Okay so Rape is okay but Abortion is a no no...

[Robbychu]

...Okay, this situation makes me sick. And fills me with murderous rage, but that's another story for another time.

Anyone who doesn't condemn that bastard for what he did needs either a crowbar to the face or a serious reevaluation of their morals. And I don't object to a thorough application of both. And the bastard himself? Let's get old school here and start chucking stones. I may be a sinner, but I've never done anything as horrible as this thing-I-refuse-to-admit-is-even-human has done.

And no, I'm never backing down from this rather extreme position. I can't stand people who do this, and it's the kind of thing that sparks my inner world-conquerer/destroyer into shrieking "KILL THEM ALL". Things like this are why the death penalty should exist, but once again, that is a debate for elsewhere.

Sadly, I fear the anti-abortionists would see this as proof that they're right and that those who condemn the rapist father are wrong.  You're basically supporting killing there (never mind the context), and they claim they're dead set against killing (seeing abortion in that category), and they probably see killing as worse than rape, since rape at least allows the victim to live.

I don't know about a "moral spectrum" whereby one could judge whether it's worse to end someone else's life or to emotionally scar them for life, but this is precisely why I personally have gotten out of the habit of idealism and crusading for moral absolutism.  I'm not telling you what to do, just giving my own experience.  As depraved as that father is, I personally don't want to sink to his level (or possibly below it) because I should know better, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I contributed to that kind of evil, even if it were only in thought and not direct deed (and especially if I did so in the name of good).

...wow people actually took my rage as a desire to act/accusation at the rest of you. IT WASN'T MEANT THAT WAY, DUDES. I need to lern to speek.

BUUUUUT on to the explaination. Murder is lower on the spectrum then rape, due to the lack of mental trauma for the murder victim. Murder victims are dead, they cannot suffer any further.  Rape and abuse victims live with the event for the rest of their lives, and can be completely broken by this. I know that at least some choose to commit suicide due to the events. Their lives are altered in ways I cannot comprehend, and have no desire to comprehend. That, and there is always a cutoff point for abortion: Birth. Before that, you can argue trimesters all you want, but you will never agree.

I just also happen to have a violent streak a mile wide and minimal impulse control. I don't represent the human population at large, let alone the small group you single out. Hell, if they did, they'd have to assume that all pro-choicers were mildly psychopathic deviant schoolgirls on speed who like video games. Not exactly accurate, amirite?

[Baal Hadad]

...wow people actually took my rage as a desire to act/accusation at the rest of you. IT WASN'T MEANT THAT WAY, DUDES. I need to lern to speek.

BUUUUUT on to the explaination. Murder is lower on the spectrum then rape, due to the lack of mental trauma for the murder victim. Murder victims are dead, they cannot suffer any further.  Rape and abuse victims live with the event for the rest of their lives, and can be completely broken by this. I know that at least some choose to commit suicide due to the events. Their lives are altered in ways I cannot comprehend, and have no desire to comprehend. That, and there is always a cutoff point for abortion: Birth. Before that, you can argue trimesters all you want, but you will never agree.

I just also happen to have a violent streak a mile wide and minimal impulse control. I don't represent the human population at large, let alone the small group you single out. Hell, if they did, they'd have to assume that all pro-choicers were mildly psychopathic deviant schoolgirls on speed who like video games. Not exactly accurate, amirite?

I didn't mean my own comment as an accusation either, and I don't condemn you for your views, just trying to explain my own, and why I hold them.

You're right about the victims of successful murders having their suffering ending, but then there's always the argument about before this (as well as failed attempts)--what about victims of attempted murder, in other words?  I imagine that would be very similar trauma to that of rape, although granted it wouldn't result in a pregnancy.  Either way it's a violation of basic human rights to live, and to live free from terror of someone else who is so selfish that they don't care who they hurt in order to get satisfaction.

Anyway, I may not agree with you entirely, but I will say this in your defense: you at least understand that you don't represent humanity at large, and have indicated that you're a thinking person and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with you--you didn't condemn me for what I said, for example.  Not everyone with such extreme views can argue the same.

[rabid_fox]

It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.

I think he's mistaken, there.

[Drase]

It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.

I think he's mistaken, there.

I agree... but I suppose that depends on how it's meant. Does he believe I exist or does he believe I'll do the right thing?

If the first was it, why would God need to believe i exist? If he's omniscient, he knows for sure.

If it's the second... Not everyone is going to go to heaven, according to the bible.  If he is all knowing, then shouldnt he know whether or not i'll do the right thing? He wouldnt need to believe, he would already know.

So he either knows I exist or knows I will do something.  It's different than how we have to believe in him.

[Baal Hadad]

I don't know how this is turning into a religious thread, but....

If God is omniscient, in other words, all knowing, then how CAN God believe in ANYTHING?  Including Himself?

[Drase]

Exactly.

And it's related to religion in why they were okay with the rape of a 9 year old, but abortion deserves excommunication

[radarnocturn]

It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.

I believe he's a she, and this is what my views are towards:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Wow, I step away for a day, and this thread balloons.

Too tired and lazy to go into Hebrew etymology, or fiddle around with multiple quote pyramids, so I'm just going to say my piece and you're going to bear with me if you want to understand.

Firstly. I don't know where' you're getting your Bible (old testament) whatever translated Vidar, but

I would like to sit down with this person and have a detailed discussion about Hebrew grammar and vocabulary with them. It's probably a derivative of the King James bible, which I dislike intensely. (They don't even get the first sentance right!) It's probably not their fault, if I recall correctly, going backwards from english it went  English->Dutch->French->Latin->Greek-> Hebrew. And a chain that long is almost certainly going to leave a lot of stuff out in translation.

Ba'al Hadad has it right though. Transliterated, it's Aseret Ha-divros. Ten phrases, or utterances if you want to be formal. The word for command in Hebrew is Tzeevah.

Anyway, about the third commandment. It isn't really so much about profanity, although that is also discouraged. It's more in the sense of formal oath taking (and breaking.) Saying "Goddammnit" is not breaking the idea. Saying "In the Lord's name I swear I will do such and such" and then not doing it is.

Going down to number eight, stealing more refers to stealing people, not objects.

Commandment number nine is more restricted than you seem to be taking it. It refers quite literally not to any degree of lying (quite a few biblican figures lie through their teeth) but to lying in court. (Which usually violates #3 as well.) Interesting to note, that in at least rabbinic Jewish authority, the penalty for perjury is whatever is at stake in the court case attempting to be decided.

Again, it's hard to put into English, but "covet" is something of a misnomer for number 10. And it's a bit more specific than that. To illustrate, suppose your next door neighbor has a nice house, that you like. If you want a nice house too, you might be a little too involved in the physical world to appease the most ardent rabbis, but you're not too bad. What is really off the mark here is if you want his house. If you would take a still nicer house over his, you're fine. It's more along the lines of wanting to be someone else, and assuming their state in life, than wanting to be richer or more powerful.

As Ba'al Hadad said again too, there are more to the Law than just those 10 phrases. Quite a bit more. One of the guys I read, forget who, basically came up with the theory that those are the ten most basic formulations of the laws, and that everything else could derive back to one of them. For example, any commandment involving social relations at some level derives from Honor your father and mother.


Oh, and about the sistine chapel pic. When I went to Italy last summer, one of the Rabbis of my acquaintance basically said that one as a religious Jew shouldn't go into the chapel because it's full of idolatry. (I ignored him. The art is great.)


That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe tomorrow I'll have more energy to irritate you people.

[Robbychu]

I didn't mean my own comment as an accusation either, and I don't condemn you for your views, just trying to explain my own, and why I hold them.

You're right about the victims of successful murders having their suffering ending, but then there's always the argument about before this (as well as failed attempts)--what about victims of attempted murder, in other words?  I imagine that would be very similar trauma to that of rape, although granted it wouldn't result in a pregnancy.  Either way it's a violation of basic human rights to live, and to live free from terror of someone else who is so selfish that they don't care who they hurt in order to get satisfaction.

Anyway, I may not agree with you entirely, but I will say this in your defense: you at least understand that you don't represent humanity at large, and have indicated that you're a thinking person and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with you--you didn't condemn me for what I said, for example.  Not everyone with such extreme views can argue the same.

Ah. I didn't catch that. Hard to do so when all you have to work from is text.

Hn. Didn't think of that. In that case though, I'll put it up there with rape.  Nobody should be forced to live with that sort of fear, and while I wish I could remove the emotional effects, I do not have that power.

I agree with you there. This is one of the few things I feel really strongly about as well, so I tend to be rather... impulsive in my posting decisions. I appreciate the mini debate.

[Lysander]

I just wanted to type that this is one of the most interesting topics I've read, and there are people on this message board who are far too smart for me.   

[Teroniss]

Truthfully, at this point and forgive me for this, but I think the Catholic church should be dissolved. They have been responsible for, either directly or indirectly, more atrocities throughout the centuries than any other church or religion. Anyone who supports pedophilia, rape, murder and genocide without remorse should not be allowed to continue. Christianity as a whole, I don't have a particular issue with, even though I am an Athiest, but Catholocism has been responsible for way too much bad to be allowed continued existance.

Also, I apologize beforehand again, but this picture properly summarizes my thoughts on the whole issue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Well, I'm not one for caring whether an institutions like the church is good or evil or should exist or not.


But as for the Epicurs quote........

According to that little matrix he set up ,we have 4 possibilities. God Powerful and Good, God Powerful and Not Good, God Not Powerful and Good, and God Not Powerful and Not Good.

If God is impotent, why bother worshipping is a statement I'll agree with.


If God is Powerful but not good, then there is little reason to worship, except for fear of retribution.


But most religions nowadays hold that God is both omnipotent and with some sort of good will for us in mind, and I think that's the thrust of where you're going with this.
Now, I can only give you a Jewish perspective, but I don't think it's too far out.

First premise. Material well being takes a back seat to spiritual well being. It is better to be poor and righteous than rich and a disgusting person. From  this, we would then be led to the idea that God is looking out more for the soul than the body, when it comes to well being. (And it does have to be for our well being. If you hold to the idea that God is omnipotent, than what can a human do for God ?)

But then of course, that leads to the question of what is good for the soul? For that, I'm going to have to draw back on another premise drawn from Jewish sources, namely that God creates imperfections for people to put aright. It is usually cited as the reason for circumcision.  If you have those then, the idea ought to become clear. God allows people quite a wide latitude of free will. If everyone who committed such a minor sin as taking eggs from a bird without sending the moher away first was instantly struck by a bolt of lightning, can one really be said to have free will? It would be like having a gun held to the head for your entire life. And without that free will, without the ability to choose between good and evil, there isn't a lot of point to the whole idea of spiritual existance.


In summary, at least to Jewish belief. God allows a very high degree of free will, and views that the right to make choices supersedes other rights.

[Alondro]

It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.

I believe he's a she, and this is what my views are towards:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

God is actually an energy entity from the previous universe who must consume worlds to survive! 

Oh wait... that was Galactus.   

[Destina Faroda]

First of all I am disgusted by the actions of Archbishop Sobrinho and I'm not even Catholic.  As sickened as I am, I can understand the worldview behind what he did.

In this mindset, abortion is considered a mortal sin and an automatic excommunication, even in the case of rape and incest.  After all, the "children" (fetuses) didn't get to choose their father and shouldn't suffer for his sins.  Two wrongs don't make a right and to deprive another human life is murder, period.

With regard to why the rape isn't an automatic excommunication, you have to remember that as horrible as rape is, it is an extension of sex, an act to bring life to the world.  Since contraception can't be proven to be used,  Furthermore, since this was her stepfather, it's not "technically" incest.  At worst, what he did was coerced extramarital sex with a minor and given that his children have been killed as a result and he has confessed according to another source, he is already suffering and at least showing the beginnings of repentance.

The bottom line is that it's "babies at any cost."

[Baal Hadad]

The bottom line is that it's "babies at any cost."

I think you've made a good summation of their position without actually agreeing with it.

And I think "babies at any cost" is a biased notion, one that all mammalian species are to some degree guilty of.  We can't have many children--especially women, but even men can't if they're only allowed to be monogamous--and so we have more invested in each individual child, and since human babies are born prematurely they need to be raised by adults, therefore we're programmed to see them as "cute" so we will raise them (even though objectively they are parasites--not only feeding off the mother's body while she's pregnant, but also after birth, when nursing).

Not that I think it's no sin to kill a baby--after all, they are just following their instincts, just as adults are following theirs when they allow this sort of thing to happen--but I think it's stupid to put them on a pedestal as "unspoiled" and "innocent."  After all, this then begs the question, at what point do you forfeit this universal worship?  When are you "not so cute" anymore?  And more importantly, WHY?

[TheDXM]

Also, I apologize beforehand again, but this picture properly summarizes my thoughts on the whole issue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg

Probably a discussion for another thread, but...

This has been a continuous point of confusion in regards to Atheism for me. Do Atheists not believe in god because they simply think he/she/it doesn't exist? Or because they disagree with how he/she/it does business, thus meriting that It must not be a god on that basis?

The prior I understand, the latter's always been a puzzle for me to work over.

[Jairus]

Also, I apologize beforehand again, but this picture properly summarizes my thoughts on the whole issue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg

Probably a discussion for another thread, but...

This has been a continuous point of confusion in regards to Atheism for me. Do Atheists not believe in god because they simply think he/she/it doesn't exist? Or because they disagree with how he/she/it does business, thus meriting that It must not be a god on that basis?

The prior I understand, the latter's always been a puzzle for me to work over.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe that gods exist, and that we made them up. Though part of the original chain of thought that led me down that path was a bit of dissatisfaction with the Christian god I grew up with.

As a minor side-note, when I swear, I try to say "godsdammit!" Why curse something with only one god when I can call on the entire pantheon of divine beings that have ever been believed to have existed? Fair's fair.

[Baal Hadad]

I'm a panist, myself.  I just think that fundamentalism and atheism are both unnecessary extremes, and my view is based on what I've learned about the universe from various disciplines.

[Jairus]

I'm a panist, myself.  I just think that fundamentalism and atheism are both unnecessary extremes, and my view is based on what I've learned about the universe from various disciplines.

You mean Pantheist? Panist to me either suggests that you worship Pan or that you play/worship the piano.

[Baal Hadad]

I'm a panist, myself.  I just think that fundamentalism and atheism are both unnecessary extremes, and my view is based on what I've learned about the universe from various disciplines.

You mean Pantheist? Panist to me either suggests that you worship Pan or that you play/worship the piano.

Heh, no--"panist" is more all-encompassing than "pantheist," and so I like that term better.  But "pantheist" is the closest of what you've suggested to what I mean (although I can knock out a simple tune by ear if given a few minutes practice....).

[Tapewolf]

Heh, no--"panist" is more all-encompassing than "pantheist," and so I like that term better.  But "pantheist" is the closest of what you've suggested to what I mean (although I can knock out a simple tune by ear if given a few minutes practice....).

I assumed you meant Pan-worshipper as well 

[Cogidubnus]

If my latin still serves, I'd say he means that he literally worships (appreciates, thinks well of, etc etc) the planet, or 'everything', as opposed to thinking that everything or the planet is 'god'.

[Baal Hadad]

If my latin still serves, I'd say he means that he literally worships (appreciates, thinks well of, etc etc) the planet, or 'everything', as opposed to thinking that everything or the planet is 'god'.

I believe it's Greek, not Latin, and basically what I mean is that I believe (sorry to continue the off-topicness) that everything that is possible is real (though humans are only capable of being aware of so much at one time), and that everything that exists is part of a greater entity--the "all" or "Pan" in "panism"--and that this whole is conscious.  Hence that can be thought of as "pantheistic" but I use a word that is more all-encompassing than one that specifically refers to God(s) or religion(s) of any kind.

[Vidar]

Also, I apologize beforehand again, but this picture properly summarizes my thoughts on the whole issue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg

Probably a discussion for another thread, but...

This has been a continuous point of confusion in regards to Atheism for me. Do Atheists not believe in god because they simply think he/she/it doesn't exist? Or because they disagree with how he/she/it does business, thus meriting that It must not be a god on that basis?

The prior I understand, the latter's always been a puzzle for me to work over.

the point of the poster is that the proposition of an all-powerful loving just and merciful being is incongruent with the reality around us. Evil happens, often not through our own choice, and no god is doing anything about it. Why would that be?
The poster points to all logical options.

[techmaster-glitch]

Probably a discussion for another thread, but...

This has been a continuous point of confusion in regards to Atheism for me. Do Atheists not believe in god because they simply think he/she/it doesn't exist? Or because they disagree with how he/she/it does business, thus meriting that It must not be a god on that basis?

The prior I understand, the latter's always been a puzzle for me to work over.

Actually, it depends on which aetheists you talk to. Bottom line is, none of us believe in gods or afterlife or other things like that, though the reasons can vary, and that's all. Some of us don't believe because we think it's al hypocritical, some of us because there's no proof, or simply the reasons you specified. The reason really isn't relevant, the only commonality is we all don't believe.

[Tapewolf]

Actually, it depends on which aetheists you talk to. Bottom line is, none of us believe in gods or afterlife or other things like that, though the reasons can vary, and that's all. Some of us don't believe because we think it's al hypocritical, some of us because there's no proof, or simply the reasons you specified. The reason really isn't relevant, the only commonality is we all don't believe.

One can be an atheist and still believe in some kind of afterexistence.  I refer you to Peter F Hamilton's Nights Dawn trilogy for an example.  Or Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series (though that was effectively man-made).
More to the point, the idea of a separate consciousness or that sentience may not be confined to currently-understood laws of physics does not necessarily imply (or require) the existence of a divinity.

Personally I'm agnostic.

[techmaster-glitch]

One can be an atheist and still believe in some kind of afterexistence.  I refer you to Peter F Hamilton's Nights Dawn trilogy for an example.  Or Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series (though that was effectively man-made).
More to the point, the idea of a separate consciousness or that sentience may not be confined to currently-understood laws of physics does not necessarily imply (or require) the existence of a divinity.

...From what I understand, isn't that what agnostic is? You believe in afterlife/some kind of divinity, but no specifics like an organized church?

[Tapewolf]

...From what I understand, isn't that what agnostic is? You believe in afterlife/some kind of divinity, but no specifics like an organized church?

By definition, an agnostic doesn't know whether there is a god or not.  I still say you're mixing the ideas of deities and afterlife.

[techmaster-glitch]

Huh. Different definition. I thought that one was for an "on-the-fence" or "don't care" aetheist.

...Then what is someone who believes in something but isn't tied to any organized religion called?