Religious Belief Unhealthy for Society?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/06/2005 11:11:49 PM · #227

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

So I'll stop here and ask anyone who cares to answer: If I abort a pregnancy at this stage, have I "murdered" a person?

I don't necessarily know at what point nor is it known and established.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I actually mentioned this...(although I would lean more to it being active and not fully developed).

- Jason

10/06/2005 11:18:50 PM · #228

I'm not making an argument either way, just stating one possible way that society can agree or disagree as to when life begins. There are other ways as well, to determine when a fetus can survive, albeit with the help of modern medical neonatal science. An obstetrician once told me, after I had delivered twin premature still borns, that a fetus is unable to survive outside of the womb (with the help of an incubator) if it's eyes are still fused and unable to open, which must also have something to do with the lack of development of it's nervous system.

Message edited by author 2005-10-06 23:20:55.

10/06/2005 11:21:49 PM · #229

Probably one of the most interesting responses to the question, "When does life begin?" I have heard came from a secular, Non-Christian (not that it matters to me, but it seems to be important to some) professor of developmental psychology when I was an education major.

Life begins before conception. It is physically and biologically impossible for "life" to begin if either the sperm or the egg is dead. Or if either contributor of said cells are dead.

Just a thought.

10/06/2005 11:31:50 PM · #230

Perhaps the argument is not about when life begins, but when the fetus has the capacity to survive. This would certainly put the control in the hands of the mother as to choice before survivability has been reached, but make it legally unacceptable to abort afterwards.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/06/2005 11:39:04 PM · #231

Question:
Does the Christian Church have a (HIS)tory of subjugation and views of inequality towards women? If so, does that stance towards women exist today in modern christianity?

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/06/2005 11:42:41 PM · #232

Originally posted by karmat:

Life begins before conception. It is physically and biologically impossible for "life" to begin if either the sperm or the egg is dead. Or if either contributor of said cells are dead.

Just a thought.

I shall assume that this comment was made quite some time ago... prior to in-vitro fertilization and other similar medical advancements...

Ray

10/06/2005 11:55:13 PM · #233

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by karmat:
Life begins before conception. It is physically and biologically impossible for "life" to begin if either the sperm or the egg is dead. Or if either contributor of said cells are dead.

Just a thought.

I shall assume that this comment was made quite some time ago... prior to in-vitro fertilization and other similar medical advancements...

Ray

Depends on how long ago "some time" is. JK

Early 90s.

10/07/2005 12:02:49 AM · #234

It's interesting to me that a group of people who can believe that a "God" created the world in days, who can argue that since humans were created in "His" image therefore humans are special and and specially different from other members of the animal kingdom, etc., would turn to "science" for evidence of when life begins when such a move suits their purpose, ie in the abortion debate.

Yes, sure, there are those who'd say that there's no disconnect here, and that Christians (or people of other religions) can be scientific, and scientists can be Christians (or people of other religions). Personally, I don't buy it.

If life is indeed a miracle, as the bible would have people believe, then it is unscientific as by its very basic notion, miracles are unexplainable, illogical, etc.

So which is it...? You can't be a faith believer and at the same time be scientifically rational. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either you believe in a grand godly design for human supremacy of this earth, or a simple accident through which australopithecus, homo habilis, homo erectus and in turn homo sapiens gained supremacy in this earth.

My personal view is that life is seen a miracle in the holy bible and other religious tomes because when such documents were CREATED by men (as an attempt to make sense of their worlds, as a means of social control, and more often than not as a method of elevating their own particular social group ABOVE other groups) the understanding of logic, rational thinking and science was at a minimal point.

I agree fully that Secularism is a type of faith. And yeah, I'm happy to be guilty of at least one sin, that of proselytism. Come all ye faithful...

10/07/2005 12:07:36 AM · #235

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Sorry...the argument should purely be about a woman's right to choose. Those who want an abortion ban, at base level, want to curb that woman's right to choose. This argument has been masked for years by irrelevance, and when people who want to respect a woman's right to choose even entertain arguments about when life starts or begins, they begin to lose ground in this debate.

10/07/2005 12:10:42 AM · #236

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by karmat:
Life begins before conception. It is physically and biologically impossible for "life" to begin if either the sperm or the egg is dead. Or if either contributor of said cells are dead.

Just a thought.

I shall assume that this comment was made quite some time ago... prior to in-vitro fertilization and other similar medical advancements...

Ray

Depends on how long ago "some time" is. JK

Early 90s.

I think Karmat's professor was stating that just based on the fact that an "alive" egg and sperm are carrying on the biochemical cellular processes of life and passing that onto the newly formed embryo, which is also carrying on the biochemical processes of life, is enough to determine that new life has begun. How they were united is not of issue.

10/07/2005 12:11:13 AM · #237

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Question:
Does the Christian Church have a (HIS)tory of subjugation and views of inequality towards women? If so, does that stance towards women exist today in modern christianity?

I'll bite. :)

[Preface -- I am simply giving my opinion based on my beliefs as a Christian as a reply that to the question that Olyuzi asked. I am not telling you you have to believe this way. I am not "arguing" the points. I am simply giving my opinion.]

I'm sure that there are those who will pull out the Pauline lines of women not teaching in church, etc. but when considered in the entire context, I find that the Bible (and Jesus, especially) held women in very high regard.

"Wives submit yourselves to your husbands." This is probably the most mis-used and abused "command" in the world. I have known of men to use this verse to domineer over their wives (I think it was even mentioned in this thread.) Almost always, those mis-using it seem to flat out forget the next line. "Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves the church." (Just an aside, "church" here does not refer to a building, or even specific group of believers, but the entire kit and kaboodle of Christ-followers). Now, in Christian belief, there is no greater love than what Christ had for the church. So, if a man loves his wife that way, the whole submit thing takes on a new meaning, and is a bit easier to swallow.

When you look at the example Jesus set with regards to women, it is amazing at the compassion he had. The first that comes to mind is the woman caught in adultery. Others include his mother (while on the cross, he was telling one of the disciples [John, I believe] to "behold his mother." Significant because at this time because Mary was probably a widow at this time, and widows had no property rights or rights in general. He was making sure that she would be taken care of, because society at the time would not have.), The woman who washed his feet with her hair, the woman with the "issue of blood for 12 years." on so forth.

So, while I believe that there are those who have used the Bible to subjagate women, I believe they do so in error. I believe God/Jesus highly value women. We are different from men, but that is going down yet another rabbit trail. ;)

10/07/2005 12:19:21 AM · #238

Originally posted by rgo:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Perhaps the argument is not about when life begins, but when the fetus has the capacity to survive. This would certainly put the control in the hands of the mother as to choice before survivability has been reached, but make it legally unacceptable to abort afterwards.

Sorry...the argument should purely be about a woman's right to choose. Those who want an abortion ban, at base level, want to curb that woman's right to choose. This argument has been masked for years by irrelevance, and when people who want to respect a woman's right to choose even entertain arguments about when life starts or begins, they begin to lose ground in this debate.

I too believe that it's a woman's right to choose and that's why I asked my 2 questions above about the Christian Church's stance towards women in history and today. However, I'm also attempting to take this issue out of its religious context, even though most of the anti-abortionist adherents are of the Christian faith. It becomes a legal issue as well because murder is not legal in any country I know of. So it needs to be determined for legal reasons when life begins, or is survivable, in regards to state sanctioned abortions. This has to be determined by society by consensus, as we would agree on other laws that are made.

10/07/2005 12:36:01 AM · #239

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Question:
Does the Christian Church have a (HIS)tory of subjugation and views of inequality towards women? If so, does that stance towards women exist today in modern christianity?

...So, while I believe that there are those who have used the Bible to subjagate women, I believe they do so in error. I believe God/Jesus highly value women...

I don't doubt this about the word of Jesus, but how has it been interpreted, and acted upon, in Christian society throughout history, and in today's church? Have women been made "second class citizens" to men? Have they suffered? Have they been impeded in their lives because of their religion?

If so, then I could argue that the religious aspect of the abortion debate exists between those who want to control women, and the women who are rebelling against that control, and not about a more logical/scientific/legal resolution to this issue that needs to be addressed by society.

Message edited by author 2005-10-07 00:37:59.

10/07/2005 12:41:20 AM · #240

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by rgo:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Perhaps the argument is not about when life begins, but when the fetus has the capacity to survive. This would certainly put the control in the hands of the mother as to choice before survivability has been reached, but make it legally unacceptable to abort afterwards.

Sorry...the argument should purely be about a woman's right to choose. Those who want an abortion ban, at base level, want to curb that woman's right to choose. This argument has been masked for years by irrelevance, and when people who want to respect a woman's right to choose even entertain arguments about when life starts or begins, they begin to lose ground in this debate.

I too believe that it's a woman's right to choose and that's why I asked my 2 questions above about the Christian Church's stance towards women in history and today. However, I'm also attempting to take this issue out of its religious context, even though most of the anti-abortionist adherents are of the Christian faith. It becomes a legal issue as well because murder is not legal in any country I know of. So it needs to be determined for legal reasons when life begins, or is survivable, in regards to state sanctioned abortions. This has to be determined by society by consensus, as we would agree on other laws that are made.

In the US today, a woman's right to choose had been legally established thirty years ago with a US Supreme Court decision. What Americans need to realize now is that the debate should no longer rest on that legal basis, as that battle had BEEN DECIDED. Choosing to have an abortion, legally speaking, has been established as a non-criminal issue since Norma McCorvey won in the case against Henry Wade. Legally speaking, the US Supreme Court has deemed the right to choose free from associations to murders or other criminal activities.

The right to choose an abortion, however, remains a problematic social issue. There is a need to stress to the public that this is about RIGHTS. The right to abortion has been under threat at the social/societal level, and this in turn threatens its legality.

What people need to recognize is that those who equate abortions to murders are outdated. They're too late. They should have been making that argument thirty years ago. NOT NOW. People who respect a woman's right to choose can prevent a stepping back to the dark ages by stressing that this is a matter of social rights, and not a legal, religious or morality issue. If you want to deny a woman her right to choose, you are exercising social repression, and you're trampling on her court-given right. Nothing less, nothing more.

Message edited by author 2005-10-07 00:43:49.

10/07/2005 12:43:02 AM · #241

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Question:
Does the Christian Church have a (HIS)tory of subjugation and views of inequality towards women? If so, does that stance towards women exist today in modern christianity?

...So, while I believe that there are those who have used the Bible to subjagate women, I believe they do so in error. I believe God/Jesus highly value women...

I don't doubt this about the word of Jesus, but how has it been interpreted, and acted upon, in Christian society throughout history, and in today's church? Have women been made "second class citizens" to men? Have they suffered? Have they been impeded in their lives because of their religion?

If so, then I could argue that the religious aspect of the abortion debate exists between those who want to control women, and the women who are rebelling against that control, and not about a more logical/scientific/legal resolution to this issue that needs to be addressed by society.

Interesting points, and ones that I want to respond to further. But right now, my brain has just given me the five minutes to shut down order. I'll be back. ;)

MadMordegon

10/07/2005 12:52:00 AM · #242

Originally posted by rgo:

Interesting perspective. I hadn't looked at it that way but it is ironic.

theSaj

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/07/2005 01:49:29 AM · #243

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Question:
Does the Christian Church have a (HIS)tory of subjugation and views of inequality towards women? If so, does that stance towards women exist today in modern christianity?

In some regions yes, and in others no. To some, they see passages of authority. "Wives submit to your husbands" and others see equality "there is neither Jew nor Greek, man nor woman in Christ"

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I'm glad you find it interesting...

Originally posted by rgo:

Yes, sure, there are those who'd say that there's no disconnect here, and that Christians (or people of other religions) can be scientific, and scientists can be Christians (or people of other religions). Personally, I don't buy it.

Then you are being foolish. As many scientist in past, recent past, and currently are christians and deists.

There is minimal conflict. And not everyone sees the construct of Genesis the same. Nor views the Scriptures identical. Even still....some go beyond into higher physics and find understanding.

A passage that states a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. 6 days. However, if you understand anything about the theory of relativity you discover that a day, or rather the passage of time is not perceived the same for all. If you were to travel for 2 weeks at near the speed of light and return to earth....do you think the calendar on earth would be merely 2 weeks further? the affect of velocity, gravity, etc alter the relative passage of time. So in order to fully grasp a day in terms of God you would need to know God's mass and velocity.

Originally posted by rgo:

If life is indeed a miracle, as the bible would have people believe, then it is unscientific as by its very basic notion, miracles are unexplainable, illogical, etc.

Well, your definition of a miracle is quite far from mine. My definition of a "miracle" is not "unexplainable" but rather "providential". There are numerous miracles in Scripture that are indeed explained. Plagues, the turning back of the day, etc, etc. However, the miraculous aspect is the providence (timing) of said events.

Originally posted by "rgo":

You can't be a faith believer and at the same time be scientifically rational.

Who the hell are you to tell anyone what they can or can't be?

Originally posted by "rgo":

the understanding of logic, rational thinking and science was at a minimal point.

Oh really,...would you like to build the pyramids and some of the other ancient wonders for us? Oh yes, there were gaps of understanding. But perhaps today we likewise possess gaps. In the medieval ages knowledge was lost to many...and likewise, we have knowledge that is not known today but was then. Sure, we've got much more technology and knowledge than before. I'll grant that. But please remember most "logic" and the rules of applying it were derived 2000+ years ago.

Originally posted by "rgo":

*yawn*

Originally posted by "rgo":

Why silly me,...if forgot that decisions were irrevocable and infallible.

*bow, bow*...before the infallibility of secularism and humanity

If such decisions are permanently established, I guess we were wrong to abolish slavery. I mean, afterall the decision had already been decided.

Originally posted by "rgo":

There is a need to stress to the public that this is about RIGHTS.

AND WRONGS

I believe that rights are tied directly with responsibilities.

Originally posted by "rgo":

What people need to recognize is that those who equate abortions to murders are outdated. They're too late.

What an irrational and illogical argument. "Just because it is - it should be" is not a valid argument.

Originally posted by "rgo":

People who respect a woman's right to choose can prevent a stepping back to the dark ages

Stepping back...or stepping forward?

To me, the only way I can see a successful "secularist" society is if it takes the value of life to the highest ideal. (Yes, pro-life, anti-death penalty, etc.) Anything else...is simply meaningless. If you are not going to take the idea of life and well-being of all being the heart of a society than you are left merely with the 'survival of the fittest" or whatever group is currently at any given time the most dominant philosophy is a world of ever changing philosophy.

In 500 years it might be a completely secularist world. But if life isn't valued it will be a grim one. On the other hand, I can easily envision a secularist future where life is prized greatly in which no death penalty, great efforts against disease and hunger, an abolishment of war. (Gee...I think i've envisioned the "Nox" (Stargate)...and they will look back in dismay wondering how society could ever devalue life so as to kill 40 million lives. In that society, every life is precious and respected.

But, I don't think that's where most of you secularists are headed. In fact, I believe many of you are headed on the same path that led the various "religiously" dominated periods to their greatest failings of abuse and wrong.

10/07/2005 02:21:55 AM · #244

Originally posted by theSaj:

A passage that states a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. 6 days. However, if you understand anything about the theory of relativity you discover that a day, or rather the passage of time is not perceived the same for all. If you were to travel for 2 weeks at near the speed of light and return to earth....do you think the calendar on earth would be merely 2 weeks further? the affect of velocity, gravity, etc alter the relative passage of time. So in order to fully grasp a day in terms of God you would need to know God's mass and velocity.

This was great. I literally fell off my chair. Ever thought of being a stand-up comic?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Pyramid building depended on slave labor. The ancient Egyptians worshipped the sun and buried their rulers as gods. You think those are rational acts? They did have engineering skills, astronomy, etc. But when it came to the science of where they came from, or to the societal structures they thought were fitting for themselves, however, they did not have scientific and rational answers.

Given that Christianity, in historical reality, started out as a splinter sect of Judaism, and given the Jews' history of persecution and slavery in Egypt, I find it interesting that you'd mention the ancient Egyptians as people of science and rational thinking.

The phrase "God's mass and velocity" still stuns me. Wow.

If you understand relativity, then you'd understand that only entities with almost NO MASS could ever hope of achieving the speed of light. My farts have a better chance of attaining that speed than the god figure that you've endowed with such a mass.

Message edited by author 2005-10-07 02:25:16.

theSaj

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/07/2005 02:30:55 AM · #245

Some interesting articles related to science, God, the universe, etc.

From a reknown chemist
//acct.tamu.edu/smith/science.htm

An interesting theory which could point to a "maker"
//slate.msn.com/id/2100715

//plus.maths.org/issue6/news/dice/

For all the talk of "science" it is keen to remember that science is often wrong (but often correcting itself).

Had you told physicists a decade or two ago that you'd be able to slow the speed of light, even stop it, they'd have laughed....let alone tell them you could make light travel faster than it does in a vacuum.

And even a remote possibility it might be slowing down or other constants might not be so

//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml

We have so much to learn....to close doors merely cause we lack the knowledge is not scientific.

Anyways, just some links for fun

...

Originally posted by "rgo":

This was great. I literally fell off my chair. Ever thought of being a stand-up comic?

Originally posted by "rgo":

, I find it interesting that you'd mention the ancient Egyptians as people of science and rational thinking.

Why not....Germans are often regarded for their science and rationality.

My point was merely to demostrate current lack of knowledge.

Originally posted by "rgo":

If you understand relativity, then you'd understand that only entities with almost NO MASS could ever hope of achieving the speed of light. My farts have a better chance of attaining that speed than the god figure that you've endowed with such a mass.

Mind you....I never endowed God with mass, I merely stated in order to calculate his passage of time you would need to know his mass and velocity.

And in fact, you do have little chance of approaching the speed of light as such would require immense amount of energy. However, I do believe a common aspect of God is the attributing of immense amount of energy.

Anyways, you missed the point entirely. In order to know the rate of passage of time you need to know mass/velocity.

An oject near a black hole perceives the passage of time more slowly than on earth.

And what if a being could indeed exist without mass. What if there is a dimensional aspect of us we yet do not understand that is without mass.

Message edited by author 2005-10-07 02:41:58.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/07/2005 02:39:03 AM · #246

Originally posted by theSaj:

For all the talk of "science" it is keen to remember that science is often wrong (but often correcting itself).

Precisely. And that self-correction process is something that religions can't/won't do, because even the slightest move that way would unravel all the miracles and mysteries with which they dupe the meek, collect cash from them, and use them for the better glories of their idol figures.

Message edited by author 2005-10-07 02:39:45.

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

10/07/2005 03:09:37 AM · #247

Good morning Jason

Have you replied to me yet regarding my insulting posts? I have tried to speed read through since last night but may have missed it.
A simple yes if you have will suffice and I'll search harder!

Pauline

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

10/07/2005 03:22:00 AM · #248

Originally posted by theSaj:

Anyways, you missed the point entirely. In order to know the rate of passage of time you need to know mass/velocity.

An oject near a black hole perceives the passage of time more slowly than on earth.

And what if a being could indeed exist without mass. What if there is a dimensional aspect of us we yet do not understand that is without mass.

An object near a black hole gets sucked into the black hole, unless it is the black hole itself, in which everything including light gets sucked into it. Loosely speaking, a black hole is a region of space that has so much mass concentrated in it that there is no way for a nearby object to escape its pull. If your god was near a black hole, then there can be no god, as it would have gotten incorporated into the black hole. As there can be no god, there can be no universe. Right.
A being without mass...OK. What if indeed.

Which is it? God has so much mass or god without mass at all? Your science is fudgy, and your view of the world is as holey as swiss cheese. Knowledge without synthesis and understanding is similar to faith. And I guess that's where you belong.

As for me, I do believe the concept of god actually has a lot of mass, and is indeed one of the most powerful forces out there. Its mass lies in its believers, and science won't ever correct this gross misunderstanding.

Revel in your mass of misunderstanding, then.

truth4848

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/07/2005 03:49:35 AM · #249

THERE IS NO GOD, period.

Those who claims there is a God, prove it.

and please dont be lame and ask someone to prove something that is not.

Didymus