Mighty God

[BorderGirl]

Huh?

I'm not talking about Papal decrees. Are you purposely misunderstanding me?

I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights, control access to birth control, pass through bigoted marriage amendments and so on.

Papal decrees.....that's a given but even when those are issued, and the Pope is talking to his Peeps, he still gets criticized.....

'What offends me are Christians who I feel have perverted and politicized the faith to further their own ends. The ones who would like to push their beliefs... "

Your above quote leads to this for me:

Wouldn't you kinda expect those religious to use their voices/votes to defend unborn life? "Religion" is not even the entire picture here. There are many non-religious persons who are involved in the defense of human life. It goes hand in hand with the justice movement, since it covers the dignity of all people.

 

[anitram]

Wouldn't you kinda expect those religious to use their voices/votes to defend unborn life? "Religion" is not even the entire picture here. There are many non-religious persons who are involved in the defense of human life. It goes hand in hand with the justice movement, since it covers the dignity of all people.

I'd expect them to defend born life. The unborn are innocent, but when that child is born to a single mother on welfare, then it's a burden on society.

I don't necessarily like the idea of abortion but I understand why it exists in today's world.

But put this issue on the side because no good can come of it anyway on FYM.

What about the Christian pharmacist who won't give me the birth control pill? I have a diagnosed genetic disorder which requires me to sythetically maintain my hormone levels all my life. I cannot get the necessary medication because some guy decided that his God doesn't want me to be having sex. To you that's reasonable. To me, it isn't, and he should be out of a job, no questions asked.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think yolland said it best in his post.

All these God threads in FYM end up being about Christians who come in and offer their beliefs as it if were facts.

Those who have been here a long time know that when there have been attempts to discuss other faiths or concepts, like for example karma or reincarnation, it only resulted in the same thing - Christians coming in to try and dispel them with their concept of grace. You see it in the atheist/agnostic threads too, it's always the Christians who need to come in and present their views on sin, salvation, Jesus and whatever else. You tell me how many times we've seen in here a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, etc come in and behave in the same manner? Never? Yeah, pretty much.

Therefore I no longer believe it's possible to discuss "God" here - maybe the Christian God, yes, but anything else? Good night and good luck, cuz it ain't gonna happen.

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, but when I’ve read “atheists” threads, they are usually framed in light of Christianity – not Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Was it Christians spoiling the atheist thread, or the atheist thread with a dose of antagonism towards Christians? The abundance of finger pointing (or characterizing some people’s faith as weak) is unnecessary. Frankly, while there is plenty of sharing of views, there is also plenty of posting to antagonize others as well.


But, perhaps this is what was intended when general discussions of Christianity were moved to FYM in the first place.

 

[BVS]

I'd expect them to defend born life.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights, control access to birth control, pass through bigoted marriage amendments and so on. These are not people speaking to YOU, they are people who are trying to politicize their religion to restrict the rights of the rest of us who don't follow their beliefs in the first place. So yes, I'll criticize all I want.

Perhaps the criticism is misplaced. You may not agree with these policy decisions, but there is not a perfect correlation between the policy decisions and a religious belief.

There are plenty of non-Christians who support a marriage amendment, plenty of non-Christians who can see abortion as murder, and so on.

Using these issues as proxy for "forcing religious belief" on others is misplaced.

As soon as we get anything close to a Church of England, I would agree with you.

 

[Irvine511]

There are plenty of non-Christians who support a marriage amendment, plenty of non-Christians who can see abortion as murder, and so on.

firstly, i think it would be a fallacy not to see these movements as primarily (not soley) staffed by those who would define themselves as very religious.

and it amazes me how many people can suddenly find religion when they're grasping to defend their prejudices.

also, in regards to an earlier post, i would understand any belief -- religious or not -- that is unopen for discussion as a sign of weakness and/or insecurity in the belief itself. it's those who are willing to hold strong beliefs but test them, tear them apart, engage in rigorous self-criticism that impress me the most.

 

[BorderGirl]

What about the Christian pharmacist who won't give me the birth control pill? I have a diagnosed genetic disorder which requires me to sythetically maintain my hormone levels all my life. I cannot get the necessary medication because some guy decided that his God doesn't want me to be having sex. To you that's reasonable. To me, it isn't, and he should be out of a job, no questions asked.

Don't presume things about me please.
If you are going to a secular clinic then there is no reason for a pharmacist (a dispensor of medication) to question any part of your prescription, as that is between you and your doctor. There is nothing reasonable about this situation---you should take legal action.

 

[BorderGirl]

I'd expect them to defend born life. The unborn are innocent, but when that child is born to a single mother on welfare, then it's a burden on society.

It's a trickle-down effect.....which starts with the born humans....who else could do the saving??, surely not those without voices.
If you're interested in justice then work for the dignity of all.

 

[nbcrusader]

also, in regards to an earlier post, i would understand any belief -- religious or not -- that is unopen for discussion as a sign of weakness and/or insecurity in the belief itself. it's those who are willing to hold strong beliefs but test them, tear them apart, engage in rigorous self-criticism that impress me the most.

I am very glad you said this and agree wholeheartedly and especially appreciate you opening this to non-religious thought. Frequently, we lack a willingness to lay open all beliefs for discussion (global warming comes to mind).

Concurrent with the openness to discuss an issue is the willingness to seek understanding of the subject and understanding of the other person's beliefs. I say this as a general statement (not directed to you) as the ease with which the tear down quip replaces the understanding seeking question.

I would also hope the tearing apart comes from the desire to understand, rather than the expression of disapproval. At the same time, we must all acknowledge that others may disapprove of beliefs and how they are applied.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, but when I’ve read “atheists” threads, they are usually framed in light of Christianity – not Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Was it Christians spoiling the atheist thread, or the atheist thread with a dose of antagonism towards Christians? The abundance of finger pointing (or characterizing some people’s faith as weak) is unnecessary. Frankly, while there is plenty of sharing of views, there is also plenty of posting to antagonize others as well.


But, perhaps this is what was intended when general discussions of Christianity were moved to FYM in the first place.

You're right about all of that. How quickly people have let themselves forget those threads.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'd like you to prove this. I'd like you to show the general consensus amongst embryologists that defines life, the way you define life, at conception.

I would like you to look up "embryologists" and "life begins" on Google. You will see what I'm talking about. And I'm not just talking about Christian sites; There are many objective sites that have no ties to the prolife movement or any religious organization.

Take, for instance, this quote from wisegeek.com:

"Cloning and in vitro fertilization have both been subject to tremendous debate. Part of the problem lies within each embryology textbook. They all state that life begins at the moment of conception. While it is true that some form of life begins at conception, the degree, value and quality of such a life is not addressed. Hence, abortion proponents and opponents have been arguing about this concept before and since the legalization of abortion."

Now, take the terms "embryology textbooks" and "life begins" and Google them. You will see listing after listing restating the idea that every embryology book in existence states that life begins at conception.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'd expect them to defend born life. The unborn are innocent, but when that child is born to a single mother on welfare, then it's a burden on society.

They do defend born life, anitram. Prolife and Christians groups are heavily involved in housing, feeding and caring for the homeless. In fact, many, if not most, of the shelters and missions are started by Christian groups. And what about the missionaries who put their own lives on the backburner to go live in 3rd world countries to feed hungry children and help the poor build their communities? And shall I even name all the Christian-founded charity organizations that are of such tremendous help, like Compassion International, World Vision, Feed The Children, etc.?

Maybe you aren't saying this, but I have read on this forum, and others, the idea that prolifers care about the unborn but not the born. That idea is total rubbish.

 

[BVS]

While it is true that some form of life begins at conception, the degree, value and quality of such a life is not addressed.

Yeah, I've done the search, but I've found the definition of life between scientist, embryologists and pro-lifers is much different.

First let's consider conception. Most will define this as when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Now that fertililized egg must then implant itself into the uterus. The number(and I can't find the exact number right now) of fertilized eggs that do not ever implant themselves into the uterus are flushed out with the woman's next menstrual cycle.

Then if you consider 25% of preganacies end in miscarriage(healthy women), most in the first 12 weeks, these numbers don't speak much for God's desire to force the issue of life beginning at conception.


Yes the division of cells to start forming human life may occur then but life as we know it does not.

 

[dazzlingamy]

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, but when I’ve read “atheists” threads, they are usually framed in light of Christianity – not Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Was it Christians spoiling the atheist thread, or the atheist thread with a dose of antagonism towards Christians? The abundance of finger pointing (or characterizing some people’s faith as weak) is unnecessary. Frankly, while there is plenty of sharing of views, there is also plenty of posting to antagonize others as well.

Even though i am refraining from writing in here, I shall adress this comment because I bascially don't believe it to be true. I was not antagonistic at ALL in my athesit thread. You chose to interpeat my words as antagonising through your own ideas not mine. I never said Christians were crazy, or assholes, or pathetic or anything. I call THOSE words offensive and atagonistic. Just because 80's took offence to me saying faith is like a figment of the imagination



figment

noun

1. An illusory mental image: daydream, dream, fancy, fantasy, fiction, illusion, phantasm, phantasma, reverie, vision. See real/imaginary.
2. Any fictitious idea accepted as part of an ideology by an uncritical group; a received idea: creation, fantasy, fiction, invention, myth. See belief/unbelief, real/imaginary.


http://www.answers.com/topic/figment

^ I think that shows why I used that term.

Secondly, I think the reason why Christian faith vs atheism happened was because people of other religions didn't come in and start saying things like 'you must have no morals' 'how can you care about anyone or life when you don't value you it' yada yada, and basically seem to take it PERSONALLY that some people didn't believe for one second that their faith was real. For your information, a member who is buddist asked me to email her which i did. We shared ideas and opinions and that was great. At no point did she call me wrong for being an atheist, and take affront at me not being a believer (though truth be told buddism isn't really a faith based religion)

So it comes down to this. Why do Christians seem to get the most upset and out of joint when their Christ and or beliefs are questioned? Like Irvine said, I respect the ones that come in and say 'interesting theory, but I still believe' rather then getting all pissed off and then back u their claims by saying their faith is fact, which is certainly is not.

So no, i dont think I or some other people posting in the athesit thread were necessarily antagonistic, and the reason that shit went down is because some Christians wouldnt leave the damn issue alone!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Just because 80's took offence to me saying faith is like a figment of the imagination

That's not the only thing that has been said against Christians in these types of threads, amy.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yeah, I've done the search, but I've found the definition of life between scientist, embryologists and pro-lifers is much different.

Not much difference in the definition of life between embryologists and prolifers. Embryologists say that human/individuality life begins with the zygote stage.

Then if you consider 25% of preganacies end in miscarriage(healthy women), most in the first 12 weeks, these numbers don't speak much for God's desire to force the issue of life beginning at conception.

You can only make that assumption if you think that miscarriages are caused by God. I do not think that; it is nature, and says absolutely nothing about God's view of life beginning at conception.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Embryologists say that human/individuality life begins with the zygote stage.

Individuality is not sentience in this context.

 

[A_Wanderer]

With all the accusations of "legislating morality" flying around, I think that people should keep these 2 things in mind:

(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?

But it is a scientific fact with a very high confidence - in terms of scientific fact the theory is much more sound than general relativity. It is applied across all of the biological sciences and yields profound insights into the natural world, to discard the grand unifying theory of biology that can explain practically all the currently known facts in the name of theology in a science class is wrong, and regardless of how this sizable majority feels a secular education system simply cannot endorse their theology, if they want to have their kids put at severe disadvantage if they ever wanted to pursue a career in biomedical research or zoology (practically any biology related field) then they can send their kids to a religious school. Evolution is a fact - Natural Selection is a theory.

(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms."

And obviously those kids who were raised to abhor sex before marriage will not go out and fornicate while those who didn't have such parenting will be protected from some nasty diseases and potential pregnancies (with associated abortions) so it only protects more people.

Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"?

If the parents genuinely oppose sex education can they not simply have their children waivered from it. Furthurmore abstinence only may be 100% in principle but a good many lack such moral fortitude and their ignorance may cost them dearly.

It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.

Well obivously the solution may be to just do away with state schools and solve this apparent contradiction, or if we must have state education make certain that it gives factual information and teaches children responsibility.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.

Legislation and enforcement is not the marketplace of ideas, it is violating the rights of other taxpaying citizens; belief must be neither promoted or percecuted by the government and the best way to do that is to keep it 100% away and allow people to practice their faith in a way that doesn't hurt others.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If human life begins at conception, as is the general consensus amongst embryologists, why do you see abortion as a "right"? There were no "abortion rights" until 1973. Prior to 1973, the courts had embraced the scienctific testimony of those who knew such things, the embyologist.

If we take an cluster of cells as life then our classification of death for organ donation (brain death) must also go out the window. But of course opposition to euthanasia and pulling the plug are another front in this cultural war.

 

[BVS]

You can only make that assumption if you think that miscarriages are caused by God. I do not think that; it is nature, and says absolutely nothing about God's view of life beginning at conception.

Well I just don't get how anyone can argue that life begins at conception when between the amount of fertilized eggs that don't imbed and miscarriage, somewhere between 30-50% of "concieved life" doesn't make it to or even through the first stages of development. Yet you never hear pro-lifers crying for them.

 

[Irvine511]

I am very glad you said this and agree wholeheartedly and especially appreciate you opening this to non-religious thought. Frequently, we lack a willingness to lay open all beliefs for discussion (global warming comes to mind).

why ruin a nice post with such an obvious dig?

 

[Irvine511]

can we please, please, please not devolve into an abortion thread?

please?

you see, THIS is precisely why we have such a hard time discussing religion, both in FYM and in the US, because it ALWAYS wraps itself up in politics, because certain political beliefs and social practices are ASSUMED to be concurrent with God's wills and wishes, and people think that they cannot correctly practice their faith if they don't make loud pronouncements about condoms or abortion -- please, show me the bible passages where Jesus talks about about condoms in high school or the legality of abortion.

GOP -- God's Own Party?

oh, sorry, Hezbullah already has that trademarked.

 

[nbcrusader]

why ruin a nice post with such an obvious dig?

That wasn't a dig at you, but at the nature of other topics we discuss. There are plenty of people who won't even discuss the possibility that global warming doesn't exist.

 

[Irvine511]

There are plenty of people who won't even discuss the posibility that global warming doesn't exist.

and there are people who think the earth is flat ...

 

[nbcrusader]

Were you sincere in your openness to discuss issues? I took that at face value. I hope I am not wrong.

 

[Irvine511]

Were you sincere in your openness to discuss issues? I took that at face value. I hope I am not wrong.

how relativist of you. are all ideas and thoughts of equal value?

we can discuss issues, but discussion is impossible without a basic level of knowledge.

the Universe was created by a Ham Sandwich!

gravity does not exist!

why aren't you open to these ideas?

just because we are open to all ideas doesn't mean that all ideas are equally worthy of our time and effort and consideration. when we have substantial scientific evidence in favor of global warming (or the fact of evolution), it seems to me that what deserves to be debated is not "is global warming a myth?" but "to what extent is human activity altering the climate."

 

[nbcrusader]

You can raise what ever issue or idea you think you can back up.

Scientists do not agree on Global Warming. The heavy influence of politics limits debate on this topic.

If you think there are topics not worthy of debate, perhaps you can have Yolland develop such a list.

 

[Irvine511]

You can raise what ever issue or idea you think you can back up.

Scientists do not agree on Global Warming. The heavy influence of politics limits debate on this topic.

If you think there are topics not worthy of debate, perhaps you can have Yolland develop such a list.

can we not distinguish between what i was originally talking about -- matters of belief, such as, how do i live my life? -- versus topics that are contingent upon having a basic level of knowledge before one can meaningfully participate? go check out the "Is Boy a Gay Album" thread i linked to a little while ago to understand how difficult it is to have any sort of meaningful discussion when people are simply uninformed on a particular topic such as the posters in that thread who were simply uninformed as to what Queer Theory was and how it is practiced.

or do we just create a rule/principle and then abide by it at all costs, nevermind distinctions and nuance?

 

[coemgen]