What, with the same God who decided to exterminate every living thing on the planet because he didn't like the way it was going? The same one who decided to massacre Sodom & Gommorah for - as some would have it - homosexuality? The God who sent plagues to kill innocent egyptians (babies) in exodus? Or, of course, who would damn people to hell for believing differently....
The world was never flooded. Notice that the Bible se "world" but you have to put it in the contexts of hte people who wrote it - to them the wearls was the land they lived in (they didn't know about other continents or far, distant lands).
Aside from that, Sodomah nad Gomorah were guilty of far more than homosexuality. Did that warrant their destruction? I don't know - I wasn't there and I don't know what exactly they did. Could be that the effects of God's wrath have been overblown by the old writers.
And plagues happen naturally all over the wrold. God for instance knew that the plauge would kill half the Europe. So if he were to send a man preaching hygene or damnation, would you blame him for the death of those who refuse?
Anyway, this point is a very interesting one, and really a lot can be said and discusses about it, but I'll leave that for another time.
This is exactly what you mean; you're determining what is and what is not meant by the bible on a personal basis
and being interpretative over the meaning of the book.
If you define morality by the bible, of course you say 'it's good'; you're conditioned by belief to do so. But how come so much **** is done by people 'in the name of God' nowadays, like the Vaticans anti-condom policy or Islamic stonings under Shariah law?
Not only becosue the Bible sez it so - it's beacose my basic sense of moral sez so, it's becose my logic sez it teh smart thing to do.
People can do bad things with even hte best things. I can kill you with a spoon. I cna kill you with sleeping pills. Does that make the sleeping pills or the spoon a evil and dangeous thing?
(sez?)
I already addressed that in the edited bit... except I'm not sure how it can be one of the 'best things' if evil can be done. I'd say it makes it a
neutral thing; like a spoon is a neutral thing, or sleeping pills.
and a anti-condom policy is really far from evil. Strange, debatable, maby even questionalbe (to a point - I mean the only way to be REALYL sure is not to do it)
Well, it's been pretty much proven to lead to deaths due to aids; whether or not you like pre-marital sex, there's no question that it occurs, and no question that the Vatican launching a campaign to stop and scare people from using condoms, or deny access to sexual advice in Africa, only hurts people. Surely telling people condoms are ineffective against aids using reasoning known to be wrong (aids viral size vs condom pore size whilst ingoring the transmission medium) - i.e. lying - must be a sin?
Science is only in the dask in as far as it is concerned with death. If you define death by the medical method of brain death, then you can only define life by the presence of sentient brain activity.
Tere area lot of living things that don't have brains. Does that mean they are not alive? Or that they cannot die?
No, it means they aren't
human (well, animal) life.
And, er, that's (progress to child) not sure. Miscarriages, etc. Plus, it does not matter one jot what the foetus may be, only what it is at the time of abortion. I'd ask you answer this question - what is it that makes human beings worthy of protection under the law, as compared to other animals such as the ones we eat for food?
You wouldn't be thinking that if you were the one that got aborted. On second though - you wouldn't be thinking AT ALL.
Exactly! And I would
never have been thinking. That's the whole point I'm making, as I shall elucidate just a bit below.
Miscariages can happen. And you can also be run ver by a car. Does that mean I can kill you now, since chances are that you might not even reach the end of your natural life cycle?
The whole crux of the abortion arguement is about the present situation, not future. At present, I am a sentient human being, ergo your analogy is completely wrong. Perhaps a more appropriate example would be if I was brain-dead and on life support with an unknown prognosis? (if we wish to reflect the physical situation of the foetus more accurately).
A fetus is a human - it has the destinct DNA, it feeds and it grows.
It is not a human
individual; even tumour cells have human DNA, feed and grow. So does a brain-dead patient (yeah, they need a food supply to feed, but so does a foetus). Identical twins have identical DNA, but are individual, so individuality clearly is not predicated by DNA uniqueness (unless you wish to view twins as some sort of gestalt entity with a single individual right shared across 2 bodies).
And to answer the second question - not much. I really don't see humans as so uberly-extra-special..What makes us worthy? Probably nothing.. or just the decision of hte populace that there should be laws in the first place.
So you don't have an answer as to why there are laws protecting humans rather than, say, sheep as well? Might I suggest sentience and self-awareness as a reason. Humanity values itself on the basis of being aware of the shortness and nature of life; this is the cogniscence that makes us rank ourselves as superior to the animals we feed on, etc. We protect not human life, but human
thought; self-awareness, sentience, cogniscence, individuality, etc. This is why we measure death by brain death.
In any case, back to the crux of the matter - you can find abortion horrid if you want. All I ask, is don't remove the option, because people might believe differently and they have every right and basis for doing so.
In case of complications, where the life of hte mother is in danger - then yes.
What about the mental health of the mother?
So you speak for all Christians now? You define what the bible means? Or do you just have your own selected interpretation, which you think is right, but can't prove to be?
Nope. Nope, I asked learned men that studied in Vatican. and apparently, you seem to have your own interpretation.
What about those learned men that didn't study in the Vatican, but in the Church of England, or the Orthodox church, or any of the other various creeds of Christianity? Y'know, like the ones that consider roman catholicism to be idolatory in 'worshipping' the Pope, etc (as an example of schism).
