|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 12, 2008 10:13:24 GMT -5
I wonder which of the statements was wrong. • You are claiming consciousness without a physical entity. • Your contention is that you would still have consciousness. Those two. My contention is that there could be consciousness, that it is possible, but we have no means to prove it. Like the dragon in your garage, except plausible.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2008 18:24:17 GMT -5
I was 18yrs of age, and we were pregnant. Parents were told and workers had a meeting with both sides. The wedding was planned and within a month we were married. The wedding had to be at home, workers orders even though it would have been a lot easier for my Mum to organise it at another venue which was way larger than our house. Mum and Dad did what the workers wanted. To keep it as quiet as possible. We were told that God would forgive us for repenting for fornication. The problem was the gossip, the whispering that went on for yrs. We had brought shame on the family name. I think the workers handled it at best they knew how under the circumstances and Mum did a great job. It was the gossip that got to me. Feeling I couldnt hold my head up. That I was second rate. My motherinlaw made sure I suffered. She refused to feed my baby, change his nappy, wind him. Treated him like a strangers child. That broke my heart as a young mother to witness this type of cruelty.Towards your own blood. My parents more than compensated with true love for the lack in my motherinlaw. No one discussed contraception ever. Abortion was out of the question for me. How often is the evil sin of gossip mentioned? This brings up a lot of very good points. The first is that there was no sexual education. This leads to exactly what happened - unplanned pregnancy. It is also a factor in sexual child abuse. If you know nothing about sex it is often difficult to determine if you are being sexually abused of if you are just the luck recipient of an older, and perhaps revered, person's attention. That "special secret" bond. You can get an idea of the lack of openness parents have, even today, with their children by the large number of euphemisms used when adults are talking about the human body. Parts have names that can be used without ambiguity. The second is how quickly the female gets the blame when she discovers she is pregnant (gravid or enceinte are nice words too!). Is there blame? Assuming it was consensual, was it really someone's fault? And for the grandmother to reject her grandchild - I think you are better off not having her part of the child's environment. The third is going to the workers with a situation they have very little experience in dealing with other than to make it go away. Sort of like going to the workers to report a break in at your house. Looking back, would it have been better to forgo the marriage and raise the child? You and your mom maybe? You didn't give much insight into how the father fared in all of this. It must have been tough to be that young and not have the support of your social group. I am not sure it would be much different in a lot of groups. But it is a lesson learned. People can be mean. I find it best to just ignore their meanness and smile. If nothing else it will drive them crazy!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2008 18:31:31 GMT -5
I wonder which of the statements was wrong. • You are claiming consciousness without a physical entity. • Your contention is that you would still have consciousness. Those two. My contention is that there could be consciousness, that it is possible, but we have no means to prove it. Like the dragon in your garage, except plausible. I would contend they have equal plausibility since they have an equal chance of being confirmed. Isn't this more or less the basis of eternity? A soul that exists forever? But there is a rub. To die — to sleep. To sleep — perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub! For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause. ... But that the dread of something after death, The undiscovered country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will, And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,...
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on Jun 12, 2008 23:59:31 GMT -5
.. You can get an idea of the lack of openness parents have, even today, with their children by the large number of euphemisms used when adults are talking about the human body. Parts have names that can be used without ambiguity. Only this week I thought "high time you taught Child#2 some proper English names for his bits and pieces". And so I ended up with said child staring at me in a mix of horror and puzzlement, asking "Peanut? ..." /c avoiding the sunbeams
|
|
|
Post by Pink on Jun 13, 2008 6:30:19 GMT -5
I wonder which of the statements was wrong. • You are claiming consciousness without a physical entity. • Drugs can shut down the brain. • Your contention is that you would still have consciousness. rational, please stop. Your rational posts are becoming irrational. I don't think I'm being irrational about this.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 13, 2008 7:55:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Awww Caith on Jun 13, 2008 9:31:52 GMT -5
.. You can get an idea of the lack of openness parents have, even today, with their children by the large number of euphemisms used when adults are talking about the human body. Parts have names that can be used without ambiguity. Only this week I thought "high time you taught Child#2 some proper English names for his bits and pieces". And so I ended up with said child staring at me in a mix of horror and puzzlement, asking "Peanut? ..." /c avoiding the sunbeams Why did you wait until now to start using the proper terms? If it had always been a penis there would be no need for talking about peanuts! ++++++++++++++ Hmm - guess I'm not logged in! - Rat
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 13, 2008 19:20:04 GMT -5
Ps. Rational and CUL,
Why not make it official and come have a debate on the abortion topic?
|
|
|
Post by realperson on Jun 13, 2008 19:37:17 GMT -5
Rational,
I was born out of wedlock to a professing woman in the 70s.
Question - If you had been my mother, would I be alive today?
|
|
|
Post by degem on Jun 13, 2008 19:51:42 GMT -5
Hope you don't care "realperson" if I answer your question-If I had been your mother, YES you would be alive today! Gem
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 13, 2008 22:07:04 GMT -5
Rational, I was born out of wedlock to a professing woman in the 70s. Question - If you had been my mother, would I be alive today? This is a tough question. It would depend on the specific situation. Had I the means to care for a child you would have been. If I felt that the child would have been born into a life of misery, you would not be. It is difficult to imagine not wanting a child but then - I have never been in that situation. I would have to guess you would be alive. I am fairly resourceful and I have no doubt I could have supported a child. But again, I have not actually been in that situation. But in reality - who knows. In the early 70's I did assist a friend in taking a trip to Canada for an abortion. The father bolted and it was my friend's decision not to have the child. I supported her decision. Later on, in the same decade, my wife and I supported another friend in her decision to have a child out of wedlock. They lived with us for a while just before and just after the birth. However, it has never been a decision I have had to make. As I have said education is the answer to many of these questions. With the many forms of birth control available - I was never in that situation. I read this post and see it is all over the place. Sorry. Not trying to dodge the issue just trying to think how I would have reacted back in the 70's. Was it before or after 1973? That could, I would think, make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 13, 2008 22:09:17 GMT -5
Ps. Rational and CUL, Why not make it official and come have a debate on the abortion topic? That is way too broad a topic. And I have far too full a schedule. But thank you for the suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jun 14, 2008 14:09:21 GMT -5
In my reality, people have a right to choose, just as Rational did about the offer of debate. If you want an abortion, get one. If not, don't. No one has the right to make decisions for someone else unless that person is incapable of making decisions, right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gratefulforgrace on Jun 14, 2008 22:50:58 GMT -5
In my reality, people have a right to choose, just as Rational did about the offer of debate. If you want an abortion, get one. If not, don't. No one has the right to make decisions for someone else unless that person is incapable of making decisions, right or wrong. People can also choose to murder someone. That doesn't make it OK. Modification: As far as I'm concerned, abortion is synonymous with murder, anyway...
|
|
juju
Senior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by juju on Jun 15, 2008 0:16:43 GMT -5
If we want to go the God route....and think that he has an opinion on this topic......lets say that God gave us common sense. He didn't give us a rule book per say. He (supposedly) gave a guide.....thousands of years ago. This guide can be misread and mis interprated alot of ways. It may be literal, it may not be.... No one really knows. What God did give us is common sense. We need to not be so taken up with judgement of what other do in some life altering/threatening situations,and be more trusting of a God who has endowed us with common sense. For those of you who are one way thinkers..........it's OK to let other people make decisions about their lives and not have a say. You do not have a responsibility to inform us of what we should be doing. You do have a responsibility to show us love and compassion (not to be mistaken with pity). Let it go...Breath it away..........The God you love is merciful and kind and loves the souls of people.........he understands the human condition. He understands me in the state that I am in , just as much as he understands the love that you have for wanting to do the right thing and be the bright light. Just be compassionate. Thats all.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Jun 15, 2008 0:23:02 GMT -5
If we want to go the God route....and think that he has an opinion on this topic......lets say that God gave us common sense. He didn't give us a rule book per say. He (supposedly) gave a guide.....thousands of years ago. This guide can be misread and mis interprated alot of ways. It may be literal, it may not be.... No one really knows. What God did give us is common sense. We ned to not be so taken up with judgement of what other do in some life altering/threatening situations,and be more trusting of a God who has endowed us with common sense. Thats right, we ned not......
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 15, 2008 6:25:02 GMT -5
In my reality, people have a right to choose, just as Rational did about the offer of debate. If you want an abortion, get one. If not, don't. No one has the right to make decisions for someone else unless that person is incapable of making decisions, right or wrong. People can also choose to murder someone. That doesn't make it OK. Modification: As far as I'm concerned, abortion is synonymous with murder, anyway... And people can choose to call abortion murder. That doesn't make it so. Is there some place in the bible that would even hint that abortion was unlawful? It is clear that in some countries it is (Poland, for example) and in some others (USA and Canada) it is not. I know it is attention getting to use emotionally charged words to describe things (the use/misuse of the word cult comes to mind) but it adds little to the discussion to redefine common words without explicitly explaining your new definition.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Jun 15, 2008 10:05:19 GMT -5
People can also choose to murder someone. That doesn't make it OK. Modification: As far as I'm concerned, abortion is synonymous with murder, anyway... And people can choose to call abortion murder. That doesn't make it so. Is there some place in the bible that would even hint that abortion was unlawful? It is clear that in some countries it is (Poland, for example) and in some others (USA and Canada) it is not. I know it is attention getting to use emotionally charged words to describe things (the use/misuse of the word cult comes to mind) but it adds little to the discussion to redefine common words without explicitly explaining your new definition. You throw the baby in the dumpster and call it love, or murder, whatever you want. But I sure as hell aint doing it. I like babies. Must be nice to blame everything on the baby, and kill it, and not feel guilty.
|
|
|
Post by gratefulforgrace on Jun 15, 2008 12:39:52 GMT -5
And people can choose to call abortion murder. That doesn't make it so. Is there some place in the bible that would even hint that abortion was unlawful? It is clear that in some countries it is (Poland, for example) and in some others (USA and Canada) it is not. I know it is attention getting to use emotionally charged words to describe things (the use/misuse of the word cult comes to mind) but it adds little to the discussion to redefine common words without explicitly explaining your new definition. To murder = to intentionally kill a human being. It's not that difficult to understand. I'm not using "emotionally charged words" for the sake of "attention getting." The Bible refers to individuals before they were born. John leapt in the womb for joy when Mary (with Jesus in her woman) was present. Jeremiah was sanctified in the womb. Jeremiah also said that the Lord slew him not in the womb, so that his mother was his grave. He didn't say, the Lord didn't kill the embryo that would eventually become me. He said "he slew me not from the womb". So obviously, killing a baby in the womb is killing a human person. And killing a human is murder. And I'm sure you know the references in the Bible that say murder is (not just was) unlawful.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Jun 15, 2008 15:52:05 GMT -5
And people can choose to call abortion murder. That doesn't make it so. Is there some place in the bible that would even hint that abortion was unlawful? It is clear that in some countries it is (Poland, for example) and in some others (USA and Canada) it is not. I know it is attention getting to use emotionally charged words to describe things (the use/misuse of the word cult comes to mind) but it adds little to the discussion to redefine common words without explicitly explaining your new definition. To murder = to intentionally kill a human being. It's not that difficult to understand. I'm not using "emotionally charged words" for the sake of "attention getting." The Bible refers to individuals before they were born. John leapt in the womb for joy when Mary (with Jesus in her woman) was present. Jeremiah was sanctified in the womb. Jeremiah also said that the Lord slew him not in the womb, so that his mother was his grave. He didn't say, the Lord didn't kill the embryo that would eventually become me. He said "he slew me not from the womb". So obviously, killing a baby in the womb is killing a human person. And killing a human is murder. And I'm sure you know the references in the Bible that say murder is (not just was) unlawful. Thats pretty good. Maybe some can argue with that, but I can't. I know better.
|
|
|
Post by Murderers on Jun 15, 2008 17:25:07 GMT -5
You forgot Exodus 12:29: And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat upon his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon......
Seems to me that God doesn't seem to mind a bit of child murder every now and then whether inside the womb or out ... so what are we worrying about. He even seems to revel in it.
|
|
|
Post by gratefulforgrace on Jun 15, 2008 17:30:49 GMT -5
You forgot Exodus 12:29: And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat upon his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon...... Seems to me that God doesn't seem to mind a bit of child murder every now and then whether inside the womb or out ... so what are we worrying about. He even seems to revel in it. First of all, many of these were not children. Someone does not cease to be their parents' firstborn just because they grow up. Second of all, this was God's act, not the act of humans. This does not say "I shall not kill." Just "Thou shalt not kill." Every life belongs to God, and it is His to take. That is not true for us, and it is not true for a mother who wants to kill her unborn child.
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Jun 15, 2008 17:44:24 GMT -5
Quote:And people can choose to call abortion murder. That doesn't make it so.
Is there some place in the bible that would even hint that abortion was unlawful?
It is clear that in some countries it is (Poland, for example) and in some others (USA and Canada) it is not.
I know it is attention getting to use emotionally charged words to describe things (the use/misuse of the word cult comes to mind) but it adds little to the discussion to redefine common words without explicitly explaining your new definition.
To murder = to intentionally kill a human being. It's not that difficult to understand. I'm not using "emotionally charged words" for the sake of "attention getting." The Bible refers to individuals before they were born. John leapt in the womb for joy when Mary (with Jesus in her woman) was present. Jeremiah was sanctified in the womb. Jeremiah also said that the Lord slew him not in the womb, so that his mother was his grave. He didn't say, the Lord didn't kill the embryo that would eventually become me. He said "he slew me not from the womb". So obviously, killing a baby in the womb is killing a human person. And killing a human is murder. And I'm sure you know the references in the Bible that say murder is (not just was) unlawful.
Quote: Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Eccl 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
Isa 49:5 ¶And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer 20:17 Because he slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me.
Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Me: Thats pretty good. Maybe some can argue with that, but I can't. I know better.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: You forgot Exodus 12:29: And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat upon his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon......
Seems to me that God doesn't seem to mind a bit of child murder every now and then whether inside the womb or out ... so what are we worrying about. He even seems to revel in it.
Me: I guess some people don't know better. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 16, 2008 0:27:16 GMT -5
To murder = to intentionally kill a human being. It's not that difficult to understand. Nor is it correct. A soldier takes aim and kills one of the enemy. It is an intentional homicide yet is not murder. I am well aware of the references of individuals before they were born. Without looking back, I believe the question was for a reference in the bible that makes the connection between murder and abortion. In the OT I am sure you know that the punishment for murder was death. Numbers 35:30 and following makes it very clear. The murderer can not buy nor talk his way out of it. Exodus 21:22-23 speaks to the punishment for those who cause the death of an unborn child. If this was considered to be murder Numbers 35:30 explains exactly what the punishment should be. But it is clear from Exodus 21:22-23 that this is not murder. It is a civil matter and the punishment is whatever the husband decides. You have the cart just a bit before the horse. The killing of a human being by another human being is homicide. Not all homicides are murder. In fact, homicides are not murder unless it is ruled that the homicide is unlawful. I am not questioning whether the bible defines all murders as unlawful. That is, after all, the definition of murder. The question is whether the bible defines all homicides as murder. OK - so the writers knew the function of the uterus. I will leave it to you to explain why causing the death of an unborn child is not punished the same as murder since you say they are the same.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 16, 2008 0:39:53 GMT -5
First of all, many of these were not children. Someone does not cease to be their parents' firstborn just because they grow up. Second of all, this was God's act, not the act of humans. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. Kill - don't kill. I think there might be a difference in the words actually used. God is telling these people to kill not only the males but the women and children. Even the children who are so young they are still nursing. And I see no mention is sparing the women who are with child. You do know that god actually gave commandments to people to kill other humans. But not unborn humans. That seems to be a civil matter.
|
|
|
Post by y iz on Jun 16, 2008 0:42:59 GMT -5
A soldier takes aim and kills one of the enemy. It is an intentional homicide yet is not murder. If this was considered to be murder Numbers 35:30 explains exactly what the punishment should be. But it is clear from Exodus 21:22-23 that this is not murder. It is a civil matter and the punishment is whatever the husband decides. You have the cart just a bit before the horse. The killing of a human being by another human being is homicide. Not all homicides are murder. In fact, homicides are not murder unless it is ruled that the homicide is unlawful. I am not questioning whether the bible defines all murders as unlawful. That is, after all, the definition of murder. The question is whether the bible defines all homicides as murder. I will leave it to you to explain why causing the death of an unborn child is not punished the same as murder since you say they are the same. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, depending on who the jdge is, and how he interprets the law of the land. As far as God's laws, we can discuss his laws all night, yet they are summarized in 2 laws, the last being to love our neighbor as ourselves. hmmmm, it looks to me we all fall short of that law, yet, we squabble about the knats and chop off heads because people don't agree with us, eh? I would like to live by Gods laws, but it seems that it is not easy in this atheistic world that preaches dog eat dog---suvival of the fittest
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 16, 2008 0:51:32 GMT -5
I would like to live by Gods laws, but it seems that it is not easy in this atheistic world that preaches dog eat dog---suvival of the fittest Are you suggesting that theists have a higher moral code than atheists? Can you provide any evidence to support your statement?
|
|
|
Post by y iz on Jun 16, 2008 8:11:40 GMT -5
I would like to live by Gods laws, but it seems that it is not easy in this atheistic world that preaches dog eat dog---survival of the fittest Are you suggesting that theists have a higher moral code than atheists? Can you provide any evidence to support your statement? hmm, U mean like skewed statistics? 30% of atheistic people have lower morals than 20 % of theistic people? or 5% of theistic people have higher morals than 20% of atheses?
Any ideas of how to do a survey? If we asked the question: (on a scale of 1-10) how moral are you? ---but isn't morality , something that others judge us of? Sorta like me asking you if you are honest, it really doesn't do me any good to know what your opinion of yourself is, perhaps most crooks consider themselves 'honest', and for that matter- mafia demands honesty within its circle, if you are found to be a crook, they will permanently remove U.
Just because someone is immoral, does not mean they will not want to be trusted as though they were moral.
Not all theists are moral, either, true. Just as ''all'' atheists are not immoral in every sense of the word, but the fact that they do not accept theism as a guide to living, does insinuate that they have no moral code to guide them into '' logical morality''.
By 'logical morality', we see that virtue is destined to trump over nonvirtue,, that good will trump over evil, etc, etc.
If the universe was truly random , then there is no logic to dictate true order, and not all theists understand true order the same way, either, but there is one doctrine that needs uni-versal agreement, in order to have logical morality, [what is the real penalty for deviants? ] that being: "The universe is logical. '' once you accept that doctrine, then we find that there is a reason for it being logical, that being the Being.(theistic). hmmmm
Yes, atheists can be moral in many ways, true, but ultimately who dictates what morality is? is dog eat dog , a moral guide? survival of the species[evolution]? Well, if you discount these, what do we have left, chaos?
|
|