My Connections
Not connected to anyone yet?
This answer contributed to Susan G. Komen for the Cure® What's this?
My answers support Susan G. Komen for the Cure® What's this?
BagdadCafe:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Preventing conception is vastly different than destroying life once conception takes place.
Helpful
(16)
Fun
Thanks for voting
Comments (4)
Report as
You have reported this
Tony737:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Dammit! Best me to it by 45 seconds! Ha! :-)
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
pious666:
10 months ago
Thank you for your kind response.
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
wiserrt:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Great answer. Green
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
reallynow:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Green for you anyway Tony!
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
Add a comment...
Preventing pregnancy is not the same as ending one.
Report as
You have reported this
It's not the same, if the egg hasn't been fertilized its not a baby.
Report as
You have reported this
Abortion stops life. Birth control prevents life.
Report as
You have reported this
Both is questionable but abortion is "terminating" life. Birth control prevents life. When some people make choices, it not always religious choices but in their mind what they perceive as right or wrong
Report as
You have reported this
shaylen:
10 months ago
*face palm* (sorry had to) the use of someone protecting themselves really shouldn't bug you that much.... And yea, God gave us the ability to have children.... And I really want children someday.... But he also gave man intelligence and doesn't ask us to live beyond our means. The bible says nothing about not using birth control, birth control didn't exist then. (that I know of) 120 kids seriously pious?
Report as
You have reported this
strawberrygirl:
10 months ago
Contraception, by definition, is merely the opposite of conception. It is not the use of contraception that is wrong or right. Abortion is taking a life already conceived.
Report as
You have reported this
strawberrygirl:
10 months ago
You're welcome. Like many other issues in life, God leaves it up to us to decide how to honor Him in all that we do. God could have plainly stated: "All families must have 5 children; no more, and no less." That would have ended the issue. But He chose not to, because He allows for personal choice in the matter.The freedom to choose, however, also takes into consideration why a choice is made. There is a big difference between choosing to use birth control for selfish reasons versus responsible reasons.
Taking a life is not what God values.
Taking a life is not what God values.
Report as
You have reported this
JesusInc77:
10 months ago
via Android
Birth control "prevents" pregnancy, it doesn't end it.
Report as
You have reported this
Sincerity:
10 months ago
It's too early for this Pious...yawn-
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Reality, like money, never sleeps.
Report as
You have reported this
Sincerity:
10 months ago
Hey Cereb-I don't sleep at night just like you don't . It has nothing to do with reality. And Pious knows I was just teasing him. He and I get along just fine.
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
We can now use any cells - like a nose cell - to extract it's DNA and use it to fertilize a human egg cell. If you scratch your nose - you're aborting potential life - depending on how far back you go to define human life. Women often lose fertilized human egg cells without even their knowledge - during menses. Are they guilty of abortion? Speaking of guilt - is a blastocyst -about 120 undifferentiated cells - a human being. - or is it - a blastocyst? Religions have historically had no problem accusing women of being witches and burning the alive, right in front if their children. No problem instigating genocides - they're even in the Bible. No problem with genital mutilation of children. No problem with murderous conquest for land acquisition by the Church. No problem dictating to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. But when it comes to those 120 undifferentiated cells - all hell breaks lose. It's amazing that those cells are so valueable to a large portion of the sane people that are pro-war and pro-death penalty. They see no contradiction in these deeply held convictions. But then again - they advocate un-researched historicity of their holy books and spend an enormous effort lying to their children about things they can't possibly know.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Very interesting. Do you have contempt for all religions equally?
Report as
You have reported this
BagdadCafe:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Should stick to the essence of the question. I smell issues with religion.
Report as
You have reported this
Female release unfertilized eggs during their cycle.No life in them but when life.becomes, females stop their cycle becuz life starts
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Shiny: I have contempt for intelligent humans committing intellectual dishonesty with themselves and then elevating themselves through self- righteousness an self-aggrandizement - religion to me is an organized extension of human beings need for solace, hope, existential loneliness, a reason for so much suffering, fear of death, fear of meaninglessness, a desperate guide to divide wrong from right - which interprets to a need for ultimate justice, and a place to hide mountains of hate and bigotry behind. As far as all religions - I see Islam as the greatest problem on the planet due to its militancy, degradation of women, and advocacy of jihad and martyrdom. Christianity far out killed Muslims - but Christianity has tamed its more vile dictates over the centuries - Islam still is entrenched with them - in the same era as the availability of dirty bombs, commercial airliners used as missiles, and menacing violent behavior enforced by their faith that is so sensitive to criticism - it beheaded a reporter - Daniel Pearl, bombed the London and Madrid subway systems, stabbed Theo Van Gogh in the middle of the streets of Amsterdam for making a short film criticizing a Muslim woman that revealed what truly goes on in Islamic societies, killed innocent people worldwide over the publication of a few cartoons, 9/11, and daily atrocities among even themselves in the name of religion. So no, I have higher contempt for at least one other religion beyond the lunacy of fable faith dominating America.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
I see, cerebrograsm-- you have only contempt, but you reserve your highest contempt for Islam. Never mind the millions who disagree, yours is the iconoclasm of solecism.
I do not think your position is anything but a vanishingly small minority, powerless due to hostility and intolerance.
I wish you a good day, and you are free from my criticism, as I save that for serious argument.
I do not think your position is anything but a vanishingly small minority, powerless due to hostility and intolerance.
I wish you a good day, and you are free from my criticism, as I save that for serious argument.
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Ok shiny, thanks for condescending to even criticize my remarks.
Report as
You have reported this
18Jenni:
10 months ago
Cerebro-I have no problem with birth control, but I have a problem with burning witches alive and the bloodshed of Christendom and the manmade doctrines and war. My religion doesn't have that history and we don't go to war, thus avoid killing our brothers in other countries. The Bible says to "Have love among yourselves." how can you do that and kill them? Old Testament war never involved Israelite killing Israelite. The wars involving Israel were about Land rights and most people were wicked in those lands. Righteous people were spared like Rahab and her families and the Gibeonites.
Report as
You have reported this
18Jenni:
10 months ago
My religion's members have gone to prison rather than engage in war. We wouldn't support Hitler so we were sent along with the Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies to concentration camps. We were the only group of people who were there by choice. Once in the camps, few backed down and chose to stay there. Some were executed. True there were altruistic individuals outside of my religion that wouldn't support Hitler and even hid Jews biut not as a whole group. There is a picture of Hitler shaking hands with an archbishop. Hitler was never excommunicated from Catholicism. Catholics helped in the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. They riled up mobs against them all over the world. They were tarred and feathered here in this country. They fought court batttled for many things, for one that their kids wouldn't have to salute the flags. They paved the way for many of the religious freedoms available to all in our time.
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Ok Jenni - I'm curious what your opinion is and how you came to have it...
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Thanks for the update, Jenni. As far as birth control - I see it as an absolute necessity to cultural advancement as well as having a direct correlation to diminished crime rates, and heavier burdens on resources by over-population. It also allows greater maturity to occur - maturity that will be needed to raise a child - no matter how many "celibacy" pledges we hear about - they invariably always fail - humans are going to couple no matter what we do to prevent this - which - is a biologically natural drive - culturally we realize that holding off until the last of adolescence - or even longer has elapsed, is going to be better for the individual - but you can't always get that through teens with raging hormones - the least we can do is to face the reality that a good segment of the teen population will get together - no matter what they're threatened with (religion threatens them, and then denies them access to birth control - their "magical thinking" has convinced them that giving them protection from unwanted pregnancies is tantamount to green-lighting promiscuity. This line of thinking refuses to accept real evidence - they're going to do the deed no matter how much you threaten them or deny them access to birth control. The most hyper-religious states in the Union that advocate "abstinence" as an effective solution to pre-mature mating - are the same states with the highest teen pregnancy rates - of course, magical thinking adults will ignore these actual facts, as they always do).
Report as
You have reported this
18Jenni:
10 months ago
I believe in birth control also. I also believe in abstinence for unmarried people. If you listen to what I have to say on this site long enough, I'll convince you that the Bible is not magical thinking. And my beliefs differ from most of the other Christians on this site so if you fault some on some points, I may be in agreement with you.
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Jenni - do you know how rare that statement you just made is? I may not be a theist , but I do recognize hypocrisy and miss-use of Biblical teachings when I read them - you, of course, know what really ticked off Jesus - right? Hypocrisy. He despised anyone hiding personal agendas of greed and hatred behind convoluted interpretations of his words. Read some of hateful attacks I continually get by the oh-so-pious and faithful - you know - the characters that have to be clearly seen in the first row at church... If I, a"mere mortal" can easily see this behavior - do you doubt the supreme being is blind to it? I don't think so.
Report as
You have reported this
18Jenni:
10 months ago
Look at the persecution I have received in my life for my beliefs from "Christians." One on here was stalking me for awhile because he was mad I didn't believe in Hellfire. Worldwide my religion gets persecuted and thrown into prisons and denied rights. Jews weren't the only religion thrown into concentration camps. My religion was and they were different in that they had a choice about being there.
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
6 months ago
via iPhone
Jenni: agreed. Take a look at what the Chinese have been consistently doing to the Tibetans: slaughtering them. I'm not even sure if I classify their religion as a "religion" - it's more of a philosophy to reach higher insights through transcendent states of being - often induced by skillful meditation. Think of what is behind this: religious intolerance - which - at least in America - we Constitutionally provide protection - however, the government can't advocate for one religion over another - it is secular - and secularism is always an invitation to evangelicals of any religion to destroy this simple dictate of our Constitution - simply because so many of the "faithful" find it intolerable to live beside people of other faiths or unbelievers in the supernatural at all.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
|
Last edited at 7:49AM on 8/20/2012
The first general command from God was to fill the earth and multiply, and to subdue the earth. (Bereshith or Genesis 1:28 and 9:1). The command is given to Adam, and again to Noah after the flood. It has never been revoked. This is one source of the objection to artificial methods of avoiding birth.
Others have commented that the moral implications of murder take abortion to a new level of ethical concern, but you are right that both abortion and birth control as well as homosexuality interfere with the normal filling of the earth as required by God. If practiced to an extreme, it results in population crisis.
God also gives Government as a method for promoting the good of man as well as helping him keep the commands of God. The necessity of Government is because of the sin nature of man, because we can exceed our limits and murder, as with Cain and Abel. When government murders it's citizens (as is happening in Syria) it is a great evil and against the reason for Government. When It sanctions the murder of the unborn, the ones among us most vulnerable and with the least protections, it is also doing an evil. The argument for abortion on the other side is that government has no right to invade private decisions; this says effecively we have the right to decide to murder people privately. The question then becomes "at what age do fertilized cells become a person with civil rights?" The Supreme Court is tending toward a viability standard, making this approx 20 weeks.
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Is sin - a word you and the religious use incessantly - biological in any way? I mean does sin correlate to any brain structures we might detect on an MRI? If not - then sin must necessarily be relative to the context by which the label is applied. That means we're back endorsing moral relativism again. One religion's sin is another religion's aspiration: in Islam, jihad and martyrdom to kill as many infidels as possible is a fast track to God - but to Christians their devout sacrifices are abominable sins. It is religion that creates the relativism. This is not to say that humans can aspire to an absolute morality - only possible without the moral relativism of multiple religions, each claiming they are inerrant.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Morality only exists within a context of standards. Either the standards are derived from religion (Will and Ariel Durant say that religion is the source of all morality throughout history) or they are derived from "natural theology."
The problem with atheism is the lack of a standard. I have yet to find an atheist that says there are moral standards that are universal-- they all seem to say it's relative. So it's ok to murder in some circumstances and not in others. Ok to steal from some and not from others. This is no morality, it is self-justification.
Sin is derived from not keeping to the standards. It's in the genes because man is a moral being, the only ethical actor known. Whatever makes us ethical, makes us potentially unethical.
The problem with atheism is the lack of a standard. I have yet to find an atheist that says there are moral standards that are universal-- they all seem to say it's relative. So it's ok to murder in some circumstances and not in others. Ok to steal from some and not from others. This is no morality, it is self-justification.
Sin is derived from not keeping to the standards. It's in the genes because man is a moral being, the only ethical actor known. Whatever makes us ethical, makes us potentially unethical.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Stick to the topic at hand. Even Islam has a moral against abortion. Jihad has not much to do with abortion or contraception.
Jihad against the west is not shared by the vast majority of islam-- it is an odd self-justifying of a desire to wage cultural war. Some even within Islam call it an unethical war. A reaction to western culture, to America as a sole superpower? Perhaps. But Islam is challenged by the current worldview of atheism much more than by Christianity or Judaism. We are people of the Book and share much in common.
Jihad against the west is not shared by the vast majority of islam-- it is an odd self-justifying of a desire to wage cultural war. Some even within Islam call it an unethical war. A reaction to western culture, to America as a sole superpower? Perhaps. But Islam is challenged by the current worldview of atheism much more than by Christianity or Judaism. We are people of the Book and share much in common.
Report as
You have reported this
MadMarcus15:
10 months ago
Pate, I hope this means something coming from a 16 year old: you're one of the smartest guys I know!
Report as
You have reported this
pious666:
10 months ago
Shiny, thanks for answering . I just couldn't agree with you justification of atheists and morality. Atheists definitely assert to certain universal moral standard. They just don't believe that it's a derivative from some god. However, morality of course mostly is the verdict of the majority. And that verdict depends on many things. That is exactly why the morality of a Maori tribe don't correspond with the morality standard of a European tribe. What do you really mean by "lack of (moral) standard"?
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
You assert a universal morality then say its not universal. Can you please decide? It's hard to argue with someone who is not able to decide what they believe.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Most atheists try to pin their morality to social code; one does what is best for society, or the survival of the tribe/society/species. This confuses morals with morays; one is a standard of conduct independent of society, the other a rule for social interaction.
.
Thus, to an atheist, a nazi standard of morals makes sense in a nazi tribe, a headhunter may be perfectly moral within his tribe when shrinking heads, and so on. Most people reject this. By atheists not having a universal morality, any laws based on a nonexistent universal morality are also forbidden. Taken reductio ad absurdum, international law is an aberration, anomaly, and uninforcable.
.
It just doesn't hold water logically, and i think it reverses cause-effect. We have universal morality because man is a moral being: everywhere, always, and perhaps genetically. If it were not so, we would have at least some examples of societies without laws. But all societies have laws, reflecting the fact we are a moral being. Atheists make a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument: we get morals from society. But I argue that all men are moral, therefore societies are moral; we don't develop morals from society, but the reverse: society is woven from man's individual moral laws, possibly a genetic artifact.Certainly it's within all men, with the possible exception of sociopaths (who know the laws well enough to fake them when being watched, but who will break them when convenient).
Its a good question, with evidence on both sides, and you can find lots to help you become familiar with it. Here is a good discussion for background from the atheist viewpoint: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheistsMorals.htm
.
Austin Cline says these are myths, and perhaps they are, but he apparently cannot decide where the basis for morality comes from, nor does he explain why an atheists morals often look exactly like 6-7 of the 10 commandments. If they are myths, they are widely held.
.
Thus, to an atheist, a nazi standard of morals makes sense in a nazi tribe, a headhunter may be perfectly moral within his tribe when shrinking heads, and so on. Most people reject this. By atheists not having a universal morality, any laws based on a nonexistent universal morality are also forbidden. Taken reductio ad absurdum, international law is an aberration, anomaly, and uninforcable.
.
It just doesn't hold water logically, and i think it reverses cause-effect. We have universal morality because man is a moral being: everywhere, always, and perhaps genetically. If it were not so, we would have at least some examples of societies without laws. But all societies have laws, reflecting the fact we are a moral being. Atheists make a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument: we get morals from society. But I argue that all men are moral, therefore societies are moral; we don't develop morals from society, but the reverse: society is woven from man's individual moral laws, possibly a genetic artifact.Certainly it's within all men, with the possible exception of sociopaths (who know the laws well enough to fake them when being watched, but who will break them when convenient).
Its a good question, with evidence on both sides, and you can find lots to help you become familiar with it. Here is a good discussion for background from the atheist viewpoint: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheistsMorals.htm
.
Austin Cline says these are myths, and perhaps they are, but he apparently cannot decide where the basis for morality comes from, nor does he explain why an atheists morals often look exactly like 6-7 of the 10 commandments. If they are myths, they are widely held.
Report as
You have reported this
pious666:
10 months ago
You see very much misinformed about atheists. I will come one by one on all your propositions.
1) I believe in universal morality that killing, lying, stealing, rape, etc are wrong. But my understanding of morality doesn't necessarily affect a rain forest tribe. You will remember that our society once accepted eye for an eye, which we don't now. Why? Because we came to know through countless centuries that an eye for an eye would only leave the whole world blind. It's the same for people of all times, sage and tribes. The more people gets civilized, the more his moral standards improves upon.
2) Morality needs not to come from a magical being. I tend to believe that human are moral beings by default. Only if they choose to be. Again, society dictates it mostly.
3) Honest man is he, who is honest despite being seen or observed. Those who are good, only because they were watched or commanded from the high, are neither good, nor moral.
4) The ten commandments y not be myth, but the way of receiving them is certainly an imposition. Again, if I may remind you, ten commandments became ten commandments long after they existed. The Egyptian code of law or the Hindu scriptures contained those laws thousands of years before Moses gave it. It is very well founded to conclude that Moses forged them from his experience as a captive in Egypt. So, if man practiced those laws thousands of years before ten commandments came to exist, that proves that these are not the foundation of morality.
I'd like to recommend you to read this article: "Do Atheists Need a Moral Theory to be Moral Realists"? (2012) by Jason Thibodeau to get a more clear picture of atheist view of morality. You can also read David Hume on this subject.
1) I believe in universal morality that killing, lying, stealing, rape, etc are wrong. But my understanding of morality doesn't necessarily affect a rain forest tribe. You will remember that our society once accepted eye for an eye, which we don't now. Why? Because we came to know through countless centuries that an eye for an eye would only leave the whole world blind. It's the same for people of all times, sage and tribes. The more people gets civilized, the more his moral standards improves upon.
2) Morality needs not to come from a magical being. I tend to believe that human are moral beings by default. Only if they choose to be. Again, society dictates it mostly.
3) Honest man is he, who is honest despite being seen or observed. Those who are good, only because they were watched or commanded from the high, are neither good, nor moral.
4) The ten commandments y not be myth, but the way of receiving them is certainly an imposition. Again, if I may remind you, ten commandments became ten commandments long after they existed. The Egyptian code of law or the Hindu scriptures contained those laws thousands of years before Moses gave it. It is very well founded to conclude that Moses forged them from his experience as a captive in Egypt. So, if man practiced those laws thousands of years before ten commandments came to exist, that proves that these are not the foundation of morality.
I'd like to recommend you to read this article: "Do Atheists Need a Moral Theory to be Moral Realists"? (2012) by Jason Thibodeau to get a more clear picture of atheist view of morality. You can also read David Hume on this subject.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
First, the 10 Commandments include 4 monotheistic laws that did NOT predate. Hindus are not even monotheistic.
Secondly, you are describing moral development, a truth within all religions. Even atheists show moral development.
The prohibitions (thou shalt not) are actually derived from the sole moral: "love your neighbor as yourself." if one loves his neighbor he will not lie, cheat, steal, murder.
The Jews developed a complex code and dietary restrictions to keep them distinct from other tribes and nations. This is because the Messiah is to come from the Jews, and for the Jews, and they are to not blend in with other tribes. The morals behind this are obscure, but are distinct to them. Christians are to be distinct too, but not by dietary rules. They are to be distinct by the love they have for God and Jesus.
Thanks for the suggested reading. I will google and review.
Secondly, you are describing moral development, a truth within all religions. Even atheists show moral development.
The prohibitions (thou shalt not) are actually derived from the sole moral: "love your neighbor as yourself." if one loves his neighbor he will not lie, cheat, steal, murder.
The Jews developed a complex code and dietary restrictions to keep them distinct from other tribes and nations. This is because the Messiah is to come from the Jews, and for the Jews, and they are to not blend in with other tribes. The morals behind this are obscure, but are distinct to them. Christians are to be distinct too, but not by dietary rules. They are to be distinct by the love they have for God and Jesus.
Thanks for the suggested reading. I will google and review.
Report as
You have reported this
cerebrogasm:
10 months ago
via iPhone
And did you know that the Golden Rule predates Christianity - or even the believed birth of Christ - by 500 years - as pronounced by Confucius? And speaking of the Ten Commandments, you'd think they would have less admonitions about worshiping false idols than say, "Thou shalt not enslave other humans" or "Thou shalt not rape" and so on. I mean, God seems to really want human worship and really doesn't like humans inquiring about other religious beliefs that are contrary to what Moses claimed he inscribed in stone.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
I have read the article you have referenced, and offer a critique in several parts:
The author posits rightness based on a command by God either a priori or a posteriori. No appeal to natural morality (a la Locke) is made. This is not as most Theists explain rightness, so a bit of a straw dog-- he is saying things we don't say, and says its what we say then argues against it.
.
Theists say moral standards are set by God, but exist independent of the commands. In other words, we know something is wrong not based on commands, but by the "internal law." It's confirmed by law, made visible, etc. But it's a law written in our hearts.
The commands codify and put to word what we already know within our hearts. Therefore, the law written is a reflection of the law of the conscience, which is a product of creation or possibly genetics.
2. Rightness is defined by being in agreement with what God says about something. It is admittedly arbitrary, and we make no apologies about it. Thibedeux dislikes arbitrary morals, and i do also; however, i admit there may be a certain measure of apparent arbitrary nature to theological morals. The author argues against arbitrary laws, but it is patently obvious that our parents are/were arbitrary at times, and made rules that may have made little sense but which we were bound to obey. It did not necessarily make them right, it meant we were required to be obedient. Parents are sometimes arbitrary as they adapt to changing, challenging, maturing children.
.
Natural law seeks a common ground for morality between atheists and theists. Thomas Merton, in New Seeds of Contemplation provides a very straightforward definition of the natural law:
"? the natural law is simply that we should recognize in every other human being the same nature, the same needs, the same rightsAt the heart of the world?s problems is a break from natural law. Abortion is such a scourge because an entire class of human beings?those in the womb?are treated as something other than human by people who seem to have forgotten their own origins in the womb. And how often do people in our society treat others as objects from which to derive sexual pleasures. Every kind of abuse, crime, exploitation, persecution, and enslavement derive from disregard for the natural law.
The author posits rightness based on a command by God either a priori or a posteriori. No appeal to natural morality (a la Locke) is made. This is not as most Theists explain rightness, so a bit of a straw dog-- he is saying things we don't say, and says its what we say then argues against it.
.
Theists say moral standards are set by God, but exist independent of the commands. In other words, we know something is wrong not based on commands, but by the "internal law." It's confirmed by law, made visible, etc. But it's a law written in our hearts.
The commands codify and put to word what we already know within our hearts. Therefore, the law written is a reflection of the law of the conscience, which is a product of creation or possibly genetics.
2. Rightness is defined by being in agreement with what God says about something. It is admittedly arbitrary, and we make no apologies about it. Thibedeux dislikes arbitrary morals, and i do also; however, i admit there may be a certain measure of apparent arbitrary nature to theological morals. The author argues against arbitrary laws, but it is patently obvious that our parents are/were arbitrary at times, and made rules that may have made little sense but which we were bound to obey. It did not necessarily make them right, it meant we were required to be obedient. Parents are sometimes arbitrary as they adapt to changing, challenging, maturing children.
.
Natural law seeks a common ground for morality between atheists and theists. Thomas Merton, in New Seeds of Contemplation provides a very straightforward definition of the natural law:
"? the natural law is simply that we should recognize in every other human being the same nature, the same needs, the same rightsAt the heart of the world?s problems is a break from natural law. Abortion is such a scourge because an entire class of human beings?those in the womb?are treated as something other than human by people who seem to have forgotten their own origins in the womb. And how often do people in our society treat others as objects from which to derive sexual pleasures. Every kind of abuse, crime, exploitation, persecution, and enslavement derive from disregard for the natural law.
Report as
You have reported this
pious666:
10 months ago
I'll come to rest of the part later (got something to do) but does the Hindu religion, being the monotheistic religion, is disqualified to set moral codes? Or, does its "crime" of being a monotheistic religion, make it "immoral" to have spoken of universal moral codes, at least 3000 years before OT? We were not really talking about merits and demerits of monotheism, however. It's rather about the authenticity of your claim about the 10 commandments (or god) being the primary source of morality!!!
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Cere, your point is good, but I am not aware of any christian saying the 10 commandments are unique, the first, or anything you are claiming. So arguing that someone else did it is fine, I even admit these laws are universal. That makes my point, actually.
Report as
You have reported this
Preventing pregnancy is certainly preferable to killing already forming children. If there werent so many unwanted pregnancies thered be a lot fewer abortions and a lot less child abuse.
Report as
You have reported this
pious666:
10 months ago
Thanks auxarcs for your kind response. The question is not about preference. It's about the motive. If only a man and a woman are perfect in god's eyes for marriage because they can multiply, then doesn't using birth-control defeat that purpose?
Report as
You have reported this
shaylen:
10 months ago
Se.xually intimacy is also am expression of love between man and wife, not just for reproducing. Can you imagine how many kids a person would have if they didn't use protection? The bible doesn't say you can't use birth control... They didn't have it then to say you couldn't. All it says is man is commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.
Report as
You have reported this
They can't. The ones you refer to are hypocrites.
Report as
You have reported this
No, you can use contraception, as long as you aren't opposed to abortion.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Jjjj, hypocrisy is a human condition, calling someone a hypocrite is the pot calling the kettle black.
But we must make a slight distinction between cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. If I believe smoking is bad for me, yet smoke, that is cognitive dissonance. If I believe smoking is bad, and forbid YOU to smoke while smoking myself, that's hypocrisy.
But we must make a slight distinction between cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. If I believe smoking is bad for me, yet smoke, that is cognitive dissonance. If I believe smoking is bad, and forbid YOU to smoke while smoking myself, that's hypocrisy.
Report as
You have reported this
shaylen:
10 months ago
It said to have children, not to have dozens of them... Are you just trying to be oppositional here pious? Facetious? You're an intelligent enough guy, think you know having dozens of kids would be insane and not realistic. The bible doesn't say have x amount of kids, or say birth control is wrong. And btw, are you talking about all forms of birth control, or just birth control specifically?
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
If I forbid using birth control, yet use it myself, that is hypocrisy. If I do not forbid it, and use it, there is neither cognitive dissonance nor hypocrisy. Most Protestant churches are in the latter category. The issue of abortion is not properly one of contraception, but murder.
.
The Catholic Church's stance on contraception is principled but impractical. Most Catholics practice some form of birth control, and even Catholics allow for the Rhythm method, so birth control (of a natural kind) is permitted in Catholicism. If one allows for one method, then other methods that accomplish the same net effect without harm to a fetus are ethically identical. The argument then becomes one of titration: which method is least evil or is best, without going overboard.
.
The Catholic Church's stance on contraception is principled but impractical. Most Catholics practice some form of birth control, and even Catholics allow for the Rhythm method, so birth control (of a natural kind) is permitted in Catholicism. If one allows for one method, then other methods that accomplish the same net effect without harm to a fetus are ethically identical. The argument then becomes one of titration: which method is least evil or is best, without going overboard.
Report as
You have reported this
shaylen:
10 months ago
|
Last edited at 11:09AM on 8/20/2012
Preventing creating a life that you aren't ready for is not remotely the same as taking a life away. Prevention doesn't end a life. something has to start to be ending.
Report as
You have reported this
Agreed, a fetus is indeed alive. Anybody that refuses to believe that is only kidding themselves.
Report as
You have reported this
susan.elliott:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Aren't most churches against using birth control, I know they are against abortion. To me it should be the same.
Abortion/prevention is a choice made by the 2 people involved.
Report as
You have reported this
susan.elliott:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Good to know,thanks for the info.
Report as
You have reported this
susan.elliott:
10 months ago
via iPhone
No there is no sarcasm, i meant it in a sincere way thanking you for the info. Please dont add any sarcasm into it.
Report as
You have reported this
shinypate1:
10 months ago
via iPhone
Abortion is viewed as murder to many Christians. It is not viewed as contraception, but killing a life.
Contraception (the preventing of a life not preventing a birth) is practiced even by Catholics; almost all churches allow to some form of it.
The Catholics are stuck in a spot: one form of contraception (rhythm method) is allowable, and more artificial methods are not; it's because they find any method that does not allow for the possibility of pregnancy to be unethical, a position that clunks when it walks. I understand it, but it is unconvincing.
Contraception (the preventing of a life not preventing a birth) is practiced even by Catholics; almost all churches allow to some form of it.
The Catholics are stuck in a spot: one form of contraception (rhythm method) is allowable, and more artificial methods are not; it's because they find any method that does not allow for the possibility of pregnancy to be unethical, a position that clunks when it walks. I understand it, but it is unconvincing.
Report as
You have reported this
susan.elliott:
10 months ago
via iPhone
That's the assumption I had of churches along these 2 topics. Basically what shiny plate just posted.
Report as
You have reported this
Jenni18:
10 months ago
Abortion is always murder. If the kid will have retardation or other health problems it is still murder. Would you murder an adult for having health issues? If a woman is raped why should the innocent child pay with his life? There is always adoption.
Report as
You have reported this
shaylen:
10 months ago
I mean in the rare case the mother and/or baby could die because of a high risk. And with rape, I'd personally keep the baby, and put it up for adoption I agree. There are actually adoption programs provided by the church. No, we don't believe in abortion. I'm just saying in rare cases it's not always black and white
Report as
You have reported this
Jenni18:
10 months ago
One is murder, the other prevention of conception and not murder.
Report as
You have reported this
tjyoungbuck:
10 months ago
via iPhone
We believe that men and women today deserve rights based on religion, race, etc. that goes for unborn men and women too. Give them life.
Report as
You have reported this
Frankd154:
10 months ago
via iPhone
|
Last edited at 11:56PM on 8/21/2012
There is increasing awareness among pharmacists, physicians, and other health care providers, that chemical "contraceptives" are really abortifacients, that is, instead of preventing conception, they end (kill) a life that has already begun. Jenn Giroux, a former R.N., has written much on the subject; and www.prolifepharmacy.com, or .org, not sure which, has links to different articles, etc., about it. I hope this helps. Good question!
Frank
Report as
You have reported this
Partner Sites:
Insider Pages
-
MerchantCircle
-
Urbanspoon
-
Ask Kids
-
Life123
-
Reference
-
Sendori
-
Thesaurus