How long, o lord, how long? How many nights must I come home from work and turn on my computer only to be confronted with yet another dimwitted pronouncement about abortion from some pre-senile Pope’s minion? Is there no end to the toxic stream of feverish, addlepated gibberish being expectorated by withered and gynecologically-obsessed Men of the Cloth like this Cardinal Ouellet dude, on a subject they’re the least qualified people in the world to address? Because it’s all starting to get a bit old:
Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who sparked controversy this month with his comments on abortion, has called for a broader debate into the issue but still considers abortion a “serious moral disorder.”
Paging Nancy Ruth! Your mission, should you choose to accept it…
But maybe first someone should inform this half-bright papist that we already had “the debate”: 20 long, drawn-out, agonizing years of it, from 1968 to 1988. That’s two(2) decades of protests, abortion caravans, women chaining themselves up in the Parliamentary Gallery and doctors going to jail. That was the “Abortion Debate”, and happily, the Cardinal’s side lost and lost big.
Just because a debate doesn’t go your way it doesn’t mean you get a do-over. Having lost so emphatically, the correct response would be to shut the fuck up about it.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
unrepentant old hippie 
If anyone wonder about a reason to love JJ – here is one right here:
“Is there no end to the toxic stream of feverish, addlepated gibberish being expectorated by withered and gynecologically-obsessed Men of the Cloth..”
Oh God (sorry) that is beautiful.
Good morrow, JJ!
Do you honestly feel that if the Catholic Church is allowed to continue making pronouncements on abortion, that such pronouncements will sway the politicians to once again make abortion illegal? Is that what you fear?
Face whatever you fear, or you will fear whatever you face.
If men had treated women right in the first place, the vast majority of abortions would not be taking place. They have only themselves to blame for this. Men in all known societies have treated women as little more than property and breeding stock, for as long as we have had recorded history.
Now, what abortion really represents is the voice of women saying, “We are far more than that.” Those who oppose abortion do so in order to regain that control, in order to restore that relationship of owner and the owned.
Morality is little more than what those in control say to those not in control – which makes it nothing more than arbitrary and authoritarian.
I support the rights of women to be fully empowered members of society. Yeah, this makes me the target of many a shocked, appalled and scandalized “real man” (and dudes like Jasper and Brian – good morrow, gentlemen!) Get over it, Captain Testosterone. Real men support and affirm real women.
I await the usual shitstorm of bile and spittle and spleen. Ain’t it amazing what you can get used to?
To quote Father Andrew Greeley: “In any Irishman’s life, there are four sacred women: his mother, his sister, his wife and his daughter. You might as well ordain them, you won’t be giving them any more influence than they already have.”
I bid you peace – CTZen
I agree, Croggy. A line for the history books — Henry II, eat your heart out.
I think we should re-open the debate on taxing churches.
croghan – 8) It’s amazing what a hard night at work can inspire 😛
CTZen
No, frankly, not at all. If these feeble-minded popesuckers want to keep mouthing off about abortion, that’s okay with me — free expression and all that.
But I will always be irritated by it. The source of my irritation isn’t fear as much as offense at what I consider to be an invasion of my privacy.
I don’t know how true it is that the vast majority of abortions are the result of men not treating women right.
There are many abortions sought by women whose relationship with the man is perfectly fine (whether or not they are a permanent couple), but don’t want to be pregnant for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with that relationship. To name the most obvious, birth control can fail.
Who’s pre-senile? The Pope, or his minion? (Or is it both?)
skdadl – Thanks! (But really skdadl, your writing consistently puts mine to shame…)
Calgal
I’m in
RB
I can tell you flat-out, you’re right: they’re not.
This is one of the most recent anti-abortion talking points, that most women have abortions because they’re coerced or forced into it. It’s all of a piece with their whole “Oh no, we aren’t anti-woman” campaign… it overlaps with the ongoing campaign to keep abortion in the “shame and degradation” category of medical procedures. As usual they’ve done a pretty good job spreading this meme around, which is why you might find even some uninformed pro-choicers supporting a dumb bill like Bruinooge’s coerced abortion bill.
The vast majority of women abort because they don’t want to be pregnant, for whatever reason. As is our right, and there should be no shame or embarrassment attached to it.
JAB
Whoops. That should probably read “pre-senile minion of the pope”.
That’s what happens when you just bang out a post and don’t edit… especially late at night! 😛
LOL, JJ, it just puts you on an level playing field with the rest of us, who can’t edit our posts whether we want to or not.
I don’t think expecting people sold on the anti-abortion laws need to stfu is realistic, but I also think JJ knows that all too well. We’re no more post-abortion legality than we are post-racial or post-equal marriage. If abortion rights weren’t legal and accessible as of yet, there’s no way the debate would be over. (and in some ways, it’s not, given the number of places a woman *doesn’t* have access to the surgical service in different areas of the country)
The cardinal’s commentary and lecturing is the icing on the cupcakes of the recent polls, defunding, the Quebec vote and the release of the “armageddon factor”. Just when poopoohing about ‘leftist feminazi’ over-reaction is being hrumphed about, a christian capon hops onto a fence rail and starts flapping wings over all the hens in the yard, telling them all those eggs better hatch or there will be moral disorder…
…and then throws in the bon mot of how he and his buds have close ties to the federal government.
Hear hear, cardinal, tell us more, tell us more. With ‘bated breath am I a-Gog and Magog on the matter of your preaching.
“…a christian capon hops onto a fence rail and starts flapping wings over all the hens in the yard, telling them all those eggs better hatch or there will be moral disorder…”
😆 I LOVE that line! 😆
Niles for the WIN! 😆
He boasts he has close ties to the federal government?
That worked SO well for Rahim Jaffer!
I have good teachers around here in the art of snark.
“Just because a debate doesn’t go your way it doesn’t mean you get a do-over.”
Come on: keeping at it — often with increased energy — when a debate doesn’t go your way is the de rigeur of activism.
“Those who oppose abortion do so in order to regain that control, in order to restore that relationship of owner and owned.”
This is sheer propaganda, by which I mean all PR, virtually no accuracy. (I say virtually, because there might be some minuscule group of people who do. actually think this will represent some kind of control. After all, there is a flat earth society, and some people believe man has never landed on the moon.)
I oppose almost all abortion, as is well known here, and I have no desire whatsoever to control women.
The godparents of my daughter are even more staunchly opposed to elective abortion than I am, and they would never dream of setting up some 2-class society with women under the thumb of men. They and I do not oppose woman politicians, CEOs, judges, police officers, school principals, etc., etc. Someone who wants to “control women” surely would also want women held far from the levers of power, no?
And the women who oppose elective abortion are trying to subjugate themselves? To believe that strays into the absurd, and ought, on its own, to put an end to the assertion at top.
One who doesn’t think that the quoted sentence at the head of this post is nothing but propaganda, can only be one upon whom the propaganda has worked.
There might be many reasons to support the continued availability of elective abortion, but that is not one of them.
“Morality is little more than what those in control say to those not in control – which makes it nothing more than arbitrary and authoritarian.”
When you imply that it is wrong to do this — a moral observation — you condemn yourself, hoisted, as it were, upon your own petard.
“I think we should re-open the debate on taxing churches.”
So do I. It seems the only way to get the government the hell out of the pulpit. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Similarly, he who gives the piper a discount calls the tune as well.
Good morrow, all!
Excellent points, Brian.
Now, from your own personal experience only: do you know any women who have had abortions, for whatever reasons, and then gone on to have healthy, wanted children? In both cases, these women have done what they felt was best for themselves.
Personally, I have met such women, and count some of them to be my friends. They don’t wallow in regret. They were not coerced in either situation. They took control.
Anytime anyone seeks to impose a course of action on another person, that is an attempt to take control of that other person’s life. This is the year 2010. There are people who wish to party like it’s 1859, when women and darkies knew their place, and kept their mouths shut.
Women, gays, and people of colour are not property, and no matter how much money you might have, or how white, straight male, and Christian you may be, you cannot own anybody, anymore. Seeking to control people whose gender, colour, race or sexuality does not agree with yours, marks you with the same brush as the bigots, the wingnuts, the Pharisees.
Morality is what you do. It’s how you treat other people, not how often you bend the knee, or in what direction, or in what particular building, or in the company of what particular other people.
It was once the height of moral behaviour to gift the native people of North America with blankets laden with smallpox virus. It was once the height of moral behaviour to whip one or two of your darkies to death, to scare the others into working harder on your plantation. It was once the height of moral behaviour to burn people at the stake, or hang them, or crush them benenath rocks, or drown them, for practising witchcraft.
It was once the height of moral behaviour to gas Jews, gypsies, Slavs and homosexuals en masse.
People don’t do such things anymore, because they have learned that it is wrong. Learned, as in “good heavens, I’ve created a monster…and it’s me!”
Brian, you can try to hold back the tide of the great pent-up drive of people who wish to live their lives as would make them happy. The pagans have a screed: An it harm none, do as you will. I know a few pagans. They could give most Christians a schooling in how to treat other people right.
To force a woman to have an abortion, when she does not want to have the abortion, is, in my view, a far more heinous imposition of unwarrented control, than to allow a woman to have an abortion that would restore control to her life. That is the whole point. Women have that control, they have that right, and to attempt to disallow that right is to try going back to 1859. Canute could not stop the tide, and he knew it.
If it’s not your problem, what makes it your business? – CTZen
“That was the “Abortion Debate”, and happily, the Cardinal’s side lost and lost big.”
We all know who wins in the end.
Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,
Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,
Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God,
Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.”
Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan
“Personally, I have met such women, and count some of them to be my friends. They don’t wallow in regret. They were not coerced in either situation. They took control.”
I don’t really see this as terribly significant; It seems more anecdotal that evidential. As I am sure you can imagine, I can name actions that you yourself would agree there should be regret over, but some who have taken these actions do not feel any regret. On the polar opposite are actions taken that were exactly right, which carry no guilt, but persons having done this opposite category of action feel remorse nonetheless. And finally, I don’t think you would try to tell me that there is no one who feels regret, guilt and/or remorse for abortions they have had. I mean, I freely grant your point, but I don’t feel it establishes very much.
“Anytime anyone seeks to impose a course of action on another person, that is an attempt to take control of that other person’s life.”
This seems an overstatement. I might could go with “Anytime anyone seeks to impose a course of action on another person, that is an attempt to take control of that other person’s
actions in that matter.” This, of course is what all laws do, control people’s actions in the matter that that particular law addresses. But that is a far cry from the connotation of “controlling their life.” (Though I read in a different thread here that some libertarians actually see stop signs as governmental coercion, so clearly not everyone would agree with this.)
“This is the year 2010. There are people who wish to party like it’s 1859, when women and darkies knew their place, and kept their mouths shut.”
Actually, some in the Middle East want to party like it’s 1732!
Sure, some people feel that way, granted. But the number of people who do are a vanishingly small number, and abortion control is by and large not an implementation of that mentality.
As I pointed out earlier, most who feel abortion is murder, and therefore want it stopped except in cases where the mother would be killed or grievously harmed by carrying to term, have no negative reactions to woman police, lawyers (aside from the normal aversion to lawyers), judges, senators, congressmen, governors, sheriffs, CEOs, and on and on. Those whom you are describing in the snippet I cited DO have a big problem with all of those things, and more!
So even though there are some who, as you say, want women to “keep their place,” that is not a significant part of the opposition to elective abortion.
Brian
That’s fine — but then call it what it is: “activism”. Don’t try to claim that a “debate” never took place, because it did (I was there).
That said, I can see why Catholic church minions like Ouellet might be hesitant to call what they do “activism” — it’s a little too close to what the church is not supposed to be engaging in, considering the government largesse they enjoy.
“Women, gays and people of colour are not property, and no matter how much money you might have, or how white, straight male and Christian you may be, you cannot own anybody, anymore.”
This strikes me as racist, sexist, religionist and an attempt to poison the wells.
First of all, no one is white — peach is a color, too.
But the implication is that if you’re peach-colored, you can’t make valid points.
If you have a lot of money, you can’t make valid points.
If you are heterosexual, you can’t make valid points.
If you are a Christian, you can’t make valid points.
If you are male, you can’t make valid points.
And even if you are “of color,” a lesbo-metro-trans-maso-sado-machist, female, presbo-bapti-judaic-athe-agnosticist you still cannot own other people, supporting my allegation that you are just trying to poison the wells by introducing all of those categories into the simple but accurate statement, “It is no longer legal to own other people.”
“Seeking to control people whose gender, colour, race or sexuality does not agree with yours, marks you with the same brush as the bigots, the wingnuts, the Pharisees.”
Well, I guess it depends somewhat on the amount of control, the categories of control, and so on (see what I said about laws, about 10 minutes ago).
But again, taking your meaning on the level of control that is of sufficient scope to make your statement accurate, the accuracy still does not depend on gender, color, race, sexuality, religion, financial status, education level, nationality, age, marital status, creed, or anything else. Seeking the level of control you mean over anyone who is not a child you are raising paints you with the same brush as a Pharisee. Doing so on the basis of the categories mentions adds the color to your brush of bigotry.
But merely introducing these categories does not a case make. Most who oppose elective abortion do not do so for any of these reasons, yet Margaret Sanger worked hard to establish Planned Parenthood to control the multiplying undesirables (which is pretty bigoted).
Wingnuts (right or left)… well, that’s a different topic.
“It was once the height of moral behaviour to gift the native people of North America with blankets laden with smallpox virus.”
No, it wasn’t as evidenced by the fact that, even though that course of action was discussed — once — the “plan” was never put into action. Therefore, it clearly was found to be unacceptably not moral, let alone “the height of moral behaviour,” as you inaccurately charge.
It appears to me thateither you already know that this action was never taken, making your charge lying propaganda, or you don’t know that this charge is false, in which case you have not done your homework.
“To force a woman to have an abortion, when she doesn’t want to have the abortion, is … a far more heinous imposition of unwarrented control, than to allow a woman to have an abortion…”
Agreed. Both commit a murder, but the forced abortion goes far beyond that.
“… that would restore control to her life. That is the whole point. Women have that control, they have that right…”
Well, you’re begging the question. The whole issue is whether they have that right (except in the cases noted above), and to assert that they have the right when that is the issue at hand begs the question. Essentially you are saying “we know they have the right by virtue of the fact that they have the right.”
Plus, inasmuch as the crux of the issue is whether or not what is growing inside her is a human person (pro-lifers saying it is, pro-choicers saying it is not), there is the issue of whether there is another life involved introduced into the question. If no one has the right to place an imposition on the mother’s life (however large that imposition may be, I’m not attempting to trivialize it by that word choice), then she has no right to impose her will to the point of death on the person within her. Until this issue is put to rest, all considerations of color, gender, trying to impose control, and so on, are of way, way less priority.
“If it’s not your problem, what makes it your business?”
Good and salient question. My answer is that those in a society with the wherewithal to do so are obligated to protect those in that society who are too weak to help themselves.
My understanding is that what is growing inside the woman is a person. When she (or anyone) tries to end the life of that person who is unable to defend himself, those who are strong enough to defend him are obligated to do so.
“Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer…”
If you had stopped right there, you would have been absolutely correct, and I would have applauded your insight. Your god is not my creator, has no control in what I say or do or think, and has absolutely no place in my life. You can let it move in with you, if you want, but don’t bring it visiting, okay?
“My understanding is that what is growing inside the woman is a person.”
In that case, you don’t understand, at all.
“That’s fine — but then call it what it is: ‘activism’.”
I was only trying to show that, inasmuch as activists continuing the cause after losing a battle is not unacceptable, that would put to rest the idea that — as a universal — continuing the cause after losing a battle is not a bad action, per se.
Of course, if you lost the battle in a way that absolutely establishes that you were fighting a misguided cause, then to continue is sheer stubbornness. For instance, a friend of mine was charged with 40 felonies by an out-of-control prosecutor, and was found not guilty. But pervertedjustice.com continued to describe him in the most horrid of terms. That was sheer stubornness by PJ.
I don’t feel that is the case in the abortion issue, as you know, but I just wanted to make the point that carrying on, in and of itself, is not a bad or misguided choice.
“…considering the government largesse they enjoy.”
“Largess,” being “a gift or money given; usually given ostentatiously,” that is not really what the government does — no money is transferred from the possession of the government to the possession of the church(es). To avoid taking money from the church(es), though it likewise financially benefits, is not the same as a gift.
But you are right in your general meaning. As I said above, he who financially benefits the piper calls the tune. The government should not be in the business of telling religious leaders (nor religious individuals nor religious groups) what they can– or cannot say, and so I think this financial benefit to religious institutions ought to stop.
“ “My understanding is that what’s growing inside the woman is a person.”
In that case, you don’t understand, at all.”
No, you don’t understand at all.
I meant:
“ “My understanding is that what’s growing
inside the woman is a person.”
In that case, you don’t understand, at all.”
No, you don’t understand at all.
Jasper,
It is unrealistic, and ultimately futile, to ask anyone to act on something that they do not believe is true. God did not task the Jews with getting Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law when the Jews came out of Egypt. Similarly, you should not ask non-Christians to act like Christians.
I believe that this issue of abortion can be successfully engaged from scientific and logical premises.
It is reasonable for someone to be motivated for religious reasons to engage those who do not share that religion on a topic. But it is not reasonable to expect those others to share that motivation for those religious reasons.
An argument Antonin Scalia made was that if a school system taught that Romans never penetrated to the Holy Land, and a Christian fought against that incorrect teaching of history because it bothered him to have the Bible contradicted that way, they should not be aced out of the discussion by virtue of their motivation. That Christian then could make their case from historical evidence that all would be obligated to recognize, irrespective of their religion. In the same way, Christians can be motivated for religious reasons, but cannot reasonably expect to successfully argue from a religious perspective.
You can, of course, do what you want. However, I am presuming from your posts that you truly care about this issue, not that you just like to get zingers in. So my advice to you would be to educate yourself on the scientific evidence that the growing baby is a person, and the arguments on that person’s behalf that can be made form non-religious, non-supernatural standpoints.
Remember, Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:20–22:
To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win
Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the
Law ,though not being myself under the Law, so that
I might win those who are under the Law; to those
who are without law, as without law, though not
being without the law of God but under the law of
Christ, so that I might win those who are without
law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win
the weak; I’ve become all things to all men, so
that I may by all means save some.
This Paul had to say about preaching the Gospel. But the principle contained therein has broader application. If you are willing to take my advice, please contemplate what I am saying. To just bash away at opponents if utterly ineffective. If you are, however, effective, you will save lives — precious lives, at that.
“Your god is not my creator”
Janus,
Whether you realize it or not God is your creator. You are His beautiful creation, and He loves you very much and wants you to spend eternity with Him.
Burning in Hell for eternity would be infinitely more pleasant than spending a minute with you and the God imagined by your disgusting perversion of religious faith.
However, neither Hell nor your God exist.
How utterly preposterous.
I don’t know whether you have ever been badly burned, but surely you have had at the least a bad sunburn, or have sipped liquids that are far hotter than you thought.
Burns can be indescribably painful — as surely you know.
And severe pain can seem to go on endlessly — as surely you know.
Now you come along and assert that an eternity of really, severe pin would be preferable to spending just one minute in the presence of someone you dislike.
I mean, I’m not even talking about whether this or that exists; I’m only taking the implications of what you said at face value.
It is impossible to take your ranting, and foolishness-spewing seriously. Like the habitual liar who exaggerates and invents so as to elicit reaction, you say the things you think will have the harshest impact, with little to no consideration of the accuracy of the words you childishly attempt to use as weapons. Your posts are tantrums. (Frankly I’m saddened by the clearly intense and consuming anger that you live carrying around inside you. I used to be similarly angry. It led me one day to attempt to run down a pedestrian — a total stranger — in a crosswalk, scaring me so badly that I finally sought help.)
I was surprised though that, like an Italian managing to say something without gesturing, you managed to make your latest post without profanity. You could knock me down with a feather…
You do make me curious though, you propose “your disgusting perversion of religious faith.” What would unperverted religious faith look like? —to you, that is…
I’d like to add that I agree with RB (somewhat). Sure, RB might have exaggerated it a little (I don’t know though – perhaps he really feels that strongly about it).
It’s so utterly stupid when theists threaten “hell” or try to tempt with “heaven”. There’s just so much wrong with that:
1. Neither exist.
2. ~If~ heaven existed in the christian sense it would be like hell to me.
3. Did I mention that neither hell nor heaven exist? 😉
Brian asks: “What would unperverted religious faith look like?”
Hmmmm… it would look like a crocu-duck. It would sound like a silent scream. It would look like a square ball.
In short: “unperverted religious faith” is an oxy-moron. It’s a myth. It cannot, by the very definition of religious faith, be anything more.
Infinite punishment for finite sins. Sounds like an all loving god to me. Also,, what happens when you sin in heaven? Or do you lose your supposed free will there?
“No, you don’t understand at all.”
Sure I do. I understand that you are not allowed to tell me how I have to define what my body does.
“It is unrealistic, and ultimately futile, to ask anyone to act on something that they do not believe is true.”
Then why do you and others like you persist in doing exactly that?
“Whether you realize it or not God is your creator. You are His beautiful creation, and He loves you very much and wants you to spend eternity with Him.”
😆 😆 😆
Declined. I have better plans. 😆
“Sure I do. I understand that you are not allowed to tell me how I have to define what my body does.”
No you don’t. I have never tried to tell you how you have to define what your body does — nor have I suggested anyone else ought to, either.
“It is unrealistic, and ultimately
futile, to ask anyone to act on
something that they do not believe
is true.”
“Then why do you and others like you persist in doing exactly that?
”
Naturally, I cannot speak for others; but as for myself, I never have.
“Infinite punishment for finite sins. Sounds like an all loving god to me.
Also,, what happens when you sin in heaven? Or do you lose your supposed free will there?”
If I thought you were actually seeking answers to any actual questions, I would be glad to provide them. But this is rhetorical, eh?
“In short: ‘unperverted religious faith’ is an oxymoron. It’s a myth. It cannot, by the very definition of religious faith, be anything more.”
So I am therefore sure you would not make this comparison — that is understood. But R.B did, so I asked.
“If heaven existed, in the [C]hristian sense, it would be like hell to me.”
[Christian is capitalized not as an honorarium, but due to it being a proper noun.]
Really all this shows is a less-than-full-orbed understanding of the doctrine of Heaven. For instance, if the doctrine of Heaven is that it is a place where you would be happy, then to say that you wouldn’t be happy there is a logical error, a category error. Anything that makes you unhappy, cannot, by definition, be something that makes you unhappy. So this place you have in mind that would be like hell to you is something other than a place that would make you happy, and therefore is something other than Heaven.
I mean, it’s like saying, “I sure am glad I don’t like onion, because if I liked ’em I would probably eat ’em — and I hate onions!”
You see, this is ridiculous in the same way, because if you liked onions you would not, at the same time, hate them. If you were eating something you hated (while you liked onions), it could not be onions, because if it were you would like them rather than hating them.
“I have never tried to tell you how you have to define what your body does — nor have I suggested anyone else ought to, either.”
Yes you do. You ersist in insisting that a fetus is a person and that it has “rights,” including the “right” not to be evicted from my body. When it involves my body, it is nothing of the kind, has nothing of the kind, and is none of your business.
“…for myself, I never have.”
Yes you have.
And your definition of what constitutes “heaven” makes absolute sense. But. That’s not how it’s defined by those who keep pimping the idea of it. And I not only understand what RB meant, but I agree with him on it.
brian wrote: “Really all this shows is a less-than-full-orbed understanding of the doctrine of Heaven.”
No… it just underscores how f-ing ridiculous and illogical the whole heaven idea is… just like the every religion ever invented – it totally fails the logic test.
Reality,
I’m sorry you hate me so much, I know we disagree on alot of things, but I don’t hate you.
Brian:
First you tell Jasper that it is improper to try and get someone to believe that which they do not where trying to convince people abortion is wrong, then you turn around and castigate RB for saying that for him Hell is preferable that a minute with the notion of Jasper and his apparent idea of who God is as Jasper has defined him in his comments here and by his own words and deeds supposedly in his God’s name. You are deciding for yourself that RB’s views must be exaggerated and that he cannot be serious in this opinion/feeling of his, that is incredibly arrogant of you not to mention condescending and the fact you apparently don’t see that about such in what you wrote to him seriously weakens your intellectual credibility and honesty I would suggest. I guarantee that for some that would be as torturous as Hell would be to be to a true believer in it and Christianity, and it is arrogant indeed for you to assume and then declare in judgment that such cannot be true and must be exaggeration and thus that person’s views cannot be taken seriously. Don’t you see how you just completely undercut yourself there?
BTW, your talking about burning and the pain of eternity of burns and that is cute, but that is not what Hell is. Hell as a place of burning is not what the Bible teaches, that is a cultural incorporation from works of fiction. Hell is where there is the absence of God and of love in any form, a desolate place where there is weeping and nashing of teeth as I recall from my days of studying the Bible, not lakes of fire as popularly portrayed. For someone that claims to take their religious views so seriously that is a major misconception for you to be operating under, perhaps you do not know your religion’s fundamentals as well as you think. That I can recall this despite having parted ways from Christianity a quarter century ago might also help underscore to you that I did take my faith very seriously and that I respect true faith-holders (as opposed to zealots/fanatics) of all types, so long as they understand that the only way to convert is by example, and not by any form of coercion (which is a core element of why I am so anti-religionist where using religious doctrines and beliefs as a basis for government policy and the laws of the land.
The problem with religion being used as a template for government policy is that it tends not to be tolerant of any/all views that do not conform to that particular religion’s (and usually a sect within a religion at that) doctrines and dogma, which in a multicultural pluralist society is a real problem no matter how well intentioned those of faith may be in their desires. After all, there is a reason there is a cliche about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions after all, and one of the core beliefs I live by is the law of unintended consequences. I am fine with those that are anti-abortion (so long as they are also equally ardent about sensible contraception, and sex ed teaching as well as enabling proper sufficient secular public support systems for those that raise their child instead of aborting like day care, financial assistance and decent health care including dietary as well as providing a minimum level of decent environment to raise said child/children in) speaking in public and trying to persuade through their conviction and their example, so long as they understand they have no right to use coercive tools including those of the State to impose this view on those that do not share said belief.
As I said before, personally I am very much opposed to abortion, but I also understand that it is a woman’s body that must bear all the strain and the risks involved with pregnancy, that for over half the gestation period the fetus cannot survive on its own even with the latest medical advances as a rule (so calling it a human being is somewhat disingenuous by any rational scientific basis until it can), which does mean it really is something only the woman herself is really in a position to be able to decide whether they can take the strains involved. I know how many think the father should have a say, I am not one of them. The problem with that premise is that it ends up giving a certain degree of control over another person’s body and I believe that responsibility over a person’s body can only be exercised by that person once they are old enough to make such decisions for themselves under our system of laws and customs. A child’s body is one thing, but someone that is an adult should never be coerced into such surrendering of control as sovereignty of one’s own body goes to the core of the rights of an individual, especially on something as seirous as this issue is.
I fully believed back when I was still RCC that if God is omnipotent and omniscient he does not emplace a soul in a fetus that would not be carried to term, that no truly loving God of love as the god of Christianity in all its sects/forms could and that He would never be so cruel and wasteful, and that He would know via his omniscience (by definition after all, and don’t give me that bit about free will, free will enables man to defy God, it does not mean he cannot see what they will do, that is the whole point about what omniscience is after all) so any aborted fetus is not a lost soul. So that dealt with my religious qualms in my position as a political pro-choice person with personal issues with abortion in my private feelings. As to the rest, well we live as a species that tends to survive on the deaths of other life forms including our own on a daily basis, and as sad as it may be to see someone aborting a fetus I find it hard to consider it somehow more important than all the other deaths of humans by human hands throughout this world that gets far less serious attention from and by so many of those claiming to be ardently pro-life (not all, I do know that some actually are truly evenhanded in this approach, but I am afraid I do not find that to be the majority of those that are politically active on this issue).
I will never agree with the pro-life position on making abortion illegal/inaccessible until I also see put into place everything any mother needs to raise a healthy child in a secure environment (and without placing religious strings on it too, you know like how the Salvation Army tried to guilt those that stay there into going to services as a price for their staying there, and I know this is done because I was living in one a little over a decade ago for a time and got hit with it first hand), when I see contraception and sex education being taught without any deference to dogma but only to science and medical standards of what is necessary before children are biologically old enough to procreate, then I might be willing to see laws enacted that make abortion illegal except where medically necessary to save the life of the mother (or in the case where the child would be born with such serious medical issues they would live hours to days and in agony, in those cases I really think it is too cruel to bring them into a world for such suffering and then to be gone so soon without ever knowing anything else). Sadly though I don’t see that reality coming anytime soon, and until it does exist I prefer that abortion is left defined as a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor without any more regulation than that, because in the end it really is a health issue for the woman to deal with is only because of the inevitable health issues inherent in any pregnancy let alone the termination of one. I really think the way Canada has left it solely in the realm of medicine for the past quarter century was the right way to go, and the numbers on how many abortion happen declining through that same period would seem to back this up.
This is a thorny and difficult issue fo rso many because it is so inherently personal, and it is because it is so personal that I believe it must be left to the individual to decide and not have that choice made for them either wya, no one should be denied access to medically safe abortion any more than someone should be forced to have one against their will/wishes, that is the whole point about choice and the freedom to have it that defines the pro-choice position. It is also why having some claim being pro-choice is a lie and only calling such people pro-abortion or pro-murder is so incredibly offensive to pro-choicers, because it really is about choice itself on something that strikes to the heart of personal body control for a woman and not because they have some sort of problem with being branded abortionists. It is about representing the position and belief fairly and honestly/accurately, something one would think those that are equally sensitive about how their position of their religious beliefs are portrayed would understand without needing it explained over and over again (that is not aimed at you specifically Brian, simply at the many pro-lifers that do have this problem that I have seen in both media and in real life encounters).
Well, I have had along day and I didn’t realize I was going to be writing such a lengthy comment when I first started this so I am wrapping this up here and will probably not be around for a day at least from the time of posting so please do not expect any response to anything you write in response too quickly.
“Yes you do. You persist in insisting that a fetus is a person and that it has “rights,” including the “right” not to be evicted from my body. When it involves my body, it is nothing of the kind, has nothing of the kind, and is none of your business.”
No, I don’t. I do persist in insisting that the fetus is a person (as you stated), and therefore what I have to say about it is not about your body, but about the body of the person who is at the stage of growth where they are called a fetus (as distinguished from the stages of growth where the person is called an infant, a baby, a toddler, a child, an adolescent or an adult).
I would not dream of telling you what you must to do with your body, but I would tell you what you cannot do to the body of the growing person. When what you want to do will kill the person growing within you, it is no longer the simplistic situation “My body, my choice.” The choices that any of us make that can result in the death of another person are not simple choices (not simple v. complicated, but simple v. compound), and we are not free to make whatever choice we want when the life or safety of others (one or more) is put at risk by that choice.
Inasmuch as it is the responsibility of members of a society who have the ability to protect those in the society who cannot protect themselves, it is mu business — to that degree, but not beyond it.
Some people would argue (mistakenly) that if they want to beat their spouse (whether it’s the man beating the woman, the woman beating the man, or any other arrangement), it’s no one else’s business. But it’s well recognized that society has a role to play in stopping domestic violence, a case of protecting someone who is unable to protect themselves. That is controlling the body of the person doing the beating to the degree that they may not bash their body into the body of someone else.
Though the situations are not identical, to be sure, they both stem from the principle that those in society who are able to are obligated to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
“No… it just underscores how f-ing ridiculous and illogical the whole heaven idea is… just like the every religion ever invented – it totally fails the logic test.”
It might insist that that is the case, but it does not underscore it.
If “the whole heaven idea” were ridiculous and illogical, the top notch intellects that have studied and written about theology over the centuries would have seen that fact very early in their careers, and never would have had careers in theology. You might not understand it, but that doesn’t mean the idea is ridiculous and illogical, only that you don’t understand it. That can be the case because it is, in fact illogical, or it can mean that it is either beyond you or you haven’t learned enough about it to get it yet. But the fact that you find it illogical, by itself, doesn’t really underscore nor prove anything.
Francis Shaeffer belonged to a liberal congregation that didn’t use the Bible much. He decided that he was wasting his time, and had better things to do with his Sundays. As he was, so to speak, headed for the door, he realized he had never actually read the Bible. He set about doing that, and left the congregation he had been attending, but became a very dedicated Christian, because it finally made sense.
I have had crises of faith where I have come across either a concept or a biblical passage that seemed to make the whole system unworkable. Those are uncomfortable moments. But in each case, as I continued to chew on it, i have found that I was jumping to conclusions, or had misapprehended something. The world view that derives from the Bible is complicated, but it is not illogical.
Jasper – With all due respect, I would rather read what you have to say than a pile of pious gibberish cut and pasted from some brainless denizen of Stanek’s Bar & Grill. I know it was Sunday morning but save the preaching for the pulpit. Enough of the “His Man” blather already 🙄
Brian
Good, all the more reason to take it away.
“I fully believed back when I was still RCC that if God is omnipotent and omniscient he does not emplace a soul in a fetus that would not be carried to term”
Wow…I would reply to Scotian’s remarks but he spouts so much nonsense it’s hard to keep up with. It would take way to long to correct him on every point.
Scotian,
It is not all that arrogant of me. We all are free to assess the plausibility of what others say, and arrive at conclusions therefrom (just as you did in assessing what I wrote and finding it arrogant).
I didn’t tell R.B that he needed to believe in hell, only that the idea that eternal searing heat was preferable to spending one lone minute in the presence of people you disliked was preposterous. I mean, maybe he really would prefer the eternal burning to the social discomfort, but I would have to attribute such a preference to being mentally unbalanced.
Contemplate that explanation if you would, and see if your initial reaction isn’t maybe a bit overly strong.
You keep challenging my honesty; why is that? I might be honestly mixed up, but I have been consistent, forthright and honest constantly. One time I posted a mock inversion of something that conservatives are often accused of, later (quite soon after) explaining that that had been an attempt at making a point by example. I was immediately raked over the coals for being dishonest. Surely, if I were being dishonest or inconsistent, the same attacks as were produced in that one instance would be hounding me from thread to thread. I would appreciate it if you would be a little more willing to grant me the benefit of the doubt on my truthfulness.
It is not all that arrogant for me to assume and declare in judgment on this one issue. I have been burned. I have been in the presence of people whose behavior is almost unbearable. I am familiar with what a minute is like. Though I have no experience of eternity, I, like everyone else, extrapolate what it might be like form the experience I do have with periods such as decades, as compared against my experience with minutes. If R.B had said that he would rather spend eternity in Hell than eternity in the presence of God or Jasper, I probably would have scoffed to myself, but not posted anything about it.
As for my depiction of Hell, I used R.B’s model, wherein he says, “Burning in Hell for eternity…”
But beyond that, the Bible does indeed allude to Hell being a place of burning.
1) Jesus and others repeatedly uses burning metaphores regarding the condemned’s fate: John the Baptist says, “He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” In the parable of the wheat & the tares, Jesus says the landowners said, “1st gather up the tares & bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.” Commenting on the meaning of that parable, Jesus says, “Just as the tares are gathered up & burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Further, Jesus says, “I’m the vine, you’re the branches; he who abides in Me & I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch & dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire & they are burned.” Jesus says, “whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” And “It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have 2 eyes & be cast into the fiery hell.” And “[I]t is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your 2 hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. [bold = OT quote]”
2) In Revelation, we find “Then death & Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the 2nd death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” [Hades & Hell are not synonyms.] And “Then another angel… followed them, saying …, ‘If anyone worships the beast & his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night.”
I am not putting all this here to convince you that Hell is real, or that it is a place of fire in some sense, only to contradict your point “Hell as a place of burning is not what the Bible teaches…”
“For someone that claims to take their religious views so seriously that is a major misconception for you to be operating under”
As you can see above, I disagree. It might not be literal fire, but it is close enough that there is a depiction of the smoke of their torment rising, and Jesus says the fire is never quenched. There are many “schools of thought” in theology, and it is true that soem deny that Hell is a place of torment, some even denying that it exists at all. But, as I have shown, the Bible does say these things, and to hold the positions just mentioned requires somehow negating these passages (and more) or making the case that they don’t actually mean what they seem to say. Of course, hermeneutics is a topic for some other time.
You say “The problem with religion being used as a template for government policy is that it tends not to be tolerant…”, and it is certainly true that some religious groups fit that description. But the Founders of the United States were by-and-large Christians, and it was their understanding of Christianity — that all men must choose to trust God as a free choice if they were to be saved, that all men bear the image of God, and more — that led to them establishing one of the most tolerant societies ever conceived. The imposition of some peoples’ view of what is tolerable, or what tolerance means, has drastically eroded that initial tolerance in the times in which we live, but the US is still far more tolerant than any nations that preceded it, largely due to the infusion of Christian philosophy in the principles embodied in the Constitution (would that we were following it in this age!).
Yes, it is true that there is a cliché that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and I find it absolutely appaling! The road to Hell is not paved with good intentions, it is paved with pride and rebellion. The implication of that cliché is that one ought not attempt things out of good intentions. It is an abysmally cynical cliché. It is true that good intentions often bear unintended consequences, but people aren’t consigned to Hel for accidents.
I have no quarrel whatsoever with contraception that prevents live sperm from reaching a live ovum. I think instruction on human sexuality is good too, though I think that the current curricula are about 2 years too advanced. But I do not oppose the category.
I think that public, secular support for those that raise their child instead of aborting it do more harm than good. Research into the history of it shows a marked decline in charity where the government has been used as a vehicle to supposedly advance charity. Apparently people assume their duty is finished once they have paid their taxes. Also, governmentally instituted care and charity does not operate with the same personal touch that private charity does. Private charities spend more time getting to know the people they are helping, spend more time trying to reunite people with their family structure if one exists, and so on. I think it is sad that it is that way, because there is a lot to be said for the economy of size, but it appears to be that way nonetheless.
Calling the fetus too young to survive on its own even with the latest medical technology a human being is disingenuous by any rational scientific basis only if it is established that ability to survive on your own is a requirement to be numbered as a human. Consider this: the age at which a developing person can survive an early birth is much lower than it was, say, 20 years ago. If the survivability after early delivery is what it take to be a human, feti are becoming human at a much younger age than they did 20 years ago. I suspect that you see that as absurd, that the age at which someone becomes a human is not modified by developments in technology. I hope you recognize that that is absurd, anyway. I would propose that this category of measurement — the age of viability — is not valid for establishing at what point a pregnancy involves a growing human being.
You are right, that the death of the child is not necessarily more important that all the other deaths at the hands of humans. I do believe it is equally as important in some categories, less in others. For example, it is tragic but acceptable for a national leader’s body guards to cause deaths of bystanders if that is the only way to save the life of the leader, if that leader is under attack. If the driver of the Prime Minister’s car has to run over a pedestrian to escape machine-gun fire, running over that pedestrian is tragic but appropriate. In one sense, the pedestrian is not a more valuable person than the PM, in their innate humanness. But there are additional categories. Of course, the driver cannot run down pedestrians to make sure the PM makes it to a meeting on time.
The child in the woman is equally as important by virtue of their humanness. But, as I have said, if their continued existence puts the woman in jeopardy for her life, the woman has the right to defend herself with deadly force.
I do agree, it is a thorny and personal issue, which is one of the reasons I do not berate nor insult those who see the issue differently from me.
Good night.
“Good, all the more reason to take it away.”
No more reason required — Take it away already! (In other words, we are in agreement on this; I’m just adding a little “Sis, Boom, Bah!” to the mix.)
“So my advice to you would be to educate yourself on the scientific evidence that the growing baby is a person”
Brian, I don’t need to edjucate myself on when a human life starts. It starts at conception, it’s pretty simple. Pro-aborts do not care when life starts, they say they can murder anyways.
“To just bash away at opponents if utterly ineffective.”
I don’t believe I bashed anyone in this thread Brian. How many pro-aborts have you converted here?
You fight your war and I’ll fight mine.
Brian, understand this – I do not consider you and Jasper to be “people I dislike.”
I think you’re monsters.
Brian wrote: “If “the whole heaven idea” were ridiculous and illogical, the top notch intellects that have studied and written about theology over the centuries would have seen that fact very early in their careers, and never would have had careers in theology.”
Hahahahahahaha… Now ~that~ is funny. You’re not familiar with logical fallacies are you?
You might aswell say: ‘if roman catholicism was wrong why are there millions of catholics?’, or ‘if islam is wrong why are there millions of muslims?’
Brian continued: “You might not understand it, but that doesn’t mean the idea is ridiculous and illogical”
That is absolutely true. In this particular case it doesn’t work because:
(a) it’s not rocket science to understand (the heaven meme)
and (b) it ~is~ ridiculous and illogical.
Like Bleatmop wrote earlier – the whole notion of “free will” (something you theists claim is ~very~ important to god) falls apart in heaven. If having free will is so important why not allow it in heaven? If you’re allowed your free will in heaven then what stops people from doing wrong?
If heaven is the pinnacle of our existance, and everything’s perfect, then why bother with earth and sin and death etc. in the first place?
I will never understand how/why theists engage in olympic sized mental gymnastics to make the god meme “work”… why ignore reality in favour of ~obvious~ myth? Bizarre…
“Brian, I don’t need to [educate] myself on when a human life starts.”
Jasper, that isn’t what I meant. What I meant was to become more familiar with developments in presenting the case from a scientific perspective, rather than just asserting your position.
Regarding your question and advice advice “How many pro-aborts have you converted here? You fight your war and I’ll fight mine,” I have no idea how many i have “converted.” Who knows how many listen in without ever posting? Who knows what effect I’m having? I have gotten a few congrats for making a good point here or there. Who knows.
But this “You fight your war and I’ll fight mine” just seems testy to me; I’m trying to help you. Did you even read the quote from Corinthians? Paul could have stood on a corner and shouted the gospel at the top of his lungs, telling the truth with every word — to virtually no avail. But because of his love for those he was trying to reach, he swallowed his pride and his desires (Acts 17:16 says he was “provoked in his spirit” by all the idols he saw in Athens”), and pursued a course that was more effective. I am trying to point out to you, that if you care about these children being killed (as I believe you do), then it seems good advice to pursue the course that is most likely to be effective, rather than the one that makes you feel good when you are doing it, if those two differ.
“You’re not familiar with logical fallacies are you?
You might as well say: ‘if [R]oman [C]atholicism [were] wrong why are there millions of [C]atholics?’, or ‘if [I]slam is wrong why are there millions of [M]uslims?’”
In fact I am. I was not asserting that Heaven must exist because there are scholars who say it does (an invalid argument from authority), I only meant that it seems less likely that the proposition is not logically consistent by virtue of the fact that logically-minded individuals find it to be logical upon having studied it in some depth. It would still be possible that they were wrong (inasmuch as a logically consistent proposition can still be wrong if it has been fed inaccurate data).
You’re not the type who divides meaning very closely, are you? I didn’t say if it were wrong, I said if it were illogical. Roman Catholicism is logical, but recognizes authorities it ought not (the Apochrypha, for instance). Also, I did not propose that this was why there were followers of the religion, but why scholars of the religion were able to do what they do. With respect to Islam, the whole undertaking is anti-intellectual; That is a horse of a different stripe altogether.
“If you’re allowed your free will in heaven then what stops people from doing wrong?”
Good! At least now you are asking questions instead of just making assertions!
Consider this.
If a lion eats oats, he will not starve to death. Put a lion in a cage with oats and water, and he will starve to death, not eating the oats because to eat them is not in his nature. He is free to choose those oats, he just never will do it.
Our will follows our nature. If the nature to sin is removed, and you have free will, you will not choose to sin.
But even as a sinner, the situation one finds themselves in changes their behavior. Let’s consider a petty thief. Every time he sees unguarded money he thinks he can take without being caught for doing so, he does, because of his nature.
Now suppose he really, really gets behind a politician he thinks is the most important candidate ever, and this thief has a good understanding of how important money is to a political campaign. Under these circumstances, he finds himself alone with a cash drawer. But, because of his motivation, rather than taking some of the cash, he takes a $20 bill out of his pocket and puts it into the drawer. Has his free will been negated in some way? Of course not.
Free will is a misnomer anyway. Our will is what it is, and we are free to follow it. Our following is what is free, rather than our will. It is like the term “One-world government” that really means “One-government world.” Free will conveys the idea, but is technically inaccurate.
You ask “why ignore reality in favour of ~obvious~ myth?” when I believe it is you who are aggressively dodging the obvious. But just as my telling you that you are missing the obvious is not a statement that is likely to have any effect — indeed, I doubt you’ll even receive it — in the same way asserting that I am missing the obvious as a statement standing on its own carries no weight with me.
It is like the images at
and
Once you have seen that which you originally missed, you cannot “un-see” it anymore.
I used to be an atheist — through & through, no doubts, 110%. I have seen what you now see as you look at the world. I see something more now, that I had failed to see while I was an atheist.
brian wrote: “Roman Catholicism is logical”
OMG… ruined another perfectly good keyboard. Damn you!!
(God is god, some human named jesus AND a ghost – all at the same time! We eat bread and juice/wine on Sundays because when we do they turn into god/jesus/theGhost meat-blood magically! When god killed himself/jesus/theGhost on the cross he did so to cleanse mankind of sin – because that’s how sin is cleansed of course! We are born into sin because Adam ate an apple 6000 years ago and that’s somehow passed on to every human ever born ever since…….. the ridiculous lack of logic goes on and on and on… it’s astounding how much BS there is in there!)
Brian wrote: “Our will follows our nature. If the nature to sin is removed, and you have free will, you will not choose to sin.”
So why did god give us this “nature to sin” in the first place!? Why not remove it and have a perfect creation and make earth heaven-like?
“I do persist in insisting that the fetus is a person (as you stated), and therefore what I have to say about it is not about your body…”
You can’t NOT say what you say and not say it about my body, because that fetus you are promoting over my objections requires MY BODY in which to incubate…and I am NOT WILLING to give, loan, sell, or rent MY BODY for any such purpose!
You HAVE TO acknowledge a woman’s right to determine what her own body does before it can ever decided upon whether or not a fetus is a person FOR HER. It does not matter to her what YOU think is a person when it’s HER BODY that is being used.
Sorry about your keyboard. Will that make it hard to make your “key” points?
“(God is god, some human named Jesus AND a ghost – all at the same time!”
Nice reductionistic straw man. Congratulations.
“Ghost” is merely an archaic term that is supplanted now by spirit.
We eat bread and juice/wine on Sundays because when we do they turn into god/jesus/theGhost meat-blood magically!
OK, this is a good one. There is no reason to insist on either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. But it is not necessarily illogical nor impossible just because it is undetectable. The laws of logic are undetectable and non-material, but are absolutely real.
“When god killed himself/jesus/theGhost on the cross he did so to cleanse mankind of sin – because that’s how sin is cleansed of course!”
This is inaccurate theology. This did not cleanse mankind of sin, it cleansed any who will put their trust in this substitutionary payment of the debt incurred by sin. Saying this cleansed mankind of sin is more of a metonym.
” Pro-aborts do not care when life starts, they say they can murder anyways.”
There are no pro-aborts here. Only pro choice. And “murder” is not on the table.
“So why did [G]od give us this ‘nature to sin’ in the 1st place!? Why not remove it and have a perfect creation & make earth heaven-like?”
This is a good question.
Consider the opening to Job. Satan makes an allegation against Job. God could accurately point out to Satan that the only reason he would make such an allegation is because he is who he is. But that would be God making an ad hominem argument, and God knows very well that that would be no argument at all, and so Satan’s allegation would in fact remain unanswered. Just making the point that God knows how to make a point.
God created 2 broad classes of creatures, the corporeal (us, the animals, the bacteria, fungi, etc.) and the non-corporeal (spirits, angels, whatever name you prefer). Both groups fell into sin, answering any charge that the reason for sin was either that God did give the creature in question a body, or that He did not give the creature in question a body. We don’t read much about His dealings with those non-corporeals who rebelled against Him. He apparently recognizes that we do not need exhaustive truth to have true truth.
But regarding us, we have a great deal of information.
At the beginning, Adam and Eve did not have a nature to sin, but they did have a nature that could be tempted. This arrangement resulted in a failure on their part.
After the Fall, they were imbued with a conscience, the knowledge of the distinction between good and evil. But this arrangement resulted in gross immorality, rape, violence and so on. This period resulted int he failure of humans to behave without sin, and was ended by the flood.
After the flood, government was established, as evidenced by the instructions regarding capitol punishment. This, too, resulted in failure, as governments were used to tyrannize.
After this period, the dispensation of the Law was established, spelling out in detail how to live in a sinless fashion. THis era ended in a monumental failure, as the thus empowered religious leaders actually used their power to execute God’s Son, who was the prophet promised by Moses whom they insisted they were awaiting.
This brings us to the current dispensation, in which we have very specific teachings about how sins are forgiven, what it means to thus be forgiven and so on, and believers have God residing within them to guide them. The Bible tells us of a great apostasy in this dispensation, an apostasy which largely got underway around 1900, and is continuing.
This period will come to a close, and not too long thereafter, God Himself will come rule from Jerusalem. He will rule without tyrannizing, and those who sin will be removed from society immediately — virtually no crime. During this period, Satan will not be permitted to have contact with humans. But at the end of this period a portion of the population will seek to overthrow God Himself by force. This attempt will be quashed, and eternity will commence.
But note, every argument gets answered:
“God, if only you had not given us knowledge of evil, we would not have sinned.” But Adam and Eve had that, yet sinned.
“God, if only you had allowed us to choose between good and evil, we would not have sinned.” But that was the arrangement prior to the Flood.
“God, if only you had set officials empowered to punish evil, we would not have sinned.” But that was the arrangement after the Flood.
“God, if only you had told us exactly what we should or should not do, we would followed your instructions, and would not have sinned.” But that was the arrangement under the Mosaic Law
“God, if only you had relieved us of the burden of guilt, and if You had only whispered in our ear what was right and wrong, we would not have sinned.” But that is the current arrangement, and we have sin all around us, both within and without the group of believers.
“God, if only you had lived among us as rule so we could see you face to face, and had taken away the burden that sinners heap on their victims, we would not have sinned.” But
that will be the situation during the Millennium, yet some will seek to murder God, and take the reigns of power form Him.
No one throughout eternity will be able to bring a charge against God, because He is, through the mechanism of history, answering any charges that might be brought.
This is the only possible path to happiness. Without it, some during eternity might start to say that God didn’t really give mankind a chance because He didn’t (whatever).
Plus, think about it:
If God just caused us to love Him He would be setting Himself up as a cosmic rapist (of sorts) forcing love out of us. If you could flip a switch in the head of your kids or your wife, so that they had no choice but to love you, don’t you think you would tire of that love pretty quickly?
If He forced us not to sin, He would be setting up biological robots.
And this is desirable?!?
But anyway, good question!
“You HAVE TO acknowledge a woman’s right to determine what her own body does before it can ever decided upon whether or not a fetus is a person FOR HER.”
I absolutely disagree. The nature of the fetus is not ancillary, it is primary.
Think of this: You are mountain climbing, and one of your group falls. His tether gets snagged on your pack, so you are supporting him, but this was not your choice — his mistake imposed him on your pack, and on you. Further, assume that, because his rope is passing over a couple of things that impart friction, your effort to support him is necessary, but not verging on impossible.
If you do anything to deliberately get quit of his rope, and he falls to his death, you are guilty of homicide.
Now, on the other hand, if it is only his pack that fell and got snagged on you, and you allow his pack to tumble down the mountain, though he might not like you anymore, you are guilty of nothing.
The situation modifies the import of the action. In some cases not of your choosing, you are not free to act in just any way you choose. This is the most true when another life is involved.
In the vignette I proposed, you could not legitimately decide first whether you wanted to support the imposed rope and load, and only then assess whether a another’s life is involved.
Because of this argument though, and though I still believe it to be murder, I would not oppose abortion being legal in the case of rape, as long as there were rape charges filed in each case. I do believe that this makes the baby the victim of the rapist, but the priorities’ balance is sufficiently shifted that I would not seek to prohibit women from shucking that particular load.
“I absolutely disagree. The nature of the fetus is not ancillary, it is primary.”
It does not matter what the nature of the fetus is; what matters is whether or not the woman will allow her body to be sued in such a manner. SHE is primary.
“If you do anything to deliberately get quit of his rope, and he falls to his death, you are guilty of homicide.”
I don’t think so. But I’m going abseiling with a cop this coming weekend, so I’ll let you know.
But even if what you think is true, “homicide” is not always murder; and another abseiler is a legitimate person, which a fetus is not.
“The fetus’ nature doesn’t matter; what matters is whether or not the woman will allow her body to be used in such a manner. She is primary.”
I realize you take this position. I also realize it’s a core belief of yours, and further, that core beliefs are often hard to explain because the person holding the belief sees it as axiomatic — that is, so apparent that no further explanation is required. But do you think you can explain it to me so that I can get a glimpse of your position, a glimpse of why it is that you believe the woman’s desires trump everything else, even if it means killing the baby inside her? (For the sake of argument, think of a case where the fetus has developed sufficiently for you to agree that, at least at that point, it is a person. You’ve said the nature of fetus doesn’t matter, so if there’s no such point, maybe you could substitute why it wouldn’t matter if the fetus were a person.)
Maybe you could start with why it would be important to protect any human life, say, a 5 year old who is about to run into traffic, then argue backward from there. Of course, it’s your case, start wherever you feel is best.
But I really would like not just to hear your conclusion, as in “It just is!”, but to understand how you arrived at it.
“For the sake of argument, think of a case where the fetus has developed sufficiently for you to agree that, at least at that point, it is a person.”
There is no such “case.” Once it is born, and only then, is it a person. Not before.
But even so, it does not matter how a fetus is defined. If it needs my body in which to develop, and if I am unwilling to donate my body to its cause, that is the end of the argument. You have to go find another body. You may not use mine.
What do you not understand about that?
Janus,
Do you really not understand how to take a position that you don’t agree with so as to highlight a point? Can that really be?
Didn’t you ever take a physics course where, for the sake of argument, you calculated as if a rope involved had zero stretch, or a wheel had zero slip on a surface? Didn’t you ever participate in a history-class discussion where there was some condition like “If the Great Depression had not taken place, what might have been the characteristics of the rise or failure of the National Socialist Party in Germany during the 1930s? Would you say to the teacher, “There is no such ‘case’; the Great Depression did take place. To pretend it didn’t is dishonest.”?
Though it might not be the case, granted, your refusal to do so for the reason you gave gives the appearance of being afraid that the discussion might not go well if you did participate. I’m just sayin’…
Regarding what I do not understand about that is that you say your sovereignty over your body is more important than the death of another. That is a proportionality statement (as I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that is that you do at find the lives of others to matter some), and I am wondering how you arrive at that particular outcome in the balance.
“Do you really not understand how to take a position that you don’t agree with so as to highlight a point?”
I understand that some people do it. But I do not understand the point of doing it. All that would be accomplished by such a thing is that an opening could be said to appear for one’s opponent to insist that, “…you said such-and-such; yes you did…” and so on to further conflate the issue.
I have no intention of being anything excpet crystal clear.
“Regarding what I do not understand about that is that you say your sovereignty over your body is more important than the death of another.”
No I don’t. There is no “other.” But if there were “an other,” yes, my sovereignty over my own body would be more important. Because “self-sacrifice” is not part of my psychological or emotional makeup, that’s how. And I am perfectly content that it remain so.
But further, Brian, all your ferinstancing is in the line of hypotheticals — games in which the “outcome” of the argument is not really important or germane to your life today because it’s all in the realm of make-believe and stretch-your-imaginationing.
My control over body is not make believe. And no one makes a game of it.
“I understand that some people do it, but I don’t understand the point of doing it.”
The point is to examine a part of a complex issue, without having to contemplate the entirety of the issue in every statement you make. It is a way to address things that might otherwise be unwieldy. In this particular case, it would allow me to understand a portion of your thinking, without having to try to tease out of your statements what your philosophy behind them is. That way you wouldn’t have to bark at me for jumping to conclusions, and so on.
“I have no intention of being anything except crystal clear.”
But that’s the thing: you aren’t being crystal clear (I can just hear you now: “Yes I am.” “I think I am” …). This is why you wind up having to ask me questions like “What is it that you don’t understand about that?”
“… your ferinstancing is in the line of hypotheticals — games in which the “outcome” of the argument is not really important or germane to your life today because it’s all in the realm of make-believe and stretch-your-imaginationing.”
You couldn’t be more mistaken if you tried, I don’t think. In our age, politicians frequently say “Well, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals,” because they are scurvy liars who don’t ever want to say anything meaningful, lest they be held to their word. But you aren’t running for office…
Hypotheticals allow evaluations of situations that have not yet taken place. The outcome of the hypotheticals is directly applicable to real life, which is why they are used. Police forces use hypotheticals to train cadets. Teachers use hypotheticals to teach math, because the principles thus learned are directly applicable to real life. Militaries use hypotheticals to train on how to handle things like nuclear exchanges, chemical attack, sickness outbreaks, and all manner of things we don’t want to have to actually set up just to learn about them.
Deriding hypotheticals is as misguided as deriding semantics (the study of the meanings of words and language). If you don’t have an agreed upon meaning for the words being exchanged, how could there be any communication at all? (I’m not saying that you said anything about semantics, only that the idea that hypotheticals are unhelpful is as mistaken as the idea that semantics don’t matter.)
Okay, Brian, you want to understand me, here it is:
I am wysiwyg. No more. No less. I mean precisely what I say. Every specific word. If you try to “translate” or paraphrase what I say, you will get it wrong. Always. Example: your referencing that you think that I think hypotheticals are “unhelpful.” Or that I am deriding them.
My life is not a hypothetical situation. I will not allow anyone to play games with my life, hypothetically or otherwise.
Choice is not complicated. It is simple. The decisions regarding my life and my body will always be mine, no one else’s. No matter who defines a fetus as being whatever they think it is, when I say I define it as not-a-person, that is exactly what I mean.
I refuse to play politics. And I still do not “get into hypotheticals” with my life. I can’t help it if politicians use my tactic for living to further their own ends. If you have issues with them, take it up with them. It has nothing to do with me.
And finally, my philosophy: My life, my body, my choice, nobody else’s business.
How’s that for clear?
OK, you are clearly unable to follow me, so I’ll stop trying to clarify.
I appreciate your attempt though, thanks. (I mean that sincerely.)
@brian: It appears that I’ve been giving Catholics too much credit… do you ~really~ believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans? Do you ~really~ believe that there was a global flood?
These are demonstrably false – there was no global flood and we descended from lower primates.
To deny these 2 facts puts you square in the illogical/irrational camp I’m afraid… there is no other explanation.
“…you are clearly unable to follow me…”
Not “unable” — unwilling.
“Not ‘unable’ — unwilling.”
If you say so…
But really, it amounts to the same difference: it is pointless to pursue anything with you as I might with someone who responds to what was actually asked.
Joe,
I am not a Catholic, if that’s what you think.
If we veer off into a discussion of the Flood, we’re going to need more than 10,000 words per post. Your post to which I am currently responding is a mere 66 words — that few words just cannot even do the opening of the topic(s) justice.
I’m afraid we just can’t go there from here — as much as I really would love to. Also, frankly, I am inclined to believe you wouldn’t have the patience for such a lengthy discussion. (I don’t mean that pejoratively, it’s just an observation.)
Scotian’s longest post to me in this thread has 1,713 words.
This whole thread so far only has 14,750 words.
Whole books have been written on just small areas of this overall topic.
On a separate note, it does seem that if you were truly an agnostic, you wouldn’t say to me “That’s false,” but rather “You could never know that to be true.” Perhaps you are not an agnostic at all.
When I was in my twenties, I called myself an agnostic. When I learned (while I was still in my twenties) what that word actually meant, I never called myself an agnostic again, but referred to myself as an atheist — though anti-theism-ist would have been more accurate.
I don’t know why I thought you were a catholic… sorry. 😉
I’m not agnostic – that’s just my ‘handle’. I’m an atheist.
I’m not sure why you need thousands of words for the global flood though. Science has shown conclusively that there hasn’t been a global flood on earth in the past several hundred million years. It’s solid on that.
Do you accept evolution? The theory seems to contradict the whole Adam and Eve story… and the theory is another piece of solid science.
I accept micro evolution.
Consider this, if you would:
Evolution is a model of the changes in a population through natural processes affecting the longevity of individuals within that population and their successful reproduction.
That requires a population to be going through these changes — it is a model of the change of an existing population.
Because of that, it is not a model of origins, but of change. (The “origin” of species Darwin spoke of was actually sufficient incremental change to be classified as a “new” species. But that is not an origin either, but rather a change.)
This model has been extrapolated backward to be pressed into service as a model for the origin of life in the first place. But extrapolation is only valid where you can establish that the conditions within your data set pertain off the edges of your set as well.
Pressing the model of evolution into service as a model of the origin of life rather than as the evolution of already-existing life therefore begs the question.
Now, let me ask you these two things, Joe:
1) Mammoths have been found buried in ice, upright, with leg bones broken by forces along the axis of the bones rather than impinging from the sides, with tropical foods found still in their mouths in some cases, and undigested in their stomachs in other cases. How could this have happened?
2) No comet has ever been found to have a hyperbolic orbit — all have been parabolic. (The significance of that is that they have not originated from outside our planetary system.) Comets are thought to have a lifetime at the outside of around 10,000 years, yet we still have comets. One “theory” for this is that there is a “cloud” of objects (the Oort Cloud) orbiting the sun outside our range of detection. Occasionally a stray or rogue planet outside our detection strays past this cloud, molesting the orbits of the objects, some of which then become comets, replenishing the supply. No comet has ever been found to have the orbit that would place it there. The cloud has never been detected. A stray planet has never been detected. Why do we have comets?
And really: just outside our range of detection, never been seen, nothing ever found that has a trajectory from there, affected by objects of a class that has never been detected nor whose influence has ever been detected… Isn’t this on a par with the detractions you level at religious faith?
Brian wrote: “I accept micro evolution.”
There is no difference between that and ‘macro’ evolution. Accepting micro and not macro is akin to this analogy:
I believe man can walk around his house. I believe man can walk across the street. But I don’t believe man can walk across the country.
** end analogy **
It’s just a matter of scale. Enough footsteps and you can’t deny that the same ‘walk’ that got you across the street wouldn’t get you across the country. Sure it might take A LONG TIME, but you’d get across the country eventually.
It’s the exact same thing with evolution. Enough tiny steps and you’re a new species – it might take a REALLY LONG TIME but it’s the only logical result of tiny changes adding up.
Brian cont’s: “Because of that, it is not a model of origins, but of change.”
Exactly. Nobody knowledgable in the Theory of Evolution (ToE) would ever claim that it states ~anything~ about origins. It deals with how life progresses – not how life starts.
Brian cont’s: “This model has been extrapolated backward to be pressed into service as a model for the origin of life in the first place.”
Not by anyone that I know. This is absolutely NOT the case with accredited biologists, but perhaps a few quacks claim this – I’m not sure.
The ToE only deals with life progressing – and nobody worth a lick of salt would claim otherwise. It doesn’t make ~any~ claim on the origin of life – none.
Brian cont’d: “Now, let me ask you these two things, Joe:”
Why? How are these questions relevant? What do they have to do with the ToE?
Perhaps you’re just curious…
“Mammoths have been found buried in ice… how could this have happened?”
I’m not sure what you’re asking here… Are you saying that this is evidence of a global flood? There are tons of explanations for food in the stomachs and broken legs. A landslide or avalanche could break the bones and happen fast enough that the mammoth wouldn’t have time to swallow.
“Why do we have comets?”
I don’t know what you’re looking for here… can you clarify?