Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2008 7:37:45 GMT -5
And I won't assume to judge someone whose shoes I haven't walked a mile in. I don't see everything as black and white, right or wrong. I'm glad you have it have it all figured out, but show a little patience with those of us who still have to make hard choices. the sad part is that more and more , people do not use their own conscience, but they rely on the mores of the legal system, as long as it is legal in the eyes of the government, it must be moral, too, and sometimes that is not the case, imo.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 23, 2008 2:03:00 GMT -5
I don't have it all figured out. God knows all and is Lord of all. He's the one who gave us this commandment. I do have enough figured out to know that we should obey God.
To guest (#56): well said. Many things which are legal are immoral, and many things which are illegal are moral.
|
|
|
Post by Ditto on May 24, 2008 11:07:37 GMT -5
contraception is a personal matter and nobody's business. So, I must say, is the length of my hair, skirt, the fashions I adopt, the leisure pursuits I follow, the colour of my hair, who I marry, the way I live my life, all of which, one worker or another feels moved to dictate to me about. However more personal contraception may be, none of these other items are anyone's business, but mine!! Who will ultimately give account on the Great Judgement Day, but me? Will the God of all the earth, who is eternal Love and whose being is spiritual condemn anyone for their practical choices whether in error or not? What kind of a God do you guys serve?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 25, 2008 3:08:15 GMT -5
So, I must say, is the length of my hair, skirt, the fashions I adopt, the leisure pursuits I follow, the colour of my hair, who I marry, the way I live my life, all of which, one worker or another feels moved to dictate to me about. However more personal contraception may be, none of these other items are anyone's business, but mine!! Who you marry is also the business of your (future) spouse. And who you murder is the business of the victim, as well as of those of us who choose to make it our business in order to defend him. Doesn't matter whether we're a 'worker' or not.
|
|
forest
Junior Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by forest on May 25, 2008 3:48:16 GMT -5
contraception is a personal matter and nobody's business. haha. There were some insiders who feel to be the longer arm of the workers. My mother was and is such a person. In 1987 she said literally to my wife:"We do not use a pill!" also this:"Sundays we do not shower!" My wife was new inside this time and wondering a lot. But never she told me about this so I didn't know it till we left the way. Think workers would have discussed these things in order to bring it to us through relatives. So it doesn't look like a rule. Wondering wondering....
|
|
|
Post by God of Love on May 25, 2008 7:13:42 GMT -5
contraception is a personal matter and nobody's business. So, I must say, is the length of my hair, skirt, the fashions I adopt, the leisure pursuits I follow, the colour of my hair, who I marry, the way I live my life, all of which, one worker or another feels moved to dictate to me about. However more personal contraception may be, none of these other items are anyone's business, but mine!! Who will ultimately give account on the Great Judgement Day, but me? Will the God of all the earth, who is eternal Love and whose being is spiritual condemn anyone for their practical choices whether in error or not? What kind of a God do you guys serve? Our God can be a vengeful God, a God who does not like wilful sinning and while the life that is created may be created in love/hate/perversity or anything else, the life is sacred and God has given the life. It is not ours to take away. Give away the resultant life if its very being causes heartbreak, but the life is not ours to extinguish. On a personal, selfish level I'd be pro-choice, just as I'd naturally desire what tempts the flesh, but if I choose to serve God, the God of all creation, then I must be prepared to abide by His tenets.
|
|
|
Post by Anel on May 25, 2008 14:30:46 GMT -5
I don't find abortion at all objectionable as a means of avoiding overpopulation. Its not often discussed, but I don't think many of us see it as a wrong thing. Aileen, the fact that you don't often discuss this topic does NOT mean that it is not often discussed. You may not find abortion objectionable, but murderers find murder acceptable. Most people who believe that life is God-given and sacred do not believe that abortion, other than to save the mother's life, is justifyable.
|
|
|
Post by which is which on May 25, 2008 14:38:28 GMT -5
So, I must say, is the length of my hair, skirt, the fashions I adopt, the leisure pursuits I follow, the colour of my hair, who I marry, the way I live my life, all of which, one worker or another feels moved to dictate to me about. However more personal contraception may be, none of these other items are anyone's business, but mine!! Who will ultimately give account on the Great Judgement Day, but me? Will the God of all the earth, who is eternal Love and whose being is spiritual condemn anyone for their practical choices whether in error or not? What kind of a God do you guys serve? Our God can be a vengeful God, a God who does not like wilful sinning and while the life that is created may be created in love/hate/perversity or anything else, the life is sacred and God has given the life. It is not ours to take away. Give away the resultant life if its very being causes heartbreak, but the life is not ours to extinguish. On a personal, selfish level I'd be pro-choice, just as I'd naturally desire what tempts the flesh, but if I choose to serve God, the God of all creation, then I must be prepared to abide by His tenets. Are you talking about abortion or contraception? Contraception prevents life being created. Abortion kills. There are many forms of contraception to avoid the creation of a new life. Contraception does not compare with abortion IMO What do you believe?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 25, 2008 15:36:14 GMT -5
Are you talking about abortion or contraception? Contraception prevents life being created. Abortion kills. There are many forms of contraception to avoid the creation of a new life. Correct, but some forms of "contraception" are not only contraception but also abortion-inducing: i.e. they prevent contraception sometimes but when conception does occur, they destroy the new life. This form of abortion is relevent to a discussion of contraception, especially because many are not aware of it.
|
|
|
Post by God of Love again on May 25, 2008 15:43:08 GMT -5
Are you talking about abortion or contraception? Contraception prevents life being created. Abortion kills. There are many forms of contraception to avoid the creation of a new life. Contraception does not compare with abortion IMO What do you believe? Sorry, quoted the wrong post. I'm talking about abortion and I suppose within that broad parameter, contraception which destroys or prevents the implantation of a newly created life.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 26, 2008 5:16:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry for offensive posts earlier. I shoud have known better than to post pro abortion messages here.
|
|
|
Post by perhaps perhaps on May 26, 2008 6:36:35 GMT -5
Then why do you cite Parliament's decision on the issue of whether abortion is murder and is wrong? Because you do seemingly do not know the difference between mudrer and homicide. Murder is the illegal killing of another human. If the law of the land states that abortion is legal it isn't murder.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 26, 2008 6:42:31 GMT -5
I don't find abortion at all objectionable as a means of avoiding overpopulation. Its not often discussed, but I don't think many of us see it as a wrong thing. Aileen, the fact that you don't often discuss this topic does NOT mean that it is not often discussed. You may not find abortion objectionable, but murderers find murder acceptable. Most people who believe that life is God-given and sacred do not believe that abortion, other than to save the mother's life, is justifyable. As has been pointed out, killing is not murder unless it is illegal. If abortion is legal you cannot call it murder no matter how much you like the shock value of the word.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 26, 2008 7:12:30 GMT -5
Correct, but some forms of "contraception" are not only contraception but also abortion-inducing: i.e. they prevent contraception sometimes but when conception does occur, they destroy the new life. This form of abortion is relevent to a discussion of contraception, especially because many are not aware of it. Conception does not create life. But all forms of contraception destroy life. But then so does menstruation. And male masturbation. Nocturnal emissions. Too much time in a hot tub. Those tighty-whities. Burning yourself. As it turns out, life comes and goes all the time. With the advent of cloning, any cell has the potential of becoming an individual. Any two haploid cells have the same potential. Kill a fly, eat a cow. Life is extinguished. Clean your kitchen counter with a bleach solution and you kill millions. Now all you have to do is decide when life is sacred and when it is it, as Monty Python said, "...just simply spiraling coils, Of self-replicating DNA?" Are all of the fertilized cells produced during an in vitro fertilization procedure sacred? When is any life, as we know it, ever more at its basic state than "...just simply spiraling coils, Of self-replicating DNA?" That is a good definition of life. People's moral code has to keep pace with the technology of the time.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 27, 2008 1:00:32 GMT -5
As has been pointed out, killing is not murder unless it is illegal. If abortion is legal you cannot call it murder no matter how much you like the shock value of the word. Your post relies on an incorrect definition of the word 'murder'. Murder is murder whether the secular state decides to pass a law against it or not. Murder is always unlawful according to a higher law than that of the secular government. Thus the word 'murder' is an appropriate and accurate description of abortion.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 27, 2008 1:09:28 GMT -5
Conception does not create life. But all forms of contraception destroy life. Of course, you're equating a living cell with a living individual human being. The examples you cited destroy living cells, but they do not destroy human beings. Conception creates a new individual human being, which is a new life. The fact that that human being's physical material derives from already-living cells does not negate the fact that it is a new human being, a new life. (They haven't gotten beyond the need to start with at least one egg cell yet have they?) Potential to become an individual is not the same as actually being an individual. Yes, for those who think all life is equivalent to human life, that might be a problem. As sacred as every individual human being in the world. The fact that you are capable of writing those words proves that human life is more than spiraling coils of self-replicating DNA. Ponder your own consciousness. Non-physical does not arise from purely physical. Each person has within himself absolute proof that human life is more than merely physical matter. Morality is absolute; what may or should be done does not depend on what can be done. Technology does not change morality.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 27, 2008 10:21:23 GMT -5
Your post relies on an incorrect definition of the word 'murder'. Murder is murder whether the secular state decides to pass a law against it or not. Murder is always unlawful according to a higher law than that of the secular government. Thus the word 'murder' is an appropriate and accurate description of abortion. I agree murder is always unlawful. That, as I mentioned, is what makes it murder. Whether it be the government of Chile or the United Stated, homicide is classified as murder if it is illegal/unlawful. If you believe that all homicide is murder how will you deal with the person who accidentally kills another human being? The teenager who ran over the 5 year old girl in the driveway? As a murderer, he should be dealt with in the same manner as the woman who shoots her husband in the head because he wouldn't buy her the yellow sandals with the silver trim. The word murder is only appropriate if the homicide (in the case of abortion I guess you could stretch it and use infanticide) is illegal. Just out of curiosity: Vis-à-vis the "higher law" - do you have a reference regarding abortion being equated with murder? Do you consider God a murderer?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 27, 2008 10:39:15 GMT -5
Of course, you're equating a living cell with a living individual human being. The examples you cited destroy living cells, but they do not destroy human beings. Conception creates a new individual human being, which is a new life. The fact that that human being's physical material derives from already-living cells does not negate the fact that it is a new human being, a new life. Well, it does create a new individual but try it without the living gametes and see what the success rates are in creating new life. That is the purpose of stem cells. There is no need for either gametocyte. So what do you think they should do with the embryos? Even though if you remove the physical brain there is seemingly a lack of anything else? Consciousness goes away with the death of the brain. Or even the extreme cooling of the brain. There is nothing to show that it is more than the interaction of nerves. I am wondering where this absolute moral code comes from. Given the plethora of Gods available I doubt they all agree. Give me an example of where these rules were documented - the ones that don't change.
|
|
|
Post by Sad Sad on May 27, 2008 12:57:45 GMT -5
I actually found Aileen's response very funny. I'd have struggled to come up with something better Sad. Doesn't that just show?
|
|
|
Post by Who shot on May 27, 2008 13:08:57 GMT -5
To Rational Who shot her husband for the silver sandals?
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on May 27, 2008 16:25:17 GMT -5
I don't find abortion at all objectionable as a means of avoiding overpopulation. Its not often discussed, but I don't think many of us see it as a wrong thing. I really believe there is a serious lack of education among the friends. Some families teach their children, others don't, but the 'church' doesn't do anything, so it varies widely. My own experience: I never saw what a piece of paper(marriage) had to do with a relationship. I never thought of a marriage as being a religious ceremony or having anything to do with God. I saw foretune tellers, etc as a bit of fun. My mother gave this advice on birth control: Don't ever take the Pill, it will make you grow a beard and have a deep voice. I have never had a stomach for abortion, but I can see how many young people would pick up the same outlooks as those around them in school, etc if not taught differently.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 27, 2008 16:44:49 GMT -5
I never saw what a piece of paper(marriage) had to do with a relationship. I never thought of a marriage as being a religious ceremony or having anything to do with God. A piece of paper has nothing to do with marriage.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 27, 2008 17:00:13 GMT -5
That is the purpose of stem cells. There is no need for either gametocyte. Can you cite a study where stem cells have been shown to develop into a complete individual? First, stop making more. Second, allow the ones that already exist to live and develop just as we have. We don't know when consciousness goes away. It's possible that consciousness continues even when it is disconnected from the physical body. Clearly there is a connection between the physical brain and consciousness. Some of the experiences of consciousness derive from the brain -- sight, hearing, touch, etc. being obvious examples -- and others at least have "correlates" in the brain. But none of this shows that consciousness itself is a purely physical phenomenon. It's impossible to prove a lack of consciousness when the brain is removed. Even when there is no memory, there may still be consciousness. It comes from God. There is only one. Clearly you disagree; I am not attempting to prove that fact to your satisfaction right now. The Bible is one example of where these rules are documented. Nature itself and the human mind are other examples. This is not to say that all humans will come to the same exact conclusions, but difference of opinion does not preclude the existence of absolute truth.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on May 27, 2008 17:00:55 GMT -5
Just to clarify: I thought of a marriage as a useless piece of paper. We were told you had to be married to have meaningful relations with a partner, but we were also told a lot of other silly things...... I mean that it was not explained to me about the reasons for the seriousness of fornication, etc. Just a lot of rules, but not reasons for them
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 27, 2008 17:33:21 GMT -5
To Rational Who shot her husband for the silver sandals? That would fall into the area of an allegory. The homicide of the five year old girl by her teenaged brother, however, is a true story.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 27, 2008 17:37:06 GMT -5
Just to clarify: I thought of a marriage as a useless piece of paper. We were told you had to be married to have meaningful relations with a partner, but we were also told a lot of other silly things...... I mean that it was not explained to me about the reasons for the seriousness of fornication, etc. Just a lot of rules, but not reasons for them A marriage is a covenant. That covenant is necessary for moral sexual relations. A marriage is not a piece of paper nor is it created by one. A marriage can be documented by the piece of paper, but its existence does not derive from the paper.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 27, 2008 19:11:49 GMT -5
That is the purpose of stem cells. There is no need for either gametocyte. Can you cite a study where stem cells have been shown to develop into a complete individual? No, I can not. Cloning humans is illegal. But I can show a study where the initial steps show that stem cells can be made to develop into oocytes and these can then be used for cloning. This stands to reason since the stem cells develop into every other cell type in the body. As I said, starting with stem cells there is no need to collect gametocytes. Study Reference HereThey are sitting in test tubes or Petri dishes. Some have been frozen. More are being made every day to assist couples who are unable to conceive on other ways. They are being used to implant in women who are willing to carry a child for a couple. Are you saying in vitro fertilization should be made illegal? Au contraire, mon frère. The administration of drugs can make consciousness go away. A person can be put in a state for days or weeks and wake without knowledge of time passing. Cooling the brain sufficiently will also make conscientiousness go away. Scans can show what is going on in the brain. The activity caused by various tasks can be mapped. Even praying. Can you show a single incident of the loss of the physical brain yet the retention of consciousness. You do know the definition of consciousness I assume. If there is no memory or knowledge of a state can it be said the person is really conscious? This falls into the realm of extraordinary claims which, as I am sure you know, require extraordinary proof. Do you have any proof at all to indicate what you have stated is true? Well, there is only one for 1/3 of the people on earth and then others for varying populations. Each of these gods also have absolute morality. Which one is the absolute absolute morality? It is a big book. I had hoped you would pick one example of absolute morality. Here is one: Leviticus 24:19-20: If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.Also this is noted in Exodus. Moral codes in the Bible. Absolute morality? God does not change. Malachi 3:6: I am the Lord, I do not change.But in Matthew 5:38-42 another God (or perhaps the same one) did institute a change. A second absolute morality? This almost sounds like moral relativism as opposed to moral absolutism. Do you have examples of this? Survival of the fittest perhaps? Nor does it signify the existence of absolute truth.
|
|
|
Post by xxxs on May 27, 2008 21:59:34 GMT -5
It comes from God. There is only one. Clearly you disagree; I am not attempting to prove that fact to your satisfaction[/quote]
didn't the Greeks only have one God, too, but there were many persons that made up their god.
what does one god mean? that there are 3 persons and only one person? this is confusing to me, cul
|
|