Infanticide

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Infanticide

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:11 pm SoB
Don't we create our own reality?
In our own minds! Some of which are megalomaniacal. Ignorance of self motivation, the psyche, still makes one ignorant. I'd say, even more so than most things. But then there are many that only know a world of ignorance! Though in truth it's never really blissful, rather seemingly so, while it lasts. Until the truth sets in, like an asteroid the size of texas.

They are both based on subjective values?
Nope mine is based upon grey matter not muscle fibres; Brain over brawn; Intellect over stupidity. I have a much greater grasp of the ever so much bigger picture.
This is where you go wrong IMO. You think ethics are governed by the intellect-we do what we think. No, ethical or moral actions originate with the heart.
Don't tell me that you're actually stupid enough to see the heart as anything more than a blood pumper. Really?? And so then where does this "heart thing" actually exist that you refer to? The mind you, "would be fool," you, the mind! Yes, the intellect has a great deal to do with it. I feel sorry for all you people that don't understand your own minds, you require some serious education.

Your brain has these inputs (sensors), there are five of them. From day one we record our environmental stimulus, with the fear of survival looming over us, the fear of death. Unfortunately we deny it, fearful of going there, acknowledging it. Which is why Neil wrote, "...we're only immortal for a limited time..." All young people seem to be that way, I know I was. Though as to that I was a rare one, as at a very young age, while the psyche was still being formed, I was introduced to the reality of the possibility of my death, by no other than my father. Not what most experience, certainly seemingly not a normal experience within a nuclear family. But an important lesson none the less, yet it changed me in a way that was not conducive to a very happy life, rather a cautious, consummate observer type of life. As a result, unlike some, I needed to know "the truth of it all," in a very urgent way. It's why I was attracted to philosophy. The study that I thought would open the doors of the absolute truth of the universe. Of course one absolutely must include many other academic pursuits so as to really take on such a monumental task. This thing that you see as our hearts is the culmination of all those inputs mixed with our fears, "our emotions." Our attempt at balancing things to assure our survival at all costs, while at the same time fitting into the masses, even using their understandings to further insure our long lived life; Our primary goal!! But you're obviously missing the point, the point that we are all the same, in that endeavour. We may differ as to the way we cope with the truth of our existence as it unfolds, in order to live that long uncomplicated life, but we are the same in that we all share that same endeavour. Logically, to step on another, is to step on ourselves; to kill another is to kill ourselves; to feed another is to feed ourselves, etc. In truth it can only be that way, as we "all" are stardust, "all" children of the universe; really it's enough for us to try and make sense of it all. And the smartest approach is to join together as one giant team as "...life is very short, and there's no time, for fussing and fighting, my friend. I have always thought that it's a crime..." So in truth to practice infanticide is to commit suicide! I've come to an absolutely true conclusion based upon valid premises. In the truest world of humanity there are no sheep, no wolves, no starving, and no murder, etc., rather consideration, understanding, compassion, empathy, and being completely as one, all equal, else it all implodes, ending civilization as we know it, reverting to a more primitive human. Though today with our nuclear weapons I doubt that would be possible. Instead I see the slate wiped clean, back to the drawing board, that a new species might come into being with much bigger brains, as seemingly ours of the day, is far too small. That is if the common people are incapable of seeing this truth of things, that I assert herein.


People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it. Anthony de Mello
(see above about the mechanical pump)

Nothing is sillier than listening to these intellectuals speaking about ethics and what we should do without any understanding that all their hypocrisy is the result of the ignorance of their heart.
(see above about the mechanical pump)

Socrates disgreed with Cephalus, Polemarchus. And Thrasymachus on jutice for a very important reason:

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm
Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.
You seem to assert that values like respect for life have an external origin and the result of thought.
Here you are completely contradictory, as you try and speak of something that's external and internal at the same time. There is no such thing! Anything that is a product of thought is always internal, never external. Though it's true that an understanding of everything external is required, so as to be as complete internally as possible. Currently, we that have life, are the most complex expressions of the universe, it's crowning achievement, physics supreme! As Neil wrote, "electricity, biology, seems to me it's chemistry..." Though I see that electricity is the ghost in the machine. No I'm not a dualist, the mind is a function of the bodies, (brain's), chemistry. Duellists simply fear non continued consciousness!


What if Plato is right and that eternal values have an internal origin and just the desire of the soul to do what is natural for it?
But I see, that you cannot see, that it's "natural" for the animal to change, to grow in understanding, to push it's mental boundaries like the universe proves, is it's nature, with every observation. It's parts constantly move, constantly change, human ageing is proof of the universes constant change. So why do people like you want to remain stagnant? To live today, yet think like a very long dead and gone philosopher. Was Plato important? SURE!!! Every part of the past human equation, correct or incorrect, is just as important to the total human equation, as that of the now, otherwise we would never advance, never evolve. It is the nature of knowledge. We must always be revisionist in nature, as we add to the long lived human legacy. Like I've said in the past, there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, only ever a-posteriori knowledge. Though I will admit that at least I believe that knowledge does pass from one generation to the next, biologically. At least it surely seems to be the case, to me.

It just means that the human condition has made it impossible for us to be normal. The big picture then is what it requires for us to become normal. Plato defined Man as “a being in search of meaning.” Can we really experience objective meaning and the values which reflect it without first becoming normal? It seems that for collective man, what we have become can only produce collective hypocrisy regardless of the most wonderful speeches.
What is 'normal,' (natural), is constantly evolving. Check out your history, generally speaking, it's obvious! One shouldn't fear new territory. Our nature is to grow and understand ever more. With any luck we'll outlive our current destructive nature to one day understand the entire universe complete, such that we might even be capable of creating one. Wouln't that be an argument for a relative god, that we might currently be subject to? Only time shall answer the biggest of questions. Sure it's unfortunate that you and I probably won't be around to see such things, but then in truth we can never really know for certain what the future holds, can we?

--Socrates-- 'I only know, that I know nothing.'
A good place to start, devoid of ignorance!

As to the topic: How can anyone justify taking that which they do not want taken? To think such is quite insane!
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

SoB
Don't tell me that you're actually stupid enough to see the heart as anything more than a blood pumper. Really?? And so then where does this "heart thing" actually exist that you refer to? The mind you, "would be fool," you, the mind! Yes, the intellect has a great deal to do with it. I feel sorry for all you people that don't understand your own minds, you require some serious education.
Granted modern secular education only accepts the brain as determining reactions. It prefers to remain ignorant of both the spinal column and the heart. Fortunately more seem to be becoming more aware of the role of the heart. There are more stupid ones becoming aware of reality. For example now you can curse out Dr. Mercola along with me

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/arti ... otion.aspx

Story at-a-glance
• Sayings like “I love you with all my heart,” and “my heart swelled with joy,” or the reference to someone being “broken-hearted” or “cold-hearted” —how much of this poetic language is based on something real?
• Your brain and heart work together in producing emotions. Your heart actually contains neurons, similar to those in your brain, and your heart and brain are closely connected, creating a symbiotic whole
• Your amygdala processes fear in combination with the signaling from your heart. This brain-heart connection is also at work when you experience feelings of compassion and empathy
But I see, that you cannot see, that it's "natural" for the animal to change, to grow in understanding, to push it's mental boundaries like the universe proves, is it's nature, with every observation. It's parts constantly move, constantly change, human ageing is proof of the universes constant change. So why do people like you want to remain stagnant? To live today, yet think like a very long dead and gone philosopher. Was Plato important? SURE!!! Every part of the past human equation, correct or incorrect, is just as important to the total human equation, as that of the now, otherwise we would never advance, never evolve. It is the nature of knowledge. We must always be revisionist in nature, as we add to the long lived human legacy. Like I've said in the past, there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, only ever a-posteriori knowledge. Though I will admit that at least I believe that knowledge does pass from one generation to the next, biologically. At least it surely seems to be the case, to me.
I agree. Animal Man like other animals can be conditioned to react in different ways. It was proven with classical conditioning. You as natural man prefer to remain a conditioned animal reacting in accordance with natural universal laws following the cycles of nature defining this as progress. Some are drawn to spiritual man capable of consciousness and not be just restricted to mechanical reaction but become capable of conscious action.
What is 'normal,' (natural), is constantly evolving. Check out your history, generally speaking, it's obvious! One shouldn't fear new territory. Our nature is to grow and understand ever more. With any luck we'll outlive our current destructive nature to one day understand the entire universe complete, such that we might even be capable of creating one. Wouln't that be an argument for a relative god, that we might currently be subject to? Only time shall answer the biggest of questions. Sure it's unfortunate that you and I probably won't be around to see such things, but then in truth we can never really know for certain what the future holds, can we?
Again, Normal for natural man is constantly adapting rather than evolving. Our emotional lives keep turning in circles. Nothing will change for Man until his collective being EVOLVES, rather than reacts. I don’t see it happening. Conscious evolution will only take place for individuals drawn to the potential. It will be rejected by conditioned animal man attached to the shadows on the wall.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:00 am
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:45 am
Dubious wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:32 am

Infanticide should be one of your eternal values being fully accepted, found perfectly reasonable and completely justified by Plato himself, one of your chief enlightenment gurus and expounder of Eternal Values. Explain that!

To quote Will Durant:

Plato will call for the exposure of all feeble children and of those born of base or elderly parents.



Why is it EVERYONE thinks you're a complete mental screw-up...except one who has the same "cultist" mentality as you.
If you would think as good as you emote you may discover an important question. How does respecting survival of the fittest as a natural value relate to respect for life as an eternal value? Let's see how you can complain that away for the safety of avoiding contemplation.
Nick, today, if suddenly the world was a total anarchy, you'd probably be the first idiot to become MEAT! There are those out there that would rip you to shreds! Afterwords picking their teeth with one of your bloody phalanges. You see, that world is illusory to people like you that's fat dumb and happy sitting in your relative easy chair. I tell you what me buck-o, join your local military of armed fighting men and ask to be placed on the front of the worst current war, so you can experience a true world of anarchy, so as to come to grips with your fantasy world of wolves. I'm sure it'll wipe that demented smirk right off your face. With any luck you'll only come back with half a face, that'll surely teach you a lesson, you'll never forget. You'll wish you had shut your mouth here, and enjoyed your stratolounger instead. You know what they say fool(?), "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." But then in truth, that's merely a fools game, because one can never truly be on the other side, they're always on their side. No matter where one goes, there they are. Your idea of not being a sheep, rather your illusory big bad wolf, simply places you on the menu, of the bigger badder wolves. Live by the sword, die by the sword! Or maybe much worse!

What ever has got you panties in a bunch, should itself be addressed instead of imagining a world of wolves and sheep, as it's all just a state of mind. I've been very successful in ripping mankind's conceptions/illusions to shreds, thanks to philosophy. It would seem that there are plethora perspectives that show a much more realistic picture, rather than mankind's generally accepted dogma, his current program. In fact, the so called wolves, are just scared shit-less, which is why they're so frantic about not being one of the equal people of the masses.

The Body Electric
One humanoid escapee
One android on the run
Seeking freedom beneath the lonely desert sun

Trying to change its program
Trying to change the mode, crack the code
Images conflicting into data overload

One zero zero one zero zero one
SOS
One zero zero one zero zero one
In distress
One zero zero one zero zero

Memory banks unloading
Bytes break into bits
Unit One's in trouble and it's scared out of its wits

Guidance systems break down
A struggle to exist
To resist
A pulse of dying power in a clenching plastic fist

One zero zero one zero zero one
SOS
One zero zero one zero zero one
In distress
One zero zero one zero zero

It replays each of the days
A hundred years of routines
Bows its head and prays
To the mother of all machines

--Rush-- (2013 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees)

I very simple metaphor that you should be able to understand, as it pertains to your situation. But then it applies to a lot of us. The only problem lies in the program one chooses.

Just in case you're not familiar with binary to ASCII conversion.

1001001 = "I" in ASCII text
SOS
1001001 = "I" in ASCII text
In distress
100100 = "$" in ASCII text

Ah, now I understand. You want a dictatorship. You need to be told what to do and believe it is true for everyone else. Anarchy will be eliminated by the dictator. There won't be anymore conflict between wolves and sheep as to who will eat who. It will settled by the dictator and you will establish your place in line and be given your share. Makes sense.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Greta »

Dubious wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:36 am
Greta wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:54 pm
Dubious wrote: Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:17 pmI see you as Nick's little pit-bull; nothing more than that; the Cheech & Chong of eternal values only not nearly as funny!
So, for instance, when it comes to abortion policy one should consider the stages of development of the nervous system more than the romanticised notion of human souls being not only present in embryos, but divine.
I agree completely and would add, the idea of soul already inhabiting the embryonic stage comes across as quite grotesque.
Good point. I suppose the only way for theists to reconcile that is to claim that the soul is dormant, and then there must obviously be no awareness or capacity to feel pain until the nervous system has formed to a certain level of sophistication. Thus the moral issue becomes one of lost potential - if not for the abortion a new individual personality would be in the world.

Aside from the fact that there are far too many "individual personalities" in the world already, if there is no pain or sensation in a "dormant soul", then what does it matter if the life if terminated at that point, or due to contraception, or the decision not to have sex? Fertilisation is a wonderful process, but it should be said that in nature most fertilised eggs don't make it to adulthood. One would hope that magical ideas around the process of fertilisation would not even come close to being taken seriously by lawmakers.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Infanticide

Post by seeds »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:08 am What is it about the topic of infanticide which intensifies the nonsensical Trump obsession? Maybe Dr. Phil can figure this out. The freedom to kill babies because they are determined by their mother to lack value is somehow related to Trump intolerance. Maybe those who consider babies to lack value also believe Trump lacks value while Obama, the ideal demagogue, has value. Maybe some kid will write a PhD thesis on this and blaze new paths
Nick, there is nothing inherent in the topics of infanticide or secularism that should elicit a reference to Donald Trump.

It’s just that for some unfortunate reason you cannot seem to understand that anyone who accepts (and even lauds) the deceitful behavior of a person like Trump, is immediately subject to having their “judgment” called into question.

In which case, absolutely anything that that person has to say about any topic whatsoever, is forever accompanied with a self-branded scarlet letter (T) that (right or wrong) forever taints the value of their opinion.

Now before you comeback with some kind of nonsense that it is secularistic thinking that is somehow to blame for this anti-Trump sentiment, then you need to rest assured that I, seeds, am so far north of secularism that you look like a secularist to me. So don’t even go there.

And just for the record, I don’t trust the words of any politician, not an Obama, or a Clinton, and especially not a Trump who takes lying to an entirely new and unprecedented height.

I mean, seriously now, we would not tolerate that behavior in any acquaintance, not a friend, or a coworker, or a spouse, etc., so why the pass for Trump? :?
Nick_A wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:08 am I have never written anything about Trump. He is doing a good job...
Apparently, the recognition of irony is not your strong suit either.

But yes, he is indeed doing a good job – a good job of not only appearing as a symbolic caricature of the vacuous and hedonistic state of the nation he now heads, but also of hastening the fall of America’s fragile experiment in democracy.

And that is something of which I have suggested is America’s inevitable “karmic retribution” for the death and destruction it has visited on the planet with its imperialistic (resource-grabbing) ventures.
_______
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dubious »

Greta wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:54 am One would hope that magical ideas around the process of fertilisation would not even come close to being taken seriously by lawmakers.
Certainly not in Europe, especially the Western part, but in the U.S. there's a good number of lawmakers who still believe Moses spoke to God and descended from Mt. Sinai to deliver the message. The Vatican is in the wrong place; it should now be beside the Capitol Building where members of Congress only have to cross the street to get inspiration delivered directly from the Source! :roll: :lol:
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Infanticide

Post by seeds »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:08 am Maybe the problem is that we haven’t decided which babies lack value so can be killed at will.
uwot wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:28 am Unlike christianity which has declared that all babies are born in original sin, and that any who die prior to baptism will burn in hell for eternity.
That’s an excellent point, uwot, and one that I have given a lot of thought to in the past.

Can you imagine the mind boggling absurdity of billions of infants and toddlers being positioned in front of Jesus on a so-called “judgment day,” wherein Jesus...

(the alleged champion of love and forgiveness)

...explains to them that because they did not believe in him and accept him as their personal savior...

(never mind the small little matter of them not even comprehending what their bellybuttons are about, let alone complex spiritual issues)

...that he therefore has no choice but to condemn them to trillions of years of unimaginable pain and torture?

Indeed, it is utter nonsense such as that, that justifiably fuels atheism.
_______
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

seeds wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:07 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:08 am Maybe the problem is that we haven’t decided which babies lack value so can be killed at will.
uwot wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:28 am Unlike christianity which has declared that all babies are born in original sin, and that any who die prior to baptism will burn in hell for eternity.
That’s an excellent point, uwot, and one that I have given a lot of thought to in the past.

Can you imagine the mind boggling absurdity of billions of infants and toddlers being positioned in front of Jesus on a so-called “judgment day,” wherein Jesus...

(the alleged champion of love and forgiveness)

...explains to them that because they did not believe in him and accept him as their personal savior...

(never mind the small little matter of them not even comprehending what their bellybuttons are about, let alone complex spiritual issues)

...that he therefore has no choice but to condemn them to trillions of years of unimaginable pain and torture?

Indeed, it is utter nonsense such as that, that justifiably fuels atheism.
_______

Why do you think a baby is born with a soul? A human soul is an evolutionary potential but not something we have naturally. We acquire the seed of the soul which may become a soul. What does animal man have to do with heaven or hell? Real efforts must be made to be worthy of either.

Atheism is a purification and useful for questioning that which should be questioned. However, lacking the third dimension of thought it remains lost in duality. If that weren't the case, the question of infanticide would become far more meaningful
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:07 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:08 am Maybe the problem is that we haven’t decided which babies lack value so can be killed at will.
uwot wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:28 am Unlike christianity which has declared that all babies are born in original sin, and that any who die prior to baptism will burn in hell for eternity.
That’s an excellent point, uwot, and one that I have given a lot of thought to in the past.
Thank you , seeds.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 amWhy do you think a baby is born with a soul?
I don't, but I gather that is the orthodox view of Abrahamic religions and the reason 'pro-lifers' are so anti-abortion.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 amA human soul is an evolutionary potential but not something we have naturally. We acquire the seed of the soul which may become a soul.
So a bit like a character. Is there any evidence that "a soul" survives the destruction of the body it was once associated with?
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 amWhat does animal man have to do with heaven or hell? Real efforts must be made to be worthy of either.
So I don't even deserve hell?
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 amAtheism is a purification and useful for questioning that which should be questioned. However, lacking the third dimension of thought it remains lost in duality.
According to the non-dualists, two is already too many.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 amIf that weren't the case, the question of infanticide would become far more meaningful
I think the question of infanticide would become far more meaningful if you could provide some evidence that it is happening on a scale that should concern us. In particular that atheists disproportionately represented.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

Uwot
I don't, but I gather that is the orthodox view of Abrahamic religions and the reason 'pro-lifers' are so anti-abortion.
Yes in many cases. Man made Christendom asserts a ready made soul. Buddhism asserts no soul. I side with those who believe in the seed of the soul. It makes logical sense.
So a bit like a character. Is there any evidence that "a soul" survives the destruction of the body it was once associated with?
This is like a person never having seen an oak tree saying that there is no way this came from an acorn. We are familiar with the human animal man and speculations about the potential spirit body must seem absurd. When the animal body dies we cannot know what survives it.
So I don't even deserve hell?
Quite true. Deserving hell requires more than just reactive superficial complaining. It requires corrupting the inner man. Since our personalty lives our lives it is hard to corrupt the inner man. That is the danger of a lot of New Age techniques. Results are adopted by the ego which can corrupt their inner man
According to the non-dualists, two is already too many.


True. I think it is a dangerous mistake.

There is a great deal of truth in symbolism which is gradually being forgotten by the glorification of dualistic superficiality. The triangle for example has many meanings. One meaning is the unity of the trinity. The horizontal line represents the duality of elemental forces: yes and no, affirmation and negation. The apex of the triangle is the higher point where duality is reconciled into one at a higher level of reality.
I think the question of infanticide would become far more meaningful if you could provide some evidence that it is happening on a scale that should concern us. In particular that atheists disproportionately represented.
But that isn’t the question. The point is that we do not value the cycle of life so consequently cannot value infanticide as an expression of the cycle.

We rely on laws to provide meaning which for me is just silly and proof of our stupidity. There are actually people who would OK a partial birth abortion but as soon as the head pops out this same person would consider killing it murder. Why? Because the law says so. All this means is that we have forgotten how to reason in the full meaning of the word and justify our idiocy as progressive thinking. Where is Simone when I need her?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:49 pm Uwot
I don't, but I gather that is the orthodox view of Abrahamic religions and the reason 'pro-lifers' are so anti-abortion.
Yes in many cases. Man made Christendom asserts a ready made soul. Buddhism asserts no soul. I side with those who believe in the seed of the soul. It makes logical sense.
A seed is not a plant and an egg is not an animal. A bacterium or piece of dust in a cold sky is not a snowflake. A vision is not an actuality. Written music on paper is not actual music. A novice is not a doctor, scientist, engineer, philosopher, priest or trades worker. All of these things are potentials, not the actualities that they may or may not become.
Nick_A wrote:
So a bit like a character. Is there any evidence that "a soul" survives the destruction of the body it was once associated with?
This is like a person never having seen an oak tree saying that there is no way this came from an acorn. We are familiar with the human animal man and speculations about the potential spirit body must seem absurd. When the animal body dies we cannot know what survives it.
How can a soul surviving destruction of the body be like an oak tree growing from an acorn? Where is the connection? Are you saying that the seed is a continuation of, or extension on, the soul of the tree that sprouted it?
Nick_A wrote:There is a great deal of truth in symbolism which is gradually being forgotten by the glorification of dualistic superficiality. The triangle for example has many meanings. One meaning is the unity of the trinity. The horizontal line represents the duality of elemental forces: yes and no, affirmation and negation. The apex of the triangle is the higher point where duality is reconciled into one at a higher level of reality.
Sacred geometry - basically noticing fractal relationships via mathematics - is very interesting and can promote some deep ideas, but let's not forget that the claims made are speculative. Worth discussing but not believing others' interpretations implicitly.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by -1- »

seeds wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:07 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:08 am Maybe the problem is that we haven’t decided which babies lack value so can be killed at will.
uwot wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:28 am Unlike christianity which has declared that all babies are born in original sin, and that any who die prior to baptism will burn in hell for eternity.
That’s an excellent point, uwot, and one that I have given a lot of thought to in the past.
I've addressed that point some time ago, and suggested immediately afterward, that human embrioes be baptized before birth and before abortion.

Many Christian theists jumped on me and said that is impossible.

I would like to see a Bible quote that says that that is impossible or why that is impossible.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Infanticide

Post by seeds »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 am Why do you think a baby is born with a soul? A human soul is an evolutionary potential but not something we have naturally.
Sorry, Nick, but you are fabricating proprietary tidbits of information that you yourself have specifically designed to support your own personal theory.

Furthermore, if we were both being honest, we would both admit that when it comes to the idea of a “soul,” then we are both referencing “hearsay information” that we were introduced to as a part of the human experience.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 am We acquire the seed of the soul which may become a soul.
We’ve been over this before.

Again, as per the above mentioned “hearsay information” (Biblical mythology, to be precise):
the Bible wrote: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul...” (1 Corinthians 15:45)
And although I am obviously a big fan of the seed metaphor, the Bible says absolutely nothing of how the first man Adam was some kind of ambivalent precursor to that which may (or may not) become an actual soul.

Now I am completely aware of the folly of getting into arguments over the dubious details of ancient mythology, nevertheless, and just one more time for emphasis...
the Bible wrote: “The first man Adam”
...as in the mythological “first human” of which all subsequent humans are the alleged descendants (copies) of...
the Bible wrote: “was made a living soul”
... period, end of story.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 am I side with those who believe in the seed of the soul. It makes logical sense.
Nick, excluding yourself, and without pointing to some vague and tortured reference to it in the Bible that you personally believe suggests such a thing, please provide me with a list of names of all “those” (implying the existence of others like you) who believe in the “seed of the soul.”
_______
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

seeds wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:48 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 am Why do you think a baby is born with a soul? A human soul is an evolutionary potential but not something we have naturally.
Sorry, Nick, but you are fabricating proprietary tidbits of information that you yourself have specifically designed to support your own personal theory.

Furthermore, if we were both being honest, we would both admit that when it comes to the idea of a “soul,” then we are both referencing “hearsay information” that we were introduced to as a part of the human experience.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 am We acquire the seed of the soul which may become a soul.
We’ve been over this before.

Again, as per the above mentioned “hearsay information” (Biblical mythology, to be precise):
the Bible wrote: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul...” (1 Corinthians 15:45)
And although I am obviously a big fan of the seed metaphor, the Bible says absolutely nothing of how the first man Adam was some kind of ambivalent precursor to that which may (or may not) become an actual soul.

Now I am completely aware of the folly of getting into arguments over the dubious details of ancient mythology, nevertheless, and just one more time for emphasis...
the Bible wrote: “The first man Adam”
...as in the mythological “first human” of which all subsequent humans are the alleged descendants (copies) of...
the Bible wrote: “was made a living soul”
... period, end of story.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:32 am I side with those who believe in the seed of the soul. It makes logical sense.
Nick, excluding yourself, and without pointing to some vague and tortured reference to it in the Bible that you personally believe suggests such a thing, please provide me with a list of names of all “those” (implying the existence of others like you) who believe in the “seed of the soul.”
_______

You wrote that “The first man Adam was made a living soul.” However you forgot about Man’s devolution into “them” The soul of Man on earth is now a potential
Genesis 1:

7 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Nick, excluding yourself, and without pointing to some vague and tortured reference to it in the Bible that you personally believe suggests such a thing, please provide me with a list of names of all “those” (implying the existence of others like you) who believe in the “seed of the soul.”
What good is a list? It is the idea which is important However I will quote Meister Eckhart who I have the highest regard for.
"The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God." ~ Meister Eckhart
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Arising_uk »

Nick_A wrote:... It makes logical sense. ...
This is like a person never having seen an oak tree saying that there is no way this came from an acorn. ...
This quite clearly shows that you have no logical sense.
Post Reply