Jump to content

Beliefs, Religion and Faith.


Assume Nothing
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Lot and his family? Once I get back from class, I'll look for that bible verse...

God told everyone to run away and dont look back, Lot did and turned into a pillar of salt

 

What? Maybe you need to read your bible again. I'm pretty sure that it was Lot's wife that looked back.

its a very long time ago i actually did, i thought it was Lot himself not his wife xd

2nv5bvl.png
99 Firemaking 30-5-2010 | 99 Fletching 13-7-2014
TET-AU member:6-10-2010 - 21-10-2011

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 412
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Lot and his family? Once I get back from class, I'll look for that bible verse...

God told everyone to run away and dont look back, Lot did and turned into a pillar of salt

 

What? Maybe you need to read your bible again. I'm pretty sure that it was Lot's wife that looked back.

its a very long time ago i actually did, i thought it was Lot himself not his wife xd

 

At least your remembered the salt. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to that whole 'do you believe heaven exists' thing a couple pages back, I just want to add my 2 cents. The assertion that heaven/hell exists carries exactly the same weight as the assertion that we are all reborn, or that we just cease to exist. In other words, any debate about that is fruitless, any of them can be true.

 

Hmm.. reading over that it doesn't add a lot to the discussion, oh well.

RIP TET

 

original.png

 

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an innocent child, nonetheless. It cannot control how it was born, and we should hold none of that against it. We should especially not hold the child's father's crime against it.

 

An unborn child (fetus) still has no life nor rights. It's not a person in the eyes of the law. So if in the eyes of the law it's not murder i don't see why anyone one else should classify it as that.

"The law says this, so I don't know why anyone else would say differently."

 

Wasn't trying to be disrespectful. It just seems like you completely trust the law. If I offended, I did not mean to.

 

Again, I'm not saying that anything about the situation was a good thing. I'm just as angered as you are about it. But taking a human life is wrong.

 

This is off-topic. Take it to the other thread. You know the Church's stance, you do not agree, fine.

 

oh irony, know you no bounds? the person who seems to completely trust the vatican sees fit to critisize someone for seeming to completely trust the law? do you honestly not see the blatent double-think that such a position requires?

 

 

Also, like mostly everything else in this thread, the Church claims to know things through Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Half of the things we're discussing in this thread (baptism, heaven, hell) assert that God exists for the sake of discussion. You're basically coming into this thread while we are all clarifying and discussing Church doctrine, and saying, "hey, by the way, the church can't prove god exists." It's adding nothing, really.

 

so pointing out even given that such assumptions are true for arguement that theres inherent contradictions that undermine the whole arguement adds nothing. oh wait i forgot, theyre not contradictions because the person making the arguement says so, this is backed up by this same person saying that this book that they says is always correct says they are correct, they know this book is correct because they say it is correct. circular logic and sycophantic subservience to authoritive fiat, arent they just grand? what exactly was your problem with trusting the law in the last quote again, and just why do you think your authority is exempt (other than that they just say they are)?

 

Demonizing? I don't see it. Preventing children from growing up in poverty? There's adoption. Plus, there's thousands of charities and organizations which will help women who have had a baby and cannot provide for them. Also, a C-section is a safe procedure and would've prevent disability or death of the 9 year old. It's a standard procedure and doesn't show anything about hating women. And you don't think it's been proven that there are drastic psychological and physical side effects to having an abortion? Oh, and I want to see an instance in which the authority of the Church will harass this child. There will always exist those followers who feel the need to harass people who had abortions, but I can assure you, no authority figure of the Church is going to (under full support of the Pope in Rome) harass a person who had an abortion. The doctrine says it's wrong, but does not say 'make so-and-so's life miserable because they did it anyway.'

 

 

theres these little things you might have heard of called implications of what you preach and you are responsible and need to be held accountable for them whether you intended them or not. when you proclaim yourself an authority and preach that abortion is equivilent to murder and people follow you, do dispicible things then use things you have actually said as justification you bear a part of the responsibility for what happened.

 

and you know whats even safer than invasive surgery after several months of gestation (which have their own risks) and is backed up by evidence from across the developed world and avoids the majority of those drastic side effects you claim follow abortion? properly administered abortion by trained medical professionals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Magisterium interprets 'God's law' to the people of this earth, and so I hold that above the regular law. However, since we all share the same morals (which I believe are given to us by God), many of our current laws reflect God's law. The legalization of abortion, on the one hand, goes against one of our most basic morals: not to kill. It goes against God's law and the teachings of the Magisterium, and so I find the legalization of abortion to be morally wrong. When we're dealing in matters of whether it's right to kill or wrong, I completely trust with all my being the Magisterium. And that is what that first quote was in context of.

 

As to your second paragraph, I still see no 'inherent contradiction that undermines the whole argument'. The Church says that because of our intellect and Sacred Scripture and Tradition, we can try to explain/characterize God. But it admits that none of these explanations/characterizations will allow us to fully comprehend God. There is no contradiction in that. It sounds like you're saying, "You cannot prove that Sacred Tradition and Scripture are correct," which is, in essence saying "You cannot prove God exists" (in a way). And if you say that, that's fine. That's your stance on the matter. I believe otherwise, and am clarifying what I believe for people, not whether it's true or not. You add nothing to a discussion that asks me to clarify what I believe by coming in here and saying, 'what you believe is wrong.' We're haven't been discussing whether God exists, whether heaven and hell exist, but rather, if they did, what does Church doctrine say on the matter.

 

As for your third argument, people who do despicable things in the name of the Church, when the Church does not support such things, can't even be seen as reflecting Church teaching. The Church does not preach to go out and harass those who have had abortions. It is completely against it. So why should the Church be seen as responsible for such harassment? Any radical group can claim that any person/institution influenced their actions.

 

People were claiming her life was at risk. I was pointing out that it wasn't.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People were claiming her life was at risk. I was pointing out that it wasn't.

If being pregnant for 9 months and having a normal-sized foetus in a body of a child who is half the size of any woman, and then proceeding to have a c-section is not dangerous or potentially life-threatening, then I don't know why. Your claim here is entirely baseless.

RIP TET

 

original.png

 

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People were claiming her life was at risk. I was pointing out that it wasn't.

If being pregnant for 9 months and having a normal-sized foetus in a body of a child who is half the size of any woman, and then proceeding to have a c-section is not dangerous or potentially life-threatening, then I don't know why. Should we be seeing more pregnant children now seeing as it is so safe? Your claim here is entirely baseless.

 

While I disagree with Duff's position (I agree with you and the others), your second sentence was uncalled for. You know that he is not implying that at all.

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here was my reasoning: the Church will state a woman doesn't have to have her baby if it was a fatal operation to her. The Church told her she was not allowed an abortion, and so I was right to assume that the Church had decided that a c-section would not kill the girl.

 

I'm not a doctor, I don't know much if anything at all about what constitutes as a situation that could end up fatal or not. But I'm sure the Church looked adequately on the situation and made a choice accordingly.

 

And for Pete's sake already, we've established that my views are far different than yours. We disagree. I'm not going to turn pro-choice, and you're not going to turn anti-abortion. Let that be the end of it (or move to another topic).

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your third argument, people who do despicable things in the name of the Church, when the Church does not support such things, can't even be seen as reflecting Church teaching. The Church does not preach to go out and harass those who have had abortions. It is completely against it. So why should the Church be seen as responsible for such harassment? Any radical group can claim that any person/institution influenced their actions.

 

Exactly, there are oddities in just about every group who unfairly give the group as a whole a bad name.

 

The legalization of abortion, on the one hand, goes against one of our most basic morals: not to kill.

 

I would say, for the purpose of clarity, one of our most basic morals is not to murder. The act of killing sends off quite a different vibe. Even if vegetarians do not agree that killing animals for their useful resources is ethical, washing your hands and killing millions of microscopic lives has always been considered fine. The main question we have to ask ourselves is whether a fetus constitutes as a "human life" at that given point in time or not. Personally, I see a lot of grayness there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. I meant murder. And I agree; that's where the a lot of the problem comes from: a difference in defining whether abortion is murder or not (which depends on whether we consider a fetus a human).

 

The Church takes the position that a fetus is a human being, and so calls abortion murder --> morally wrong. When a fetus becomes a human (for those who don't believe abortion is murder) is a very grey area, in my opinion.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although adultery itself is not a crime, it has many legal consequences.

 

It was just a toy example - here's a better one. Today, a woman in Saudi Arabi was sentenced by law, to 10 lashes for driving a car. It is sanctioned by law, is it then moral to lash a woman 10 times for driving a vehicle?

 

 

Like i sad though, only a living being can have rights. Since a fetus is not yet a living being (ie. able to breath on its own) it can have no laws to protect it. Except in cases where habeas corpus is applied.

 

Why can only a living being have rights? What gives you the right to say that?

 

If you want non-living things to have the same rights as living beings, then why not have laws that protect pencils, books, glasses, etc.

 

This is an obvious slippery slope (or reductio ad absurdum, your choice)... comparing a fetus to a pencil is a little ridiculous

 

 

And just because i believe something to be moral or immoral does not mean i believe in a higher power. I believe it is immoral to steal. I believe that, because you should not be allowed to take what does not belong to you. I believe that there should be punishment for it. It has nothing to do with me believing or not believing in a higher power. It's a personal opinion. Nothing more.

 

OK. Let's go with your premise - your belief that stealing is wrong is just a personal opinion. Why then, should I not steal? What gives your opinion the power to control, or assign consequences to, my actions? Let's say that the law is based on nothing more than a consensus opinion from a group of elected law-makers. What gives them the right to assign consequences to my actions, when I do not share their personal beliefs?

 

IE. How can you condemn anyone for being against abortions, when it is just your personal belief against theirs? If you truly believe that a pro-choice stance is the only "right" stance, then you must believe that pro-choice being "right" comes from something greater than the collective opinions of the human race. If, (as was alluded to by another poster), you're a moral relativist and think personal beliefs determine morality, then you really have no business telling any pro-lifer to stop attacking abortion clinics because they just have different beliefs (nothing more).

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDdkA0mFmc4&

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQW3f3Y78PI&[/hide]

 

EDIT: I'm not in anyway one of those annoyingly militant atheists or people that hate religion - just realize how futile it is constantly arguing the same points over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your third argument, people who do despicable things in the name of the Church, when the Church does not support such things, can't even be seen as reflecting Church teaching. The Church does not preach to go out and harass those who have had abortions. It is completely against it. So why should the Church be seen as responsible for such harassment? Any radical group can claim that any person/institution influenced their actions.

 

so when the vatican actively and knowingly financing groups that picket and harrass outside medical centres that do abortions it doesnt count as support? expressing support for laws that make it illegal to have an abortion in countries like malaysia, which further victimise the women who undergo the procedure, that doesnt count as support? blackmailing those women by preaching abortion is a sin, and threatening them that theyll burn forever in hell as a result doesnt count as harrassment in and of itself?

 

when the church authorities (almost exclusively old men) think they have any right over the bodies of others under the BS pretense "its for your own good", their armies of sycophants theyve trained up to hang on their every word start emulating this belief and act as if they have any right over other the bodies of others and so begins the harrassment and blackmail. your beliefs inform your actions after all, so whoever bears the responsiblity for planting those beliefs in those people (which the church is no doubt keen to attribute to itself) also bears a proportional part of the responiblity for the consequences of the actions that result from those beliefs (which is what apologetics tries to weasel out from when those actions arent favourable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was just a toy example - here's a better one. Today, a woman in Saudi Arabi was sentenced by law, to 10 lashes for driving a car. It is sanctioned by law, is it then moral to lash a woman 10 times for driving a vehicle?

If a female driving against a car is against the law in Saudi and she drove, then i'm sure she was fully aware of the consequences. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is irrelevant. She broke the law and got the just punishment. Personally i believe it's a bit stupid, and i see no reason for such extremes. But it does not go against my moral standing. She broke the law regardless of how sensible said law is.

I know i might sound a bit contradictory with what i just said, so to make it clear: I do believe it's a stupid law. I do not believe her punishment was unjust.

 

 

Why can only a living being have rights? What gives you the right to say that?

What gives me the right to say that: freedom of speech. I believe it is a human right. Are you going to question that too?

Also, once again, it would be the law-maker that said it. Not me. But if i remember correctly there's still, to this day, a lot of discussion on when a person gains legal personality. There are many that believe it to begin at conception and many that believe it to begin at separation. The latter being the one in use at the moment, i think.

 

This is an obvious slippery slope (or reductio ad absurdum, your choice)... comparing a fetus to a pencil is a little ridiculous

Whether or not is is a bad example (or ridiculous) is not relevant. If you want to give one non-living being a right, why not give them all a right. Again, personal opinion.

 

 

OK. Let's go with your premise - your belief that stealing is wrong is just a personal opinion. Why then, should I not steal? What gives your opinion the power to control, or assign consequences to, my actions? Let's say that the law is based on nothing more than a consensus opinion from a group of elected law-makers. What gives them the right to assign consequences to my actions, when I do not share their personal beliefs?

 

IE. How can you condemn anyone for being against abortions, when it is just your personal belief against theirs? If you truly believe that a pro-choice stance is the only "right" stance, then you must believe that pro-choice being "right" comes from something greater than the collective opinions of the human race. If, (as was alluded to by another poster), you're a moral relativist and think personal beliefs determine morality, then you really have no business telling any pro-lifer to stop attacking abortion clinics because they just have different beliefs (nothing more).

If you're against abortion, then so be it. I couldn't care less. All i'm saying is that expecting someone to care for a baby conceived as a result of rape, you might be a bit out of like. Whether you choose to agree or not is your choice. I'll try make you see my point, i'lll try understand yours. We'll agree to disagree and we'll move on.

 

And, if you want to steal because you believe you have the right to do so, then so be it. Go steal. What gives law-makers the right to choose for everyone else? I believe you're asking the wrong person. Might want to try asking one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a female driving against a car is against the law in Saudi and she drove, then i'm sure she was fully aware of the consequences. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is irrelevant. She broke the law and got the just punishment. Personally i believe it's a bit stupid, and i see no reason for such extremes. But it does not go against my moral standing. She broke the law regardless of how sensible said law is.

I know i might sound a bit contradictory with what i just said, so to make it clear: I do believe it's a stupid law. I do not believe her punishment was unjust.

 

Are ... you serious ? This is a dangerous *(and silly) attitude to have.

 

"Who is here so base that would be a bondman? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a female driving against a car is against the law in Saudi and she drove, then i'm sure she was fully aware of the consequences. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is irrelevant. She broke the law and got the just punishment. Personally i believe it's a bit stupid, and i see no reason for such extremes. But it does not go against my moral standing. She broke the law regardless of how sensible said law is.

I know i might sound a bit contradictory with what i just said, so to make it clear: I do believe it's a stupid law. I do not believe her punishment was unjust.

 

Are ... you serious ? This is a dangerous attitude to have.

 

"Who is here so base that would be a bondman? "

And why would it be a dangerous attitude?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a female driving against a car is against the law in Saudi and she drove, then i'm sure she was fully aware of the consequences. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is irrelevant. She broke the law and got the just punishment. Personally i believe it's a bit stupid, and i see no reason for such extremes. But it does not go against my moral standing. She broke the law regardless of how sensible said law is.

I know i might sound a bit contradictory with what i just said, so to make it clear: I do believe it's a stupid law. I do not believe her punishment was unjust.

 

Are ... you serious ? This is a dangerous attitude to have.

 

"Who is here so base that would be a bondman? "

And why would it be a dangerous attitude?

I'll just go make a law that anyone posting on an online forum named Noxxx should be crucified - since it's in the law surely you'd agree this is acceptable?

 

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with laws as morals; and by extension, moral relativism.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a female driving against a car is against the law in Saudi and she drove, then i'm sure she was fully aware of the consequences. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is irrelevant. She broke the law and got the just punishment. Personally i believe it's a bit stupid, and i see no reason for such extremes. But it does not go against my moral standing. She broke the law regardless of how sensible said law is.

I know i might sound a bit contradictory with what i just said, so to make it clear: I do believe it's a stupid law. I do not believe her punishment was unjust.

 

Are ... you serious ? This is a dangerous attitude to have.

 

"Who is here so base that would be a bondman? "

And why would it be a dangerous attitude?

I'll just go make a law that anyone posting on an online forum named Noxxx should be crucified - since it's in the law surely you'd agree this is acceptable?

 

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with laws as morals, and my extension, moral relativism.

If it were the law, i would agree with it. But it isn't a law, now is it. I wouldn't agree with it, but i would find it acceptable because it would be the law.

But i think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying i agree with the law (regarding female driving in Saudi). But just because someone does not agree with the law does not make it okay to go against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were the law, i would agree with it. But it isn't a law, now is it. I wouldn't agree with it, but i would find it acceptable because it would be the law.

But i think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying i agree with the law (regarding female driving in Saudi). But just because someone does not agree with the law does not make it okay to go against it.

 

What I'm getting at is that it's possible for a law to be incorrect.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's okay when people break a law that is understandably stupid, but Nox is right in that she knew what she was doing and chose to risk the consequences. I do not agree with the law (it is stupid on the most basic level), but she got exactly what she expected/deserved.

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a female driving against a car is against the law in Saudi and she drove, then i'm sure she was fully aware of the consequences. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is irrelevant. She broke the law and got the just punishment. Personally i believe it's a bit stupid, and i see no reason for such extremes. But it does not go against my moral standing. She broke the law regardless of how sensible said law is.

I know i might sound a bit contradictory with what i just said, so to make it clear: I do believe it's a stupid law. I do not believe her punishment was unjust.

 

Are ... you serious ? This is a dangerous attitude to have.

 

And why would it be a dangerous attitude?

 

"i see no reason for such extremes" - so you agree it is an extreme and unjustified, and then say " it does not go against my moral standing" then where is your moral standing - women actually being flogged for doing something that they ought to be able to do (any other "right" applies equally). what end would you go to to satisfy any law no matter how uncivilized and primitive ?

 

^a "bit" only haha ? Move to Iran or Pakistan ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's okay when people break a law that is understandably stupid, but Nox is right in that she knew what she was doing and chose to risk the consequences. I do not agree with the law (it is stupid on the most basic level), but she got exactly what she expected/deserved.

 

What qualifies as "understandably stupid"?

 

 

 

"i see no reason for such extremes" - so you agree it is an extreme and unjustified, and then say " it does not go against my moral standing" then where is your moral standing - women actually being flogged for doing something that they ought to be able to do (any other "right" applies equally). what end would you go to to satisfy any law no matter how uncivilized and primitive ?

 

^a "bit" only haha ?

 

I think the "they came for the jews" quote applies here.

 

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

 

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

It's our duty as humans to stand up against injustice. The issue is that injustice isn't a term everyone interprets the same way.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"i see no reason for such extremes" - so you agree it is an extreme and unjustified, and then say " it does not go against my moral standing" then where is your moral standing - women actually being flogged for doing something that they ought to be able to do (any other "right" applies equally). what end would you go to to satisfy any law no matter how uncivilized and primitive ?

 

^a "bit" only haha ?

I think the "they came for the jews" quote applies here.

 

oh goddamnit dont pull out the N word man. (haha), but yeah. It's moot since it is a very fair and valid comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.