Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

I am not quite an atheist but...


ambelamba

Recommended Posts

Are you saying that God, when he was dictating the Old testament, should have explained about the Big Bang and the process of evolution and so on? This is exactly the thing that always happens; people who don't believe in it always seem to be the ones to insist most strongly that you must believe everything literally. Why are people so unwilling to consider that it might be metaphor and allegory, etc? Why always insist that you must believe it literally or not at all?

Whoa whoa, that's not what was said, I'm not insisting anything at least. I'm more than willing to consider it metaphor and allegory, but I guess I see obvious issues with a holy book that mingles literal divine truths with metaphor and allegory to such an extent that even believers don't agree on all of it. How are believers determining the difference? This allegory led people to believe for millenia that we lived in a relatively young universe and that man was specially created/poofed into existence; yes, now many believers believe that it is not essential to believe this literally, but some scientific ideas that conflicted with what is now supposedly mere metaphor were fought very vigorously by believers/churches, which seems an odd response if it's all really just metaphor.

No, I wouldn't think he should have fully explained the Big Bang and evolution, he didn't provide a lot of detail on the Genesis creation methods either, but the metaphorical story he did include didn't have to turn out to outright conflict with science, assuming he provided the Genesis myths. It leads one to wonder what else is merely metaphorical (salvation, grace, heaven, these concepts are all especially ripe for a metaphorical, non-literal treatment), and suggests that scripture is merely the product of humans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were God I would tell my followers to relocate to a place with more water and fertile soil, and teach them how to farm.

And I would teach them a elaborate code of ethics and law without using too much violence.

And sanitary habits that negate the need of circumcision.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between state sponsored genocide and angry bands of natives trying to eradicate an invader. Even with that native leadership did not want that kind of violence, but they could not control the angry younger braves who had seen their own families murdered.

The battle of little big horn was not a massacre, it was a military defeat. They were there to wipe out that settlement but were unaware how many natives had amassed there, custard was a hot head and attacked anyway and payed for it. It was self defense. The mutilation was a spiritual belief that their spirits woukd attack them in the afterlife if they still had their eyes and things. So even the mutilation was self defense.

There is a huge difference in killing people because they are killing yours and putting prices on the heads of children, biological warfare, killing the buffelo to starve them out, and generally state dehumanizing an entire race of people to justify their eradication.

It was a lot more than just revenge by some uncontrollable youngsters. The British commander at Detroit did put a price on scalps. But who was it that did the hunting and collected the bounty?

The mutilation at Little Bighorn may have been religious but it was seen by whites as an act of extreme barbarity and it hastened the response that led to the end of Indians' way of life. And: why kill an enemy you have already defeated? Why not offer terms of surrender? That idea never was used by the Indians and it would have given them some real bargaining power.

The European conquest of America was almost pre-ordained. First, by disease unknowingly imported by Europeans. Small pox and similar epidemics decimated Indian populations before many of them had even seen a white man.

Second, by two very different social systems: the Indians had strong clan and tribal systems. If a person was outcast by his clan/tribe, he took his family into the wilderness to try to survive on his own. He was a fair target for any passerby who wanted his property or just didn't like the color of his eyes. Nobody cared if you killed him. But, if you did that to a white who was living in the wilderness by himself, you brought down the wrath of the entire white population, not just on you, but also on your clan, your tribe and Indians in general. That's what caused a lot of attacks by "uncontrollable" youngsters - they didn't understand the consequences.

Third, by two very different concepts of war. Indians made war to punish transgressions, such as killing a member of the tribe. It was more like vendetta than what we call war. But whites made war to end the enemy's ability to make war. They killed the horses so the tribe couldn't hunt ("What do they have against my horse?"). They killed the buffalo so they couldn't eat; they blockaded water sources so they couldn't drink. Especially after the Civil War, the whites had a lot of people who were very good at this. After they defeated the south, Sheridan and Sherman went west and fought the Indians. The Nez Perce War in Idaho was commanded by telegraph from Denver. These are strategic actions; the Indians didn't use strategy until very late in the wars and by then, it was too late.

There was an on-going argument between Treaty Chiefs and War Chiefs. The Treaty Chiefs traded land for goods. It made the people rich, but in the long run it cost them the land and their entire way of life. That was an issue in Pontiac's Uprising. Pontiac and some others saw what was happening and tried to stop it. His own people killed him for it.

The Indians were very involved in the Seven Years War ("French and Indian War") and the War of 1812. In the first, most tribes sided with the French, thus becoming enemies of the American British. Then they sided with the British, becoming enemies of the Americans. They lost both, which was not a smart thing to do because they had permanently marked themselves as enemies.

Another problem is that both sides sent their criminals to the frontier to harass the other folks. Read about the Harp Brothers in Kentucky if you like nightmares, or the Comancheros, or Charlie Kennedy in New Mexico. If those folks had been hung (Charlie Kennedy WAS hung.), they wouldn't have been out there murdering the other side's people. But everybody thought they were being merciful by letting them go.

The government was very insistent that the Indian claim had to be extinguished before the land could be surveyed and sold. Due to a law by Congress based on bad geographical information, the Fourth Principal Meridian was run across Indian land, producing what was called "the Ghost Line." For 72 miles the surveyors surveyed line at a run and didn't mark the corners, all of which had to be resurveyed after title was acquired. The history of the west is written in its property lines. Properties in Ohio and Indiana still use the Greenville Treaty Line as the edge of people's property and the line is a street in Akron, Ohio.

The Peace Chiefs were taken to Washington as guests of the government. What they saw astounded them. They realized there could be no victory against the whites and that the Indians must surrender or die. But there were a lot of folks they couldn't convince, so the war went on.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't have done the same thing if I had been involved on one side or the other. I'm just pointing out that intolerance and misunderstandings on both sides created many tragic situations that might have been avoided with a little forbearance.

But we seem to be transcending that war. Local tribes are proud of their history. We have just finished one museum and there's another under construction, both in Oklahoma City. And my wife is about 3/16 Nez Perce and 1/16 Pottawatomie. Both kids are blonds. And that's another way.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no one would have known this metaphorical creation story either unless God revealed it, so I think the question still stands, if he's going to reveal something like this, why not align it with reality? I don't think it was all about metaphor, and it wasn't taken as metaphor for centuries; people still object to the idea that man evolved from ape-like ancestors. Of course we say it's metaphor now but that's more because of what non-biblical sources, such as science, say about the topics the creation stories cover, and not as much from what the bible implies, if really much of anything, that it itself should be taken as metaphor.

Without scientific knowledge and understanding, humans construct metaphorical and other devices to explain the inexplicable. That is how spiritual beliefs come about; as an explanation for all that cannot be explained using present/current knowledge. God could nt reveal something beynd the understanding or comprehension of a human being or perhaps he tries to but without real knowledge and understanding in a humans mind he cannot. For example how would god explain a colour television to a person from christ's time, and if he gave a vision of one, or even a demonstration of a real one, how would it be explained and interpreted by that human being.?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were God I would tell my followers to relocate to a place with more water and fertile soil, and teach them how to farm.

And I would teach them a elaborate code of ethics and law without using too much violence.

And sanitary habits that negate the need of circumcision.

Actually that is what god did do, but circumcision is not just about sanitary habits. Modern medicine indicates many other good reasons for male circumcision including reduction of cancers in women. The laws of the bible reduce violence, and codify/limit its use compared with earlier times. And how do you take a peoles to a more fertile place without promoting conflict with those who are certain to already to be occupying such a paradise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were God I would tell my followers to relocate to a place with more water and fertile soil, and teach them how to farm.

And I would teach them a elaborate code of ethics and law without using too much violence.

And sanitary habits that negate the need of circumcision.

Most women like circumcised and the Jews have done a pretty good job with their desert. That said, the OT was not written by God and the NT most certainly wasn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without scientific knowledge and understanding, humans construct metaphorical and other devices to explain the inexplicable. That is how spiritual beliefs come about; as an explanation for all that cannot be explained using present/current knowledge. God could nt reveal something beynd the understanding or comprehension of a human being or perhaps he tries to but without real knowledge and understanding in a humans mind he cannot. For example how would god explain a colour television to a person from christ's time, and if he gave a vision of one, or even a demonstration of a real one, how would it be explained and interpreted by that human being.?

Yeah, God couldn't have the sun forming before the earth because no one would understand it...
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have the same choices with religious rules and laws as you do with civil ones. Your first point is telling. "I do not mind'. Naturally we do not mind laws we agree wit or accept the rationale for. It is laws we do not accept that we have difficulty with. I a opposed to abortion not as a religionist but as a secular humanist who believes that while a woman has rights these do not automatically abrogate the right of her child to life.

Life is a prime right. other rights are subject to the right to life for ALL of us, so the laws should allow abortion under certain strict circumstances. And they should provide good care for children not wanted by a mother A child does not belong to its mother but to itself and if a mother doesn't want it then it becomes the duty of a community to support it until it is a contributing member of society .

Is my belief that human life is a prime right, religious based? One can't tell because all our values and attitudes include a history of religious ethics. But as an atheist I maintained that every child had an intrinsic right to be born except where doing so endangered the mothers own right to life in some way.

Lastly I obey the laws on abortion but I would break them if I had to, to do what tis right Every individual has a right to live by their own ethics, and so while I cannot prevent a woman form having a abortion I can not be compelled to give her one, or to sell her pills which do the same thing. Contraception is not a problem for me. It is a great invention which has saved the world and many women's lives .

I am ambivalent about censorship. For example, should smoking, one of the greatest killers of humans be allowed to be shown in movies? I still have internal debate, on conflicting basic principles, about that one, but I agree that people who make or watch pornography involving children should face very harsh penalties.

I am also ambivalent as to whether smokers and drinkers should get the same free health care all australians receive if they refuse to give up those habits on a doctors instructions. In genera,l while individuals have rights I think they should also be forced to face the consequences of exercising those rights and not just allowed to do as they please if it costs their community. I see no reason for all night entertainment to be legal when it comes at huge medical and social, as well as economic, cost in violence, death, injury and policing /medical costs.

I'll tell you something. If a woman didn't have to carry a baby for 9 months and go through pain to deliver it, I might be against abortion also. But I refuse to make a woman have what she doesn't want. I refuse to subject her to 9 months of misery. I refuse to make her risk her life, perhaps have to leave her job, or pay a huge hospital bill - all for something she doesn't want. And a baby that isn't wanted also costs a community a great deal of money - in taxes and support and possibly crime. So as long as the embryo - and that's what it is, not a fetus - is aborted at three months or earlier, I have no problem with that. Likewise, I would never, ever put a family through a 9 month pregnancy and delivery for a baby that is severely malformed and likely to be born dead or even worse, alive, only to be expected to die in a few days. Every politician that defends late abortion in these cases should be made to pay the huge hospital bills these babies incur while being kept "alive" for the couple of days before they die. Of course, nothing is going to help the parents who are forced - and there is no other word - to endure something like this.

The woman was an embryo once herself. She came into her rights when she was born and she keeps those rights throughout her life. No one has else has the right to make decisions for her. And in case you didn't know it, saving the mother's life is more than just physical. How would you like to carry something inside you for 9 months that you hated having? How much would you resent having to go through hours of pain for something someone else insisted you have? Tell me about the mental aspect of it all. Isn't that part of saving a woman's life as well?

And while we're on the subject, if you're going to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth, what makes the difference if a woman is going to die? After all, what is the difference between a fetus (if we're going to call it that?) of love and a fetus whose mother can't bear it without dying, or a fetus of incest, or a fetus of rape? It's not the fault of the fetus how it was conceived or what's happening to its carrier. If you're going to champion the rights of the poor innocent fetus, then please at least be consistent about it.

As to free health care, well here in the US, we don't have that. I myself do, however, because I am on a limited income of state disability, namely about $200 a month, so I get Medicaid. Technically, being on this side of the issue makes me a little biased on the subject, especially since I had an aneurysm rupture last January. Were it not for Medicaid, there's no way I could have afforded being treated for it. You can guess how many thousands of dollars came out of the taxpayers' pockets for that one. My life came at a huge cost to to the community. I even questioned that at the time. I wondered what the point was of saving someone's life who isn't going to do nearly as much in return. Wouldn't it have been better to let me die and spend the money on someone more deserving? But it finally occurred to me that if you start to argue who is worth more in our society, we all die. You can't possibly know who will and won't affect your life when you meet someone, so it pays to be courteous to all. You can't possibly know the value of a person based on what you see at any given time, so it pays to value them all.

And if you're wondering how I can equate this with supporting abortion, then let me say that by valuing a human being, that means that that human should be born wanted and loved and have at least a reasonable expectation of a good and happy life. It's far more humane to allow a child that is not wanted to be aborted if that's what the mother wants than to bring him into a world where he doesn't have a bat's chance of having a decent life. And please don't talk to me about adoption until there isn't a child in US the who isn't waiting for a permanent home.

I don't have an argument with people living their lives the way they want. It's when they want to infringe on my life because of their beliefs that I get a little irked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there are those that still worship Odin, Thor, Freyja, Loki, etc. :)

They make pills for that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you something. If a woman didn't have to carry a baby for 9 months and go through pain to deliver it, I might be against abortion also. But I refuse to make a woman have what she doesn't want. I refuse to subject her to 9 months of misery. I refuse to make her risk her life, perhaps have to leave her job, or pay a huge hospital bill - all for something she doesn't want. And a baby that isn't wanted also costs a community a great deal of money - in taxes and support and possibly crime. So as long as the embryo - and that's what it is, not a fetus - is aborted at three months or earlier, I have no problem with that. Likewise, I would never, ever put a family through a 9 month pregnancy and delivery for a baby that is severely malformed and likely to be born dead or even worse, alive, only to be expected to die in a few days. Every politician that defends late abortion in these cases should be made to pay the huge hospital bills these babies incur while being kept "alive" for the couple of days before they die. Of course, nothing is going to help the parents who are forced - and there is no other word - to endure something like this.

The woman was an embryo once herself. She came into her rights when she was born and she keeps those rights throughout her life. No one has else has the right to make decisions for her. And in case you didn't know it, saving the mother's life is more than just physical. How would you like to carry something inside you for 9 months that you hated having? How much would you resent having to go through hours of pain for something someone else insisted you have? Tell me about the mental aspect of it all. Isn't that part of saving a woman's life as well?

And while we're on the subject, if you're going to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth, what makes the difference if a woman is going to die? After all, what is the difference between a fetus (if we're going to call it that?) of love and a fetus whose mother can't bear it without dying, or a fetus of incest, or a fetus of rape? It's not the fault of the fetus how it was conceived or what's happening to its carrier. If you're going to champion the rights of the poor innocent fetus, then please at least be consistent about it.

As to free health care, well here in the US, we don't have that. I myself do, however, because I am on a limited income of state disability, namely about $200 a month, so I get Medicaid. Technically, being on this side of the issue makes me a little biased on the subject, especially since I had an aneurysm rupture last January. Were it not for Medicaid, there's no way I could have afforded being treated for it. You can guess how many thousands of dollars came out of the taxpayers' pockets for that one. My life came at a huge cost to to the community. I even questioned that at the time. I wondered what the point was of saving someone's life who isn't going to do nearly as much in return. Wouldn't it have been better to let me die and spend the money on someone more deserving? But it finally occurred to me that if you start to argue who is worth more in our society, we all die. You can't possibly know who will and won't affect your life when you meet someone, so it pays to be courteous to all. You can't possibly know the value of a person based on what you see at any given time, so it pays to value them all.

I don't have an argument with people living their lives the way they want. It's when they want to infringe on my life because of their beliefs that I get a little irked.

You are definitely a being full of contradictions. Basically a worthless human being, by your statements, until death ws knocking on the door and the we get this: Wouldn't it have been better to let me die and spend the money on someone more deserving? But it finally occurred to me that if you start to argue who is worth more in our society, we all die.

You condemn every baby to this fate without a peep until your ass is on the line and then it is spend the dollars because what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, God couldn't have the sun forming before the earth because no one would understand it...

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"; so therefore, they do recognise that he created the Sun and stars as well. But again, an ancient culture wouldn't understand heliocentrism, so you could hardly expect their writers to take it into account, could you. But I don't suppose there's really much point trying to argue that it's mythology written by an ancient people in order to understand their world and their relationship with their God, since it does seem that you seem to be insisting that one must believe that it was all dictated by God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"; so therefore, they do recognise that he created the Sun and stars as well. But again, an ancient culture wouldn't understand heliocentrism, so you could hardly expect their writers to take it into account, could you. But I don't suppose there's really much point trying to argue that it's mythology written by an ancient people in order to understand their world and their relationship with their God, since it does seem that you seem to be insisting that one must believe that it was all dictated by God.

Not when the premise is God relayed the message to begin with.

BTW how do you have a relationship with an absent god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"; so therefore, they do recognise that he created the Sun and stars as well. But again, an ancient culture wouldn't understand heliocentrism, so you could hardly expect their writers to take it into account, could you.

If this was any other writing, that would definitely make sense. But it's not claimed to be just any other writing, one of it's supposed 'writers' understood heliocentrism full well. Ancient cultures wouldn't understand the JC concepts of original sin, a savior, and salvation short of some divine insight either, should we also say that we could likewise, 'hardly expect the writers to take it into account' accurately? Why would that argument only apply to things that have been shown to be false by science, why doesn't it apply (assuming you disagree that it does, not sure) to the supposed religious truths that are defined in such a way that science will basically never be able to falsify them, but that don't have evidence to support them outside of the bible? The bible says that God created the earth and strongly implies geocentrism; how does one know that one of those points was intended as mere myth or metaphor and the other as truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you something. If a woman didn't have to carry a baby for 9 months and go through pain to deliver it, I might be against abortion also. But I refuse to make a woman have what she doesn't want. I refuse to subject her to 9 months of misery. I refuse to make her risk her life, perhaps have to leave her job, or pay a huge hospital bill - all for something she doesn't want. And a baby that isn't wanted also costs a community a great deal of money - in taxes and support and possibly crime. So as long as the embryo - and that's what it is, not a fetus - is aborted at three months or earlier, I have no problem with that. Likewise, I would never, ever put a family through a 9 month pregnancy and delivery for a baby that is severely malformed and likely to be born dead or even worse, alive, only to be expected to die in a few days. Every politician that defends late abortion in these cases should be made to pay the huge hospital bills these babies incur while being kept "alive" for the couple of days before they die. Of course, nothing is going to help the parents who are forced - and there is no other word - to endure something like this.

The woman was an embryo once herself. She came into her rights when she was born and she keeps those rights throughout her life. No one has else has the right to make decisions for her. And in case you didn't know it, saving the mother's life is more than just physical. How would you like to carry something inside you for 9 months that you hated having? How much would you resent having to go through hours of pain for something someone else insisted you have? Tell me about the mental aspect of it all. Isn't that part of saving a woman's life as well?

And while we're on the subject, if you're going to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth, what makes the difference if a woman is going to die? After all, what is the difference between a fetus (if we're going to call it that?) of love and a fetus whose mother can't bear it without dying, or a fetus of incest, or a fetus of rape? It's not the fault of the fetus how it was conceived or what's happening to its carrier. If you're going to champion the rights of the poor innocent fetus, then please at least be consistent about it.

As to free health care, well here in the US, we don't have that. I myself do, however, because I am on a limited income of state disability, namely about $200 a month, so I get Medicaid. Technically, being on this side of the issue makes me a little biased on the subject, especially since I had an aneurysm rupture last January. Were it not for Medicaid, there's no way I could have afforded being treated for it. You can guess how many thousands of dollars came out of the taxpayers' pockets for that one. My life came at a huge cost to to the community. I even questioned that at the time. I wondered what the point was of saving someone's life who isn't going to do nearly as much in return. Wouldn't it have been better to let me die and spend the money on someone more deserving? But it finally occurred to me that if you start to argue who is worth more in our society, we all die. You can't possibly know who will and won't affect your life when you meet someone, so it pays to be courteous to all. You can't possibly know the value of a person based on what you see at any given time, so it pays to value them all.

And if you're wondering how I can equate this with supporting abortion, then let me say that by valuing a human being, that means that that human should be born wanted and loved and have at least a reasonable expectation of a good and happy life. It's far more humane to allow a child that is not wanted to be aborted if that's what the mother wants than to bring him into a world where he doesn't have a bat's chance of having a decent life. And please don't talk to me about adoption until there isn't a child in US the who isn't waiting for a permanent home.

I don't have an argument with people living their lives the way they want. It's when they want to infringe on my life because of their beliefs that I get a little irked.

My problem with abortion is logical and ethical not religious A human unborn child WILL naturally become a human adult if it is healthy. Only time is required.

And no one human has the right to arbitrarily take another human beings life even when that human is extremely young.The position of mother and child complicates this right to life, because of the physical attachment which exists. However, in principle, a child should have a right to life even if a mother does not want that child. A mothers desire for a better or different life does not naturally override an unborns basic right to life.

Contraception is available to prevent unwanted births and sex education is a must for every young person starting well before puberty. Allowances can and should be made be made for many circumstances.

I favour free abortion for women who require it, along with general free health care for all, as we have in Australia. But a society cannot accept that an unborn human being's right to life is a the total discretion of the mother. No where else in society do we allow one person to make such a decision of life and death.

No child is guaranteed to be wanted and loved and we cannot guarantee that, but we can ensure they have a right to life and a chance to live for many decades. From there they at least have a chance to make a success of their lives their life is in their hands as it should be. If killed before birth they have no rights to anything

You can call it what you like either because they are the medical terms or because it makes you fee better, but an uborn human child is technically exactly that.

Practically I don't oppose a morning after pill because anyone can make a misatke But denying an unborn child a right o life leaves open too many doors to take rights form other human beings. It also creates a belief that it is correct for a woman to have a basic right to terminate a child for no special reason. If economic circumstances are a valid reason, then why should a father not have an equal right to demand an abortion, so he does not have to support a child. If caring for the child might be a burden then why shouldn't grandparents have a right to demand an abortion because having to care for it might impinge on their quality of life . It is only ethically acceptable to terminate an unborns life, when carrying or having the child places a genuine risk on the mother That risk can be either physical or psychological but the bar has ot be set reasonably high.

On the other hand society should not expect all natural mothers to want their children and more should be done to allow them to surrender a child to someone who would love it and care for it. Society should support the many many non parents who care for and love children and teenagers who are not their own. Just being a natural parent doesn't give anyone ownership or possession of another human being.

And ps I agree. If a parents wishes to have and can care for severely disabled children, then I would support their right to do so and work to get them support in that care, but no one should be forced to carry or bear a child known to be incapable of ever caring for itself.

Also I am strongly in favour of voluntary euthanasia for any mentally capable adult. However by your reckoning people who are a burden on society lose their right to life If we are lucky enough we will ALL, eventually begin to take more from society than we can give back. But if we have worked productively all our lives then we will have paid forward for that phase of our life. No one has the right to end the life of a very old or disabled person without their informed consent any more than they have the right to end the life of a non productive and dependent unborn child.

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was any other writing, that would definitely make sense. But it's not claimed to be just any other writing, one of it's supposed 'writers' understood heliocentrism full well. Ancient cultures wouldn't understand the JC concepts of original sin, a savior, and salvation short of some divine insight either, should we also say that we could likewise, 'hardly expect the writers to take it into account' accurately? Why would that argument only apply to things that have been shown to be false by science, why doesn't it apply (assuming you disagree that it does, not sure) to the supposed religious truths that are defined in such a way that science will basically never be able to falsify them, but that don't have evidence to support them outside of the bible? The bible says that God created the earth and strongly implies geocentrism; how does one know that one of those points was intended as mere myth or metaphor and the other as truth?

It was hardly important, was it? Relationships with God and living your life according to ethical principles were more important to the prophets, those who wrote the Laws and the gospels, and probably God as well, than pointing out to people that the earth in fact orbited round the Sun rather than the other way round. It really didn't matter, and there were rather more important things for them to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was hardly important, was it? Relationships with God and living your life according to ethical principles were more important to the prophets, those who wrote the Laws and the gospels, and probably God as well, than pointing out to people that the earth in fact orbited round the Sun rather than the other way round. It really didn't matter, and there were rather more important things for them to worry about.

I guess I'm the wrong person to ask if it was important, I don't believe it contains any divine truths, but regardless it was important enough for some Christians that they felt they needed to threaten and punish people who believed otherwise. But we were somewhat discussing metaphor, not necessarily what is important or not. I can take the entire Christian story as a metaphor for our internal lives and the ethics we should strive for in our relations to other people, without including anything supernatural or eternal or divine. But I would guess you would think that would be taking the metaphor/mythology idea too far, although I'm not sure how one would tell where that threshold is.

I'm curious too, if you happen to know, is the explanation that the metaphorical/false statements in something like Genesis were purely the creation of men's understanding with no divine input, or were those parts also considered to be communicated by God but he essentially gave them an embellished/non-literal account so that they would understand it? I think based on your earlier responses that it's the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I suppose it all depends if you believe that the Bible was "dictated" by God, doesn't it. If you did, then I suppose you'd have to say (if you didn't believe in the literal Creation) that it would have been put in terms that the people would have been able to understand, that the mechanics of the Big Bang and the process of planetary formation and evolution weren't really as important as the idea that it was God that was behind it all, and that even though he was responsible for the creation of the entire Universe he still had a personal relationship with each and every Human on earth. If on the other hand you do think that it was written by men as a way of explaining that God was behind it all, then the same thing would apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is common among adult converts to Christianity. It's what happened with me. I read the Bible literally cover-to-cover. What I found though, was that somewhere in the Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy area I began to lose focus. So many genealogies and commands, it became very overwhelming. But I kept reading, I slogged it through, then came Psalms which were very beautiful, then prophets with whom I had no idea about the context of their lives, but still I read. Then I hit the New Testament, read each gospel, got a bit bored over the same story four times in a row. Then Romans got me bogged down a bit again in theology, before I hit the other side and got completely infatuated and infuriated by Revelation at the same time.

In retrospect, I'd not recommend anyone read the Bible "cover to cover". The texts aren't chronological, nor were they ever meant to be read as a narrative as we would read a book from page 1 to the final page. Since that day I've read the Bible several times, every verse of every chapter of every book. But not cover to cover. I find it much more edifying, much more inspirational, and overall, much easier to understand if I break up my reading of the Bible from a book or two from the New Testament followed by a book or two from the Old Testament.

I find your comment on Lectio Divina interesting. When I was helping with a Youth Group at a church I used to attend, we had our end of year Retreat where we'd prepare for the coming year, while building each other up in Christ. We did something similar to what you suggest, which we colloquially described as "wasting time with God". Just like we'd "waste time" hanging out with our human friends, we'd just sit back and do nothing, wasting time with God, we'd each choose a passage to sort of focus our ideas, and then just sit back and do nothing but waste time. It was enlightening.

Though as a general rule I prefer to read the Bible to find the original intent of the author rather than waiting for inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Sometimes inspiration happens anyway, but I don't usually just rely on my "gut feelings", if you take my meaning. I'm not sure if this is going to make sense (or even if it does, whether people think it matters), but you can make theologically correct statements while appealing to passages that are contextually incorrect for that point of view. I'd prefer not to make such statements. If I gain insight by "wasting time" with God, I'd like to make sure that I can support such insight from the Bible, and not just say "the Spirit led me". I hope that makes sense :)

It does, although naturally I do not entirely agree lol. Notice I do say 'entirely'. I get what you are saying; if I was going to preach a sermon, write a paper, or even an essay post on UM on the Bible, something from Lectio would certainly not be my first go to. In fact, I doubt I'd mention it at all unless it was some sort of personal reflection or application. I do agree that we should not divorce Scripture from it's context. We are not soothsayers. So, in short I don't take what I gain from Lectio as teachable material.

That said, at least the way I practice it, I don't divorce the original context. For example, if I am reading one of Paul's letter, I am usually already aware of the context and purpose of the letter. When you study these things the way you and I do, you never really do get them out of your mind.

However, because of that, I think people like us can fall into a certain trap. One gets so lost in the academic study of Scripture that in a sense, they can become purely academic. We place such importance on things like what you said that we lose sight of the fact that the Spirit of the living God wants to speak to us through His word. I tended to spend so much time in exegesis that the Bible wasn't speaking to me. Worse still, I found myself rarely reading the Bible at all.

Taking up Lectio (I am still rather new at it) was a necessary spiritual discipline for me. It has forced me into God's Word with a regularity I did not previously have and has in turn forced me to contemplate His Word PERSONALLY, not from some detached perspective. I believe that the Holy Spirit can and does reveal insights to us from a practice like that, and we should never, ever close the door on personal revelation. In a world filled with so much noise, Lectio is a way of hitting the pause button so we can hear the still, small voice of God to us in His Word. And because it is meditative, and because I begin my day with this practice; it orients me, grounds me in the living presence of God throughout my day. One never wastes time with God, one wastes time without Him.

Finally, here's a thought that might show this in a new light to you. Think of the great Saint Augustine of Hippo. In his writings, he talks about how he would spend HOURS in the contemplative reading of Scriptures. He practiced Lectio before it was ever coined that; and look at the result. He is one of the 2 greatest theologians the Church has ever produced...so can the Holy Spirit reveal truth to us in contemplation? Using him as but ONE example, I would say absolutely yes!!

It makes me think there are a lot of theologians who could have used this if you know what I mean!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with abortion is logical and ethical not religious A human unborn child WILL naturally become a human adult if it is healthy. Only time is required.

And no one human has the right to arbitrarily take another human beings life even when that human is extremely young.The position of mother and child complicates this right to life, because of the physical attachment which exists. However, in principle, a child should have a right to life even if a mother does not want that child. A mothers desire for a better or different life does not naturally override an unborns basic right to life.

Contraception is available to prevent unwanted births and sex education is a must for every young person starting well before puberty. Allowances can and should be made be made for many circumstances.

I favour free abortion for women who require it, along with general free health care for all, as we have in Australia. But a society cannot accept that an unborn human being's right to life is a the total discretion of the mother. No where else in society do we allow one person to make such a decision of life and death.

No child is guaranteed to be wanted and loved and we cannot guarantee that, but we can ensure they have a right to life and a chance to live for many decades. From there they at least have a chance to make a success of their lives their life is in their hands as it should be. If killed before birth they have no rights to anything

You can call it what you like either because they are the medical terms or because it makes you fee better, but an uborn human child is technically exactly that.

Practically I don't oppose a morning after pill because anyone can make a misatke But denying an unborn child a right o life leaves open too many doors to take rights form other human beings. It also creates a belief that it is correct for a woman to have a basic right to terminate a child for no special reason. If economic circumstances are a valid reason, then why should a father not have an equal right to demand an abortion, so he does not have to support a child. If caring for the child might be a burden then why shouldn't grandparents have a right to demand an abortion because having to care for it might impinge on their quality of life . It is only ethically acceptable to terminate an unborns life, when carrying or having the child places a genuine risk on the mother That risk can be either physical or psychological but the bar has ot be set reasonably high.

On the other hand society should not expect all natural mothers to want their children and more should be done to allow them to surrender a child to someone who would love it and care for it. Society should support the many many non parents who care for and love children and teenagers who are not their own. Just being a natural parent doesn't give anyone ownership or possession of another human being.

And ps I agree. If a parents wishes to have and can care for severely disabled children, then I would support their right to do so and work to get them support in that care, but no one should be forced to carry or bear a child known to be incapable of ever caring for itself.

Also I am strongly in favour of voluntary euthanasia for any mentally capable adult. However by your reckoning people who are a burden on society lose their right to life If we are lucky enough we will ALL, eventually begin to take more from society than we can give back. But if we have worked productively all our lives then we will have paid forward for that phase of our life. No one has the right to end the life of a very old or disabled person without their informed consent any more than they have the right to end the life of a non productive and dependent unborn child.

I never said those who are a burden on society should lose their right to life. My feelings are simply that we owe babies the life they deserve. That includes being wanted, If you can't do that much for a baby, then don't have it.

And by the way, any birth control can fail.

Other than that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are definitely a being full of contradictions. Basically a worthless human being, by your statements, until death ws knocking on the door and the we get this: Wouldn't it have been better to let me die and spend the money on someone more deserving? But it finally occurred to me that if you start to argue who is worth more in our society, we all die.

You condemn every baby to this fate without a peep until your ass is on the line and then it is spend the dollars because what?

First of all, I didn't just come to this conclusion when my ass was on the line, as you call it. I have spent many, many years hearing people condemn the homeless and wish people who were on welfare, food stamps, public assistance, or receiving any other kind of help would be eradicated. I have seen and read the hate pour out in letters to editors, TV interviews, and in person, a lot of it from people considering themselves to be good Christians. Then I experienced this first hand when I became homeless. It wasn't fun, realizing I was a second class citizen and most people wished I didn't exist. I was a value to society only when I had a home. The fact that was working while I was homeless was ignored. Either that or I was "different". It was useless to point out that I wasn't different and that the drug addicted person sleeping in an alley wasn't any different than a well heeled brother or father doing the same thing on a couch in his home.

My questioning of my worth after my surgery was for myself alone, not for society in general, and I just had to reconfirm it to myself. I'm sorry, I should have made that more clear. It's like me questioning my worth in having to take food stamps. The fact that I worked and paid taxes for 35 years is something I, and everyone else, seems to forget to take into account. But even if I hadn't worked, I am still of the opinion that we all have something to offer, no matter how bad off we are.

Secondly, my belief is that a baby is a baby when it's born. At that point, it's a living, breathing human being and ready to be awarded all the status of a human being. From conception to three months, it's an embryo. And regardless of what anyone thinks, an embryo is nothing special. It takes no brains to make one. Anyone can do it. But it takes skill and intelligence and persistence and love to take a baby already born and raise it to adulthood. And you are totally missing my point. I am not condemning the baby. I am supporting the mother. It is her life, her body, and her choice to make. And I will support her right to be able to make this choice for as long as I can.

And as long as we are on the subject, do you support abortion in the case of rape or incest? And if so, why? Because it must really be sad for these children born of rape and incest to know that even pro-life people don't care if they are aborted. And answer me another question: if you are against abortion for any and all reasons and your wife or daughter were raped and became pregnant, how would you feel about the rapist suing, and winning, the right to visit your wife or daughter in her home so he could have time with "his" child? Don't laugh. There's already been a case like that here in the US and the rapist did, indeed, win the right to visit the child he conceived in rape.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said those who are a burden on society should lose their right to life. My feelings are simply that we owe babies the life they deserve. That includes being wanted, If you can't do that much for a baby, then don't have it.

And by the way, any birth control can fail.

Other than that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

You implied that because an unborn child was a burden to its mother this was a rational reason to abort it. Applying the same values and morality, it is logically alright to kill any being who becomes a burden to you, rather than look for an alternate solution. Being a burden or creating a difficulty, is not a good enough reason to kill an unborn human being. OR it becomes a good enough reason to kill any human being. Yes birth control can fail. Perhaps knowing that one shouldn't have sex unless one is prepared to accept the logical possibility of having a child. Or do you see abortion as a back up form of birth control, to be used at will, like a contraceptive pill or prophylactic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I didn't just come to this conclusion when my ass was on the line, as you call it. I have spent many, many years hearing people condemn the homeless and wish people who were on welfare, food stamps, public assistance, or receiving any other kind of help would be eradicated. I have seen and read the hate pour out in letters to editors, TV interviews, and in person, a lot of it from people considering themselves to be good Christians. Then I experienced this first hand when I became homeless. It wasn't fun, realizing I was a second class citizen and most people wished I didn't exist. I was a value to society only when I had a home. The fact that was working while I was homeless was ignored. Either that or I was "different". It was useless to point out that I wasn't different and that the drug addicted person sleeping in an alley wasn't any different than a well heeled brother or father doing the same thing on a couch in his home.

My questioning of my worth after my surgery was for myself alone, not for society in general, and I just had to reconfirm it to myself. I'm sorry, I should have made that more clear. It's like me questioning my worth in having to take food stamps. The fact that I worked and paid taxes for 35 years is something I, and everyone else, seems to forget to take into account. But even if I hadn't worked, I am still of the opinion that we all have something to offer, no matter how bad off we are.

Secondly, my belief is that a baby is a baby when it's born. At that point, it's a living, breathing human being and ready to be awarded all the status of a human being. From conception to three months, it's an embryo. And regardless of what anyone thinks, an embryo is nothing special. It takes no brains to make one. Anyone can do it. But it takes skill and intelligence and persistence and love to take a baby already born and raise it to adulthood. And you are totally missing my point. I am not condemning the baby. I am supporting the mother. It is her life, her body, and her choice to make. And I will support her right to be able to make this choice for as long as I can.

And as long as we are on the subject, do you support abortion in the case of rape or incest? And if so, why? Because it must really be sad for these children born of rape and incest to know that even pro-life people don't care if they are aborted. And answer me another question: if you are against abortion for any and all reasons and your wife or daughter were raped and became pregnant, how would you feel about the rapist suing, and winning, the right to visit your wife or daughter in her home so he could have time with "his" child? Don't laugh. There's already been a case like that here in the US and the rapist did, indeed, win the right to visit the child he conceived in rape.

No human being is worthless nor even innately of less worth than another and anyone who says so is an idiot. Every human being has its own potential. Worth is intrinsic, not judged on your job or productivity to society Productivity is a construct of society. How much we can contribute depends on health education and skills but we are ALL of value. I tis our responsibility to give all we can to our society but we can not give more than we are capable of,. or which society allows us to .

You assume the unborn, whatever you call it, is not a human being until it is separated from its mother,but of course it is. (in potential) Even a new born baby is only a full human being, in potential Cutting an umbilical cord does not alter the status of a child.This argument is illogical. The only logical reason to see or treat an unborn human any differently to the rest of us is its attachment to its mother. This creates a situation not unlike con- joined twins but only for nine months Sometimes we have to decide which life has priority and we need to devise ethical mechanisms in order to make that decision.

Why should a rapist not have the right to know and visit his child. The child will eventually make up its own mind about the nature and character of its father something it will never have the chance to do if aborted. This is a separate issue something like the right of sperm donors to know their children or for the children of sperm donors to know their fathers.

BUT rape and the trauma associated with it IS a justifiable reason for a woman to seek and have an abortion because it might create nine months of living hell for her. However once a child is born it can later make its own decisions Not only that, but there should be no obligation on a mother to care for a unwanted or unloved child. That is the responsibility and duty of its community or society if the society forces the mother to have the child.. Many children grow up successfully, never knowing their real mother or father. It is unethical to expect a mother to support a child she never wanted and finds she cannot love. It will cause problems for both mother and child.However it is more unethical to condemn an unborn child to death for this reason.

To seek to deprive a father of their child in normal circumstances is not an acceptable reason for a mother to seek an abortion.

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You implied that because an unborn child was a burden to its mother this was a rational reason to abort it. Applying the same values and morality, it is logically alright to kill any being who becomes a burden to you, rather than look for an alternate solution. Being a burden or creating a difficulty, is not a good enough reason to kill an unborn human being. OR it becomes a good enough reason to kill any human being. Yes birth control can fail. Perhaps knowing that one shouldn't have sex unless one is prepared to accept the logical possibility of having a child. Or do you see abortion as a back up form of birth control, to be used at will, like a contraceptive pill or prophylactic?

MW, The law states that a women has the right to choose, within certain perimeters, to decide if she is capable of being a quality influence on the baby. The role of a mother is a lifetime commitment, requiring a level of maturity and humility that cannot be taken lightly. A child deserves quality parents, a rapist father would not meet the requirements of quality, IMO. If a women could not find a way to get over such a heinous trauma, one such as a rape, she has the right to decide what is best for her and her baby, period. She also has the right to be treated with dignity; regardless, of whether her choice differs from yours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should a rapist not have the right to know and visit his child. The child will eventually make up its own mind about the nature and character of its father something it will never have the chance to do if aborted. This is a separate issue something like the right of sperm donors to know their children or for the children of sperm donors to know their fathers.

Did you just equate a rapist with a sperm donor?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.