), I am all ears. Or eyes, to be precise.

What have you got?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

We are having a discussion in modern English last time I checked.

Yeah, about a book not written in it.

 

[1robin]

The tyrant isn't just acting against my opinion, he is acting against the good of the human race. That is an objective measurement, btw.

But it I snot an objective moral duty. Who made human good the goal of objective moral duty. That is you opinion. It is a self interested opinion that is actually referred to as speciesm. So again the tyrant is merely acting against your opinion of what we should value and do.

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah, about a book not written in it.

We aren't discussing the Bible in this context. You are questioning my classification as a Christian. Many terms have changed quite a bit since the time the Bible was written, as we have a much greater understanding of the world we live in and the religions we follow. Christianity has changed tremendously since the Bible was written and even in the past 100 years, so it seem foolish to use anything but the definition of the term in use today.

By the way, I feel the same way about you. I have thought about your criticism toward me quite a bit, and a meaningful quote came to mind. It is a clear indication that one's argument lacks strength when one, instead of refuting an argument, attacks personal aspects of the other's character and claims assumptions as certain (even if it's just to you). And, I am not saying that there aren't valid arguments in support of your beliefs. I am merely saying that you have not articulated any of them well. But, again, that is just my opinion. But, I would kindly ask you to not make assumptions about me based on my comments on one site, as it has the opposite effect than what you intend.

 

[1robin]

Wait a minute ... I never said that arguing one would be a "better situation" than the other is unfounded. I agree that objective morality coming from a perfect God would be better than merely having subjective morality. But, this doesn't prove that it is more plausible.

Ok, so now the issue is which one is more likely true, correct?

 

[1robin]

I was reluctant to respond to the above because I thought we might be better off if we dealt with this on another thread. However, the more I thought about that, the more I realized that this can lead to problems as all too often we see a few people here who will turn such a thread into a "Let's Bash Jews, Judaism, and/or Israel" thread. So, based on the questions you've asked, let me give a short list of where observant Jews tend to believe, while at the same time reminding you that we often disagree amongst ourselves.

Ok, I will add a response to what you say but you do not hav eto respond to me response.

-the Abrahamic Covenant was promised to us to be "forever" and "perpetual", so it cannot be replaced-- added to is possible, however

Ok, but as I believe we can agree Christianity does not agree. I was asking if Christianity was true then why would we need any more revelation in textual form?

-we do not see Jesus as the messiah, a prophet, nor a literal "son of God"

I knew the other two but I had never thought whether he was rejected as even a prophet by Jewish people.

-Judaism does not condemn other religions, and we believe that any religion that teaches that there's a God along with what is often called "the Golden Rule" is probably acceptable to God

Even if it contradict monotheism or any of the other big requirements of the OT?

-the issue of "chosen" tends to be viewed as us choosing a belief in one God through Abraham, along with God's promise that we would be "a light unto the nations"-- iow, the spread of moral monotheism, which obviously has happened

I think I agree with this.

-Gentiles are not obligated to try and follow the Mosaiic Law (613 of them), but we and all Jews are, according to Torah

Do you get some reward for having hundreds of laws to obey that others don't?

-we do not judge who's going to be "saved" as that's God's domain

Given Judaism alone I can except that.

-most of the moral teaching found in the "N.T." is classic Judaism, such as what one reads in the Sermon On the Mount

Agreed but why would a false prophet teach OT truth?

-we put very strong emphasis on helping the poor and helpless, and this is to be done through individuals but also governmental actions as mandated in Torah for Israel

Ok

Obviously, there's much more, but maybe this short list will help you out.

Ok