religion Vs. arrogance

[Eightball]

Looks like this is degenerating into a "Why is there air?" discussion. lol

 

[jillian]

Looks like this is degenerating into a "Why is there air?" discussion. lol

Actually, I thought it had elevated into something interesting and respectful.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Looks like this is degenerating into a "Why is there air?" discussion. lol

Just a pause for reflection.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Tell us. In your opinion why are things the way they are?

Perhaps that, due to the convergence of a variety of causes and conditions, things are as they have come to be. We can never truly know things "As they truly are" due to the nature, and limitations, of human perception and conception.

 

[Diuretic]

In a lot of these discussions we seem to be butting heads depending on our label. Atheists will maintain with evangelical energy that there is no God. Theists will maintain with equal spirit that there is a God. In the middle the agnostics will dodge the bullets.

We're all so certain that we give each other much grief. There is smugness on both sides of that divide.

But I think all of us in our secret heart of hearts want simply to understand ourselves and our place in the universe. We don't want to think of ourselves as cosmic accidents. But we're limited in what we can know so our various theses only go so far. We can claim there is a God who made the universe. The easy counterclaim is "who made God?" The pat answer is, "God always was and always will be." Our own limitations as humans don't allow much beyond that.

All we can hope for is to understand ourselves, to understand the universe is, at this point, beyond the collective ability of humankind. But we're giving it our best shot

 

[dilloduck]

Perhaps that, due to the convergence of a variety of causes and conditions, things are as they have come to be. We can never truly know things "As they truly are" due to the nature, and limitations, of human perception and conception.

Agreed--so we go with what we think right from the perspective we have----you can't chose to not play the game just because you can't prove you're angle. My angle and your angle are bound to conflict at times.

In other words--what Diuretic said !

 

[Bullypulpit]

In a lot of these discussions we seem to be butting heads depending on our label. Atheists will maintain with evangelical energy that there is no God. Theists will maintain with equal spirit that there is a God. In the middle the agnostics will dodge the bullets.

We're all so certain that we give each other much grief. There is smugness on both sides of that divide.

But I think all of us in our secret heart of hearts want simply to understand ourselves and our place in the universe. We don't want to think of ourselves as cosmic accidents. But we're limited in what we can know so our various theses only go so far. We can claim there is a God who made the universe. The easy counterclaim is "who made God?" The pat answer is, "God always was and always will be." Our own limitations as humans don't allow much beyond that.

All we can hope for is to understand ourselves, to understand the universe is, at this point, beyond the collective ability of humankind. But we're giving it our best shot

I agree, for the most part. But there is no justification for ANY religion to attempt to impose its values and beliefs upon those who disagree with them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree, for the most part. But there is no justification for ANY religion to attempt to impose its values and beliefs upon those who disagree with them.

Nor is there any justification for atheists attempting to impose their values upon those who disagree with them.

 

[Diuretic]

And both positions are right, not "correct", but right. Any of us have the right to be for religion as much as we have the right to, not be against religion, but to be free from it.

And being free from religion doesn't have to signal a disrespect for religion. If someone professes a religion and lives their life according to their faith then they are living a life of integrity, of truth a truth they hold. But living one's life according to a truth doesn't mean that everyone else should live their life according to the same truth.

When religion intrudes into public policy - for example, if a religious stricture prohibited a particular medical practice simply on religious and not medical grounds - then that is a problem. There are ways of resolving it but they must be secular and not religious.

If my country suddenly was controlled by a religion that disapproved of blood transfusions, yet I didn't practice that religion and needed and wanted a blood transfusion, but was refused one because it was "illegal", would that be right?

I think not.

Some aspects of civil society must be free from religion. That's what the Enlightenment was about. We in the west have progressed simply because we put religion in its proper place. Not in a position of public inferiority but in its proper place, in private life. If you choose not have a blood transfusion and die, then that's an issue, if you prevent me from having a blood transfusion to save my life then that's a completely different issue.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And both positions are right, not "correct", but right. Any of us have the right to be for religion as much as we have the right to, not be against religion, but to be free from it.

And being free from religion doesn't have to signal a disrespect for religion. If someone professes a religion and lives their life according to their faith then they are living a life of integrity, of truth a truth they hold. But living one's life according to a truth doesn't mean that everyone else should live their life according to the same truth.

When religion intrudes into public policy - for example, if a religious stricture prohibited a particular medical practice simply on religious and not medical grounds - then that is a problem. There are ways of resolving it but they must be secular and not religious.

If my country suddenly was controlled by a religion that disapproved of blood transfusions, yet I didn't practice that religion and needed and wanted a blood transfusion, but was refused one because it was "illegal", would that be right?

I think not.

Some aspects of civil society must be free from religion. That's what the Enlightenment was about. We in the west have progressed simply because we put religion in its proper place. Not in a position of public inferiority but in its proper place, in private life. If you choose not have a blood transfusion and die, then that's an issue, if you prevent me from having a blood transfusion to save my life then that's a completely different issue.

But our public laws are still a form of morality, rightfully informed at least partially by religious concepts.

Is murder a religious concept? It seems you're implying it is. Or are babies in utero not alive. All science proves they are. Now who's being irrational?

 

[Eightball]

Actually, I thought it had elevated into something interesting and respectful.

Never thought differently than what you just said.

Just tried/attempted a little humor.
......
Guess you don't remember Bill Cosby's comedy LP/Album, "Why Is There Air?".
.......
I was just sitting back and looking at all the bantering, and debating and just tried to take-pause, and assimilate where it was going......and came up with the quote......ala Bill Cosby.

No disrespect intended to anyone......involved in this.
.....
Jesus however did say, as well as his disciples that God's truth that He claimed to possess and embody was only understood Spiritually, and that basically secular man metaphorically had "scales"(fish scales/cataracts) upon his eyes of understanding. It was only after "true" conversion(being Born Again from above) that a man/woman would start to understand(The scales/cataracts would fall off.), and agree/abide with these truths.

Jesus did not teach that there was a respected, in-between state of spirituality, where man could be a little secular and a little bit believer. In fact he said that flesh and Spirit would never agree, nor live comfortably in the human species. Once a person became converted, the "Paraclete", or Holy Spirit would come to reside in that human, and the internalizing of the war of Spirit and Flesh would happen. Initially, conversion would bring bliss, but gradually the old worldly programming of the mind that still was filled with secular, "everything" would come to "logger-heads" with the Spirit of Christ that now resided in the soul of the converted.

Paul's famous Roman's 7 rendition where he said, "The things I desire to do, I don't, and things I shouldn't do, I do. Oh, wretched man that I am! .......". Paul wasn't claiming to be a Pagan trying to be a Christian, but proclaiming the actually war of his mind to throw away the old ways, of his unconverted life. The "Paraclete" withing at Paul's conversion was calling, and beckoning him/Paul to a total 180 degree change in thoughts........no longer to see himself as the center of all reality, but to a God-centered vision, that was actually the true reality of his state of being after conversion.
......
It is indeed the Frank Sinatra disease or malady of man that God incarnated His Son and allowed Him to give His life for. "I Did It My Way", is the bane of mankind, and is also a defining philosophy of unconverted man's spiritual state.
......
What does it mean to refer to Jesus as "Lord". Is it a knight's degree bestowed, that means absolutely nothing or just some nobility, tag, or does it mean that He/Jesus is entitled to being submitted-to, by His creation?

 

[dilloduck]

Never thought differently than what you just said.

Just tried/attempted a little humor.
......
Guess you don't remember Bill Cosby's comedy LP/Album, "Why Is There Air?".
.......
I was just sitting back and looking at all the bantering, and debating and just tried to take-pause, and assimilate where it was going......and came up with the quote......ala Bill Cosby.

No disrespect intended to anyone......involved in this.
.....
Jesus however did say, as well as his disciples that God's truth that He claimed to possess and embody was only understood Spiritually, and that basically secular man metaphorically had "scales"(fish scales/cataracts) upon his eyes of understanding. It was only after "true" conversion(being Born Again from above) that a man/woman would start to understand(The scales/cataracts would fall off.), and agree/abide with these truths.

Jesus did not teach that there was a respected, in-between state of spirituality, where man could be a little secular and a little bit believer. In fact he said that flesh and Spirit would never agree, nor live comfortably in the human species. Once a person became converted, the "Paraclete", or Holy Spirit would come to reside in that human, and the internalizing of the war of Spirit and Flesh would happen. Initially, conversion would bring bliss, but gradually the old worldly programming of the mind that still was filled with secular, "everything" would come to "logger-heads" with the Spirit of Christ that now resided in the soul of the converted.

Paul's famous Roman's 7 rendition where he said, "The things I desire to do, I don't, and things I shouldn't do, I do. Oh, wretched man that I am! .......". Paul wasn't claiming to be a Pagan trying to be a Christian, but proclaiming the actually war of his mind to throw away the old ways, of his unconverted life. The "Paraclete" withing at Paul's conversion was calling, and beckoning him/Paul to a total 180 degree change in thoughts........no longer to see himself as the center of all reality, but to a God-centered vision, that was actually the true reality of his state of being after conversion.
......
It is indeed the Frank Sinatra disease or malady of man that God incarnated His Son and allowed Him to give His life for. "I Did It My Way", is the bane of mankind, and is also a defining philosophy of unconverted man's spiritual state.
......
What does it mean to refer to Jesus as "Lord". Is it a knight's degree bestowed, that means absolutely nothing or just some nobility, tag, or does it mean that He/Jesus is entitled to being submitted-to, by His creation?

nice ! enjoyed this perspective ! rep for you!
I think Teacher can be substituted Lord, No ?

 

[Diuretic]

But our public laws are still a form of morality, rightfully informed at least partially by religious concepts.

Is murder a religious concept? It seems you're implying it is. Or are babies in utero not alive. All science proves they are. Now who's being irrational?

There are two major legal systems in the world. The common law system, which is the ancestor of the US legal system (and the UK, Australia, etc) and the civil law system (Europe). I'm only using these two as examples for ease. The common law system comes from the Anglo-Saxons who were pagans. The civil law system comes from the Romans. The origins of Roman law are in various civil codes of the Emperors but I believe - and I will stand corrected if need be - that there were no religious origins. In the common law it was simple custom that created the law. Again I don't believe there were religious influences in origin. When Christianity came to Britain religion influenced all aspects of life, including the law, but it was a later influence.

Murder. Not originally a religious concept I would have thought. I think the origins of prohibiting human killing human would have been in necessity. If A killed B and A and B were in the same clan group then it would have meant one less pair of hands to do whatever needed to be done to ensure survival of the group.

Babies in utero. Well using the term "baby" is presuming something for a start. Is a foetus living? Depends on how you define the term. A foetus is alive in the sense that any organ in the body is 'alive'. Is it sentient? I don't know. I know that legally speaking when the child is born it is a human, until then it's not.

"All science proves they are". Big claim there, got any evidence for it?

"Now who's being irrational?" Not me. Rational all the way. I'm happy discuss it further but without irrationality and false claims.

 

[Eightball]

nice ! enjoyed this perspective ! rep for you!
I think Teacher can be substituted Lord, No ?

Makes sense to me.

In many cases I'll bet Teacher and Lord were intermingled in their conversations. I do know that many called Him Rabbai.......and I believe that is teacher.

 

[Eightball]

There are two major legal systems in the world. The common law system, which is the ancestor of the US legal system (and the UK, Australia, etc) and the civil law system (Europe). I'm only using these two as examples for ease. The common law system comes from the Anglo-Saxons who were pagans. The civil law system comes from the Romans. The origins of Roman law are in various civil codes of the Emperors but I believe - and I will stand corrected if need be - that there were no religious origins. In the common law it was simple custom that created the law. Again I don't believe there were religious influences in origin. When Christianity came to Britain religion influenced all aspects of life, including the law, but it was a later influence.

Murder. Not originally a religious concept I would have thought. I think the origins of prohibiting human killing human would have been in necessity. If A killed B and A and B were in the same clan group then it would have meant one less pair of hands to do whatever needed to be done to ensure survival of the group.

Babies in utero. Well using the term "baby" is presuming something for a start. Is a foetus living? Depends on how you define the term. A foetus is alive in the sense that any organ in the body is 'alive'. Is it sentient? I don't know. I know that legally speaking when the child is born it is a human, until then it's not.

"All science proves they are". Big claim there, got any evidence for it?

"Now who's being irrational?" Not me. Rational all the way. I'm happy discuss it further but without irrationality and false claims.

I think a Fetus in total is a human being, not an organ.....as in a liver, Kidney.....etc. I'll agree that the Fetus is helpless to live without the umbilical cord that feeds it from it's mother. If we define organs as needy of outside support to live, then Fetus is an organ. Here's the big, "but!". Is a new-born human being totally independent of outside support to survive? The answer is obvious. Therefore the above logic dictates that most human beings up to possibly 4 or 5 years of age are just "organs". Right?

Are we not in some sense all dependent to some degree on each other in a social society of humans? Does that not dictate that a Fetus to some extent is potentially needy of not just it's biological parents, but also of the social encompassing, and maturation of it's exposure and intercourse in human society. Is the Fetus potentially, of value as the replenishing of the human species to continue the species viable existence?

In other words, does not all of human society carry a responsibility to insure that all Fetus's, and new born humans are protected and given equal opportunity under the law of that society?

To presume that a Fetus is an organ is to Presume that it it is not an individual human entity.

Now, why it magically attains an individual human entity status when it exits the womb.......I just can't wait for the logic that defines why that change happens and is legitimized.

Seems that those that embrace objectivity as their mantra to define Fetus as not a viable human life, but just an organ, must do a subjective bit of gymnastics to come to a later conclusion that Fetus "A" is now, not an organ, but a viable human being after exiting the womb.
.....
If that logic causes a road block then theres always the old fall-back to, more hungry mouths to feed in the world, and these hungry mouths will never have a quality life, and an unwelcome Fetus would best be snuffed, for it's own good(and ironically for the parents good too!.

Since there's so much speculation about whether there's life after death or not.......does snuffing an Fetus actually do it a bonafide favor over being born into possible poverty? Is death actually humane.......? Has anyone chimed in about how death is more comfortable than being born to a poor, single mother, or left on a door-step or being born with a crack addiction. Is the future of these predictable to the degree of zero error?

Maybe not being born and just ending up dead isn't what that Fetus would like planned-out for it by another. Maybe all humans need a literal "crack" at life........whether they have one or two parents, whether they live in Bangladesh, or Beverly Hills.
.....
Just a thought.

 

[Diuretic]

How did we get here? Oh I see, wait a minute, I'll respond.

 

[no1tovote4]

How did we get here?

In fifth grade we had this class...

Oh shoot, well... um... well you see there is a sperm and an egg...

Oh, crap! Kids! Ask your parents!

 

[Bonnie]

god talks to you? why you and nobody else? don't take this the wrong way but you might wanna see a head shrink.

also, god didn't write the bible. some guy did, i could write a bible, doesn't make it true. don't be so gullable. life isn't about serving "god", it's for serving mankind.

So Larry was it your intention to actually pose a question about religion, or merely to state your opinion then ridicule others who respond to it????????????? Interesting that you put the word arrogance in your title as you seem well acquainted with it.

 

[Diuretic]

I think a Fetus in total is a human being, not an organ.....as in a liver, Kidney.....etc. I'll agree that the Fetus is helpless to live without the umbilical cord that feeds it from it's mother. If we define organs as needy of outside support to live, then Fetus is an organ. Here's the big, "but!". Is a new-born human being totally independent of outside support to survive? The answer is obvious. Therefore the above logic dictates that most human beings up to possibly 4 or 5 years of age are just "organs". Right?

Well no. You asked it if it was living. I answered it was living. I brought up sentience. I don't think you addressed the issue of sentience.

Are we not in some sense all dependent to some degree on each other in a social society of humans?

Yes but that's assumed in your point because you mention society. That means where humans get together. Humans do best if they group together for mutual support, it's how we got to be where we are, in charge of things (well it's one of the reasons anyway).

Does that not dictate that a Fetus to some extent is potentially needy of not just it's biological parents, but also of the social encompassing, and maturation of it's exposure and intercourse in human society. Is the Fetus potentially, of value as the replenishing of the human species to continue the species viable existence?

Yes. The foetus is definitely a potential human.

In other words, does not all of human society carry a responsibility to insure that all Fetus's, and new born humans are protected and given equal opportunity under the law of that society?

No.

To presume that a Fetus is an organ is to Presume that it it is not an individual human entity.

It's a potential human, as you said.

Now, why it magically attains an individual human entity status when it exits the womb.......I just can't wait for the logic that defines why that change happens and is legitimized.

I've always wondered about that too. But the legal definition of a person has to start somewhere and being born, ie exiting the womb whether by vaginal delivery or caesarian seems to be the prevailing definition. Legally I mean.

Seems that those that embrace objectivity as their mantra to define Fetus as not a viable human life, but just an organ, must do a subjective bit of gymnastics to come to a later conclusion that Fetus "A" is now, not an organ, but a viable human being after exiting the womb.

Not really. It's quite easy. The foetus in utero is a potential human being. When the feotus is post-partum it is a baby, a person, legally speaking.
.....

If that logic causes a road block then theres always the old fall-back to, more hungry mouths to feed in the world, and these hungry mouths will never have a quality life, and an unwelcome Fetus would best be snuffed, for it's own good(and ironically for the parents good too!.

No road block.

Since there's so much speculation about whether there's life after death or not.......does snuffing an Fetus actually do it a bonafide favor over being born into possible poverty? Is death actually humane.......? Has anyone chimed in about how death is more comfortable than being born to a poor, single mother, or left on a door-step or being born with a crack addiction. Is the future of these predictable to the degree of zero error?

Interesting questions.

Maybe not being born and just ending up dead isn't what that Fetus would like planned-out for it by another. Maybe all humans need a literal "crack" at life........whether they have one or two parents, whether they live in Bangladesh, or Beverly Hills.

More interesting questions.
.....
Just a thought.[/QUOTE]

And worthwhile discussing.

 

[no1tovote4]

Well no. You asked it if it was living. I answered it was living. I brought up sentience. I don't think you addressed the issue of sentience.

Sentience does not define human life. If such were true, my sister born microcephalic would not be a "human". She still touched the lives of my parents with a certainty, even though she had long died before I was born.

Yes but that's assumed in your point because you mention society. That means where humans get together. Humans do best if they group together for mutual support, it's how we got to be where we are, in charge of things (well it's one of the reasons anyway).

How is destroying human life "supporting" each other? Regardless of it's sentience level that fetus is human life. One could argue that such young progeny is not yet a "person" because of sentience but science tells us that it is a separate human entity at conception.

Yes. The foetus is definitely a potential human.

Not according to DNA, it IS human according to science. That it may not yet be a "person", as stated before, may be in question but it is definitely human life. A separate human than the parent immediately on conception.

No.

Why not? In what way does this human life have no shot at a chance at life? That through direct action we take the life of a human, if not yet a person, at its most innocent and dependant stage of development largely for convenience. This directly flies in the face of "support" in society as we condone this action.

It's a potential human, as you said.

No, according to DNA it is a human, arguably a "potential" person because of sentiencel, but no less human nonetheless.

I've always wondered about that too. But the legal definition of a person has to start somewhere and being born, ie exiting the womb whether by vaginal delivery or caesarian seems to be the prevailing definition. Legally I mean.

Actually, when outside the womb it is with brain function that we define human, not even higher brain function as explained with my sister who was microcephalic. Amazingly the first brain function begins within the womb at five weeks, higher function begins at about 18 weeks.

Not really. It's quite easy. The foetus in utero is a potential human being. When the feotus is post-partum it is a baby, a person, legally speaking.
.....

It isn't potential, it is according to DNA and science not a "potential" human, but entirely human. Separate and distinct from the incubating mother.

No road block.

Only when you attempt to explain it away by attempting to define a human as something "other" and dehumanizing it with words like "potential".

Interesting questions.

More interesting questions.

It is likely that a zygote will naturally not stick to the uterine wall and will self-abort. But that zygote is still human by its DNA. Does that zygote not have any right to a shot at the life that they can have? What greater gift can we give these unborn than that of the same chance that we had to shape their future?