TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

I 100% do not advocate for convenience murder. I can assure you of that.

Okay. So we're not using the tragic case of a young woman, exploiting it to excuse the very different situation of the vast preponderance of abortions. Good.

OK. So we have a start. Are we to assume then that aborting the pregnancy would be "pre-meditated murder"?

It cannot be otherwise, if a baby is a baby.

I would leave it up to the female.

Wait. So it's not okay for men to commit premeditated murder. But it IS okay for women to murder?

What is it about the sex of the perp that makes the deed righteous?

How's that so far?

So far, clear but not yet consistent. My residual question would be, if (premeditated) murder is wrong, murder is wrong, right? What difference does it make who the perp is? Which people get a "get out of jail free" card for murder?

[Atla]

The issue is that, for "skeptics" like me, that's just not good enough. I reject subjective evidence in general. I see it as just a standard psychological thing that whatever faith someone has, that person will receive subjective experiences consistent with that faith. For example someone in my family tried to raise me as a Christian when I was very little, so I had Christian experiences and visions (not all pleasant), I even heard the Christian God talk a few times.

I believe I understand what you are getting at. And I also agree that the forms and colors that filter into our imagination and concept-order tend to mirror back to us.

Ortega y Gasset was an influence for me as I grappled with many of these issues. And though I described some of the •convincing• experiences (subjectively received) as of a mystical order, what really moves me are theological conclusions.

Perhaps the following will mean something for you as it did for me:

From Ortega y Gasset ('Estudios sobre el amor', 1957):

"Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"

I'm not sure how to reply to your comment.

What moves me the most is the process of figuring out the truth, whatever it is. My personal ecstasy isn't as important.

So imagine my surprise when, while searching for truth, I stumbled upon a philosophy that is (in my opinion) beyond both the ecstatic mysticisms and these theleological established ways of experiencing life. I've become something like an "Eastern nondualist mystic", went through the process they call awakening etc. It's a little ecstatic, but at the same time also the most rational worldview. It's not necessary godless, the two aren't mutually exclusive at all, it's just that I'm still also an atheist.

[Harbal]

I would leave it up to the female.

Wait. So it's not okay for men to commit premeditated murder. But it IS okay for women to murder?

Just bear in mind that legal abortion isn't murder, Gary. Tell him to look it up in a law book if he doesn't believe you.

[Immanuel Can]

I would leave it up to the female.

Wait. So it's not okay for men to commit premeditated murder. But it IS okay for women to murder?

Just bear in mind that legal abortion isn't murder, Gary. Tell him to look it up in a law book if he doesn't believe you.

Just because somebody human legalizes something doesn't make it moral. Slavery is socially approved in many nations. So you're trying to answer the question "What is moral?" by depending on fallible human beings to tell you.

But I thought you were dead against outside authorities telling you what the moral is? And yet you're not only fine with your own government doing it, you resort to it as if it were an authority on the whole subject. Your own flawed, finite, local, temporal government? The same one you complain about every election cycle?

Man's authority is fine with you, but God's authority isn't big enough for you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So imagine my surprise when, while searching for truth, I stumbled upon a philosophy that is (in my opinion) beyond both the ecstatic mysticisms and these theleological established ways of experiencing life. I've become something like an "Eastern nondualist mystic", went through the process they call awakening etc. It's a little ecstatic, but at the same time also the most rational worldview. It's not necessary godless, the two aren't mutually exclusive at all, it's just that I'm still also an atheist.

I understand that •strategy• if I can call it that. You are definitely not the first to decide on that route. It involves a spiritual and existential logic that is satisfactory for many.

In my case I resolve to remain within those traditions foundational to European civilization.

As to “absolute and ultimate truth” I guess the question is left open.

[Harbal]

Wait. So it's not okay for men to commit premeditated murder. But it IS okay for women to murder?

Just bear in mind that legal abortion isn't murder, Gary. Tell him to look it up in a law book if he doesn't believe you.

Just because somebody human legalizes something doesn't make it moral.

Of course it doesn't, but it does make abortion not murder.

Slavery is socially approved in many nations. So you're trying to answer the question "What is moral?" by depending on fallible human beings to tell you.

I'm depending on myself to tell me, but that means I'm not forced to decide it must be okay because I can't find an objectively true fact to tell me it isn't.

But I thought you were dead against outside authorities telling you what the moral is? And yet you're not only fine with your own government doing it, you resort to it as if it were an authority on the whole subject.

I'm not accepting my governments word on what is moral, just what is legal, and comes under the legal classification of murder.

Your own flawed, finite, local, temporal government? The same one you complain about every election cycle?

I never vote, so I just complain about them whenever I feel like it.

Man's authority is fine with you, but God's authority isn't big enough for you?

I've always had a bit of a problem with man's authority, actually; that's probably why I never amounted to much during my working life. God's hypothetical authority isn't really an issue for me at all; I find it remarkably easy to ignore.

[Immanuel Can]

Just bear in mind that legal abortion isn't murder, Gary. Tell him to look it up in a law book if he doesn't believe you.

Just because somebody human legalizes something doesn't make it moral.

Of course it doesn't, but it does make abortion not murder.

No, it only makes it legal. Like beating slaves to death or lopping off the heads of French kings -- also formerly made legal -- it's still murder.

Slavery is socially approved in many nations. So you're trying to answer the question "What is moral?" by depending on fallible human beings to tell you.

I'm depending on myself to tell me,

No you're not. You're invoking the government.

But I thought you were dead against outside authorities telling you what the moral is? And yet you're not only fine with your own government doing it, you resort to it as if it were an authority on the whole subject.

I'm not accepting my governments word on what is moral, just what is legal, and comes under the legal classification of murder.

"Murder" as a legal classification, came long after "murder" as a divine prohibition. See the Decalogue.

[seeds]

As a Christian who claims to have "objective" morality at your calling, maybe you can give a definitive answer as to the following:

A woman is raped by a psychopathic male and is impregnated. She wants no part of having that man's baby. Is it OK for her to abort the fetus before giving birth and if so, how do you know it is or is not? If you're in possession of objective morality as you claim then you can surely demonstrate what the "objective" answer is. So what is it?

Well, I'll answer your question, so long as you accept a caveat, and answer a question I need answered before I can answer.

The caveat, first. I would like to assure myself that you're not merely using the above case in an attempt to justify all abortions. For 99% of abortions, statistically, are not of that type. They're not rape abortions, or incest abortions, or anything of that kind. Less than 1% are those. So if you will begin by agreeing with me that 99% of abortions are immoral, I'll answer your question for you.

However, the second thing I need to do is get more clarity on the question. And so I have to ask the following: is a pre-born baby a human being? And I have to ask that, because the status of the child makes all the difference in the world to what is reasonable to decide, obviously.

A caveat and a question, then. Go ahead.

I am absolutely NOT using the post above to justify all abortions.

A pre-born baby is a human being's preborn baby as far as I'm aware. I know not more than that.

I'll even give you my answer afterward to the scenario to boot. Does that sound fair? You can critique it as much as you wish.

Come on Gary, stop falling for IC's crap.

He's taken a page from Age's book where one must jump through endless hoops of "clarifying questions" before he answers your question, of which (like Age) he's simply going to continue to avoid no matter what.

He has to avoid it!

And that's because as you know, good and well, he's just going to proclaim the Bible as his source for the proof of the existence of "objective morality," and he knows that there is simply no way of proving Biblical metaphysics to be objectively true.

In which case, you'll get nothing but the run-around or strawman arguments from him.

In the meantime, as it pertains to this recent debate about human morality vs God's morality, let me take a crack at the excellent issue you raised regarding the rape of a woman by a psychopath...

A quick Google search indicated that according to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year.

A similar search indicated that according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an estimated 23 million miscarriages occur every year worldwide.

Personally, I am totally against women using abortion as a form of birth control, and I feel (at least in general) that it should only be resorted to in cases of rape, or if the pregnancy clearly endangers the life of the mother.

However, the point is that if we are going to do a comparison between human morality and God's morality in regard to the issue of abortion,...

...then what are we to make of the fact that God allows an estimated 23 million miscarriages...

(which, in truth, is simply a natural form of abortion)

...to occur each year?

I mean, abortion is abortion, regardless of it being natural or induced.

In which case, doesn't 23 million aborted births per year via miscarriages make it seem as if God has no problem with aborting unborn human fetuses?

What do you (or anyone else) think about that?
_______

[Harbal]

Just because somebody human legalizes something doesn't make it moral.

Of course it doesn't, but it does make abortion not murder.

No, it only makes it legal. Like beating slaves to death or lopping off the heads of French kings -- also formerly made legal -- it's still murder.

I admire your ambition. You started by revising all the dictionaries to your liking, and now you've moved on to repealing the law.

I'm depending on myself to tell me,

No you're not. You're invoking the government.

The government tells me what is legal, but I decide for myself what is moral.

I'm not accepting my governments word on what is moral, just what is legal, and comes under the legal classification of murder.

"Murder" as a legal classification, came long after "murder" as a divine prohibition. See the Decalogue.

Were I a primitive, Middle Eastern, desert dweller, maybe I would.

[Atla]

So imagine my surprise when, while searching for truth, I stumbled upon a philosophy that is (in my opinion) beyond both the ecstatic mysticisms and these theleological established ways of experiencing life. I've become something like an "Eastern nondualist mystic", went through the process they call awakening etc. It's a little ecstatic, but at the same time also the most rational worldview. It's not necessary godless, the two aren't mutually exclusive at all, it's just that I'm still also an atheist.

I understand that •strategy• if I can call it that. You are definitely not the first to decide on that route. It involves a spiritual and existential logic that is satisfactory for many.

In my case I resolve to remain within those traditions foundational to European civilization.

As to “absolute and ultimate truth” I guess the question is left open.

It's not a strategy or resolution. The study of science and psychology led me to the understanding that Western philosophy is simply fundamentally untenable due to its dualistic thinking. It just doesn't fit the known world. It's not capable of fitting it. I discovered nondual thinking before I even realized that it's already known in some parts of the East.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And that's because as you know, good and well, he's just going to proclaim the Bible as his source for the proof of the existence of "objective morality," and he knows that there is simply no way of proving Biblical metaphysics to be objectively true.

It may be so that he does assert The Bible as his source and the source.

But one kind-of question I asked long ago is how would some other being, in another galaxy or planet — a being that had consciousness similar to humankind — how would they conceive of morals? And through what circumstances would The Revelation have been revealed to them?

The solution to that conundrum can be resolved in Christian terms : the Johannine idea of logos. And the Latin word intellectus expresses what revelation in relation to logos (cosmos-permeating intelligence) would reveal — if the idea of universal metaphysics and also supernaturalism is accepted.

Back then he dismissed the idea and entertained no part of it.

But it is that expanded, cosmic understanding that has enabled me to double-back to an established theological system — very Earth-bound in its way — which is Europe’s way.

Once one has an •expanded viewpoint• (and the Johannine perspective surely allows for that) it is difficult to turn back into an existing, built-up system and to feel comfortable and at home in it. I think this is what conventional Christianity and Catholicism is for many: a too-constraining system. Unless one can see through The Picture to an essence which one then chooses to value, despite inner and outer opposition.

[Gary Childress]

I 100% do not advocate for convenience murder. I can assure you of that.

Okay. So we're not using the tragic case of a young woman, exploiting it to excuse the very different situation of the vast preponderance of abortions. Good.

OK. So we have a start. Are we to assume then that aborting the pregnancy would be "pre-meditated murder"?

It cannot be otherwise, if a baby is a baby.

I would leave it up to the female.

Wait. So it's not okay for men to commit premeditated murder. But it IS okay for women to murder?

What is it about the sex of the perp that makes the deed righteous?

How's that so far?

So far, clear but not yet consistent. My residual question would be, if (premeditated) murder is wrong, murder is wrong, right? What difference does it make who the perp is? Which people get a "get out of jail free" card for murder?

It seems to me that murder is the unjustified killing of another being possessing moral awareness. What is your definition of "murder"? Maybe we need to clear that up first. How are you defining "murder"?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course it doesn't, but it does make abortion not murder.

No, it only makes it legal. Like beating slaves to death or lopping off the heads of French kings -- also formerly made legal -- it's still murder.

I admire your ambition. You started by revising all the dictionaries to your liking, and now you've moved on to repealing the law.

Heh. I'm not "repealing" anything. We're talking about what's moral, not what the local laws will let you get away with.

I'm depending on myself to tell me,

No you're not. You're invoking the government.

The government tells me what is legal, but I decide for myself what is moral.

There you go! Even you recognize there's a difference. But whereas I can challenge the injustices of the law with reference to objective truth regarding what's moral, even by your own account, all you've got to contradict the government is your feelings.

Good luck with that.

[FlashDangerpants]

But one kind-of question I asked long ago is how would some other being, in another galaxy or planet — a being that had consciousness similar to humankind — how would they conceive of morals? And through what circumstances would The Revelation have been revealed to them?

The solution to that conundrum can be resolved in Christian terms : the Johannine idea of logos. And the Latin word intellectus expresses what revelation in relation to logos (cosmos-permeating intelligence) would reveal — if the idea of universal metaphysics and also supernaturalism is accepted.

Now suppose they are similar to us in all ways except that they evolved from a type of spider that lays 50,000 eggs behind a rock every full moon (which happens once every 49 days on their planet). Those eggs hatch little spider-toddlers that scuttle from cover to cover trying to avoid snakes until one in 20 thousand reaches the age of four, and is gathered up into their society now that they have grown enough legs not to be seen as food anymore.

Now it's the year 2030, scientists on Earth discover life beyond our prior horizons.... So we send our greatest philosophical space-mind to argue with them about his biggest moral quandry, which happens to be abortion. Who is that guy? Maybe it's Immanuel Can or perhaps we send Iambiguous? It doesn't matter because you can't manage an argument about abortion with a spider from Mars whose natural lifecycle involves abandoning 50 thousand eggs.

For them to conceive of morality in the same way we do, they would have to have a whole lot of stuff in common with us and no significant difference. Otherwise the base perceptions tbat inform their morality will just be incompatible with ours.

[Gary Childress]

I would leave it up to the female.

Wait. So it's not okay for men to commit premeditated murder. But it IS okay for women to murder?

Just bear in mind that legal abortion isn't murder, Gary. Tell him to look it up in a law book if he doesn't believe you.

Let's give IC a chance to tell us what "murder" is first. I'm interested in hearing what his "objective" definition is. Apparently, it's much better than what I think murder is and includes a raped and abused woman terminating a pregnancy from her rapist. Maybe IC ought to go full trans and tell us what it's like to carry and deliver the child of a man who raped him/her.