Why The Judaeo-Christian God Makes No Sense to Me

Page 9 of 10 [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

19 Oct 2017, 3:50 pm

Quote:
If you believe in your beliefs, you do trust your mind. You trust it every time you have an opinion.


One can trust one's mind but one can have a certain amount of skepticism of one's own conclusions.

Quote:
If you can't be sure what the Bible means, why are you so sure it's perfect?


And, that's the problem I can't be sure either way. Which is why I have reasonable doubt. The more I read it and listen to the followers and the experts in it the more I go away from it. There is no reliable way to determine truth from error when it comes to the Bible. It is all based in faith and every denomination says they're the way and the truth and anyone else outside of them are apostates and the false prophets.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

19 Oct 2017, 9:37 pm

TBH all of this is very high and theoretical. There's a certain point where we decide where we draw lines on what we accept and don't and it will always shape cultures in ways that we don't anticipate.

I think if we were really to say something about abortion it's this - outside of medical need, in the case where either child or child and mom will die, something went wrong and it's usually an avenue where society's really come up with a bunk idea and declared it a standard which initially enables licence but later worse, forces that behavior as each gender competes within itself almost in the way that honest businesses in a corrupt environment would lose out if they don't bend the rules themselves.

For example - I think in the 50 years since the late 60's we can say that 'free love' is a bust. If we were going to hold both sexes equal and say that anyone could have sex with anyone, no strings attached, no one would go back to the other for a monthly check if a pregnancy occurred. The trouble is, for anything less than an independently wealthy woman, that seems like it's the logical option even if it's not agreed upon at the time of a sexual encounter. Being that's the case we should probably, at the societal level pull that one back and say that it was a mistake and we'd probably be wiser to do that in any area where we catch on that all we've given people new rights to is natural consequences.

Over and above that - if we want to have our cake and eat it too we then have the right to find ourselves slipping into barbarism and as often is the case, usually from secondary effects, freedoms start slipping away from any populace who isn't already in the habit of balancing rights with responsibilities.

Lots of angles to consider with all of this, none of it that I'd moralize in any religious way but we clearly have to keep the list of things we want to be able to do (or have rights to) and the list of things that we're willing to accept in our society congruent. What's worse is when those two lists are incongruent, the results are misunderstood (in earnest or deliberately), and the unforeseen consequences trigger conspiracy theories. If that last part happens we're really fit to lose everything.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

19 Oct 2017, 9:42 pm

carturo222 wrote:
Psychiatric science has concluded that suicidality is a disordered state of mind that doesn't actually promote the best interests of the subject. In someone not otherwise afflicted with incurable suffering, the wish to die is a misaimed wish for better conditions.


For my hypothetical, let's assume the wish is genuine and not the result of madness. If I get your drift, for you the right to live or personhood is predicated on an (assumed) instinctual or conscious will to live?


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

19 Oct 2017, 9:46 pm

In myself, there exists a "conscious will to live."

I don't want to die. To die, to me, means perpetual darkness which you can't escape.



carturo222
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,568
Location: Colombia

20 Oct 2017, 8:13 am

Mikah wrote:
For my hypothetical, let's assume the wish is genuine and not the result of madness.


Then let the suicidal person do the deed. Letting anyone else do it would always leave open the possibility of misinterpreted intention. In the case of someone who clearly communicates the intention but is so physically disabled that they can't kill themselves, the rules for permissibility of euthanasia would apply.

Mikah wrote:
If I get your drift, for you the right to live or personhood is predicated on an (assumed) instinctual or conscious will to live?


It's interesting that you (seem to) equate right to live with personhood. I'd say an adult with the gravest possible degree of mental retardation has a right to live, even if their personhood is hard to ascertain.

To answer your question: yes, I link the objective right to live with the subjective urge to live. Which is, for example, one of the reasons why I'm a vegetarian and only, if ever, consume animals with the simplest nervous systems.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

20 Oct 2017, 10:39 am

Quote:
It's interesting that you (seem to) equate right to live with personhood. I'd say an adult with the gravest possible degree of mental retardation has a right to live, even if their personhood is hard to ascertain.


I don't, I am just trying to comprehend your views. I say humans in general should have that right (if you like such terms), a right only to be taken away in extreme circumstances. It's not my side of this debate that feels the need to invent new kinds of humanness, so we can kill the others.
carturo222 wrote:
To answer your question: yes, I link the objective right to live with the subjective urge to live.


Then the next question is why and where from?


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


carturo222
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,568
Location: Colombia

20 Oct 2017, 11:03 am

Mikah wrote:
carturo222 wrote:
To answer your question: yes, I link the objective right to live with the subjective urge to live.
Then the next question is why and where from?


The only reason why we care about other people's wishes is our evolved ability for empathy. If I do not want to die, I can put myself in the shoes of someone at risk of dying and more-or-less-confidently assume they'd want to be safe. The entirety of morality comes from this process.

Part of our effort in making our points clear faces an obstacle in word usage. I use "human" as a solely biological category and "person" as a moral category. It appears to me that you use "human" as a moral category. Am I correct?



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

20 Oct 2017, 4:49 pm

carturo222 wrote:
The only reason why we care about other people's wishes is our evolved ability for empathy. If I do not want to die, I can put myself in the shoes of someone at risk of dying and more-or-less-confidently assume they'd want to be safe. The entirety of morality comes from this process.


I think I see the origins of this thinking now, but carry on.

carturo222 wrote:
Part of our effort in making our points clear faces an obstacle in word usage. I use "human" as a solely biological category and "person" as a moral category. It appears to me that you use "human" as a moral category. Am I correct?


No I use it in its biological sense (Edit: actually it's not that simple, I need time to compose a better-than-one word description, as in my other post a few years ago, a human's progression through time is also a part of that understanding, which I don't think falls under biology strictly - whatever else that description is I wouldn't call it a moral category) my morality dictates that, while there are several arguable exceptions, we should not kill other humans and abortion is almost never one of those exceptions. I am wary of creating other categories of humans with the sole purpose of excusing killing, like persons and zygotes, Aryans and....

Edit2: unless... hm can morality and biology sensibly be separated in that way at all?

Edit3: There are oddities in your position I am struggling to get my head around. So far the implied wish or instinct to live grants the right not to be killed. I sort of understand that, though it doesn't seem quite sufficient to me. You say you might allow post-natal termination for babies that have serious conditions that were undetected during pregnancy (why does time of detection matter?), are these only conditions that affect the baby's current will to live? If not you are presumably making judgements on that baby's future quality of life and future will to live. Simultaneously, in my thought experiment, you say we should not kill the suicidal man, because he might change his mind. More writing please.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

20 Oct 2017, 6:41 pm

Mikah wrote:
carturo222 wrote:
The only reason why we care about other people's wishes is our evolved ability for empathy. If I do not want to die, I can put myself in the shoes of someone at risk of dying and more-or-less-confidently assume they'd want to be safe. The entirety of morality comes from this process.


I think I see the origins of this thinking now, but carry on.

carturo222 wrote:
Part of our effort in making our points clear faces an obstacle in word usage. I use "human" as a solely biological category and "person" as a moral category. It appears to me that you use "human" as a moral category. Am I correct?


No I use it in its biological sense (Edit: actually it's not that simple, I need time to compose a better-than-one word description, as in my other post a few years ago, a human's progression through time is also a part of that understanding, which I don't think falls under biology strictly - whatever else that description is I wouldn't call it a moral category) my morality dictates that, while there are several arguable exceptions, we should not kill other humans and abortion is almost never one of those exceptions. I am wary of creating other categories of humans with the sole purpose of excusing killing, like persons and zygotes, Aryans and....

Edit2: unless... hm can morality and biology sensibly be separated in that way at all?

Edit3: There are oddities in your position I am struggling to get my head around. So far the implied wish or instinct to live grants the right not to be killed. I sort of understand that, though it doesn't seem quite sufficient to me. You say you might allow post-natal termination for babies that have serious conditions that were undetected during pregnancy (why does time of detection matter?), are these only conditions that affect the baby's current will to live? If not you are presumably making judgements on that baby's future quality of life and future will to live. Simultaneously, in my thought experiment, you say we should not kill the suicidal man, because he might change his mind. More writing please.


ah, the old slippery slope - may or may not be a reasonable fear.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

20 Oct 2017, 10:20 pm

cathylynn wrote:
ah, the old slippery slope - may or may not be a reasonable fear.


I don't think slippery slope is quite right. I'm not saying abortion leads to holocaust, I'm saying abortion advocates are engaging in the same sort of thinking, it's just less obvious. Dehumanising is a common human self-deception, it's how many murderers justify their crimes. It's how soldiers become more effective killers. I presume it's how abortion doctors sleep at night, telling themselves it wasn't wrong at all, because it wasn't really a human. On that note, I'm off to sleep.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

20 Oct 2017, 11:28 pm

Mikah wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
ah, the old slippery slope - may or may not be a reasonable fear.


I don't think slippery slope is quite right. I'm not saying abortion leads to holocaust, I'm saying abortion advocates are engaging in the same sort of thinking, it's just less obvious. Dehumanising is a common human self-deception, it's how many murderers justify their crimes. It's how soldiers become more effective killers. I presume it's how abortion doctors sleep at night, telling themselves it wasn't wrong at all, because it wasn't really a human. On that note, I'm off to sleep.


look at a photo of a 6-8 week fetus and tell me how it looks different from a fish fetus. what makes a human human to you? to me, it's the ability to have and process emotions. and communication is right up there. i think it's awful to kill an ape, whale, dolphin, or elephant. i have an abortion doctor friend who feels she's doing a great service to men, women, and god. no need to dehumanize anything.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

21 Oct 2017, 11:58 am

cathylynn wrote:
look at a photo of a 6-8 week fetus and tell me how it looks different from a fish fetus.


Why do looks matter? What else can it be besides a developing human being?

cathylynn wrote:
what makes a human human to you? to me, it's the ability to have and process emotions. and communication is right up there.


There are many things adult humans might be said to be or to have, younger humans may not have them yet, that does not mean they are not human.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

21 Oct 2017, 4:22 pm

Mikah wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
look at a photo of a 6-8 week fetus and tell me how it looks different from a fish fetus.


Why do looks matter? What else can it be besides a developing human being?

it has human dna, but not much else that can be classified as uniquely human at that point.
cathylynn wrote:
what makes a human human to you? to me, it's the ability to have and process emotions. and communication is right up there.


There are many things adult humans might be said to be or to have, younger humans may not have them yet, that does not mean they are not human.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

26 Oct 2017, 3:51 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
God is perfect, holy and divine. God is infinite and his holy word is perfect. Mankind including myself is filled with sin and unrighteousness. My mind is but finite. Plus, I have an autism spectrum as well. How can one who is filled with sin and unrighteousness, who's mind is finite plus being on the autism spectrum hope to comprehend and follow the perfect word of a perfect, infinite, holy and divine God?


Especially when that perfect God is a genocidal son murdering prick.

Why on earth would even the most insane, not that I think you are such, want such a vile God?

Please tell us.

Regards
DL



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

26 Oct 2017, 7:41 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
God is perfect, holy and divine. God is infinite and his holy word is perfect. Mankind including myself is filled with sin and unrighteousness. My mind is but finite. Plus, I have an autism spectrum as well. How can one who is filled with sin and unrighteousness, who's mind is finite plus being on the autism spectrum hope to comprehend and follow the perfect word of a perfect, infinite, holy and divine God?


Especially when that perfect God is a genocidal son murdering prick.

Why on earth would even the most insane, not that I think you are such, want such a vile God?

Please tell us.

Regards
DL


I'm to imperfect to get it DL both by my ASD and sinful nature. I have no answer. I don't know.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

02 Nov 2017, 11:15 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
God is perfect, holy and divine. God is infinite and his holy word is perfect. Mankind including myself is filled with sin and unrighteousness. My mind is but finite. Plus, I have an autism spectrum as well. How can one who is filled with sin and unrighteousness, who's mind is finite plus being on the autism spectrum hope to comprehend and follow the perfect word of a perfect, infinite, holy and divine God?


Especially when that perfect God is a genocidal son murdering prick.

Why on earth would even the most insane, not that I think you are such, want such a vile God?

Please tell us.

Regards
DL


I'm to imperfect to get it DL both by my ASD and sinful nature. I have no answer. I don't know.


You obviously worship power over morality or you would not be wanting an immoral genocidal son murdering God.

Please change your focus to morality and reject Yahweh and his immoral ways.

Regards
DL