Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bohandas]

Issues of...
... abortion and stem cell research (Human well-being is secondary to God's will).
There's a few for starters. Did you even have to ask?

These two are more about how you define "human" than an inherently religious question.

Yes, but some choose to define "human" in religious terms, so it becomes one.

Still, there are some who would argue, for reasons unrelated to their religious faith, that decrying mainstream religion for being pro-violence and then also decrying it for being anti-abortion is a hypocritical stance.

[G-Flex]

... It's not hypocritical if you don't consider the type of abortion you're supporting to be violent in the first place, in any relevant way.

[bitterhorn]

Issues of...
... abortion and stem cell research (Human well-being is secondary to God's will).
There's a few for starters. Did you even have to ask?

These two are more about how you define "human" than an inherently religious question.

Yes, but some choose to define "human" in religious terms, so it becomes one.

Still, there are some who would argue, for reasons unrelated to their religious faith, that decrying mainstream religion for being pro-violence and then also decrying it for being anti-abortion is a hypocritical stance.

It's easy to claim one is "pro-life" when said example of "life" is a pre-conscious organism & therefore an empty conceptual vessel onto which one can project anything one pleases; an abstract concept, rather than a dynamic being with its own will.  I don't see the hypocrisy in resenting this attitude in people, particularly when it inevitably results in their making smug moral pronouncements about the obligations of others and their bodies.

[Hiiri]

I was just wondering what religion you were talking about that promoted hate.

Abrahamic religions.

If you are using a a seven (or two depending on what part you read) thousand year book to build your arguments, how are you any better then the fundamentalist bible thumpers that you seem to think all Christians are?

Without the bible, Christians have nothing to base their claims/faith on. Thus eliminating the whole idea of Christianity.

Claiming that we cannot use the bible to argue against Christianity is just plain wrong and hypocritical.

These two are more about how you define "human" than an inherently religious question.

Edit: Also, There are some who would arue that decrying mainstream religion for being pro-violence and then also decrying it for being anti-abortion is a hypocritical stance.

Whole point of abortion is to minimize human misery. Calling abortion violence is like calling masturbation genocide. Oh wait, religion resents that too

When a fetus becomes a baby/human is relative indeed, but the unborn baby does not feel the pain the same way as we do until certain point; it is undeveloped after all.

[counting]

I was just wondering what religion you were talking about that promoted hate.

You know what. Screw it. I was trying to write a big long specific rebuttal, but I could not find any groups of people that were more then something like 5% Buddhist. I can't make a comparison between them because there is nothing to use as the Buddhist side of it.

Anyway, instead of a in-depth comparison I am just going to leave you with what were going to be my closing thoughts on it.

If you are using a a seven (or two depending on what part you read) thousand year book to build your arguments, how are you any better then the fundamentalist bible thumpers that you seem to think all Christians are?

I don't think any religion will deliberately promote hate as a goal, its not the major functions of religions. It may indirectly causing pain, hence leading to hatreds, like worshiping a god for war attributes. Even that's true, it will still stand on a moral high ground for the people who believe in it. And most likely the need of War God, is due to repression, invasion, or internal conflicts. It's introduced to solving problems, not provoking more. Although it may causing more in the long run, when no one foreseen it at first. And you might think I am refer to like Yahweh, and its role in the history, but no, let see what's happening on the other side of the world.

You may think in Buddhist religion you won't find a deities of war (not technically war itself, but the form of martial art/weaponry use/brotherhood the quality you need to survived as 武神), but it does. However its not the Buddhism of Buddha, but Buddhism affected by Taoism, and folk religions. Its not the "pure" Buddhist ideology, but the practice of Buddhism in general public. Deities in Buddhism are presented as someone(something) who have joined the Buddhism, and getting his/her/its way to enlightenment (A vajra you may say). People will pray to them, as if in folk religions. (So technically, we are talking about folk religions) And both in Buddhism (folk) and Taoism (folk), we have the famous God of War - Guan Yu (關羽), or by his deity title as "Saint Guan the governor of deities" (關聖帝君). (Again not specific for war)

And since Guan Yu is a real historical figure, who lived in 3rd century AD, when China is divided and raging with wars (three kingdoms period and many may know him from war simulation games like ROTK or Dynasty Warrior series), and he was a war hero/general, and view as "God in the battlefield" in literal sense, feared by enemy. And his character of high sense of justice makes him a good candidate for the role as a deity. And people who worship him although initially due to the fear of his wrath, but not to invoke him as a figure to carried on flags to battles (you want to avoid him, not close to him). Latter, he becomes more down to earth with civilians as a guardian deity, cause bad guys as soldiers of the enemy afraid of him, so he will prevent you from harm. (Probably actually work, if enough soldiers believes him as well). And as you can see, a deity although started as a fearful figures, and in polytheism religion framework, his role shifted toward peaceful purposes.

However Guan Yu is not the only god of war. There are protectors in Buddhism like the police who guard the innocent and enforce the laws, although the judge is the force of nature as karma itself. Buddhism doesn't work the way as in monotheism religion. Then you might asked what the functional role for the real war god, who told you which enemy's head to chop off, and judge you after death. In monotheism a god must be judge and jury at the same time, it's not true in polytheism view. The roles are divided and specialized like in real world social structure. Hence a fearful god of war (戰神) do needed, and not to be liked but hated, as reflection of the soldiers who are just following orders from superiors. There is one in Taoism as Chi-You (蚩尤) as an evil god, or opposing god, who wage wars against all living thing. And he too comes from a possible historical figures or leaders, or perhaps pure fictional. However due to his heavy roles in the origin of Chinese civilization (a lot like creation myth but only created nations). Sadly he got to play the part of the opposite side. And for every winner, there is a oser, so he too being worshiped by the people who lost the prehistorical battles for dominating China, and now become minorities. So in folk religions the god of war Chi-You, plays the part that people should hated as what he stands for, and gather around to fight someone who worship him. Like making a fake enemy, so people can gather around to the leader, and over look the financial or internal conflict issue domestically. You can find records basically saying Chi-Yu is coming back from the stars(heaven, spiritual world) to the world and mess around, so we have wars now. Be strong! and gather around! Sound familiar? Religion deities have always making huge roles in human societies and conflicts. Hence if you want to know if there is god(s) who promote hatred? Yes, and No. His duty may be to provoke the sense of hatred toward something, but only as functional as its used to facilitated the purposes of the human ruling parties.

[Bohandas]

These two are more about how you define "human" than an inherently religious question.

Edit: Also, There are some who would arue that decrying mainstream religion for being pro-violence and then also decrying it for being anti-abortion is a hypocritical stance.

Whole point of abortion is to minimize human misery. Calling abortion violence is like calling masturbation genocide. Oh wait, religion resents that too

When a fetus becomes a baby/human is relative indeed, but the unborn baby does not feel the pain the same way as we do until certain point; it is undeveloped after all.

I have several points to make in response to this and the issue in general:



I honestly don't see the logic behind your analogy between abortion and masturbation, other than the fact that, as you said, western religion resents them both; and like I said my argument comes from a non-religious perspective (in fact, the very fact that the abortion debate exists at all could be seen as evidence against the existence of the Christian God as he is commonly envisioned, because this would be a non-issue if our species didn't start the diploid phase of our lifecycle as endoparasites)

I consider pain to always be preferable to death, especially if the question is posed given the assumption that there is no afterlife (If I find myself in Hell after I die, I will breathe a sigh of relief ( assuming that my mouth hasn't been stabbed shut with skewers or something like that, but even then I'll be thinking it)).

Also, abortion, in conjunction with modern genetic testing, makes eugenics way too accessible for comfort. And in regard to this issue I will go as far as to disregard the obvious analogies to Hitler for the moment and simply say that I don't want to see a world where humanity has that much control over its own gene pool, because humankind as a group has terrible foresight and very VERY bad taste.

[G-Flex]

I consider pain to always be preferable to death, especially if the question is posed given the assumption that there is no afterlife (If I find myself in Hell after I die, I will breathe a sigh of relief ( assuming that my mouth hasn't been stabbed shut with skewers or something like that, but even then I'll be thinking it)).

The question of "pain" vs. "death" is irrelevant when the organism in question is not an independent life and isn't capable of feeling pain.

Also, abortion, in conjunction with modern genetic testing, makes eugenics way too accessible for comfort. And in regard to this issue I will go as far as to disregard the obvious analogies to Hitler for the moment and simply say that I don't want to see a world where humanity has that much control over its own gene pool, because humankind as a group has terrible foresight and very VERY bad taste.

Agreed, but I don't think this is an argument against abortion per se.

[Hiiri]

I consider pain to always be preferable to death, especially if the question is posed given the assumption that there is no afterlife (If I find myself in Hell after I die, I will breathe a sigh of relief ( assuming that my mouth hasn't been stabbed shut with skewers or something like that, but even then I'll be thinking it)).

That's where we're just different. I'd rather choose death than a lifetime of suffering. After all, you don't feel pain when your brains have ceased to work. I don't see death as something to be afraid of or avoided no matter what; needless suffering is. (Unfortunately dying usually includes pain, but it goes away in the end)

And yes, eugenics is different subject from abortion. It's not like people are having abortions because the baby might have a bit too big nose to fit the current baby-trend.

And the masturbation analogy; sperm contains millions of little babies in there. Thus it must be wrong to kill all of them, without even giving them a chance of fertilization and life. Just like a fetus.

[Bohandas]

I consider pain to always be preferable to death, especially if the question is posed given the assumption that there is no afterlife (If I find myself in Hell after I die, I will breathe a sigh of relief ( assuming that my mouth hasn't been stabbed shut with skewers or something like that, but even then I'll be thinking it)).

The question of "pain" vs. "death" is irrelevant when the organism in question is not an independent life and isn't capable of feeling pain.

it has a unique genome therefore it is not part of the mother

[Bohandas]

I consider pain to always be preferable to death, especially if the question is posed given the assumption that there is no afterlife (If I find myself in Hell after I die, I will breathe a sigh of relief ( assuming that my mouth hasn't been stabbed shut with skewers or something like that, but even then I'll be thinking it)).

And the masturbation analogy; sperm contains millions of little babies in there. Thus it must be wrong to kill all of them, without even giving them a chance of fertilization and life. Just like a fetus.

Sperm are part of your body. They contain your genome. A fetus is not part of your body; It has its own unique genome. Masturbation would be more analogous to cutting yourself (which I have no problem with if that's what you wann do) than to abortion.

[counting]

In the view of a religion with the concept of karma, steps of ascension, and polytheism view. It's a quite different issue. I believed the debates or contradictions and sense of hypocritical in monotheism and lack of the other properties, leads to the inevitable result of a single god has to play judge and jury at the same time, also he always needs to make absolute decisions, since you can't be half way to heaven or half in hell.

Like in the issue of killing and abortions. You may get a bad score on karma when killing human. But it's weather very bad, bad, little bad, acceptable bad, is largely determine by the taboo in that society. And you get a way to climbing back up by collecting good score card (Do laugh, its a real practice in Taoism, a good-deed-bad-deed card, to record what you did). Also, it not decided by unchallenged written words, but different abbots in different temples. Its more like a voting system, enough people believes its degree of bad, and degree of good. And you can climb up the ladders faster or demoted, depend on the view of general public believes. Not a bad system for social structure stability.

However the other end of this, absolute rules has its benefit too. It can gather a much tighter group, and prevent outsiders to disturb the stability now. Doctrines can change(choose) which standards to informed and to define social proper norms. (Like you don't stone someone to death anymore, at least not generally acceptable in some societies )

it has a unique genome therefore it is not part of the mother

Just like to add baby always have half the genome as the mother, as well as the sperm. The part of the genome doesn't belong to mother is the part from the father, hence the genome is not an important factor to consider if its about living right, or any soldier can not be killed unless you asked their parents

[Criptfeind]

Without the bible, Christians have nothing to base their claims/faith on. Thus eliminating the whole idea of Christianity.

You know, you would think so, but that is just not true.

Claiming that we cannot use the bible to argue against Christianity is just plain wrong and hypocritical.

Why? Have I used it in any arguments? At all?

You are free to use it if you wish, but make sure your arguments stay in relevant reality, because the way you are arguing now you only have points against a society that existed thousands of years ago.

[bitterhorn]

I consider pain to always be preferable to death, especially if the question is posed given the assumption that there is no afterlife (If I find myself in Hell after I die, I will breathe a sigh of relief ( assuming that my mouth hasn't been stabbed shut with skewers or something like that, but even then I'll be thinking it)).

And the masturbation analogy; sperm contains millions of little babies in there. Thus it must be wrong to kill all of them, without even giving them a chance of fertilization and life. Just like a fetus.

Sperm are part of your body. They contain your genome. A fetus is not part of your body; It has its own unique genome. Masturbation would be more analogous to cutting yourself (which I have no problem with if that's what you wann do) than to abortion.

You're right, the proper analogy is to the morality of ingesting poison to remove a ~MAGICAL TAPEWORM~ that could potentially one day become a ~BEAUTIFUL, SENTIENT BUTTERFLY~ from ones own intestines.

[Bohandas]

Without the bible, Christians have nothing to base their claims/faith on. Thus eliminating the whole idea of Christianity.

You know, you would think so, but that is just not true.

A valid point. IIRC The New Testament was not actually codified and put put into print until long after the time of Jesus of Nazareth. And even after that it was many centuries further before most people were actually able to read it.

[Criptfeind]

That as well.