"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Gary Childress » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:48 pm
I know there is no supernatural aspect to reality.
Interesting. How do you know that?
He probably knows it the same way you seem to claim to know all sort of things about God.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:18 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:51 pm
"The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact." Malcolm Muggeridge
He was right IMO but what I don't understand is why the obvious is continually denied?
Because people don't have the cure. That makes the idea quite terrifying, no matter how obviously true it may be.
Maybe it is because it invites discussion as to the reality of the consequences of the fall of man and how it relates to original sin.
Yes, and that.
Such discussion cannot take place in secular society.
Right.
The poor snowflakes may have to hide under their desks.
No, I think the terror is justified. The idea that human nature is deeply flawed, and is, in fact, a source of evil (if also sometimes of good), casts a deep shadow over all human self-sufficiency and aspiration, and makes every human political project dangerous. If one has no remedy, the temptation is just to avoid the thought entirely.
Yet if we could be honest as to the depravity of Man it may clarify why abortions of convenience are so easily justified.
No doubt. When we, as a society, have gotten to the level of immolating or dismembering our own children, we are worshipping dark, dark gods. It does not matter whether one calls them "Molech" or "it's my choice".

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:25 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:54 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:48 pm
I know there is no supernatural aspect to reality.
Interesting. How do you know that?
He probably knows it the same way you seem to claim to know all sort of things about God.
I doubt that. He would have to be verifying a universal negative -- proving the non-existence of a thing by reference to his own lack of experience of it. He would need possession of all the possibilities in the universe, in order to say he had actually done that.

Ironically if he could do that, he'd prove himself wrong. There would be a god in the universe -- and it would be him! :wink:

That's just not rational.

The Theist, in contrast, only needs one instance of genuine God-reality in order to justify belief. One genuine creation of any kind, one genuine miracle, one genuine revelation, one actual prayer answered, one actual moral precept, one incarnation, even one private and personal experience of God -- any of these, by any one person on the entire planet, at any time in history, would be enough to falsify his claim utterly.

So how does he manage to preclude all of that, and assert his confidence of a universal negation? It's clear he can't. What he means is, "I wish I could be sure there's nothing supernatural that exists, and I'm hoping my sheer dogmatism will convince others." That's not a heck of a great case, is it?

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Gary Childress » Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:25 am
The Theist, in contrast, only needs one instance of genuine God-reality in order to justify belief. One genuine creation of any kind, one genuine miracle, one genuine revelation, one actual prayer answered, one actual moral precept, one incarnation, even one private and personal experience of God -- any of these, by any one person on the entire planet, at any time in history, would be enough to falsify his claim utterly.
And have any of those things happened in such a way as to prove there is a God? What would be an example of an incident that has happened that proves there is a God?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:05 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:40 am
And have any of those things happened in such a way as to prove there is a God? What would be an example of an incident that has happened that proves there is a God?
That's a question you're going to have to answer for yourself, Gary. Because even if I told you I'd seen angels descending on ladders, that wouldn't be good for you -- you'd have just as much reason to believe I was delusional or lying as to believe I'd seen anything at all. Fair enough?

The evidence is Jesus Christ. That's the Person you have to look at. If He doesn't convince you, then nothing on earth ever will...and I certainly won't be able to.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Gary Childress » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:09 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:05 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:40 am
And have any of those things happened in such a way as to prove there is a God? What would be an example of an incident that has happened that proves there is a God?
That's a question you're going to have to answer for yourself, Gary. Because even if I told you I'd seen angels descending on ladders, that wouldn't be good for you -- you'd have just as much reason to believe I was delusional or lying as to believe I'd seen anything at all. Fair enough?

The evidence is Jesus Christ. That's the Person you have to look at. If He doesn't convince you, then nothing on earth ever will...and I certainly won't be able to.
I thought angels had wings? What do they need ladders for? :wink:

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:11 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:09 am
I thought angels had wings? What do they need ladders for? :wink:
Painting, and small repairs.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Gary Childress » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:11 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:09 am
I thought angels had wings? What do they need ladders for? :wink:
Painting, and small repairs.
What where the angels painting and repairing? This really is getting interesting now. :lol:

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:19 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:13 am
What where the angels painting and repairing? This really is getting interesting now. :lol:
Sorry...I forgot the smiley face. I'll give you two now, instead. :D :D

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Gary Childress » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:19 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:13 am
What where the angels painting and repairing? This really is getting interesting now. :lol:
Sorry...I forgot the smiley face. I'll give you two now, instead. :D :D
That's more like it! You had me worried for a while. I thought there might be an empty bed in some asylum somewhere! :lol:

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5401
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:49 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:23 am
That's more like it! You had me worried for a while. I thought there might be an empty bed in some asylum somewhere! :lol:
No, not seeing ladders and angels. It was an allusion to the story in the Torah of Jacob's Ladder, actually.

There's a serious point there, for everybody, not just Jacob. Encounter with God is not a mere academic activity. Nobody's invited to think about God the way one thinks about an object. Casualness, detachment, dissection, data collection. and so on are out. These may have utility at the start, and they may even give you reason to go further, but without the "further," there's no finding out. And all those who persist in coming merely empirically or imperiously get exactly what they deserve...nothing.

"Professing themselves to be wise," says the Bible in Romans 1, "they became fools."

One comes to God more humbly than that, or not at all. One asks to understand, then one must be willing to hear. And when the truth comes, it comes paired with a demand of a personal commitment: it's a "What will you now do with what you know?" question that must be personally answered.

One meets God for oneself, and at the total risk of oneself, or one does not meet Him at all.

Nick_A
Posts: 3804
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Nick_A » Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:41 am

I C
There's a serious point there, for everybody, not just Jacob. Encounter with God is not a mere academic activity. Nobody's invited to think about God the way one thinks about an object. Casualness, detachment, dissection, data collection. and so on are out. These may have utility at the start, and they may even give you reason to go further, but without the "further," there's no finding out. And all those who persist in coming merely empirically or imperiously get exactly what they deserve...nothing.

"Professing themselves to be wise," says the Bible in Romans 1, "they became fools."
This is the problem with arguing positions concerning the reality of our Source: the limitations of Natural man. Of course this is insulting which is why arguing details is futile. Real philosophy invites the Spirit by creating contradictions between our higher and lower natures which can only be resolved through higher understanding which has a spiritual source. But arguments can never get that far.
1 Corinthians 2:14 New International Version (NIV)
14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Peter Holmes
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:19 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:00 pm
I apologise. I took you to mean that whatever the Creator commands us to do or refrain from doing, we should do or refrain from doing, because that would be morally good. My misunderstanding.
Not a problem. It happens to us all.
So if the Creator commanded us to do something wicked, you wouldn't do it. Or would you? I'm not clear about this.
The assumption's problematic. I don't say that a thing is wrong because God commands it to be wrong.

Let me put it more technically. Ontologically, I say it's wrong because it's unharmonious with the Divine Nature itself; the fact that God also commands it to be wrong is sufficient to help with the human, epistemological problem. So both the question, "What makes something wrong," and "How do we know when something is wrong" are addressed in my answer.

But it is not the command that MAKES it wrong: God commands good because HE is good.

I hope that makes it clearer.
No, it doesn't make it clearer.

The divine nature theory of morality is no more successful than the divine command theory. It merely begs the question by re-phrasing it.

The good is that which is in harmony with a god's nature, and the not-good is that which isn't in harmony with a god's nature.

But this is circular. A god is good. What is goodness? Harmoniousness with a god's nature. It doesn't explain what goodness is. It's vacuous.

And the function of a hypothetical is to examine a claim. So I repeat: if The Creator commands us to do something wicked, should we do it?

There is no assumption here. The antecedent makes no claim, so there's nothing to challenge. Can you answer this question?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Peter Holmes » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:47 am

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:36 pm
"Why is killing a human being wrong?"

I don't want to die. So much so, I will most surely try to kill the one who tries to kill me. This desire for life, this impulse to defend one's life, seems to be natural and normal. Most folks, most of the time, at any given place, at any given time, demonstrate this desire and this impulse.

It is a fact, then, humans want to live and will work hard to stay alive.

Now, any person you interrogate will tell you plainly in some way, 'it's wrong to kill me. If I've i've done nuthin' to forfeit my life, my liberty, then I belong to me and it's wrong for you to kill me'. The language, no doubt, will be all over the place, but the distillation will always be: 'I am mine and it's wrong for you to take me'.

So: it's natural & normal for a person to want to live and natural & normal to attempt to defend one's self. And it's 'wrong' to take a life because that life belongs to itself.

This conclusion of mine works either way...

Secularly: if morality is just long-term communal consensus, then killing a human being is wrong cuz most folks, most of the time, say it it's wrong.

Theologically (mine): Crom built me to live, to strive; Crom gifted me with 'me', you with 'you', and so on. Absolutely, it's friggin' wrong for me to off you and you, me, without justification.
Your argument seems to be: people don't want to die, so killing people is morally wrong.

But that doesn't follow - there's no logical connection. To explain why human societies have developed moral judgements, such as 'killing people is wrong' is not to show why killing people is, in fact, wrong - which is what objectivists claim.

It may be sensible, practical, expedient, and so on, for us not to kill each other. But that doesn't explain why it's morally wrong to do so.

The assertion 'if we all kill each other, there'll be no people left' is not a moral claim whatsoever.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2694
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: "IF embryos are people."

Post by Belinda » Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:49 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:23 am
That's more like it! You had me worried for a while. I thought there might be an empty bed in some asylum somewhere! :lol:
No, not seeing ladders and angels. It was an allusion to the story in the Torah of Jacob's Ladder, actually.

There's a serious point there, for everybody, not just Jacob. Encounter with God is not a mere academic activity. Nobody's invited to think about God the way one thinks about an object. Casualness, detachment, dissection, data collection. and so on are out. These may have utility at the start, and they may even give you reason to go further, but without the "further," there's no finding out. And all those who persist in coming merely empirically or imperiously get exactly what they deserve...nothing.

"Professing themselves to be wise," says the Bible in Romans 1, "they became fools."

One comes to God more humbly than that, or not at all. One asks to understand, then one must be willing to hear. And when the truth comes, it comes paired with a demand of a personal commitment: it's a "What will you now do with what you know?" question that must be personally answered.

One meets God for oneself, and at the total risk of oneself, or one does not meet Him at all.
Immanuel, I don't think you are fond of mysticism, so judging by the tone of the above I think you rely overmuch on intuition.

God is an important idea , and moderns want and need to have God presented in explicit language or in poetic language but not in the ritualistic old time language game . I note that Jesus of the Gospels was poetic in his use of parables suited to his audience and which still resonate meaning.

One application of the word 'God' is the moral law. There is no codified sacred law about abortion.' Thou shalt not murder' applies to both the pros and the cons regarding clinical abortion.The best we can do regarding clinical abortion ,using Biblical teaching as a guide ,is to follow Jesus and St Paul (and the Prophets) and attach our attitude to the spirit of the law rather than its literal command.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests