Matthew 5:27-28 27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
"It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (English Standard Version, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5)
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 7:8-9)
I believe gay marriage is wrong, because that is what it says in the Bible. However I don’t believe homosexuality is a worse sin, then adultery, they are both harmful to one’s self and partner.
However I wouldn’t try to force people who are gay not to get married. I would just tell them the truth and let them make up their mind themselves. Also even if you are gay don’t worry about it, you can still repent and follow Jesus. No one is too far from the Grace of God. : )
I believe that the government should get out the marriage business altogether and just let individuals choose how they wish to get married. Allowing the government to define marriage is always a dangerous prospect as it can on whim elevate, or depreciate the status of one group or another.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Yes, I 100% do believe we should criminalize adultery.
In a very strict sense, that if you get married but then cheat on your spouse, you get jail time. I believe this would hugely benefit society, as no longer would cheating be looked simply as a joke or a mean thing to do, but actually a criminal act.
Cheating breaks up families. Laws against it would cause some to think twice. (I wouldn’t criminalize, non-married people sleeping around.)
If Jesus Christ "redeems" man, why are their still natural disasters?
Why do devoted Christians who love Jesus receive gods wrath?
If god constructed this loop hole in order to eliminate sin from man, why does evil still befall Christians?
And the third point;
How are you certain that the being that created this world isn't the "evil" god, and the "good" god is trying to save you from the wickedness of this world, but doesn't want to violate the compact of free will towards the creatures the "evil" god created.
In early gnostic thought (think really early christianity, roughly 100 years after his death) this is what most christians actually believed, that the god of the old testament was the evil demiurge ordering people to kill their first born, and the real god from the new testament was trying to spread love and happiness.
This also formed later heresies by the catholic church like the Cathar movement in southern france which lead to the first genocide recorded, where entire cities were purged. (This is where we get the line "Let god sort them out")
An unchanging god doesn't allow you to solve these issues, if you are curious about any of these topics ask me.
As for the demiurge I wasn't entirely sure by what you meant by that. I saw a couple different definitions like:
n. A powerful creative force or personality. n. A deity in Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and other religions who creates the material world and is often viewed as the originator of evil.
Genesis 3 17And to Adam He said: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree from which I commanded you not to eat, cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18Both thorns and thistles it will yield you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, until you return to the ground— because out of it were you taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they went from being perfect to being sinners. Sin incurs a debt, and the payment for just one sin is death. For how can good stand evil? How can a perfect creator stand an imperfect creation?
Anyway after Adam sinned natural disasters, death, and diseases were introduced into the world. Everything that mankind was a caretaker of Animals, his children, plants, was impacted by his fall.
If a man was perfect, evil things wouldn’t happen to him. But since no one is perfect, none of us can complain about bad things happening to us.
But that’s not the end of the story as you know. God knew this was going to happen, and had a redemption plan all along. He personally came down as Jesus Christ, to bare our sins, so we wouldn’t have too. So we can repent of our sins, and ask him for forgiveness to be saved. Then we will be starting a new leaf, and able to help others along the way.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So God is perfect, and only creates good beings, so where did evil come from? Let’s think back to Adam and Eve. In the Garden of Eden everything was perfect there was no evil.
However God wanted to allow humans to have freewill. Therefore there was a tree that was planted known as the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2 16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
So Adam and Eve were innocent like babies. They could not even conceive of what it meant to do evil. So in order for them to have freewill they had to have a choice.
It was a simple choice. Obey God. = Good or Reject him = Evil.
In the garden the standard was you can eat of every single tree except 1.
Outside the garden humans Knowledge of Good and Evil expanded and their innocence was lost.
So you might ask, why didn’t God just remove the tree completely? If God removed the tree then Adam and Eve could never choose to rebel against God. They would have freewill but could only choose to obey, it would be a false freedom.
Why give humans freewill in the first place? I believe it is because God loved us and wanted us to love him back. It is impossible to force someone to love you, love can only arise if a being has freewill.
Summary: God is Good Rejecting Good is Evil Rejecting God is Evil
Conclusion: Evil arises from rejecting God (Which is made possible by giving creatures freewill.) Freewill is granted to allow creation to gain the ability to choose to love each other and their creator. Exclusion of freewill would lead to manufacturing machines which no choice but to obey.
I'm largely in agreement with this. There's a wee bit here and there but I can't see why our points of view can't hold enough common ground to be classed as compatible.
I would say that I'm an anarcho-pacifist but I have been learning a lot of Marx/Engels and other Marxist figures (I think a lot of their claims have been proven empirically e.g. Labour Theory of Value). I would agree morally more with anarchists but Marxists have a better understanding of economics and their historical materialism and use of dialectics.
I would have to research Evictionism more (I know next to nothing) but if it's similar to what you've described then I would agree with some important aspects of it.
With modern developments, we'll eventually eliminate that concern as well.
We'll have hydroponic vertical farms, with advancements in CRISPR we'll eventually be able to grow animal protein in factories for less water and less energy that we currently do with modern agriculture.
The highest moral plane also happens to be the most cost-effective according to the economics; which is why I'm not entirely convinced by those who claim realism and pragmatism because they're operating under faulty premises.
Soon the concept of "veganism" will be outdated, and we'll look at modern domestication in the same way that we look at slavery now,
Because the argument "What will feed the masses" is the same as "Who will pick the cotton" it's just a matter of human ingenuity.
As a member* of the Far Right, (Are we allowed to use labels here?) I appreciate you've actually taken the time to reason your way towards your position.
I believe your position is completely compatible with mine, as I separate abortion in to two distinct actions A. Killing the fetus/zygote/ect...
or
B. Removing it from the womb.
I believe B is justified, however I don't believe A is, however as you've mentioned the double effect is that the second effect invariably leads to the first effect.
However, as I'm probably assuming your an anarcho-pacificist, I'm going to assume* (correct me if I'm wrong) you wouldn't judge the bodily autonomy argument in the same line I would.
I agree strongly with this. Morality has to be the root of the Law and to divorce both is dangerous to say the very least. However, I still feel that flexibility has to be allow due to the material conditions of our society e.g. veganism is the highest plane of morality but this simply can't be achieved in some society in the world where meat is needed to survive. Nevertheless we should strive to remove the need of "pragmatism" ( I say this loosely) in our laws.
deletedover 5 years
dude its almost like if I knew how to talk on controversial topics I'd be dreamsx :o
I would begin by saying that since I think it's clear that the unborn human if a human and it many ways it's ad hoc to divorce personhood and humanity ( though I can't always agree with them it's true, the american evangelicals are right when they say that it's never good when people are no longer persons and then point to genocide).
I simply don't have enough space to show biologically and philosophically and even through Quantum Mechanics why I believe Zygotes are persons.
"Personally" ( you'll see why later) I could never take a human life in any situation. I'm very strongly a pacifist despite being a member of the Far Left which I would assume you know are willing to use violence as a means to an end.
However my overall stance on abortion should be that life should be that Zygotes should be kept alive in most scenarios unless the mother's life is in danger. If we concede that it's a person I find it uncomfortable to end it's existence. The human has been placed there against it's free will and I think Thomas Aquinas' double doctrine helps my position well e.g. we can do one action (save the mother) while unintentionally committing another (killing the foetus)..
Legally however and due to the material condition of my society, I think pain should be the cut-off for abortion due to abortion always existing and I think it's a way of actually driving abortions down and keeping women safe. Hopefully one day when we actually have the technology to remove the unborn human from the womb and keep them alive would I support the conception stance in regards to legality. Until then I think pragmatism should be the stance.
The basic argument that I hear from people is this
"You shouldn't change the abortion laws because that's immoral, anyone who advocates changing the law therefor is bad"
I'm fine with this one, as long as they are consistent, which very few people besides actual academics are (like Peter Singer) However, then they immediately move to this premise once challenged on it.
"Morality and the Law aren't the same thing, we shouldn't make laws based on morality"
It pains me that people don't see the contradiction in this.
This is true and no one denies that killing a Zygote/embryo/foetus is killing a human life. From Peter Singer to planned parenthood in America everyone who's done a drop of research agree that "thing" is human and it's alive. To deny that it isn't human is almost beyond wrong now. The ultimate question is IF it's a person.
I don't think biology really matters for most people
They just want to do what they want to do, and don't believe anything should stop them from doing it.
This is why moral relativism is a plague on modern culture, it completely destroys the necessary building- blocks that make society function like a universal ethic.
*This isn't directed at edark, I know for a fact he's well educated and humble enough to know he doesn't have all the answers, and he's shown good faith so far in his conversations*
sperms and eggs are not humans. they are just as human as a cell in your eye or perhaps a neuron in your brain. combined they can make a human, but i still wouldnt consider that union of cells a human. id consider it a human after it divides over and over and over again into something that can feel
I would quote several more but you get the point. No biologist claims that a sperm or an egg is a human. The earliest "biologically" speaking is a Zygote due to having all the correct DNA and to the best of my knowledge the people who've actually done the most research into this field still support abortion due to them divorcing personhood and humanity (before you claim I've chosen biased quotes these are highly respected and are peered reviewed to stop bias).
Due to both the sperm and egg being gametes when they bind together it contains all the genetic infomation to form what we would know as a new-born baby. Everyone in the field considers this one Eukaryotic cell as the earliest stage of human development.
What I mean by potential as well is that Zygotes are types of cells that can do totipotency ( become/generate all other types of cells). The sperm or egg can not do this at all. No other cells can do this if they're animal cells again to the best of my knowledge but spores can. Zygote quite literally has biological potential whereas a sperm does not due to just being a gamete and no more
There is simply not a single biologist in the field which would say a sperm/egg is a human. Literally not a single respected one.
Before We Are Born 2008 “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being"
Medical Embryology 2015 edition “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”
Human Embryology & Teratology 1996: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed”
A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation 2010 “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg”
There's hundreds of quotes like these from dozens of mainstream academic textbooks and articles.. Just look at the article section on google for fertilization and the Zygote or human development to see why.
time for the formerly-most-lovable-but-now-eh-dreamsx's two cents
abortion should be legal imo, because of non-consensual stuff (you know what i mean) and financial situations changing, but i also think that there should be a time period where you can get an abortion somewhere around 0 months to 6 months.
if youve been graped and got pregnant, i can see why youd want an abortion. that's an amazingly traumatic experience and i can see why you dont want t h a t
if you just dont want a kid but youve managed to get yourself pregnant, then get an abortion, sure, but if youve grown this baby inside of you to the point where it can sense things around it and havent tried to abort it since youve first known, then come on (unless you cant actually financially support the kid or whatever. gah im a middle schooler im terrible at making these points)
jeez
use protection kids
deletedover 5 years
deletedover 5 years
guys ik all of us are like "yeah women have a right to their bodies" yadda yadda all that crap. but can we please take into perspective that an unborn child should not be in that development stage when aborted? it really is unfair for an unborn kid to be..."eliminated" just b/c 'women can'. really, we have to reach ground on something here besides just 'people can'
