(Prolifer)ations 11-11-11
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Vital Signs showcases an “explosive” Washington Times editorial on Planned Parenthood and black genocide.
- Suzy B outlines ten things pro-lifers can do to advance their beliefs and help end abortion.
- Secular ProLife examines recent mainstream media articles which can’t seem to decide on the makeup of the American pro-life movement. Is it the nonreligious (who view abortion as a human rights violation), the working Christian mothers, or… Catholic men?
- Pro-Life Wisconsin claims hypocrisy in advertising is alive and well in the City of Milwaukee. The city’s new prevention advertising campaign uses a “shock value” photo (pictured left) of an African-American infant – but when the pro-life movement uses photos of African-American infants in anti-abortion ads, they are accused of racism.
- Moral Outcry reprints Randy Bohlender’s blog about our “national debt”:
Our true national debt is not one of dollars and sense but one of blood and bone…. I’m ok with facing the Chinese and telling them “We spent the money.” It’s a whole ‘nother thing to face God Almighty and tell Him what we did with the children. There is forgiveness for this debt, but not without repentance and a turning from our past.
- ProWomanProLife shares the story of a woman who, psychologically traumatized due to a harrowing vaginal birth experience with her first pregnancy, requested a C-section for her second pregnancy. Her physician refused and offered her an abortion instead, which she declined. Why is abortion the first solution given in response to a potentially difficult pregnancy?
- Wesley J. Smith, announces his position as editor of the Discovery Institute’s new online newsletter, The Human Exceptionalist, which will address anti-human movements worldwide:
…[A]s the moral importance of human life has become increasingly marginalized, flora, fauna—and even nature itself—are seen increasingly as possessing rights equal to those of man. Some even go so far as to declare us to be the enemy of the planet itself! Worse, these nihilistic views are communicated continually (and sometimes subliminally) by popular culture, in schools, at our most important universities, and by the media.
- Real Choice examines the National Abortion Federation’s supposed “high standards” for their abortion facilities. Apparently, ignoring the deaths of women in their clinics falls under these “high standards.”
- Stand for Life features a video by Greg Koukl, founder and president of Stand to Reason, which “examines if being a Christian makes one more close-minded.” Monte at SFL answers:
I say a resounding NO when it pertains to the life issue. Christians who argue the pro-life viewpoint often will state a position against abortion using Christianity, but they sometimes use a secular approach, if need be, by defending life with science and philosophy.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn2fnZlhxWw[/youtube]

Dear Mods,
looks like you’ve got a bit of an isuue with something I wrote. I’m guessing it’s the bit about christians. The article actually raised the topic of christians and closed minds. That is what I responded to.
But if it helps, I shall expand a little.
I believe that christians, and people of many other faiths, are more closed minded because of one simple fact.
I do not tell christians, or people of many other faiths, what they should and should not do, as long as it doesn’t impact on me.
Yet christians, and people of many other faiths, do try to tell me and others what we should and should not do, even if it doesn’t impact on them.
Is that better?
Reality,
Um, well, you’re telling people not to tell you what to do or not do. That would make for very short conversations if you can’t have an opinion on any activity whatsoever.
You’re asking everyone to not only be agnostic or atheist, but apathetic!
There’s a difference between having an opinion and actively campaigning to control the lives of others Hans.
I don’t agitate for the closure of churches, or even my taxes subsidising them, despite my opinion that they should be gone.
Hahahahahahahaha, this is a funny (and so far, very short) thread.
Reality won’t give someone the time of day because he is involved with the Discovery Institute, and then Reality criticizes others for being “close-minded.”
:P Gave me a chuckle. Thanks.
Reality,
Sorry I overstated my comment because I was under the gun. You may not think you’re imposing your non-beliefs on others, but by merely discussing a subject you are - dare I say? – proselytizing your opinion.
Whatever side of a social issue you are on, stating your belief can “control the lives” on the other side. Many say supporting “same-sex marriage” (a contradiction in terms) shouldn’t affect “heterosexual marriage” (a redundancy). But it does.
It does necessarily diminish the memory of the ceremony and the institution itself. As does “trophies for everyone”, diplomas for anyone, etc. Not legally, but in its worth to those directly involved and society at large.
Reality: “I do not tell christians, or people of many other faiths, what they should and should not do, as long as it doesn’t impact on me.
Yet christians, and people of many other faiths, do try to tell me and others what we should and should not do, even if it doesn’t impact on them.
Is that better?”
Why, exactly, is it “okay” to tell people what to do when it involves you directly, but not “okay” when it does not involve you directly? Imagine someone saying how close minded you are for not letting people do whatever they want under any circumstance. How, exactly, do you respond to this? “When it happens to me, it is important, but not others!” Well, why?
Reality, there is a bit of a double standard from the mods. Recently, “Jon” eviscerated the Catholic pope as the “anti-Christ” – a belief that, in part, produced the excesses of the American nativist movement. But because “Jon” is pro-life, his comments remained. When I have criticized the Catholic church for, in my opinion, attempting to foist what I consider to be a misogynistic theology regarding reproductive choice on to the rest of us, I am censored and reprimanded by the mod.
Couple of days ago, on one of the MS. “personhood” threads, I said that “Heather’s” comment, that pro-choice Joan will burn in hell, underscores the mainstream belief that the pro-life movement is full of punitive Christian religious zealots. I also pointed out to Sydney, who again compared abortion to the Shoah, that Jews, who are overwhelmingly pro-choice (fact) are offended by this comparison. My comment, not flaming or otherwise inappropriate, was scrubbed. Go figure.
Being a Christian doesn’t automatically make one closed minded. How you choose to live our your Christianity is what matters.
What becomes the problem is that Christians take their favorite verses and Biblical causes and use those as hammers out in society – yet ignore the thousands of other verses on other topics.
I am ABSOLUTELY close minded to certain things. You betcha.
as long as it doesn’t impact on me
“ME, ME, MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
The reality is that Reality is all about he
Reality is not about Praxedes, thee and all of we
He’s just about the impact on
“ME, ME, MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
Reality, it is my belief that living in your reality must in all reality really suck.
CC, in the middle of your whining, you might recall that Jon’s words were roundly condemned by nearly everyone here on the board, just as yours are when you make some bigoted remark.
The posts you mentioned that was removed were exactly the same in there language, arguments and its very wording to many of your posts that have appeared here over the years. Most of us can recite your opinions in our sleep from having heard them so much. No, you don’t have much right to think you are being censored for your views.
There are several mods and they are all human, having different breaking points. They tend to be amazingly tolerant of you and your views, but at times their tolerance can be exceeded. It may have been exceeded because you are so repetitious. It should also be pointed out, as I sure some of the mods will, that many comments don’t appear because of things apart from their content, such as containing too many links.
Hey, I have a great idea. Be better than Jon. Drop the anti-Catholicism altogether, and try to engage the subject you want to talk about on a rational basis. That would at least save you from the hypocrisy of having to explain that while Jon’s anti-Catholicism is wrong, yours is perfectly okay. (No I do not think you get a pass because you are a “former Catholic.”)
How about it?
But why delete comments that you disagree with only when the commenter is pro-choice? I’d like to see both sides fairly represented but it seems like pro-lifers can get away with fairly inflammatory and offensive statements without them ever being deleted but if a pro-choicer so much as gets a little too excited it’s removed.
You will have to be more specific than that, Elizabeth. Which thread? Which comment? Which commenter?
If a commenter cannot abide by the rules of commenting they risk being deleted. Mods aren’t here 24/7 so if you see something please email one of us. We are under the Team tab.
PS
I just deleted a prolifer this morning.
Just so you know the proaborts that are here frequently include but are not limited to Joan, Biggz, Reality, CC and Robert Berger. Hopefully you will stick around and see the kind of “arguments” they come up with.
Lori Pieper, as a Protestant I would have thought it obvious that in some very important ways I am “anti-Catholic.” I even said as much in the initial comment of mine to which you referred, which you and other Roman Catholics found outrageous although I was dealing with the question at hand, something to the effect of whether it is appropriate to protest an anti-abortion politicians at his church. The “anti-Catholic” remark emphasized my answer that a church which doesn’t condemn abortion likely already has much bigger problems.
Not only am I “anti-Catholic,” I am also anti-secular humanist, anti-Jewish (religiously Jewish), anti-atheist, anti-Hindu, anti-Muslim, and anti-Buddhist. However, I would prefer to say that I am Christian. It’s because I am Christian that I am pro-life, not the other way around. And I would imagine that you would say the same, even though–and I must say this again–we don’t mean the same thing.
Looking over my list of anti‘s, I should add that I am less “anti-Catholic” than I am, for example, anti-Buddhist. Does that comfort you at all?
Elizabeth, from what I understand, the proaborts who post here actually get to post. If one of us goes to a proabort site and tries to argue, we get deleted without exception. So I think that the mods here are pretty lenient and understanding.
statement: “Being a Christian makes one more close-minded.”
Christians who speak of the bondage of the will say that becoming a Christian actually makes one more open-minded. There’s the optimism of 2 Cor. 5:17: “If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: the old has gone, the new is here!” Before conversion, a man is unwilling to consider things from God’s perspective; he has convinced himself of a lie. After conversion, he is free to learn a sanctified life and attempt to love God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his mind and with all his strength (and establish a real beginning in such love).
There’s a frequent assumption for this statement which bothers me. It’s that an open mind is more important than Christian belief. But perhaps I can say that people who are unwilling to challenge this assumption are too closed-minded.
There’s one thing I’m currently open-minded about, and that’s the spelling of close-minded. The more logical spelling would be closed-minded, but some dictionaries give both spellings, and English isn’t always logical. Nor are people, but that’s because they are fallible and should be humble and to some extent have open minds.
Not only am I “anti-Catholic,” I am also anti-secular humanist, anti-Jewish (religiously Jewish), anti-atheist, anti-Hindu, anti-Muslim, and anti-Buddhist. However, I would prefer to say that I am Christian. It’s because I am Christian that I am pro-life, not the other way around. And I would imagine that you would say the same, even though–and I must say this again–we don’t mean the same thing.
Jon, you have just provided a textbook example of what our enemies are talking about what then say that you are “anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu, anti-Muslim,” etc. Congratulations for confirming them in their feelings that Christians are closed-minded.
I can say that Protestants are my fellow Christians with whom I have disagreements without saying I am “anti-Protestant.” If you “prefer to call yourself Christian,” why on earth don’t you stick with that? Do you really have no idea what that “anti” label means, more important, what it means to other people?
As to closed-mindedness, I feel a greater kinship to what C. S. Lewis wrote than to anything you’ve said (this is not an exact quote, but I think it’s pretty close). “When I was an atheist I thought the overwhelming majority of human beings throughout history have been wrong about the thing that mattered most. Now that I am a Christian, I am free to be more open-minded.” His Christianity led him to embrace believers of other faiths rather than alienating him from them. His open mind was not more important than his faith; though I believe it was a result of it. Your closed-off attitude toward others, on the other hand, can hardly be described as Christian at all.
Jon, when you say you are “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Buddhist” do you mean you are actually “anti-Catholicism” and “anti-Buddhism?” Are you against the people who hold to those beliefs or the beliefs themselves? Or is it both?
Lori Pieper said, “If you ‘prefer to call yourself Christian,’ why on earth don’t you stick with that? Do you really have no idea what that ‘anti’ label means, more important, what it means to other people?”
But I think I do stick with that, Lori. At least on this thread, you were the one who called me “anti-Catholic.” And when I spoke on another thread of the pope or papacy being an antichrist, I was using the language of Scripture itself.
And I do know what anti means. It means “against.” To be anti-abortion, for example, is to be pro-life. And I am convinced that to be pro-gospel is to be anti-Romanist. I recall the mottos of the Reformation: Scripture alone, grace alone, and faith alone.
I love C.S. Lewis! However, I would have to see the exact quote and its context before I accepting or rejecting the interpretation you have given it. There’s no doubt, though, that he could make any point which I would like to make much more convincingly and much more lovingly. You’re right about that.
Kel asked, “Jon, when you say you are ‘anti-Catholic’ or ‘anti-Buddhist’ do you mean you are actually ‘anti-Catholicism’ and ‘anti-Buddhism?’ Are you against the people who hold to those beliefs or the beliefs themselves? Or is it both?”
Certainly I’m against the beliefs. As regards the people who hold to the beliefs, I have to explain myself more carefully.
Can’t I refer to the apostle Paul’s struggle in Romans 7? At the end of the chapter he says (verse 24), “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Amazing grace that saved a wretch like me! I learn to hate my old nature and persevere to follow Christ and develop my new nature.
The protoevangelum, the first mention of the gospel, is on the third page of my Bible. In Genesis 3:15, God promised to put hatred between the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the snake, between His friends and Satan’s friends. The antithesis goes back to the beginning of history. Those who hold to wrong belief systems are the enemies of God. They don’t stand a chance–Psalm 2 says that God laughs at them–but they are His enemies. (In the case of Roman Catholicism, I believe that the perversion of the truth is so great that the gospel is no longer preached and that church is no longer true.)
Christian pro-lifers love to quote Psalm 139:13-16, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
That same psalm continues, however (Psalm 139:19-22): “If only you, God, would slay the wicked! Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty! They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name. Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.”
David killed many enemies of God with the edge of the sword. In the New Testament, however, this spiritual war is fought with more spiritual methods. The emphasis is on using the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. We are more enlightened than the saints of the Old Testament because we have the completed Scriptures, which are the Word of God.
Psalm 2 concludes, “Blessed are all who take refuge in [God’s Son].”
Reality said, “I do not tell christians, or people of many other faiths, what they should and should not do, as long as it doesn’t impact on me.”
You might not do that, Reality, but you seem to be in favour of murdering someone who has what you consider to be a negative impact on you. Abortion is a very negative impact on someone you were responsible for creating.
Jon: There’s one thing I’m currently open-minded about, and that’s the spelling of close-minded. The more logical spelling would be closed-minded, but some dictionaries give both spellings, and English isn’t always logical. Nor are people, but that’s because they are fallible and should be humble and to some extent have open minds.
“Close-minded” raises the spectre of the meaning taken to be the opposite of “far-minded” (whatever that might be), though, and thus I’m firmly of the opinion that it should be “closed-minded.”
Or is it “specter”? ;)
Stand for Life features a video by Greg Koukl, founder and president of Stand to Reason, which “examines if being a Christian makes one more close-minded.” Monte at SFL answers:
I say a resounding NO when it pertains to the life issue. Christians who argue the pro-life viewpoint often will state a position against abortion using Christianity, but they sometimes use a secular approach, if need be, by defending life with science and philosophy.”
Religion is philosophy, and science is not the argument.
Doug: “science is not the argument.”
Unfortunately, it often is the argument. You yourself, just today, mistakenly concluded that a zygote had not yet “sprung off” from its mother, when it fact it had earlier done so as a blastocyst. So, obviously, science is often part of the discussion.
I mean, I can’t count how many times I have heard “its not even a human, its just a lump of cells!” from some anti-science pro-choicer.
I would also like to add that Religion is not exactly Philosophy, and certainly not the kind of Philosophy used in the abortion debate, so it is perfectly accurate to say “I used religious arguments, as well as philosophical ones.”
But I think I do stick with that, Lori. At least on this thread, you were the one who called me “anti-Catholic.” And when I spoke on another thread of the pope or papacy being an antichrist, I was using the language of Scripture itself.
Stop trying to divert this discussion. I used “anti-Catholic” of you because a) you use it of yourself. b) You exhibit blatant anti-Catholic behavior. The difference between us is that I look on “anti-Catholic as a pejorative term, while it’s something you are apparently proud of being.
Yes, Scripture uses the term “anti-Christ.” That doesn’t justify you using it about anyone you like. Please tell me where in Scripture this term is ever used to refer explicitly to St. Peter or his successors.
And when I say explicitly, I do mean just that: something explicitly and literally referring to the papacy – meaning St. Peter and his successors. In case you are thinking of employing Rev. 17-18, please note that what you are going to say is not a literal reference, but an exceptionally weak interpretation of an allegory that has had many interpretations. You might want to take a look at this:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-whore-of-babylon
Lori said, “I used ‘anti-Catholic’ of you because a) you use it of yourself.”
Where, Lori? Prove it. I only used the term after you used it in your accusation.
Actually, I don’t like the term anti-Catholic. I believe in a holy, catholic Church, and it is not the Roman Catholic Church. I would use the term anti-Romanist, but I haven’t used that term, either, until now. I used the term anti-Catholic when talking with you to be less abrasive and to be understood.
Doug said, “Religion is philosophy, and science is not the argument.”
I pretty much agree with Doug on this.
The Discover Institute is the epitome of closed-minded (I agree that it should include the ‘d’), narrow-minded, blind-minded functioning Kel. I’ve spent a lot of time reading their trash and observing their behaviors. I return now and then to see if they have come up with anything rational – they haven’t. Their tripe is overwhelmed by scientific facts. But I’m open-minded enough that I’ll keep taking the odd look to see if they have anything that deserves contemplation.
“It does necessarily diminish the memory of the ceremony and the institution itself.” – Kim Kardashian, umpteen evangelicals and “pro-family” politicians with multiple marriages and “luggage-lifter” experiences.
“Why, exactly, is it “okay” to tell people what to do when it involves you directly, but not “okay” when it does not involve you directly” – your question, and the bit following it, doesn’t make sense Oliver.
Your usual anthem of selective quoting Praxedes? What I actually said was:
“I do not tell christians, or people of many other faiths, what they should and should not do, as long as it doesn’t impact on me.” – so read your bible, go to church, don’t have an abortion, don’t have sex outside of marriage and don’t marry a gay person – those won’t impact on me.
“Yet christians, and people of many other faiths, do try to tell me and others what we should and should not do, even if it doesn’t impact on them.” – I’m not gay. I don’t want to be part of a gay marriage. Yet christians would prevent gays from marrying, they tell other people how they should conduct their sex lives and numerous other things.
You are attempting to impact on many more people than just me.
So your ME,ME, MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is all about trying to make others live their lives according to rules and mores as ascribed by YOOOOOUUUUUUUU.
Reality: “your question, and the bit following it, doesn’t make sense Oliver.”
I know you are easily confused, but you should try a bit more. You are proud that you only tell people what to do when it affects you, but not when it doesn’t affect you. I am asking you why that makes any sort of difference.
It could be, for example, morally required of you to affect other people’s actions. Alternatively, it could be morally required of you NOT to tell people what to do EVEN when it does affect you.
So, again, I ask why it is “okay” to tell people what to do when it directly affects you, but it is not “okay” to tell people what to do when it does not directly affect you?
Take a few minutes to think before you respond. You could use it.
I think my level of confusion is somewhat less than your shallow application of my words Oliver. I did not use the word ‘directly’.
“I do not tell christians, or people of many other faiths, what they should and should not do, as long as it doesn’t impact on me.” – as I said earlier, I don’t want to be part of a gay marriage, yet seeing the religious trying to impact on the non-religious such as on the topic of gay marriage does impact on me. My friends are saddened and discriminated against. As do the attempts to deny choice to women. I know women for whom abortion is or has been the best course of action. Things such as bible-reading and church-going don’t, as a rule, impact on me. The attempts to introduce prayer into inappropriate settings does. Home-schooling is something which may fall between the two because I am not against home-schooling as such yet the outcome may produce situations which do impact on me.
“Yet christians, and people of many other faiths, do try to tell me and others what we should and should not do, even if it doesn’t impact on them.” – need I say any more?
Violence used against any of us, affects all of us.
And abortion is violent. It kills a human and affects me and my family and you and your family because we are all then living in a more violent, less compassionate world.
I am sorry that for you that the words “involves you directly” are not similar enough to “impact on me,” so much in fact that you were hopelessly confused.
Reality: “need I say any more?”
Yes. I am not the one confused, even though your broken English doesn’t help. I know what you are trying to say. I am asking you why that is not “okay” in your mind.
And I’m sorry for you Oliver, that you think that my grasp of English is such that I won’t pick up on your thinking that throwing other terms into the Q&A will distort things into eliciting a response you can take a magic carpet ride on.
If you know what I am trying to say whay are you asking? Apparently you are the confused one.
Lori said, “I used ‘anti-Catholic’ of you because a) you use it of yourself.”
Where, Lori? Prove it. I only used the term after you used it in your accusation.
Actually, I don’t like the term anti-Catholic. I believe in a holy, catholic Church, and it is not the Roman Catholic Church. I would use the term anti-Romanist, but I haven’t used that term, either, until now. I used the term anti-Catholic when talking with you to be less abrasive and to be understood.
I’m sorry if I can’t keep a proper score-card of your epithets. The fact remains that you happily claimed the word anti-Catholic for yourself and even explained your use of it at some length after I used it. The word isn’t the real point. It’s the beliefs and behavior, no matter what you call them. You don’t hesitate to call the Pope “Antichrist” and I’m sure you know that this is ten times more infuriating than “anti-Catholic.”
Please stop pretending you don’t like the word. Please stop pretending you want to be “less abrasive.” Please drop all your ridiculous, infuriating passive-aggressive behavior and attempt some logical argument for supposing my own Church to be anti-Christian and corrupt, because this is what you’ve done. I know you can’t because no matter what you think, you have absolutely ZERO knowledge of the Catholic Church and her teachings, just a hodge-podge of falsehoods and half-truths you have picked up from hearing them all your life. If you can’t provide any real arguments, then I suggest you drop the subject entirely.
By the way there is no such things as the “Roman Catholic Church.” We Catholics do not use the term “Roman” of ourselves. That’s another Protestant invention to try to distance us from the real Church of Christ.
[By the way, I realize my post about the Whore of Babylon really is not a direct answer to anything about the antichrist, as they are somewhat separate, I was simply too mad to think clearly].
Reality: “And I’m sorry for you Oliver, that you think that my grasp of English is such that I won’t pick up on your thinking that throwing other terms into the Q&A will distort things into eliciting a response you can take a magic carpet ride on.”
Right. Oh, by the way, you should check under your bed for the monsters. They’re out to get you.
Reality: “If you know what I am trying to say whay are you asking? Apparently you are the confused one.”
Incredible. Do you really not know the difference between “what” and “why?”
I will help you out. Let’s say a man decides to murder someone else. He may say “I did nothing wrong. You are simply closed minded fools to try to control me!”
Now, if I asked a “what” question, “what did you do” for example, I would get a sort of descriptive response. “I killed that person” for example.
However, if I asked a “why” question, “WHY did you kill that person” or “WHY did you think it was okay to kill that person,” I would get an explanatory response. “I did it for money” or “it was okay because I was increasing the maximum good in the world” for examples.
Now that you understand how questions work, I will rephrase the question. Why do you think it is “wrong” in someway to control others when it does not “make an impact on” you, but it is “okay” in someway to control others when it DOES “make an impact on” you?
Simple right?
Doug,
And let’s not forget those who are “clothes-minded”! :)
Lori Pieper, as I pointed out, I did not use the term anti-Catholic first; you did. The fact is that I myself don’t even like the term. It’s your term.
I’m not currently interested in providing any arguments here to back up my Protestant positions. I continue to believe that the pope or papacy is an antichrist (but not necessarily the antichrist). This is typical Protestantism and what my church teaches. I’ll also continue to call your church the Roman Catholic Church or even just Rome (when the context is clear). Obviously I’m not going to call a church that I don’t even regard as true the one universal church of Christ (which is what catholic means).
Do you see? You’re offending me too. Our spiritual ancestors physically fought over these things.
“you should check under your bed for the monsters.” – I’m the atheist here, remember.
“Do you really not know the difference between “what” and “why?” – you know that’s not what I’m referring to, unless your grasp on English…. Those aren’t the elements of the question you asked.
Now that you’ve gotten past your little magic carpet interlude you rephrase the question, yet you still go wrong! ‘Control’ is what I’m about preventing. You ask – “Why do you think it is “wrong” in someway to control others when it does not “make an impact on” you” – I didn’t say that, I said if what you are doing doesn’t impact on me I have no need to tell you what you should and shouldn’t do. There is no need.
“but it is “okay” in someway to control others when it DOES “make an impact on” you?” – read your bible, go to church, but don’t tell others what they should and shouldn’t do.
It is the attempts of people to ‘control’ myself and others when it does not impact on them that I seek to prevent.
I don’t tell you not to pray so don’t tell gays they can’t marry.
I’m not currently interested in providing any arguments here to back up my Protestant positions.
Somehow I knew you weren’t. I imagine it’s because you can’t.
How have I offended you, by the way? By calling you out for your rudeness and the ignorance that you refuse to acknowledge? I have nothing against Protestantism at all, so keep our ancestors out of this. I have nothing against you. I do not call Protestants names that suggest they are not part of the true Church of Christ, but you do that to Catholics.
By the way, if you think calling the Pope an antichrist is standard Protestantism, you are wrong. Most Protestants realize it for the lie that it is and have stopped using it. Why don’t you catch up to the times?
Some Protestants can argue their positions very well. You clearly don’t know the first thing about how to do so. Let’s not forget how, in our earlier debate on the Eucharist, you kept saying that Catholics don’t drink from the cup at Mass, even though a dozen Catholics, including myself, kept pointing out to you that we do. You, who have never been to a Catholic Church, evidently prefer to believe what you are told by people who have never been to a Catholic church either. Good luck trying to argue anything on that basis.
I hope I have not sounded too harsh, but you are in need of a severe corrective; I wish I could administer it in a more loving-sounding way, but I don’t know any way but just to say it. I do intend it in love as a fellow Christian. Please wake up and stop attacking fellow Christians and spreading lies about them.
(Please note that this is a corrected post.The editor would not save any corrections the first time.)
<em>I’m not currently interested in providing any arguments here to back up my Protestant positions. </em>
Somehow I knew you weren’t. I imagine it’s because you can’t.
How have I offended you, by the way? By calling you out for your rudeness and the ignorance that you refuse to acknowledge? I have nothing against Protestantism at all, so keep our ancestors out of this. I have nothing against you. I do not call Protestants names that suggest they are not part of the true Church of Christ, but you do that to Catholics.
By the way, if you think calling the Pope an antichrist is standard Protestantism, you are wrong. Most Protestants realize it for the lie that it is and have stopped using it. Why don’t you catch up to the times?
Some Protestants can argue their positions very well. You clearly don’t know the first thing about how to do so. Let’s not forget how, in our earlier debate on the Eucharist, you kept saying that Catholics don’t drink from the cup at Mass, even though a dozen Catholics, including myself, kept pointing out to you that we do. You, who have never been to a Catholic Church, evidently prefer to believe what you are told by people who have never been to a Catholic church either. Good luck trying to argue anything on that basis.
I hope I have not sounded too harsh, but you are in need of a severe corrective; I wish I could administer it in a more loving-sounding way, but I don’t know any way but just to say it. I do intend it in love as a fellow Christian. Please wake up and stop attacking fellow Christians and spreading lies about them.
Lori,
(1) Whether or not I can provide arguments is irrelevant to me. Maybe I can’t, as you imagine. It doesn’t matter. I’ll believe my pastor who’s more knowledgeable than I rather than you who imply that you’re more knowledgeable than I. As a Protestant, I believe in the priesthood of all believers, but there are still those called to pastor Christ’s church, and they are generally more skillful at handling the Word of truth than I am.
(2) I explained one way in which you’ve offended me just before I wrote that you were offending me. I wrote, “Obviously I’m not going to call a church that I don’t even regard as true the one universal church of Christ (which is what catholic means).”
(3) I still think calling the pope an antichrist is standard Protestantism. I realize that there are currently many silly Protestants who talk about returning “home,” but they represent a very modern trend, and they won’t be around very long if they do carry out their rash ecumenism. There’ s much doctrinal confusion these days, among Roman Catholics as well as Protestants (as Bobby Bambino once indicated when bemoaning the lack of catechetical instruction). And among any kind of Protestant church denomination of a certain label (e.g. Baptist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Pentecostal), there are those who still believe the Bible to be God’s Word and those to whom it is a book of fables with good morals. So, there plenty of Protestant churches which are false.
(4) In our earlier debate on the mass, I did not keep saying that Roman Catholics don’t drink from the cup at the mass. I said it once, and then I said that that’s what I had said. I had no problem accepting the fact that this is no longer the case once this was made clear (because initially a Roman Catholic had said the same thing in replying to me). And, please note, historically Roman Catholics did not drink from the cup. They were too afraid of spilling the blood of Jesus Christ, and this was my point.
(5) Obviously I believe you are the one in need of a severe corrective.
Lori said, “I do not call Protestants names that suggest they are not part of the true Church of Christ, but you do that to Catholics.”
See point 2 in my comment above. You might just as well have said, “I do not call Protestants names that suggest they are not part of the true Church of Christ, but you do that to the ones who alone are the true Church of Christ.”
Jon, it seems we are at an impasse. I’m clearly not going to convince you of anything.
But I cannot fathom why you think you need rational arguments to support your views. What kind of an attitude is that? You are going to depend solely on your pastor as an authority without checking things out for yourself? I’ll tell you – it’s how ignorant people remain ignorant. If you got your beliefs from Catholicism from your pastor, he is most definitely not smarter than you. At the very least, he is completely uninformed.
I’m glad you don’t have any difficulty admitting you were wrong about the laity and the cup. At least you are capable of admitting you are wrong when you confront the facts. Now please, stop relying on your pastor and confront the rest of the facts about Catholicism. Right from the horse’s mouth. Go to
http://www.vatican.va
Click on Resources. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read the Documents of Vatican II. Read the homilies of Pope Benedict. They are beautiful and very scriptural. You will see that in no way is this man an Antichrist. You are an adult and intelligent. You owe yourself the truth. Learn what Catholics believe, even if you never become one, even if you just want ammunition for your own side. At least when you argue, you will be arguing from a position of knowledge. Who doesn’t want that?
I’m sorry if I offended you in any way. I did not intend to. I wish you the best as a brother in Christ.
Oliver: Unfortunately, it often is the argument. You yourself, just today, mistakenly concluded that a zygote had not yet “sprung off” from its mother, when it fact it had earlier done so as a blastocyst. So, obviously, science is often part of the discussion.
Now hang on a minute, here, Hoss. I do know that the zygote, then the blastocyst “takes a little trip” prior to implanting. We talked about it not long ago right here on Jill’s site, and I was then reminded that it was the blastocyst, rather than the zygote, which implants.
But Dude, it’s not like the zygote was a blastocyst, earlier. ;)
____
I mean, I can’t count how many times I have heard “its not even a human, its just a lump of cells!” from some anti-science pro-choicer.
We’re all “a lump of cells,” in one way of looking at it, and for a while after conception it really is just a lump of cells. As far as “a human,” it would depend on what the speaker means by that.
If we impute the least to the term, and go with a very broad and inclusive meaning, then I fully agree that the zygote is a “human being,” etc.
We may disagree or have things to learn about the physical nature of the unborn, but that is not really the abortion debate. The arguing is over what status we deem to be present for the unborn, versus the liberty that women now have.
Oliver: I would also like to add that Religion is not exactly Philosophy, and certainly not the kind of Philosophy used in the abortion debate, so it is perfectly accurate to say “I used religious arguments, as well as philosophical ones.”
I think it’s all one thing in the abortion debate, though. It’s the things we care about, and the degree to which we care, whether we say it comes from our religion or our philosophy.
Hans: And let’s not forget those who are “clothes-minded”!
:) Ha!
(I do believe they exist.)
Ah clothes. I still have my Italian suits and $200 shirts and ties stored away from a previous life.
But I find life much more comfortable in polo shirts and casual trousers. And realistic!
Reality: “It is the attempts of people to ‘control’ myself and others when it does not impact on them that I seek to prevent.
I don’t tell you not to pray so don’t tell gays they can’t marry.”
Right, so why do you feel justified in that belief? Can you seriously not answer this?
Doug : ” The arguing is over what status we deem to be present for the unborn, versus the liberty that women now have.”
No, like I said, this is what it should be, but is often not. For example, you are arguing now about the scientific definition of a human, not person. I have had people tell me that a zygote is not an organism. I have had people tell me that cancerous cells are identical in that respect to a zygote. Hell, I have heard pro-Choicers claim that the heart doesn’t start to beat until 23 weeks! Science is certainly the argument. Unfortunately, your side is the anti-Science one here.
Because you praying does not harm anyone and gays marrying does not harm anyone.
Doug: “I think it’s all one thing in the abortion debate, though. It’s the things we care about, and the degree to which we care, whether we say it comes from our religion or our philosophy.”
No, you want it to be “all one thing” so you can simply fling it off as some kind of irreconcilable difference of belief systems. This suits your narrative. Unfortunately, there is a marked difference between Religion and Philosophy. Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, whatever, all have non-Religious opinions on Philosophical questions such as morality, epistemology, ontology, etc. To simply lump that together is ignorant. Of course, if my suspicions are correct, you probably have never studied Philosophy, so you don’t really know what you mean anyways.
Reality: “Because you praying does not harm anyone and gays marrying does not harm anyone.”
And why is whether someone harms someone significant to you?
“And why is whether someone harms someone significant to you?” – my initial reaction is to say what a stupid question, but my response is to give you the opportunity to expand a little as I think the answer is rather obvious.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Philosophy is at the top, religion at the bottom.
Doug : “We’re all “a lump of cells,” in one way of looking at it, and for a while after conception it really is just a lump of cells.”
No, we may all be a lump of cells, but we are not “just” a lump of cells. We are organisms. Lump some cells up in a corner and an organism you do not have. This is one of the fundamental differences between a blastocyst/zygote/whatever and a sperm/egg. Besides, it is a rhetorical technique meant to indicate a difference between a born human and a preborn human. The assumption, really implication, is that a preborn is just a lump of a cells, unlike a born human. This is scientifically wrong.
Reality: “my initial reaction is to say what a stupid question, but my response is to give you the opportunity to expand a little as I think the answer is rather obvious.”
Okay, in some moral systems not only is perfectly fine to harm others, it is mandated that you harm others. So, I want to know, what is your grounds for denying this sort of behavior, yet admonishing others for denying behavior when there is no harm done.
It really isn’t a hard question. Why has it taken you 10 posts to still not answer it?
Reality: “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Philosophy is at the top, religion at the bottom.”
I also just caught this little sentence. I am not sure how this is supposed to be clever. It is actually rather incoherent.
“I want to know, what is your grounds for denying this sort of behavior, yet admonishing others for denying behavior when there is no harm done.” – I don’t find your question to be very clear, can you extrapolate?
It’s not meant to be ‘clever’, its an observation.
“It is actually rather incoherent.” – then perhaps you need to think about it a little harder.
Maslow’s
religion
philosophy
come on.
Reality: “I don’t find your question to be very clear, can you extrapolate?”
Okay. I’ll break it down in slow motion for you.
I (that’s me) want to know (as in, you give me an answer), what is your grounds (base, reasoning, premise, justification) for denying this sort of behavior (harming people), yet admonishing (disaprove, chastise) others (Christians) for denying behavior when there is no harm done (take your pick, but let’s use Gay marriage).”
It really wasn’t a hard question, actually. I had a hard time breaking it down any further to be honest.
Now, regarding your Maslow commentary, unless there is a different “Maslow’s Hierarchy of the Needs” than the one with which I am familiar, your commentary makes no sense. Religion should be in the same position as Philosophy, which would be at the top. Unless this is some kind of veiled joke about Catholicism and communion…
Would a clearer version of your question be – “I want to know why you are against the behaviors of people which harm other people, yet are against the behaviors of people which don’t harm other people?” ???
“Unless this is some kind of veiled joke about Catholicism and communion…” – no no, not at all. Religion just doesn’t belong at the top, it belongs at the bottom. Look at the fundamentals.
Reality: “Would a clearer version of your question be – “I want to know why you are against the behaviors of people which harm other people, yet are against the behaviors of people which don’t harm other people?” ???”
No. (Are you really this stupid, or are you just shitting around?)
I am asking you why you feel justified to do both
a) Tell others not to act in a way as to harm you, or other people
b) Chastise others for telling others not to act in a way that does not harm you, or other people.
Also, I am pretty sure you are not familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of the Needs. Religion is a higher brain function, requiring, if not akin to, self actualization. The best you could say is that Religion fits into the “security” slot, or maybe the “self esteem” slot. It makes no sense at all to slot it with food and water at the bottom.
Ah, much clearer, thank you. I find your limited grasp of English can generate some tangled vernacular.
a) well that’s obvious, it’s a trait we all display.
b) the crux! on what basis should someone tell others not to do something if that something does no harm? That’s just someone foisting their own beliefs onto others with no justification. I don’t tell you not to prayer because as a rule it causes no harm to others. So don’t tell gays they can’t marry because as a rule it causes no harm to others. But I’ve told you this before.
“Also, I am pretty sure you are not familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of the Needs” – now now, you should know that assumptions can be dangerous.
“Religion is a higher brain function….self-actualization” – ROFLMBO!
I’m still deciding whether it belongs in ‘safety’ or ‘physiological’ but I could perhaps be swayed towards ‘safety’ (or security). Although I can see some justification for placing it in ‘physiological’. But I certainly don’t see it fitting in ‘esteem’.
Reality: “Ah, much clearer, thank you. I find your limited grasp of English can generate some tangled vernacular.”
Right. That’s why you avoided the issue.
Reality: “a) well that’s obvious, it’s a trait we all display.
b) the crux! on what basis should someone tell others not to do something if that something does no harm? That’s just someone foisting their own beliefs onto others with no justification. I don’t tell you not to prayer because as a rule it causes no harm to others. So don’t tell gays they can’t marry because as a rule it causes no harm to others. But I’ve told you this before.”
First of all, this is not a two part question. I was asking how you can justify holding BOTH beliefs, not each belief individually. How freaking dense are you? Again, you must be doing this on purpose.
Second of all, you did not explain anything anyways. You KEEP merely repeating your position. Do I need to explain the difference between a “why” question and a “what” question again? You are explaining “what” you believe, not “why” you believe it is a justified belief. I know what you think. I am asking you WHY you are justified in simultaneously telling people what to do and telling people not to tell people what to do.
You are either the biggest moron I have even met, or you are deliberately avoiding the question. Can you at least answer this?
So is the thrust of your Maslow “observation” that Religion is for stupid people so it is like food and water? You really are a fucking moron to think that is funny. Is this 2nd grade? How do you possibly mean, in some kind of intelligent way, that Religion is the same as a physiological need?
Furthermore, on the Maslow thing, (since I have given up explaining a complex idea to someone as obviously immature as yourself,) whether you think Religion is bad, dangerous, stupid, or whatever, there is no denying that it is an attempt at self actualization, no matter how primitive. To place Religion under any other header, ESPECIALLY under the physical needs section, as nothing in Religion is physical, is to completely misunderstand Maslow’s point.
Obviously, you have read about Maslow’s Hierarchy of the Needs in some pop-Psych book, or in a intro Psych class, or some other superficial circumstance, so you do not know what you are talking about. You’re embarrassing yourself.
“First of all, this is not a two part question” – yet it had an a) and a b).
“I am asking you WHY you are justified in simultaneously telling people what to do and telling people not to tell people what to do.” – there’s nothing simultaneous about it. I don’t tell people what to do, I just protest when they are unjustified in telling other people what to do (or more accurately, what they shouldn’t do). So I’m telling them what not to do.
I won’t tell you not to pray but I will tell you not to tell gays they can’t marry when there is no justifiable reason why they shouldn’t. What’s so hard to understand about the ‘why’ of that?
I don’t tell people not to do something if it isn’t harming others. But if what they do does harm others then we all speak out.
“So is the thrust of your Maslow “observation” that Religion is for stupid people” – people have a variety of reasons for embracing religion. Maybe a few are stupid, I haven’t conducted a detailed quantitative or qualitative analysis.
“You really are a fucking moron to think that is funny.” – tut, tut, language! I assure you I am not trying to be funny – “just as well, because you’re not” I hear you say :-)
“Is this 2nd grade” – maybe on your side.
“(since I have given up explaining a complex idea to someone as obviously immature as yourself,)” – what an amazing intellectual contribution!
“there is no denying that it is an attempt at self actualization,” – yes there is, I dispute your claim.
“no matter how primitive.” – now you’re geting there, keep at it. But please don’t confuse ‘primitive’ with various derogatory terms.
“To place Religion under any other header, ESPECIALLY under the physical needs section, as nothing in Religion is physical,” – is your experience of various religious activities and outcomes that narrow?
“is to completely misunderstand Maslow’s point” – not at all, it is intrinsic.
“Obviously, you have read about Maslow’s Hierarchy of the Needs in some pop-Psych book,” – nope.
“or in a intro Psych class,” – well that’s where it started, as it does. One does generally start at the beginning.
“or some other superficial circumstance,” – in a number of contexts, some may have been little more than superficial but I assure you that not all were.
“so you do not know what you are talking about.” – oh the cruelty!
“You’re embarrassing yourself” – try harder – think!
Lori wrote to me, “You are going to depend solely on your pastor as an authority without checking things out for yourself? I’ll tell you – it’s how ignorant people remain ignorant.”
I didn’t quite say that I wasn’t ever going to check things out for myself. I have also been checking things out for myself, but unless my life occupation involves these things, there’s no way I can learn enough. At some point I’m going to have to trust others. Anyway, almost all learning involves piggy-backing off of others, doesn’t it? Actually, I think the Reformation brought much greater education to the average man. The Roman Catholic Church, with its distinction between laity and clergy, tended to keep the former in ignorance. The Reformers, for example, translated the Scriptures with great zeal, and it’s my impression that the Roman Catholic Church only reluctantly followed in that trend.
Also, in checking yesterday what I had actually written in the former exchange about the Roman Catholic mass (https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/06/stanek-sunday-extra-eucharist-flash-mob), I did a very little research and found an opinion from a minister in my Reformed tradition. It’s http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/08/18/is-mass-idolatrous/ , and it actually deals with what Bobby Bambino was saying to me in that same Jill Stanek post about a mass. I like what it says, and though you will not agree with it, I think you will appreciate the good way in which it is said.
Yeah, I think he does say that in a very good, respectful, but non-compromising way, Jon. Obviously I think he is mistaken concerning his applications of the verses of scripture against the mass (in particular, Heb 7:27 does not say what he claims it shows, leading me to believe that he doesn’t quite understand the Catholic understanding of sacrifice as being in the form of the Jewish understanding of sacrifice) but I appreciate his thoughtfulness and the fact that he is careful enough to say “even though Catholics would deny it, they are mistaken to think the mass is not idolatry.” I appreciate the fact that he chalks up our understanding of teh mass to ignorance or misunderstanding rather than saying that we flat out, consciously deny the sufficiency of the cross. God love you.
Doug : ” The arguing is over what status we deem to be present for the unborn, versus the liberty that women now have.”
Oliver: No, like I said, this is what it should be, but is often not.
Here and there, sure, but in the end the physical reality of the unborn is not the issue, while all our “shoulds” and “should nots” are.
____
For example, you are arguing now about the scientific definition of a human, not person. I have had people tell me that a zygote is not an organism.
At least with physical facts, the argument can usually be settled fairly easily. I agree that from conception it’s an organism (no doubt about it). With “a human” there is debate, yes – it depends on what type of being we mean, what state of “being” we are talking about. If we go with a very basic “human being” usage then there too I certainly agree that the zygote qualifies.
____
I have had people tell me that cancerous cells are identical in that respect to a zygote. Hell, I have heard pro-Choicers claim that the heart doesn’t start to beat until 23 weeks! Science is certainly the argument. Unfortunately, your side is the anti-Science one here.
Oh come on – there has been plenty of crackpot stuff about true “brainwaves at 6 weeks,” etc. from pro-lifers, as well as innumerable statements of subjective opinion as fact.
Doug: “I think it’s all one thing in the abortion debate, though. It’s the things we care about, and the degree to which we care, whether we say it comes from our religion or our philosophy.”
No, you want it to be “all one thing” so you can simply fling it off as some kind of irreconcilable difference of belief systems. This suits your narrative. Unfortunately, there is a marked difference between Religion and Philosophy. Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, whatever, all have non-Religious opinions on Philosophical questions such as morality, epistemology, ontology, etc. To simply lump that together is ignorant. Of course, if my suspicions are correct, you probably have never studied Philosophy, so you don’t really know what you mean anyways.
Oh please. There is religious philosophy and the philosophy of religion, and what I said is true. It indeed is all one thing – it’s our feelings of the good, bad, right, wrong in the moral realm, it’s all our “shoulds” and “should nots” whether a distinction can be made as far as technically “religious” or “philosophical” positions.
There is no “flinging it off.” It’s what we think, and that’s where the debate is.
Doug : “We’re all “a lump of cells,” in one way of looking at it, and for a while after conception it really is just a lump of cells.”
Oliver: No, we may all be a lump of cells, but we are not “just” a lump of cells. We are organisms. Lump some cells up in a corner and an organism you do not have.
I’ve always agreed that the zygote is an organism, and I did say, “in one way of looking at it.” Heck, any life form on earth is just a lump of cells, from one standpoint.
____
This is one of the fundamental differences between a blastocyst/zygote/whatever and a sperm/egg. Besides, it is a rhetorical technique meant to indicate a difference between a born human and a preborn human. The assumption, really implication, is that a preborn is just a lump of a cells, unlike a born human. This is scientifically wrong.
If there is intent to mislead, then I’m not for it. There are plenty of differences between the born and the unborn – when there is no more form than the “lump of cells” – however. Organism or not, there isn’t the consciousness, awareness, personality, mental and emotional state of being we normally see later on in gestation, as well as in the born.
My apologies mods, I had intended to alter Oliver’s sentence containing that certain word when I copied and pasted it into my response but I forgot to go back and do so.
Reality: “yet it had an a) and a b)”
Right, it was a question about two things, not a two-part question requiring two answers. How is everything so hard for you to understand?
Reality: “there’s nothing simultaneous about it. I don’t tell people what to do, I just protest when they are unjustified in telling other people what to do (or more accurately, what they shouldn’t do). So I’m telling them what not to do.”
Telling someone what not to do is functionally equivalent to telling them what to do. Regardless, you ARE telling people not to tell people not to do something. I am trying to probe exactly why you feel that it is okay to tell people NOT to do something if it harms you, but it is not okay to tell people NOT to do something if it does not harm you, and it is in fact okay to tell these people NOT to tell people NOT to do something in this case.
You still haven’t explained why, but like I said, you never will. It is probably because you don’t know why.
Reality: “yes there is, I dispute your claim.”
Okay, on what grounds? Show me an animal that has Religion.
Reality: ” is your experience of various religious activities and outcomes that narrow?”
What are you talking about “religious activities” and “outcomes?” We are talking about religion itself, not the things done in association with religion. Besides, with that logic, are you aware of the activities and outcomes of many non-religious Philosophies? Why is Philosophy any different than Religion in this respect?
“it was a question about two things, not a two-part question requiring two answers” – if it was a question about two things how can it have a single answer? Logic man, logic.
“why you feel that it is okay to tell people NOT to do something if it harms you, but it is not okay to tell people NOT to do something if it does not harm you” – are you kidding? How do you function in society?
If you want to splatter your ice-cream all over me I’ll tell you not to do it, but if you want to eat your ice-cream there is no need for me to tell you not to do it.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of human interaction.
Animals? What have animals got to do with it? I thought you claimed to have some understanding of Maslow’s and the rationale behind it.
If there is nothing done in association with religion then there is no religion! Religion is all about what people do.
Because philosophy is near the top and religion is near the bottom, they are fundamentally different concepts.
Reality: “if it was a question about two things how can it have a single answer? Logic man, logic.”
Easy. Here’s a sample:
Q: “Are those two creatures both zebras?”
A: “Yes, they are.”
Now, how do you justify holding both beliefs?
Reality: “are you kidding? How do you function in society?
If you want to splatter your ice-cream all over me I’ll tell you not to do it, but if you want to eat your ice-cream there is no need for me to tell you not to do it. You seem to lack a basic understanding of human interaction.”
I know what you believe. I am asking why you feel justified in this belief. There are non-Religious moral systems that justify “rubbing ice-cream” in someone’s face, as long as it fits some criteria. There are other non-Religious moral systems that justify telling someone else to not eat ice cream. I am asking why you seem to draw the line where you do.
Reality: “Animals? What have animals got to do with it? I thought you claimed to have some understanding of Maslow’s and the rationale behind it.”
Oh I do. My point is that animals do not have self-actualization. They do have physiological needs, however. Religion is a matter of the mind. The questions whether God exists, whether God created us or the world, and for what purpose, or even non-God spiritual questions, are certainly not matters of food or water.
Reality: “If there is nothing done in association with religion then there is no religion! Religion is all about what people do.”
That doesn’t make any sense. Religion is not a set of actions, it is a belief system. You can do nothing and have a belief system.
Reality: “Because philosophy is near the top and religion is near the bottom, they are fundamentally different concepts.”
For crying out loud, you are just stating your point without any backup again. People have done the exact same sorts of things in the name of Philosophy as those done in the name of Religion. How are they any different, given your argument?
By the way, I’d like to add that Religion and Philosophy are NOT fundamentally different concepts. Religion is a kind of Philosophy, if anything. They are not exactly the same thing by any means, but they have many relations. There is in fact a Philosophy of Religion.
Easy. Here’s a sample:
Q: “Are those two creatures both zebras?”
A: “Yes, they are.”
what are you on? Man, and I thought triple-dosing on cortiso-steroids was a trip!
That’s a question and an answer, it’s nothing like the two part question tagged as a) and b) that you posed.
“Oh I do.” – evidently not.
“Religion is a matter of the mind.” – again, ROFLMBO! Only to the extent that it’s a gap filler.
“The questions whether God exists, whether God created us or the world, and for what purpose, or even non-God spiritual questions, are certainly not matters of food or water.” – the creation of religions based on deities was established on foundations which lie at the ‘physiological’ or ‘safety’ levels.
“You can do nothing and have a belief system.” – beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, influence choices and actions. The 10 commandments is a set of actions. Praying is an action. Believing god has granted you something is an action. If this belief does not impact on your actions then it’s hollow.
“People have done the exact same sorts of things in the name of Philosophy as those done in the name of Religion.” – not quite. And the rationales behind acting on them is vastly different.
Reality: “what are you on? Man, and I thought triple-dosing on cortiso-steroids was a trip!
That’s a question and an answer, it’s nothing like the two part question tagged as a) and b) that you posed.”
Don’t lose track of the conversation. You asked “how can you have a question about two things and a single answer?” I gave you an example. Now I can give you one with an a and a b if you would like. (I feel like I am teaching a petulant child…)
Q: “How can you believe both a) God does not exist and b) the universe was created?”
A: “Simple. The Universe was created by the big bang, not God, so there is no need for God.”
Can you please answer my question now? Did I help you understand questions enough and other “mysterious” things?
Reality: “again, ROFLMBO! Only to the extent that it’s a gap filler.”
How is this a response? What exactly is your argument, that you can type LOL type acronyms?
Reality: “the creation of religions based on deities was established on foundations which lie at the ‘physiological’ or ‘safety’ levels.”
First of all, what does the creation of religion have to do with anything? We are talking about religion itself, not its creation. How it is approached today is very different from how it was approached at its creation. Second of all, the foundations may have been in the physiological level, but religion itself is still not the fulfillment of the need for food or water. You can’t eat/drink Religion.
Reality: “beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, influence choices and actions. The 10 commandments is a set of actions.”
So? Beliefs are still not actions. I didn’t say there was no influence, but that beliefs require no actions.
Reality: “Praying is an action.”
Sort of.
Reality: “Believing god has granted you something is an action.”
How is that an action??
Reality: “If this belief does not impact on your actions then it’s hollow.””
So?? Who said anything about meaningful Religion. You could believe God exists and do nothing about it. Is that really so far fetched??
Reality: “not quite. And the rationales behind acting on them is vastly different.”
Do we need to talk about the Hedonists? Communists? Really? Did you ever even study Philosophy? ( I mean there have been Philosophies literally about only satisfying physiological needs as well as Philosophies used only to satisfy physiological needs. Ridiculous)
No, it was more along the lines of
Q: “How can you believe both a) God does not exist and b) the universe was created?”
A: “But god does exist, he created us and the animals and plants and tells us how to live, but the universe itself was created as an experiment by a group of white mice.”
Nothing ‘mysterious’ about it.
“How is this a response? What exactly is your argument, that you can type LOL type acronyms?” – religion is a man made construct to fill the gaps in some peoples’ minds that they just have to have filled to function effectively.
“How it is approached today is very different from how it was approached at its creation.” -so you agree that it is obviously a construct of man, glad to hear it.
There is more to the physiological level than just food, water and shelter. But as I said earlier, I could be swayed to allot it to the ‘safety’ category. Does this give you a clue?
“You could believe God exists and do nothing about it. Is that really so far fetched??” - do you really think so? I’m not outright disagreeing, I just wonder if you really believe it.
Hedonism and communism have nothing to do with religion. Philosophies of various types yes, but not deity-based religion.
Reality: “No, it was more along the lines of
Q: “How can you believe both a) God does not exist and b) the universe was created?”
A: “But god does exist, he created us and the animals and plants and tells us how to live, but the universe itself was created as an experiment by a group of white mice.”
Nothing ‘mysterious’ about it.””
If you are parroting your own nonsensical response, then you are correct. I am not sure why you are making fun of yourself here…
Now care to provide a more reasonable answer to this question?
I am asking you why you feel justified to do both
a) Tell others not to act in a way as to harm you, or other people
b) Chastise others for telling others not to act in a way that does not harm you, or other people.
Reality: “religion is a man made construct to fill the gaps in some peoples’ minds that they just have to have filled to function effectively.”
This is a rather ignorant answer. The wisest men and women in history have contemplated the questions of creation and deity. It has nothing to do with filling a need. It is the same as asking “How come things appear to have a cause and effect relationship?” or “Does time exist?” Maybe you are confusing the idea of “Catholicism” or “Buddhism” with “Religion?”
Reality: “so you agree that it is obviously a construct of man, glad to hear it.”
What does that have to do with anything? I am not arguing whether Religions are true or false.
Reality: “There is more to the physiological level than just food, water and shelter. But as I said earlier, I could be swayed to allot it to the ‘safety’ category. Does this give you a clue?”
Not really. Are you talking about sex? Sleep? Warmth?
Reality: “do you really think so? I’m not outright disagreeing, I just wonder if you really believe it.”
Of course I believe that. There are likely millions of people who believe in God but do nothing about it. In fact, I bet there are at least thousands of professed Christians that do not act on their beliefs even in the most minute ways. What of it?
Reality: “Hedonism and communism have nothing to do with religion. Philosophies of various types yes, but not deity-based religion.”
No sh**! Of course they don’t! Why do you think I brought them up? I swear to God you are the worst reader I have met. (In case you can’t tell, I am insulting you.) I brought them up as examples of Philosophies that were used to do things similar to Religion. Like I said, there are philosophies that are specifically geared towards ONLY the Physiological needs. How, again, are Religion and Philosophy on different ends? Have you ever studied Philosophy? Read a Philosopher? Or are you talking out of your ass?
“I am not sure why you are making fun of yourself here…” – cos I’m bored with making fun of you? Cos you’ve tried and failed so now its my turn?
“I am asking you why you feel justified to do both” – I’ve answered more than once. It’s not my problem if you lack a basic understanding of social interactions and human communication.
“This is a rather ignorant answer” – no its not. People see religion as a panacea.
“The wisest men and women in history have contemplated the questions of creation and deity” – until knowledge lifted the veil.
“Not really. Are you talking about sex? Sleep? Warmth?” – no, protection from fear. That’s why I sway towards ‘safety’ more than ‘physiological’ although that could still be argued.
Is not stating, even to oneself, ‘I believe in god’ an act? A choice has had to be made, that is an act. Heck some people might even think about it, that’s even more of an act. And if you behave according to god’s word, that is an act or two. And if you don’t behave according to god’s word, what sort of act is that, hypocrisy?
“No s**t! J**us Ch**st, of course they don’t!” – language and blasphemy, I’m swooning!
“I swear to God you are the worst reader I have met.” – I think you’ll find it’s your composing skills which lack coherence.
“(In case you can’t tell, I am insulting you.)” – it’s not working, do you want me to take over in that department too? :-)
I find philosophy to be more of an intrinsic discipline in its intellectual displacement whereas religion, at least at point of origin, is extrinsic.
“How, again, are Religion and Philosophy on different ends?” – I gave you a clue further up this comment. Oh, ok, I’ll make it clear for you. Deity-based religions are rooted in fear, philosophy isn’t. Simple isn’t it?
An ass is a four legged animal, I believe you may mean arse. Oops, now you’re making me use a profanity.
Oliver: By the way, I’d like to add that Religion and Philosophy are NOT fundamentally different concepts. Religion is a kind of Philosophy, if anything. They are not exactly the same thing by any means, but they have many relations. There is in fact a Philosophy of Religion.
Yee Haa – we agree. ;) (Over 5 hours earlier I’d said, “There is religious philosophy and the philosophy of religion”)