|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:27 am Post subject: 81 |
 |
|
The Biblical quotations were not misquoted or taken out of context, though I will admit the context was not verbosely explained. To argue that life is not sacred should not be a moot issue. To answer to the question "When is a person?" is one that can not be answered without direct revelation from the Creator. Human life is sacred. As such, one should "abstain from all appearance of evil" defending the unborn as a person, for he is the Lord's creation and was formed from and in the image of man.
There are many passages of Scripture that seemingly contradict each other, especially if taken out of context. The example of Exodus 21:22-23, is a case in point. One could extract an interpretation from the passage as to infer that an unborn child's life is worth less than the mother's, yet that interpretation would imply a contradiction exists in the spirit of the law as presented in Scripture. There are indeed passages in Scripture that, if taken literally, contradict each other. Yet, there is no contradiction in the spirit of the Word. Thus, to quote it outside of the spirit of the Word is the wrong.
Historically, the "value" of "life" was treated as different for individuals. There are and have been those who have interpreted scriptures to teach that women are worth less than men. This is found and reflected in several cultures. We see this in the remnants of the caste system in India, and have seen this in the Holocaust during the Third Reich. In ancient Rome, the law valued children less than adults. In many cultures and nations, slaves, too, were valued less. Yet, it would be wrong to interpret these as legal precendences to the claim that life has a different value for a different class.
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:26-27
As stated in Scripture, man, male and female, is created in the image of God. It should be inferred then that the value of man is priceless and of great value, and it should be inferred the same is true in all his ages - old, young, and even not-yet born. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:49 am Post subject: 82 |
|
|
| tigerbalm* wrote: |
| It would enter you mind to consider that God knits together every fetus, even the ones that miscarry naturally. He knits them together even though he has, in Jeremiah's terms, allotted them no days of life. Ponder that. |
I just want to say that I thought this was an incredible observation. I am steeped in commentaries on the Bible and the Bible itself in my degree program, and it never ceases to amaze me when I read a good, new perspective. Anyway, bravo!
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigerbalm*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:53 am Post subject: 83 |
|
|
| Amb wrote: |
| I'm sure God will understand the difference between a genuine attempt to understand the truth - and deliberate misinterpretation. There is a world of difference between not understanding something and getting the wrong concept entirely - and deliberately misquoting/re-substantiating passages. |
I agree completely with this sentiment, although I disagree completely with your timing.
DejMar announced that there was other scriptures that indicated that the life of fetuses was sacred, and that these other scriptures were, in fact, clear on the point. He then, instead of producing those scriptures, those clear-on-the-point scriptures, quoted four verses that had absolutely nothing to do with fetuses as direct answer to a query about what those scriptures were.
Whatever DejMar's overall understanding of the Bible, he knows perfectly well that those verses have nothing to do with fetuses. He is misrepresenting what they said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigerbalm*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:05 am Post subject: 84 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
| The Biblical quotations were not misquoted or taken out of context, though I will admit the context was not verbosely explained. |
I didn't say anything about misquoting or taking things out of context. I said something about your misrepresenting what those verses said. You claimed they were about fetuses, and they are not.
| DejMar wrote: |
| To argue that life is not sacred should not be a moot issue. To answer to the question "When is a person?" is one that can not be answered without direct revelation from the Creator. |
But this is not what you said before. You said that there are scriptures which make the issue clear. Your new position, that no one can know when a fetus becomes a person, while much more reasonable, is completely at odds with what you were saying before.
| DejMar wrote: |
| Human life is sacred. As such, one should "abstain from all appearance of evil" defending the unborn as a person, for he is the Lord's creation and was formed from and in the image of man. |
I know you think you have a link here, but you don't. Nothing you've said actually justifies considering a fetus a person. Tumours are human, and of the Lord's creation, and "formed from a man", and yet they are not people, and they are not sacred.
I'll assist you with a step I think you need - the argument you're looking for is that a fetus can develop into a person. That is special.* This isn't nearly enough to condemn abortions as murders, but it does lend some weight to your "better safe than sorry" policy. If this was the only factor in a decision to have or not to have an abortion, your policy would probably be compelling.
Unfortunately, there are other factors. We should never abstain from the appearance of evil at the cost of committing actual evil. To avoid letting a fetus develop because it is in-the-image-of-man-who-is-in-the-image-of-God is rather tenuous weighed against forcing serious mental and physical trauma on an actual person.
| DejMar wrote: |
| There are many passages of Scripture that seemingly contradict each other, especially if taken out of context. The example of Exodus 21:22-23, is a case in point. One could extract an interpretation from the passage as to infer that an unborn child's life is worth less than the mother's, yet that interpretation would imply a contradiction exists in the spirit of the law as presented in Scripture. |
This is not a case of contradiction, because Exodus 21 implies that a fetus' life is worth less than the mother's, and no other passage in the Bible contradicts that. I have asked you to demonstrate otherwise, and you have shown yourself unable.
| DejMar wrote: |
| It should be inferred then that the value of man is priceless and of great value |
Sure.
| DejMar wrote: |
| and it should be inferred the same is true in all his ages - old, young, and even not-yet born. |
No. It should not be so inferred. If unborn were an age, then unconceived would be likewise, and you should be arguing ferociously against the widespread monthly murder of egg cells and daily mass slaughter of sperm cells. "Tissue that has the potential to become a person" is certainly not of the same value as "person".
* It is perhaps interesting to consider that this thought isn't in any way generated from the Bible, and doesn't have any kind of Biblical support, and yet nonetheless is the only reasonable support to give your argument the shape you clearly want it to have. I think you'd have a much easier time presenting your position if you didn't try to force scripture into it, and instead let it stand on its own merit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:28 pm Post subject: 85 |
|
|
| tigerbalm* wrote: |
| I didn't say anything about misquoting or taking things out of context. I said something about your misrepresenting what those verses said. You claimed they were about fetuses, and they are not. |
I was not the one misrepresenting what those verses said.
| tigerbalm* wrote: |
| You claimed they were about fetuses, and they are not. |
I did not claim the quoted Scriptures were about fetuses, I was making a reference to Scripture's support of the sanctity of life.
| tigerbalm* wrote: |
DejMar wrote:
To argue that life is not sacred should not be a moot issue. To answer to the question "When is a person?" is one that can not be answered without direct revelation from the Creator.
But this is not what you said before. You said that there are scriptures which make the issue clear. Your new position, that no one can know when a fetus becomes a person, while much more reasonable, is completely at odds with what you were saying before.
|
It is not a new position. My position has been consistent. I believe life does begin at conception. I challenge you to look up the definition of conception, you should see that it is, by definition, when life does begin.
| tigerbalm* wrote: |
I'll assist you with a step I think you need - the argument you're looking for is that a fetus can develop into a person. |
No. That is not the argument I was looking for. Since a human being is already a person, even as a fetus, the phrase "can develop into a person" is incorrect. I do understand you do may not agree with that. Yet, I shall not even challenge you to prove the contrary. I feel it would be a useless endeavor.
| tigerbalm* wrote: |
Unfortunately, there are other factors. We should never abstain from the appearance of evil at the cost of committing actual evil.
To avoid letting a fetus develop because it is in-the-image-of-man-who-is-in-the-image-of-God is rather tenuous weighed against forcing serious
mental and physical trauma on an actual person. |
Since the fetus is an actual person, the [/i]actual evil[/i] is the murder of the unborn. The mental and physical trauma on another person pales to the mental and physical trauma and death forced upon the unborn innocent.
| tigerbalm* wrote: |
This is not a case of contradiction, because Exodus 21 implies that a fetus' life is worth less than the mother's, and no other passage in the Bible contradicts that.
|
If you say that Exodus 21 says that the child is worth less than the woman, then you must also believe that women are worth less than men. Either that or you are choosing to interpret Scripture at your own whim. (That is, if you put credence into Scripture - of which I pray you do.) I will not bother trying to present any Scripture that shows a comparison of the value of life as I know that life is sacred and holy and that only God can place any comparative value on such, if any comparative value does exist. I do not believe that Scripture places a difference in value on any of God's chosen. I believe that life has eternal value, thus, just as infinity plus one is still infinity, a life of a child is comparatively no less than that of a man or woman.
| Psalm 139:13-16 wrote: |
For You formed my inward parts:
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigerbalm*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:32 pm Post subject: 86 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
| I did not claim the quoted Scriptures were about fetuses, I was making a reference to Scripture's support of the sanctity of life. |
Yes you did:
| DejMar, emphasis mine, wrote: |
| Thus, it is incorrect to argue that the Bibical law inferred an inequality in the life of a mother and child, especially with other scripture indicating the life of the unborn as sacred, and that the taking of the life of the unborn child is equal to murder. |
| DejMar, emphasis mine, wrote: |
| An understanding of the punishment for harm caused by the fighting men is, in part, evidence that supports the equality of the lives, ("...life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,...."). Yet, it is not alone, as other passages of Scripture are more clear on the point. |
You said, plainly and directly, that other scriptures indicate that taking the life of an unborn child is murder. You said, plainly and directly, that other passages of scripture are clear on the point that a fetus' life is equal to the mother's. When asked for those scriptures, you posted verses that, as you are now admitting, are not about fetuses. That is misrepresentating what those scriptures say.
| DejMar wrote: |
| It is not a new position. My position has been consistent. I believe life does begin at conception. |
Your position was that the Bible presented clear evidence that a fetus' life is equal to that of the mother it inhabits. You then stated that it cannot be known when a fetus becomes a person, meaning that the Bible does not present clear evidence that a fetus' life is equal to that of the mother. This is a change in your stated position. That you are abandoning your second claim now that it's inconvenient for you does not change the fact that you contradicted yourself.
| DejMar wrote: |
| I challenge you to look up the definition of conception, you should see that it is, by definition, when life does begin. |
You are wrong. Sperm and eggs are alive before conception. When they fuse together in the event of conception, it is a continuation of life, not the beginning. In addition, life does not indicate personhood, a significant gap in your argument.
| DejMar wrote: |
| No. That is not the argument I was looking for. Since a human being is already a person, even as a fetus, the phrase "can develop into a person" is incorrect. I do understand you do may not agree with that. Yet, I shall not even challenge you to prove the contrary. I feel it would be a useless endeavor. |
You are ignoring the argument you yourself were making. You made the argument that we cannot know if the fetus is a person, but should avoid abortion anyway, to avoid the appearance of evil. If you didn't want to make that argument, why did you? If you didn't want to discuss that argument, why bring it up?
| DejMar wrote: |
| Since the fetus is an actual person, the [/i]actual evil[/i] is the murder of the unborn. The mental and physical trauma on another person pales to the mental and physical trauma and death forced upon the unborn innocent. |
A fetus is less capable of experiencing mental and physical trauma than a person. In fact, it is less capable than a cow, or a chicken, or a fish. But the point was made in the context of the argument you're abandoning, so it doesn't really matter.
| DejMar wrote: |
| If you say that Exodus 21 says that the child is worth less than the woman, then you must also believe that women are worth less than men. Either that or you are choosing to interpret Scripture at your own whim. |
Neither of your conclusions are true. I am unsure why that has anything to do with your misrepresentation of scripture, though.
| DejMar wrote: |
| I will not bother trying to present any Scripture that shows a comparison of the value of life as I know that life is sacred and holy |
You will not present any scripture that indicates equal value between the life of a fetus and the life of that fetus' mother because such scripture does not exist. Your claim that it does exist is false, and as you know it is false, but claim it anyway, is tantamount to blasphemy.
| DejMar wrote: |
| I believe that life has eternal value, thus, just as infinity plus one is still infinity, |
Infinity plus one is not infinity, because "plus one" is not a function that can be applied to infinity.
| DejMar wrote: |
| a life of a child is comparatively no less than that of a man or woman. |
A woman's body naturally rejects an astonishingly large proportion of fertilized eggs. The most conservative number I have seen quoted is 18%, but most say around or more than 50%. This means that there are uncountable abortions happening constantly and naturally. According to the value system you claim you have, that every fetus' life is of infinite value, each and every one of these is an eternally resonating tragedy.
Your premise, that a fetus is a person, whose death is an eternal tragedy, based on nothing but your own feeling about the matter, necessitates a monstrous and wicked God. As all of scripture disagrees with you, so do I.
| Psalm 139 wrote: |
For You formed my inward parts:
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; |
Exactly as with the Jeremiah quotation, we are in complete agreement with regard to these passages saying that God created fetuses. As I pointed out with the Jeremiah quotation, He also created everything else. And yet not everything is a person. You have still provided no basis for your declaration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject: 87 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
| It is not a new position. My position has been consistent. I believe life does begin at conception. I challenge you to look up the definition of conception, you should see that it is, by definition, when life does begin. |
Well, sure, life begins at conception. But there are all KINDS of life that I, and, I'll bet, you, do not consider sacred. I kill billions of bacteria every day; I swat a mosquito with hardly a thought; and I hold a certain reverence for the animals whose flesh I eat, but it doesn't stop me from eating it.
| DejMar wrote: |
| To answer to the question "When is a person?" is one that can not be answered without direct revelation from the Creator. |
Sorry, the random processes that make up the universe aren't talking.
Oh, you meant a deity of some sort! Well, that's a-whole-nother discussion. Let's just say that I'm not willing to believe in a deity who doesn't require us to think for ourselves.
Thinking for myself, the random couple-dozen cells that make up a zygote do not strike me as human life. When an embryo has developed enough to have a recognizable backbone, if you saw it you would think it was a fish of some sort, and without a study of the actual DNA, you couldn't tell it apart from a fish zygote. I eat fish, and I don't consider them sacred. Around 4.5 months after conception, the brain has become recognizably human (well, primate, at least), and soon after that the rest of it actually looks human (again, primate, really). I'm willing to call it a human at that point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: 88 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
Sorry, the random processes that make up the universe aren't talking.
Oh, you meant a deity of some sort! Well, that's a-whole-nother discussion. Let's just say that I'm not willing to believe in a deity who doesn't require us to think for ourselves.
|
Apparantly, if you are being truthful in this statement of yours, you believe in a diety - or you are acknowledging that you don't think for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:11 am Post subject: 89 |
|
|
Umm, no, not even close. Here's a restatement that might be clearer.
Those deities who do NOT require us to think for ourselves (i.e. the ones who allow/expect followers to consult with them on issues such as when life becomes 'human life'), I'm NOT willing to believe in those.
So, this quality in a deity -- an expectation that we think for ourselves -- is a requirement for me to believe in Him/Her. It is not sufficient, but it is a requirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am Post subject: 90 |
|
|
Okay, from your restatement, then you don't believe that random processes make up the universe.
Got it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: 91 |
|
|
| I don't believe that the random processes constitute a deity. I was being sarcastic when I implied so, before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: 92 |
|
|
In any case, as amusing as this verbal sparring is, I'm not going to continue. I do concede that conception is a pretty defensible choice for when human life begins. I don't agree with it, but I can't argue that it is a solid choice. I just get anxious when people try to invoke God or scripture to defend it, when we're talking about making a legal definition.
Make your case based on demonstrably real things and I support your right to do so, even if I don't agree with the conclusion. But make your case based on something that is not demonstrably real, something that requires faith, and I'll fight you even if I agree with your final conclusion. Such arguments have no place in our body of legislature. (I was going to say that they are specifically excluded by the First Amendment, but that's not true. It's focus is quite a bit more narrow. So I'm just going to say that it should be specifically excluded.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:49 am Post subject: 93 |
|
|
There is nothing that is domonstrably real that does not require faith.
From your own admission, you have placed your faith on your own thought processes. Given this, your statement is you will argue just to argue.
If your implication is that Scripture has no place in our body of legislature, I will emphatically disagree. Our nation was founded in part on the principles and laws presented in Scripture, and to exclude them would be a denial of the truth. Of course, not only those found therein, our laws have an additional basis in history absent of the Judeo-Christian Scripture. As to the inclusion of Scripture, the United States Declaration of Independence made reference to our Creator and that we are His beneficiaries to the unalienable rights presented.
The First Amendment does not exclude Religion from its participation in our legislature, but rather it was emplaced to disempower our Government from enacting legislature that would exclude it from participation, of course it was also emplaced to empower our Government to prevent the exclusion of any other valid religion from the same participation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elethiomel
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:51 am Post subject: 94 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
| any other valid religion |
Is there more than one? Then how do we know which scriptures to use for legislation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:29 pm Post subject: 95 |
|
|
I'll be the moderator of this debate...
Elethiomel, that question is simply antagonistic. Considering his views on the matter, he is using "valid" in the sense of their right to exist and be a religion, not in the sense of true.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:38 pm Post subject: 96 |
|
|
Zag, I'm curious about something. I don't believe you would flee the country if the government suddenly started reversing its cleansing of religion from the halls of its establishments. I think you would probably just ignore it as much as possible and continue enjoying the niceties of living here. Is that a safe assumption? If not, ignore this hypothetical.
You are born into a Christian nation, but you come to your atheistic faith despite your religious upbringing. (Not a stretch, as I understand it.) The laws are generally based on the Bible, but they are no more strict or oppressive than the laws of the United States. The difference is people in the government publicly and regularly affirm their faith, offering prayers before events and meetings, putting plaques with Scriptures up, etc. Still, this is the most prosperous, free, and secure nation. Would you leave?
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LordKinbote
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: 97 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| You are born into a Christian nation, but you come to your atheistic faith despite your religious upbringing. (Not a stretch, as I understand it.) The laws are generally based on the Bible, but they are no more strict or oppressive than the laws of the United States. The difference is people in the government publicly and regularly affirm their faith, offering prayers before events and meetings, putting plaques with Scriptures up, etc. Still, this is the most prosperous, free, and secure nation. Would you leave? |
What is the reaction if one decided not to participate in these prayers and such? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:55 pm Post subject: 98 |
|
|
That's just what the government does in its hallowed halls and it press conferences, etc. They don't make anybody participate in religion, but most people naturally do so.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LordKinbote
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:08 pm Post subject: 99 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| That's just what the government does in its hallowed halls and it press conferences, etc. They don't make anybody participate in religion, but most people naturally do so. |
Yes, but how do other *people* react? A government that promotes one religion over all others, I would think, would give the people an excuse to ostracize those that don't, whether it's official government policy to do so or not. Even if the country is officially free or prosperous, I don't know if I would want to live in a country where my neighbors treat me like I'm a second-class citizen. If this were the USA, I could be called "un-American" by other citizens, and the sad thing is that they would be right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject: 100 |
|
|
So the real problem is ostracism? I can understand not wanting that, and in trying to formulate different scenarios, I see what you would say in response to each. It's all or none, and I know there would be a lot of backlash from Christians if the government "promoted" Islam in some way.
I understand now.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:47 pm Post subject: 101 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
| There is nothing that is domonstrably real that does not require faith. |
No.
Only things that are not demonstrable require faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LordKinbote
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:47 pm Post subject: 102 |
|
|
| jadesmar wrote: |
| DejMar wrote: |
| There is nothing that is domonstrably real that does not require faith. |
No.
Only things that are not demonstrable require faith. |
I think that DejMar is referring to the theory of solipsism, perhaps? I wouldn't really consider it a practical concept, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:57 pm Post subject: 103 |
|
|
| LordKinbote wrote: |
| jadesmar wrote: |
| DejMar wrote: |
| There is nothing that is domonstrably real that does not require faith. |
No.
Only things that are not demonstrable require faith. |
I think that DejMar is referring to the theory of solipsism, perhaps? I wouldn't really consider it a practical concept, though. |
If you're going to start an argument by denying existence, anything you follow with should probably be dismissed in a similar manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:42 pm Post subject: 104 |
|
|
| DejMar wrote: |
| There is nothing that is domonstrably real that does not require faith. |
"Demonstrably real" is the opposite of "requires faith." "Demonstrably real" equals "can be shown to be real by demonstration."
| DejMar wrote: |
| From your own admission, you have placed your faith on your own thought processes. Given this, your statement is you will argue just to argue. |
This is just intellectual masturbation. Perhaps it is appropriate in a philosophy discussion, but not a political one. It is obvious that we have to start somewhere when referring to "reality." You knew what I meant when I referred to faith, and you're just being argumentative with this.
| DejMar wrote: |
| If your implication is that Scripture has no place in our body of legislature, ... |
I won't imply. I'll flat out state it. Scripture has no place in our body of legislature.
| DejMar wrote: |
| ... I will emphatically disagree. |
As is your right -- a right I would defend strongly for you to have.
| DejMar wrote: |
| Our nation was founded in part on the principles and laws presented in Scripture, and to exclude them would be a denial of the truth. |
I don't deny that they have been used in the past. That's not my argument. My point is that it shouldn't be used. Just because we have made mistakes in the past is not a reason to continue making them. I used to work in a company where "because that's the way we've always done it" was considered a valid reason for why we had certain (useless) processes. I no longer work there, and this is part of the reason why.
If you think that we should have a law, for instance, one outlawing abortions, then you should be able to make a case for the law without resorting to Scripture. It doesn't bother me that Scripture might be YOUR motivation for wanting the law. That's your right, and I'm happy for you. However, if you want a law that is going to affect ME, then you have to make a case for it without resorting to some book that I think carries no more weight than any other book.
| DejMar wrote: |
The First Amendment does not exclude Religion from its participation in our legislature, but rather it was emplaced to disempower our Government from enacting legislature that would exclude it from participation, infringe on people's rights to participate or not in any religion they like. |
I fixed that for you. No part of the First Amendment says that the legislature can't enact additional laws that exclude the participation of Religion in legislature. Perhaps that isn't what you meant to say, however.
Requiring -- or even just encouraging -- children in public schools to say a pledge that includes "Under God" would violate this principle (of not infringing on people's rights to participate or not in religion) because it requires participation. Do you see that requiring participation in religion is just as bad as preventing participation? Really, answer this question, because if you can't see this, then there's no hope for you.
Note that having a prayer before Congress assembles does not violate this principle, because all the member of Congress are adults, and can choose to participate or not (as long as it is clear that participation is neither required nor expected). Children in school are in a situation where they are supposed to be abiding by the rules of those in authority, and their participation in such a thing is implicitly expected just by their role in the system. Expecting them to understand the distinctions is more than is appropriate for young minds, which is why we should be much more careful with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:57 pm Post subject: 105 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Children in school are in a situation where they are supposed to be abiding by the rules of those in authority, and their participation in such a thing is implicitly expected just by their role in the system. Expecting them to understand the distinctions is more than is appropriate for young minds, which is why we should be much more careful with them. |
This is exactly what I would argue against the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. (I think I tried to say something to this effect over there, but I'm sure I failed miserably.) The Pledge is a form of indoctrination to the end of nationalism. I think there are plenty of people who have good reasons not to support the nation as the "end all, be all."
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elethiomel
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:01 pm Post subject: 106 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
I'll be the moderator of this debate...
Elethiomel, that question is simply antagonistic. Considering his views on the matter, he is using "valid" in the sense of their right to exist and be a religion, not in the sense of true. |
DejMar said earlier "One can not really separate religion and politics." And now he says that scripture should be the basis for our laws. (Well, your laws. I'm not American.)
It would be kind of hard to engage in a serious debate about that if I'm not allowed to question the veracity of whichever scriptures it is he refers to.
So I guess I won't engage in that, then. Thanks for moderating! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:36 pm Post subject: 107 |
|
|
| Elethiomel wrote: |
| It would be kind of hard to engage in a serious debate about that if I'm not allowed to question the veracity of whichever scriptures it is he refers to. |
I was being facetious about "being the moderator." I said that because I was stepping in on Dejmar's behalf for that question. I do believe your first question was antagonistic, but I think the second was a worthwhile question in the context. I certainly don't mean to put you off, though I'm not sure how likely you are to get an answer to it.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Potter
Feat of Clay
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:41 am Post subject: 108 |
|
|
When the word "life" is used in Scripture, what exactly is it referring to? Personally I have always felt that "preserving life" was related to keeping the entire plant alive. I see the idea of life being sacred as something larger than people. But that is just my independently derived view.
Which is part of the reason I am fine with abortion. Removing a fetus does nothing to prevent the bigger picture life from continuing. Some things must die so that others may live.
And a second unrelated comment, is reading the bible something people really -need- to do? I almost feel that common people reading it only increases out of context quotes and uninformed views of biblical events. There is a huge difference between reading Scripture and having an understanding of the messages inside.
_________________
Artwork | Fractals | Don't ignore your dreams; don't work too much; say what you think; cultivate friendships; be happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:23 am Post subject: 109 |
|
|
| The Potter wrote: |
| And a second unrelated comment, is reading the bible something people really -need- to do? I almost feel that common people reading it only increases out of context quotes and uninformed views of biblical events. There is a huge difference between reading Scripture and having an understanding of the messages inside. |
What do you think should be read to get an understanding of the messages inside?
Isn't this a bit like getting a weekly lecture in geometry and never cracking the spine on Euclid (or whatever subject/textbook you like).
I think it's incredibly dangerous to go into any lecture just to take the word of the person delivering it, but I also think this is done billions of times weekly.
In fact, after a certain point in their life, the only education some people get is via their weekly sermons. That is a powerful platform but it certainly isn't used to teach critical thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: 110 |
|
|
I agree with jadesmar. If you want people to interpret better, they should be better educated, both technically and generally.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Potter
Feat of Clay
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:40 pm Post subject: 111 |
|
|
Obviously if one wishes to be more knowledgeable about Christianity taking the time to read the bible would be essential. But for people merely wish to live a righteous life how important is it? Can a man claim to be Christian while having no intention of ever reading the bible?
As for critical reasoning and intellectual development there are other works that seem just as important to understand. Greek and Roman mythology are subjects that comes to mind. Or Shakespeare. Or philosophy.
_________________
Artwork | Fractals | Don't ignore your dreams; don't work too much; say what you think; cultivate friendships; be happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:27 am Post subject: 112 |
|
|
I agree that people need these "other works" for their critical reasoning and intellectual development. My point about the education was to counter your comment that the common people shouldn't read the Bible because they will just misuse it. The majority of people are under-educated in general, but if they were better educated in general, they would be able to understand the Bible better on their own and interpret it themselves.
As for the rest, there are a great many Christian people around the world in cultures which don't have the text in their language. Obviously, they get by without it, but only on the word of the missionaries. So, you have layers upon layers of interpretation before the message even gets to them, and that creates a greater and greater margin of error. How can they know what it really means to be a Christian without the Bible?*
Of course, there are also people living "righteous lives" without the Bible. Buddhists come to mind. However, I think Christians would argue they are missing something. So, at least if a person isn't going to "read" the Bible, they should still hear the stories from a reliable source, and the question then becomes how reliable is the person sharing it with you?
These questions of yours feel leading, so it might actually help if you just state your alternative.
*Much of this goes back to the invention of the printing press and Enlightenment thought. During that period, so much emphasis was put on individuality, that we argue for person's right to be an individual so much these days. Certainly there had become growing excess and abuse in the Catholic Church by the only ones who could read the Bible, but that wasn't necessarily true of the 1000+ years before that when only certain people could read. It's a complicated mess, the whole of which I don't agree with.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:49 am Post subject: 113 |
|
|
| Aren't the layers and layers of interpretation what really defines the contents of Christianity? It seems to me that the real essence of Christianity (and any religion, really) is "defined" as a meme in its mass of practitioners. The Bible itself can and is interpreted in so many ways, by different religions too. And different passages are interpreted differently, in ways that aren't even internally consistent, so that the religion's scriptures can align with the current political climate of the religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:20 am Post subject: 114 |
|
|
| jadesmar wrote: |
| In fact, after a certain point in their life, the only education some people get is via their weekly sermons. That is a powerful platform but it certainly isn't used to teach critical thinking. |
I will agree that the pulpit can be a powerful platform, yet I'll disagree that it isn't used to teach critical thinking. It's not always used to do so, and may even be seldom done, but it is done. I will agree with your main emphasis that one should not just simply take the word of the lecturer. God did bless us all with the ability to seek and gain wisdom and knowledge, and, with these, to discern the truths. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:58 pm Post subject: 115 |
|
|
| novice wrote: |
| Aren't the layers and layers of interpretation what really defines the contents of Christianity? It seems to me that the real essence of Christianity (and any religion, really) is "defined" as a meme in its mass of practitioners. The Bible itself can and is interpreted in so many ways, by different religions too. And different passages are interpreted differently, in ways that aren't even internally consistent, so that the religion's scriptures can align with the current political climate of the religion. |
First of all, just because many modern, American Christians fail to be good witnesses to their faith doesn't mean that the faith is simple, weak, inconsistent, etc. That's a strawman. Now, there are multiple modes of interpretation, but there are fewer than people have made it seem. A phrase we just heard in our interpretation class which we applied to the Bible as a whole was, "There are 70 interpretations of Torah, and that is not one of them." Because of our belief about the nature of revelation (not the book), we do believe a single phrase can be referencing multiple ideas or truths, but it still has to be consistent with other parts of the Bible. That's straight up Aquinas, one of the great theologians (among others).
My point however about the layers and layers of interpretations was precisely regarding what you just said. If there are all these people misinterpreting the Bible before it even gets to this new people group, how much more important is it for them to get the actual message? Of course, even with the best intention to give them the "raw" Bible, things will be lost in translation, but it's still better than having the message further distilled through a person. That's part of the reason why I have endeavored to learn the languages of the Bible, so that I can understand what those words mean and decide whether a translation committee has made a good interpretive move, one which conforms to the language possibilities. In certain ambiguous passages in which our understanding of the language construction is limited, the translation has to conform to the theological understanding of other less ambiguous passages, but those are areas to which special care is usually given so the translators can be faithful to the text.
Anyway, all that to say that those people who try to grasp the text and wield it to their own ends are doing it wrong, and I'm not innocent in that matter. It's a much stranger beast than even I know.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:58 pm Post subject: 116 |
|
|
| I'm just wondering if it isn't the interpretation that IS the religion though. It's a collective cultural thing, a shared understanding of ethics and values. Which is fine - but then thelogicians start insisting that this book, or other religious doctrine, contains unquestionable truths. Why not just admit that it's a mission statement, and then we can discuss its merits? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: 117 |
|
|
I guess you'll have to define your terms for me. What do you mean by "interpretation"? What do you mean by "religion"?
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: 118 |
|
|
| novice wrote: |
| I'm just wondering if it isn't the interpretation that IS the religion though. It's a collective cultural thing, a shared understanding of ethics and values. |
Of course! Especially the Bible, which is so self-contradictory and so open to interpretation that using it to support anything is logically ridiculous.
I'm sure that there are concepts that are expressed particularly well in the Bible, such that someone who also wants to express the same concept would do well to use the same words. But that fact that the words come from Scripture doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) add them any extra weight in a political argument. IMHO, it detracts from their weight, but I'm willing to try to make it simply neutral. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:39 pm Post subject: 119 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I guess you'll have to define your terms for me. What do you mean by "interpretation"? What do you mean by "religion"? |
I guess I would have to. I don't know if I can though, I'm more thinking out loud here to see if anybody understands what I'm talking about.
I guess for me a religion is a mix of many things - a value system, traditions, and dogma. I'm probably leaving something out. I'm curious why the dogma is necessary, I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:46 pm Post subject: 120 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Especially the Bible, which is so self-contradictory and so open to interpretation that using it to support anything is logically ridiculous. |
What in particular did you have in mind?
| novice wrote: |
| I guess for me a religion is a mix of many things - a value system, traditions, and dogma. I'm probably leaving something out. I'm curious why the dogma is necessary, I suppose. |
Well, dogma is the tenants of belief. To use a somewhat loose metaphor, that would be the Scientific Method. Everything else is held up against that. How much "science" can be done without the Method? Similarly, the traditions (extraneous) follow after this.
Part of the problem within Christian faith is people confusing dogma and tradition (preference). In that sense, you could say interpretation is religion, though I would say it isn't much of one at all.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
