Bible is clear on the status of an embryo
While I agree with Professor Hugh McLachlan (Letters, June 3) that Christians have not always agreed upon the status of the embryo, I would strongly take issue with his statement that "at no point in the gospels, or even in the Bible in its entirety, is the question of whether or when an embryo is due the moral status of a person directly addressed".
What makes a person human, distinct from all other animals? Genesis 1. 26 says: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness." Human beings, in God's perspective, are unique, for in specific ways they "reflect" God's likeness; they reason, they decide, they have complex emotions. It is biblical perspective that our "significance" and status is very much to do with our relationship with God.
Psalm 139, v13-15: "You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex. Your workmanship is marvellous - how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb." So, according to the Bible, God was/is involved in our prenatal existence - from the very beginning.
As for the gospels, it is clear from the 1st chapter of Luke (written by an eminent Greek physician), that God was involved, both in the ability for a couple to conceive, and also in the continuing prenatal life of that embryo/foetus. I accept that most people nowadays do not know, or do not believe the Christian scriptures, but the biblical writings are consistent on this point.
Whether Christians agree or not on the moral status of the embryo, the distinct and clear biblical message is that God values human life hugely, and that human life begins prenatally. What's more, it seems that God's involvement with us even begins before conception. If we go by these scriptures, then the Christian surely should gauge the moral status of the embryo as being human from the very beginning. This is why abortion is such an important issue for the true Christian, for it strikes at the heart of humanness.
Alasdair H B Fyfe,
Consultant paediatric surgeon,
59 Mearns Road, Clarkston, Glasgow.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 10:13pm Tue 3 Jun 08
Good for you Alasdair! Expect pelters for it, but you have said what needs to be said.
Good for you Alasdair! Expect pelters for it, but you have said what needs to be said.
Posted by: Hugh V McLachlan, Elderslie on 10:21pm Tue 3 Jun 08
[quote] I would strongly take issue with his statement that "at no point in the gospels, or even in the Bible in its entirety, is the question of whether or when an embryo is due the moral status of a person directly addressed".[/quote] (Alasdair H B Fyfe)
You help to establish my point for me. None of your Biblical quotations directly addresses the question of the moral status of embryos and of when, it at all, they become persons.
I would strongly take issue with his statement that "at no point in the gospels, or even in the Bible in its entirety, is the question of whether or when an embryo is due the moral status of a person directly addressed".
(Alasdair H B Fyfe)
You help to establish my point for me. None of your Biblical quotations directly addresses the question of the moral status of embryos and of when, it at all, they become persons.
Posted by: Jaggy on 10:50pm Tue 3 Jun 08
[quote]Bible is clear on the status of an embryo[/quote]
Yeah, but what does Catch 22 have to say about it?
Bible is clear on the status of an embryo
Yeah, but what does Catch 22 have to say about it?
Posted by: julie, glasgow on 11:13pm Tue 3 Jun 08
Great letter Alasdair, and good on you for having the courage to write it.
Great letter Alasdair, and good on you for having the courage to write it.
Posted by: julie, glasgow on 11:31pm Tue 3 Jun 08
Hugh,
I take your point on how opinion has changed and reformed over the centuries about the status of the embryo and how Christians vary on their view. But given that the Ten Commandments, the Hippocratic Oath and secular jurisprudence have the same broad base; that is, the protection, directly or indirectly of life, and given our present knowledge of the embryo, should we not seriously regard any attempt to experiment on, or destroy it? And at a time when we are staring reproductive cloning, mixed species embryos and a new bio weapons arms race in the face (the Russians are developing pathogens that are mutations from chimeric embryos) isn't it time we looked very seriously at affording protection to the embryo?
Hugh,
I take your point on how opinion has changed and reformed over the centuries about the status of the embryo and how Christians vary on their view. But given that the Ten Commandments, the Hippocratic Oath and secular jurisprudence have the same broad base; that is, the protection, directly or indirectly of life, and given our present knowledge of the embryo, should we not seriously regard any attempt to experiment on, or destroy it? And at a time when we are staring reproductive cloning, mixed species embryos and a new bio weapons arms race in the face (the Russians are developing pathogens that are mutations from chimeric embryos) isn't it time we looked very seriously at affording protection to the embryo?
Posted by: Alasdair F, Glasgow on 11:51pm Tue 3 Jun 08
Hi Professor McLachlan
You say ..."[italic]You help to establish my point for me. None of your Biblical quotations directly addresses the question of the moral status of embryos and of when, it at all, they become persons"[/italic].
You and I will just have to disagree on that one. It seems clear to me ... that the Bible says clearly ...
1. God is behind the conception and development of every embryo and foetus
2. He affords the highest significance and value to that embry/foetus, even from before conception
3. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is concerned about man's relationship with himself, as it is in our relationship with him that our personhood is measured and established. That relationship starts before we were born.
A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being.
Kind regards
Alasdair Fyfe
Hi Professor McLachlan
You say ..."
You help to establish my point for me. None of your Biblical quotations directly addresses the question of the moral status of embryos and of when, it at all, they become persons".
You and I will just have to disagree on that one. It seems clear to me ... that the Bible says clearly ...
1. God is behind the conception and development of every embryo and foetus
2. He affords the highest significance and value to that embry/foetus, even from before conception
3. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is concerned about man's relationship with himself, as it is in our relationship with him that our personhood is measured and established. That relationship starts before we were born.
A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being.
Kind regards
Alasdair Fyfe
Posted by: Hugh V McLachlan, Elderslie on 12:38am Wed 4 Jun 08
Cheers, Alasdair.
[quote]'A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being. '[/quote]
I am not at all sure that this conclusion follows. Even if it does, the questions of whether or not (and when) abortions are immoral and whether or not (and when) they should be illegal remain wide open.
Cheers, Alasdair.
'A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being. '
I am not at all sure that this conclusion follows. Even if it does, the questions of whether or not (and when) abortions are immoral and whether or not (and when) they should be illegal remain wide open.
Posted by: Alasdair F, Glasgow on 12:51am Wed 4 Jun 08
Hi Prof McLachlan
As I said ... I think we shall just have to disagree on this one. As we used to say ..."The game's a bogey"!
Thanks, though, for your courtesy - even in our disagreement.
Regards
Alasdair
Hi Prof McLachlan
As I said ... I think we shall just have to disagree on this one. As we used to say ..."The game's a bogey"!
Thanks, though, for your courtesy - even in our disagreement.
Regards
Alasdair
Posted by: Supershug, Eaglesham on 1:12am Wed 4 Jun 08
Mr Fyfe,
I believe you omitted the passage: "The child leapt/stirred in her womb..., which clearly indicated 24 weeks-plus gestation, thus scotching any plans to abort John the Baptist."
"And all this came to pass before aborting unborn children was a bad thing."
As we are reminded by atheists and very liberal Christians as to the ambiguity of the Bible, I'm sure it must have been along those lines.
Mr Fyfe,
I believe you omitted the passage: "The child leapt/stirred in her womb..., which clearly indicated 24 weeks-plus gestation, thus scotching any plans to abort John the Baptist."
"And all this came to pass before aborting unborn children was a bad thing."
As we are reminded by atheists and very liberal Christians as to the ambiguity of the Bible, I'm sure it must have been along those lines.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 8:42am Wed 4 Jun 08
All very interesting, and great material for anthropologists and psychiatrists. The FSM – may you be touched by his noodly appendage - says he’d really rather we respected the creation myths of people like the professor while resisting the damaging influence of his false gods; you’ll never get the FSM saying “I am a jealous god”, he’s just not that prissy (or pissy) .
All very interesting, and great material for anthropologists and psychiatrists. The FSM – may you be touched by his noodly appendage - says he’d really rather we respected the creation myths of people like the professor while resisting the damaging influence of his false gods; you’ll never get the FSM saying “I am a jealous god”, he’s just not that prissy (or pissy) .
Posted by: sam, greenock on 8:59am Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Alasdair F[/bold] wrote:
Hi Professor McLachlan You say ..."[italic]You help to establish my point for me. None of your Biblical quotations directly addresses the question of the moral status of embryos and of when, it at all, they become persons"[/italic]. You and I will just have to disagree on that one. It seems clear to me ... that the Bible says clearly ... 1. God is behind the conception and development of every embryo and foetus 2. He affords the highest significance and value to that embry/foetus, even from before conception 3. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is concerned about man's relationship with himself, as it is in our relationship with him that our personhood is measured and established. That relationship starts before we were born. A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being. Kind regards Alasdair Fyfe[/quote] Thats all very well, you can believe what you choose, but as the UK and Scotland are a secular society, why should the non-christians have any truck with what you believe.?
Alasdair F wrote:
Hi Professor McLachlan You say ..."You help to establish my point for me. None of your Biblical quotations directly addresses the question of the moral status of embryos and of when, it at all, they become persons". You and I will just have to disagree on that one. It seems clear to me ... that the Bible says clearly ... 1. God is behind the conception and development of every embryo and foetus 2. He affords the highest significance and value to that embry/foetus, even from before conception 3. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is concerned about man's relationship with himself, as it is in our relationship with him that our personhood is measured and established. That relationship starts before we were born. A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being. Kind regards Alasdair Fyfe
Thats all very well, you can believe what you choose, but as the UK and Scotland are a secular society, why should the non-christians have any truck with what you believe.?
Posted by: sam, greenock on 9:04am Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Alastair[/bold] wrote:
Good for you Alasdair! Expect pelters for it, but you have said what needs to be said. [/quote] Alasdair can say whatever he likes, the point is everyone else shouldn't have to obey the "commands/rules etc of anyones chosen deity, unless of course it can be proven beyond doubt that said deity is the real thing.
Alastair wrote:
Good for you Alasdair! Expect pelters for it, but you have said what needs to be said.
Alasdair can say whatever he likes, the point is everyone else shouldn't have to obey the "commands/rules etc of anyones chosen deity, unless of course it can be proven beyond doubt that said deity is the real thing.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 9:10am Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]julie[/bold] wrote:
Hugh, I take your point on how opinion has changed and reformed over the centuries about the status of the embryo and how Christians vary on their view. But given that the Ten Commandments, the Hippocratic Oath and secular jurisprudence have the same broad base; that is, the protection, directly or indirectly of life, and given our present knowledge of the embryo, should we not seriously regard any attempt to experiment on, or destroy it? And at a time when we are staring reproductive cloning, mixed species embryos and a new bio weapons arms race in the face (the Russians are developing pathogens that are mutations from chimeric embryos) isn't it time we looked very seriously at affording protection to the embryo?[/quote] [quote]the Russians are developing pathogens that are mutations from chimeric embryos[/quote]
I think you'll find that the US et al are all developing these types of weapons. They all appear to (as Bob Dylan said) to have "god" on their side.
Shirley then if "god" is on everyones' side then these developments must be sanctioned by "god"
julie wrote:
Hugh, I take your point on how opinion has changed and reformed over the centuries about the status of the embryo and how Christians vary on their view. But given that the Ten Commandments, the Hippocratic Oath and secular jurisprudence have the same broad base; that is, the protection, directly or indirectly of life, and given our present knowledge of the embryo, should we not seriously regard any attempt to experiment on, or destroy it? And at a time when we are staring reproductive cloning, mixed species embryos and a new bio weapons arms race in the face (the Russians are developing pathogens that are mutations from chimeric embryos) isn't it time we looked very seriously at affording protection to the embryo?
the Russians are developing pathogens that are mutations from chimeric embryos
I think you'll find that the US et al are all developing these types of weapons. They all appear to (as Bob Dylan said) to have "god" on their side.
Shirley then if "god" is on everyones' side then these developments must be sanctioned by "god"
Posted by: Alibi on 9:22am Wed 4 Jun 08
Given that there is no such entity as "god", the above is totally irrelevant.
Given that there is no such entity as "god", the above is totally irrelevant.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 9:25am Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Alasdair F[/bold] wrote:
Hi Professor McLachlan You say ..."[italic]You help to establish my point for me. None of your Biblical quotations directly addresses the question of the moral status of embryos and of when, it at all, they become persons"[/italic]. You and I will just have to disagree on that one. It seems clear to me ... that the Bible says clearly ... 1. God is behind the conception and development of every embryo and foetus 2. He affords the highest significance and value to that embry/foetus, even from before conception 3. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is concerned about man's relationship with himself, as it is in our relationship with him that our personhood is measured and established. That relationship starts before we were born. A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being. Kind regards Alasdair Fyfe[/quote] [quote]A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being. [/quote]
If we could prove that one of the many gods that misguided souls have invented actually did jot down the ideas that you quote from your bible then you might have a point but as the bible was written and rewritten by a bunch of crazed god-inventors then the point is mute.
Alasdair F wrote:
Hi Professor McLachlan You say ..."You help to establish my point for me. None of your Biblical quotations directly addresses the question of the moral status of embryos and of when, it at all, they become persons". You and I will just have to disagree on that one. It seems clear to me ... that the Bible says clearly ... 1. God is behind the conception and development of every embryo and foetus 2. He affords the highest significance and value to that embry/foetus, even from before conception 3. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is concerned about man's relationship with himself, as it is in our relationship with him that our personhood is measured and established. That relationship starts before we were born. A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being. Kind regards Alasdair Fyfe
A God who pays such attention to the individual embryo/foetus is indicating that this "person" is truly human, and so is as valuable as any fully-formed muman being.
If we could prove that one of the many gods that misguided souls have invented actually did jot down the ideas that you quote from your bible then you might have a point but as the bible was written and rewritten by a bunch of crazed god-inventors then the point is mute.
Posted by: Hugh V McLachlan, Elderslie on 9:29am Wed 4 Jun 08
julie, glasgow on 11:31pm Tue 3 Jun 08
'isn't it time we looked very seriously at affording protection to the embryo?'
It is certainly a significant moral issue, I do not deny this for one moment. In fact, for several decades, I have been saying so. See, for instance, yesterday's thread on my letter. See too:
[quote]From the Womb to the Tomb: Issues in Medical Ethics, http://www.hummingea
rth.com/biblio/18462
20114.htm[/quote]
(especially chapters 1 and 2)
Are particular acts morally wrong because God commands us not to do them or does God command us not to do particular things because they are morally wrong?
If the latter, then things are good or bad independently of what God thinks or commands.
If the former, then it is not clear why morality is important and why we should bother about it unless we fear divine punishment or crave a divine reward. These are hardly what would normally be thought to be moral reasons for actions.
Obedience is not in itself morally good. To say that we were only obeying orders is typically an insufficient moral justification for our actions.
julie, glasgow on 11:31pm Tue 3 Jun 08
'isn't it time we looked very seriously at affording protection to the embryo?'
It is certainly a significant moral issue, I do not deny this for one moment. In fact, for several decades, I have been saying so. See, for instance, yesterday's thread on my letter. See too:
From the Womb to the Tomb: Issues in Medical Ethics, http://www.hummingea
rth.com/biblio/18462
20114.htm
(especially chapters 1 and 2)
Are particular acts morally wrong because God commands us not to do them or does God command us not to do particular things because they are morally wrong?
If the latter, then things are good or bad independently of what God thinks or commands.
If the former, then it is not clear why morality is important and why we should bother about it unless we fear divine punishment or crave a divine reward. These are hardly what would normally be thought to be moral reasons for actions.
Obedience is not in itself morally good. To say that we were only obeying orders is typically an insufficient moral justification for our actions.
Posted by: Jimbo, Paisley on 9:34am Wed 4 Jun 08
Whether you believe in God or not, you've got to give it to Alasdair Fyfe: these past few weeks he's been on fire, with some wonderfully simple epistles. Great adverts for the gospel message.
Good on you, Alasdair.
Whether you believe in God or not, you've got to give it to Alasdair Fyfe: these past few weeks he's been on fire, with some wonderfully simple epistles. Great adverts for the gospel message.
Good on you, Alasdair.
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 9:53am Wed 4 Jun 08
possibly it is all about trahslation. The translation I have found of verse 15 says:
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
Depths of the earth - somewhat different to the dark of the womb?
Interestingly the psalm also contains these verses:
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.
Not quite the traditonal Christian message is it? Yet if we are to accept one verse as the authoratitive voice of God surely we should accept all of them.
possibly it is all about trahslation. The translation I have found of verse 15 says:
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
Depths of the earth - somewhat different to the dark of the womb?
Interestingly the psalm also contains these verses:
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.
Not quite the traditonal Christian message is it? Yet if we are to accept one verse as the authoratitive voice of God surely we should accept all of them.
Posted by: Hugh V McLachlan, Elderslie on 9:55am Wed 4 Jun 08
julie, glasgow on 11:31pm Tue 3 Jun 08
[quote]should we not seriously regard any attempt to experiment on, or destroy it?[/quote]
I agree that that abortion, stem-cell research and so forth and important moral issues although our moral views on them might well be different. See, for instance yesterday's thread on my letter.
See too (especially chapters 1 and 2):
[quote]From the Womb to the Tomb: Issues in Medical Ethics, http://www.hummingea
rth.com/biblio/18462
20114.htm[/quote]
Do you think that particular actions are morally wrong because God commands us not to do them or do you think that God commands us not to do particular things because they are morally wrong?
If you think the latter, then God is independent of morality. If you think the former, then it is not clear why we should bother about morality other than because of fear of divine punishment or hope of divine reward. These are hardly morally relevant reasons for action. To obey merely because we were ordered to do something or other is not to act morally no matter who or what issues the orders.
julie, glasgow on 11:31pm Tue 3 Jun 08
should we not seriously regard any attempt to experiment on, or destroy it?
I agree that that abortion, stem-cell research and so forth and important moral issues although our moral views on them might well be different. See, for instance yesterday's thread on my letter.
See too (especially chapters 1 and 2):
From the Womb to the Tomb: Issues in Medical Ethics, http://www.hummingea
rth.com/biblio/18462
20114.htm
Do you think that particular actions are morally wrong because God commands us not to do them or do you think that God commands us not to do particular things because they are morally wrong?
If you think the latter, then God is independent of morality. If you think the former, then it is not clear why we should bother about morality other than because of fear of divine punishment or hope of divine reward. These are hardly morally relevant reasons for action. To obey merely because we were ordered to do something or other is not to act morally no matter who or what issues the orders.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 9:58am Wed 4 Jun 08
I'm bound to say that I enjoy the dialectical exchanges between
Alasdair Fyfe and Hugh V McLachlan (and others). If I think that Hugh is winning on rational grounds, that no doubt reflects the received assumptions I had at the start. The other thing worth commenting on is the brilliant spirit in which the discussion has been conducted. We are all the beneficiaries of that.
I'm bound to say that I enjoy the dialectical exchanges between
Alasdair Fyfe and Hugh V McLachlan (and others). If I think that Hugh is winning on rational grounds, that no doubt reflects the received assumptions I had at the start. The other thing worth commenting on is the brilliant spirit in which the discussion has been conducted. We are all the beneficiaries of that.
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 10:00am Wed 4 Jun 08
psalm 19 also says:
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
I have never quite got my head round the whole pre-ordained thing.
No doubt some Christian can explain it. The fact that we are even debating the status of embryos and the rules of abortion surely indicate that God does not in fact know all the days of our lives before they come to be.
On second thoughts don't try and explain it because I don't actually believe that any of these words belong to God.
It's all just personal opinions.
psalm 19 also says:
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
I have never quite got my head round the whole pre-ordained thing.
No doubt some Christian can explain it. The fact that we are even debating the status of embryos and the rules of abortion surely indicate that God does not in fact know all the days of our lives before they come to be.
On second thoughts don't try and explain it because I don't actually believe that any of these words belong to God.
It's all just personal opinions.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 10:40am Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]HGlasgwegian[/bold] wrote:
possibly it is all about trahslation. The translation I have found of verse 15 says: My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Depths of the earth - somewhat different to the dark of the womb? Interestingly the psalm also contains these verses: Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? 22 I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies. Not quite the traditonal Christian message is it? Yet if we are to accept one verse as the authoratitive voice of God surely we should accept all of them.[/quote] [quote]Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.[/quote]
This is the sort of nasty stuff expected of Islam, so we are told, not from cuddly inclusive chritianity
HGlasgwegian wrote:
possibly it is all about trahslation. The translation I have found of verse 15 says: My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Depths of the earth - somewhat different to the dark of the womb? Interestingly the psalm also contains these verses: Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? 22 I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies. Not quite the traditonal Christian message is it? Yet if we are to accept one verse as the authoratitive voice of God surely we should accept all of them.
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.
This is the sort of nasty stuff expected of Islam, so we are told, not from cuddly inclusive chritianity
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 11:17am Wed 4 Jun 08
Good attempt by Alasdair, but Hugh is right, there is nothing which explicitly defines the status of an embryo in the Bible.
Reading the Bible is like reading the prophecies of Nostradamus - you can read into it whatever you want.
Leaving the magnificently bloodthirsty but very illogical Old Testement to the side,we should bear in mind that we don't know who the authors of the New Testement were, and that it was written several hundred years after the events it purports to descibe occurred - so I would not recommend using any part of the Bible as a foundation for legislation.
But it's a good read.
Good attempt by Alasdair, but Hugh is right, there is nothing which explicitly defines the status of an embryo in the Bible.
Reading the Bible is like reading the prophecies of Nostradamus - you can read into it whatever you want.
Leaving the magnificently bloodthirsty but very illogical Old Testement to the side,we should bear in mind that we don't know who the authors of the New Testement were, and that it was written several hundred years after the events it purports to descibe occurred - so I would not recommend using any part of the Bible as a foundation for legislation.
But it's a good read.
Posted by: porker, stirling on 11:20am Wed 4 Jun 08
This letter will be read by the vast majority who are not Christion and therefore has little relevence.
This letter will be read by the vast majority who are not Christion and therefore has little relevence.
Posted by: ubergeek, glasgow on 11:41am Wed 4 Jun 08
If it has little relevence to those who are not christian, then your views on embryo research have little relevance to all non-christians. In other words, if you do not wish to benefit from stem cell research thats your choice, but you have no right to deny me of this.
If it has little relevence to those who are not christian, then your views on embryo research have little relevance to all non-christians. In other words, if you do not wish to benefit from stem cell research thats your choice, but you have no right to deny me of this.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 11:47am Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]ubergeek[/bold] wrote:
If it has little relevence to those who are not christian, then your views on embryo research have little relevance to all non-christians. In other words, if you do not wish to benefit from stem cell research thats your choice, but you have no right to deny me of this. [/quote] [quote]In other words, if you do not wish to benefit from stem cell research thats your choice, but you have no right to deny me of this.[/quote]
Unfortunately some of the more fervent (nah rabid) posters on here seem to think they should have the right to deny you of that choice plus no doubt a few other choices too.
ubergeek wrote:
If it has little relevence to those who are not christian, then your views on embryo research have little relevance to all non-christians. In other words, if you do not wish to benefit from stem cell research thats your choice, but you have no right to deny me of this.
In other words, if you do not wish to benefit from stem cell research thats your choice, but you have no right to deny me of this.
Unfortunately some of the more fervent (nah rabid) posters on here seem to think they should have the right to deny you of that choice plus no doubt a few other choices too.
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 2:08pm Wed 4 Jun 08
So god has such overwhelming concern with humanity that he/she is even concerned about the early stages of life in the womb?
Why then is it that his/her interest in the sanctity of life wanes somewhat once the human is born?
I give you all manner of diseaes, pestilence, famine, war and the entire gamut of natural disaster which presumably he/she has a degree of control over.
Has he/she lost interest in us as we ' mature' , or is it that he/she is merely a primitive human invention in a quest to understand life and our place in it, which has little or no relevance to our current stage of development?
Mmmmm....let me think.......
So god has such overwhelming concern with humanity that he/she is even concerned about the early stages of life in the womb?
Why then is it that his/her interest in the sanctity of life wanes somewhat once the human is born?
I give you all manner of diseaes, pestilence, famine, war and the entire gamut of natural disaster which presumably he/she has a degree of control over.
Has he/she lost interest in us as we ' mature' , or is it that he/she is merely a primitive human invention in a quest to understand life and our place in it, which has little or no relevance to our current stage of development?
Mmmmm....let me think.......
Posted by: Hugh V McLachlan, Elderslie on 2:40pm Wed 4 Jun 08
John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 2:08pm today
[quote]'Has he/she lost interest in us as we ' mature' , or is it that he/she is merely a primitive human invention in a quest to understand life and our place in it, which has little or no relevance to our current stage of development?'[/quote]
No, I would suggest that neither of these supposed alternatives (which are not exhaustive of the possibilities) is true.
John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 2:08pm today
'Has he/she lost interest in us as we ' mature' , or is it that he/she is merely a primitive human invention in a quest to understand life and our place in it, which has little or no relevance to our current stage of development?'
No, I would suggest that neither of these supposed alternatives (which are not exhaustive of the possibilities) is true.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 2:48pm Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Hugh V McLachlan[/bold] wrote:
John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 2:08pm today [quote]'Has he/she lost interest in us as we ' mature' , or is it that he/she is merely a primitive human invention in a quest to understand life and our place in it, which has little or no relevance to our current stage of development?'[/quote] No, I would suggest that neither of these supposed alternatives (which are not exhaustive of the possibilities) is true.[/quote] Hugh,
I've found both John's and yourself's views here to be very interesting.
Would it be to much trouble for you to expand on your answer to John, perhaps outlining your alternative(s)
Hugh V McLachlan wrote:
John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 2:08pm today 'Has he/she lost interest in us as we ' mature' , or is it that he/she is merely a primitive human invention in a quest to understand life and our place in it, which has little or no relevance to our current stage of development?'
No, I would suggest that neither of these supposed alternatives (which are not exhaustive of the possibilities) is true.
Hugh,
I've found both John's and yourself's views here to be very interesting.
Would it be to much trouble for you to expand on your answer to John, perhaps outlining your alternative(s)
Posted by: Hugh V McLachlan, Elderslie on 3:13pm Wed 4 Jun 08
sam, greenock on 2:48pm today
[quote]Would it be to much trouble for you to expand on your answer to John, perhaps outlining your alternative(s)[/quote]
This is all, of course, highly speculative. It is true that the question of whether or not a God exists is different from the question of whether or not a God who cares about us exists. However, because we all die and many of us suffer horribly, it does not follow that there is not a caring God. Caring need not imply always intervening to prevent death or pain. God cannot be infinitely powerful. The notion does not make sense. God, no less than anyone is restricted by the choices that He makes. If God chooses to create people who have free-will, then He will be further restricted by the consequences of His own choices.
Overall, it might well be for the best if the universe is as it is -even with its pain, death, suffering and loss - since the removal of what seem to us to be the bad and unfortunate aspects might not be possible without the elimination also of that which is worthwhile.
It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain. Similarly, it would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them if, in their creation, many embryos and foetuses did not live long enough to develop into the mature bodies of human beings.
It seems curious to me but it might, of course, be true.
sam, greenock on 2:48pm today
Would it be to much trouble for you to expand on your answer to John, perhaps outlining your alternative(s)
This is all, of course, highly speculative. It is true that the question of whether or not a God exists is different from the question of whether or not a God who cares about us exists. However, because we all die and many of us suffer horribly, it does not follow that there is not a caring God. Caring need not imply always intervening to prevent death or pain. God cannot be infinitely powerful. The notion does not make sense. God, no less than anyone is restricted by the choices that He makes. If God chooses to create people who have free-will, then He will be further restricted by the consequences of His own choices.
Overall, it might well be for the best if the universe is as it is -even with its pain, death, suffering and loss - since the removal of what seem to us to be the bad and unfortunate aspects might not be possible without the elimination also of that which is worthwhile.
It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain. Similarly, it would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them if, in their creation, many embryos and foetuses did not live long enough to develop into the mature bodies of human beings.
It seems curious to me but it might, of course, be true.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 3:51pm Wed 4 Jun 08
"It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain. Similarly, it would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them if, in their creation, many embryos and foetuses did not live long enough to develop into the mature bodies of human beings." - Hugh McLachlan
This God conundrum - whether he exists or otherwise, or what sort of a chap he is if he does - is precisely why legislators have no business to frame laws based on their own religious convictions. Society is not a religious organisation like a church. Laws must as far as possible be made in the interests, far wider than matters of faith, of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views. As legislators, MP and governments must consider the consequences of the measures before them, how they will probably affect society and whether they will do more good than harm. Thus it is the role of legislators to be consequentialists, repeat consequentialists. They must not ask "What does my religion teach about this meaure.?" (Far less what does the Bible exhort us to do.) But "Will society benefit from it in the empirical world?"
That's what our legislators did a fortnight ago, on a free vote, and we should be thankful that that is exactly what they did. "It's time to move on." I hate that phrase, since it was Blair's favourite cliche, but for once it is apposite.
"It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain. Similarly, it would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them if, in their creation, many embryos and foetuses did not live long enough to develop into the mature bodies of human beings." - Hugh McLachlan
This God conundrum - whether he exists or otherwise, or what sort of a chap he is if he does - is precisely why legislators have no business to frame laws based on their own religious convictions. Society is not a religious organisation like a church. Laws must as far as possible be made in the interests, far wider than matters of faith, of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views. As legislators, MP and governments must consider the consequences of the measures before them, how they will probably affect society and whether they will do more good than harm. Thus it is the role of legislators to be consequentialists, repeat consequentialists. They must not ask "What does my religion teach about this meaure.?" (Far less what does the Bible exhort us to do.) But "Will society benefit from it in the empirical world?"
That's what our legislators did a fortnight ago, on a free vote, and we should be thankful that that is exactly what they did. "It's time to move on." I hate that phrase, since it was Blair's favourite cliche, but for once it is apposite.
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 4:08pm Wed 4 Jun 08
Surely part of the question must be, why?
Why 'create us in the first place if our only reason for existence is to struggle and die ( in some very unpleasant ways) in a very short span of time?
The notion that a being has the wherewithal to create an entire universe and everything in it but would be as vindictive as to create something supposedly in his own image and then watch it suffer all manner of tribulations and horrors, is proof enough for me that he is a mere invention of humanity.
I mean what is the point?
To have a laugh at how flawed his creation is?
To make himself feel better about his uniqueness / loneliness ?
Oh sorry...I know..we cannot know his plan for us as it is too mind boggling for mere mortals to understand, much better that we just accept his ' will' and go along for the ride.
The idea is laughable were it not so worrying, that rational and obviously intelligent human beings feel the need to ascribe the universe and all its diversity to a creator.
It is proof positive to me of the immaturity of our species regardless of how much we learn, that we still feel the need to huddle around the fire at night telling ghost stories to each other as some sort of security blanket.
Forget the ludicrous aspect of this earth we live on being his choice for the creation of his great work. Or are we just one of many 'experiments'?
We live on a small speck of dust on the not very fashionable outer spiral arm of a very ordinary galaxy made up of billions of star systems, within a universe consisting of millions of such galaxies.
Yet we are the special beneficiaries of the attention of a 'god' who takes such a close interest in us that he worries about our every little indiscretion and feels the need to put it all down on paper via his ' chosen ones', one of whom is an illiterate trader living in the Arabian peninsula.
He is so desperate to get his word out that he gives up trying by around the 7th century and fails to make any more personal appearances in an age where his 'message' could be heard, seen and accepted by the entire population of the planet in hours.
No...this super being has done all his best work with people who still thought it ok to kill for adultery, slaughter enemies using his word as the excuse and to keep slaves amongst other fun things.
He has been an absentee landlord as far as we are concerned for around 2000 years.....I wonder why?
You can rationalise about free will and faith all you want too, these are merely the get out clauses of the convinced to use against the rest of us who question the logic of the idea....and be under no illusion, that is what it is.....a human idea.
I could go on for hours but the whole thing is just too silly for any more words imho.
However......I will defend to the death your right to believe it if it makes you feel better.
Please do me the same courtesy.
Surely part of the question must be, why?
Why 'create us in the first place if our only reason for existence is to struggle and die ( in some very unpleasant ways) in a very short span of time?
The notion that a being has the wherewithal to create an entire universe and everything in it but would be as vindictive as to create something supposedly in his own image and then watch it suffer all manner of tribulations and horrors, is proof enough for me that he is a mere invention of humanity.
I mean what is the point?
To have a laugh at how flawed his creation is?
To make himself feel better about his uniqueness / loneliness ?
Oh sorry...I know..we cannot know his plan for us as it is too mind boggling for mere mortals to understand, much better that we just accept his ' will' and go along for the ride.
The idea is laughable were it not so worrying, that rational and obviously intelligent human beings feel the need to ascribe the universe and all its diversity to a creator.
It is proof positive to me of the immaturity of our species regardless of how much we learn, that we still feel the need to huddle around the fire at night telling ghost stories to each other as some sort of security blanket.
Forget the ludicrous aspect of this earth we live on being his choice for the creation of his great work. Or are we just one of many 'experiments'?
We live on a small speck of dust on the not very fashionable outer spiral arm of a very ordinary galaxy made up of billions of star systems, within a universe consisting of millions of such galaxies.
Yet we are the special beneficiaries of the attention of a 'god' who takes such a close interest in us that he worries about our every little indiscretion and feels the need to put it all down on paper via his ' chosen ones', one of whom is an illiterate trader living in the Arabian peninsula.
He is so desperate to get his word out that he gives up trying by around the 7th century and fails to make any more personal appearances in an age where his 'message' could be heard, seen and accepted by the entire population of the planet in hours.
No...this super being has done all his best work with people who still thought it ok to kill for adultery, slaughter enemies using his word as the excuse and to keep slaves amongst other fun things.
He has been an absentee landlord as far as we are concerned for around 2000 years.....I wonder why?
You can rationalise about free will and faith all you want too, these are merely the get out clauses of the convinced to use against the rest of us who question the logic of the idea....and be under no illusion, that is what it is.....a human idea.
I could go on for hours but the whole thing is just too silly for any more words imho.
However......I will defend to the death your right to believe it if it makes you feel better.
Please do me the same courtesy.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 4:22pm Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Hugh V McLachlan[/bold] wrote:
sam, greenock on 2:48pm today [quote]Would it be to much trouble for you to expand on your answer to John, perhaps outlining your alternative(s)[/quote] This is all, of course, highly speculative. It is true that the question of whether or not a God exists is different from the question of whether or not a God who cares about us exists. However, because we all die and many of us suffer horribly, it does not follow that there is not a caring God. Caring need not imply always intervening to prevent death or pain. God cannot be infinitely powerful. The notion does not make sense. God, no less than anyone is restricted by the choices that He makes. If God chooses to create people who have free-will, then He will be further restricted by the consequences of His own choices. Overall, it might well be for the best if the universe is as it is -even with its pain, death, suffering and loss - since the removal of what seem to us to be the bad and unfortunate aspects might not be possible without the elimination also of that which is worthwhile. It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain. Similarly, it would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them if, in their creation, many embryos and foetuses did not live long enough to develop into the mature bodies of human beings. It seems curious to me but it might, of course, be true.[/quote] Thanks Hugh,
I may take exception to some of your post though.
Like
[quote]God cannot be infinitely powerful.[/quote]
I thought the religous believed that he is all powerful as well as being omnipresent.
[quote]It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain[/quote]
I also find this hard to rationalise with religion, I was always taught that "god" loved all of us and was a benign loving god. I've never quite understood why when people die horrible deaths after suffering, or through war or a natural disaster, why he let it happen if he loved everyone so much.
These are some of the conundrums that led me to athiesm, probably also tio do with the fact that at church/sunday school etc you weren't allowed to question, just accept, these strange fables that didn't quite add up.
Hugh V McLachlan wrote:
sam, greenock on 2:48pm today Would it be to much trouble for you to expand on your answer to John, perhaps outlining your alternative(s)
This is all, of course, highly speculative. It is true that the question of whether or not a God exists is different from the question of whether or not a God who cares about us exists. However, because we all die and many of us suffer horribly, it does not follow that there is not a caring God. Caring need not imply always intervening to prevent death or pain. God cannot be infinitely powerful. The notion does not make sense. God, no less than anyone is restricted by the choices that He makes. If God chooses to create people who have free-will, then He will be further restricted by the consequences of His own choices. Overall, it might well be for the best if the universe is as it is -even with its pain, death, suffering and loss - since the removal of what seem to us to be the bad and unfortunate aspects might not be possible without the elimination also of that which is worthwhile. It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain. Similarly, it would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them if, in their creation, many embryos and foetuses did not live long enough to develop into the mature bodies of human beings. It seems curious to me but it might, of course, be true.
Thanks Hugh,
I may take exception to some of your post though.
Like
God cannot be infinitely powerful.
I thought the religous believed that he is all powerful as well as being omnipresent.
It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain
I also find this hard to rationalise with religion, I was always taught that "god" loved all of us and was a benign loving god. I've never quite understood why when people die horrible deaths after suffering, or through war or a natural disaster, why he let it happen if he loved everyone so much.
These are some of the conundrums that led me to athiesm, probably also tio do with the fact that at church/sunday school etc you weren't allowed to question, just accept, these strange fables that didn't quite add up.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 4:25pm Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]chris walker[/bold] wrote:
"It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain. Similarly, it would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them if, in their creation, many embryos and foetuses did not live long enough to develop into the mature bodies of human beings." - Hugh McLachlan This God conundrum - whether he exists or otherwise, or what sort of a chap he is if he does - is precisely why legislators have no business to frame laws based on their own religious convictions. Society is not a religious organisation like a church. Laws must as far as possible be made in the interests, far wider than matters of faith, of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views. As legislators, MP and governments must consider the consequences of the measures before them, how they will probably affect society and whether they will do more good than harm. Thus it is the role of legislators to be consequentialists, repeat consequentialists. They must not ask "What does my religion teach about this meaure.?" (Far less what does the Bible exhort us to do.) But "Will society benefit from it in the empirical world?" That's what our legislators did a fortnight ago, on a free vote, and we should be thankful that that is exactly what they did. "It's time to move on." I hate that phrase, since it was Blair's favourite cliche, but for once it is apposite. [/quote] [quote]Society is not a religious organisation like a church. Laws must as far as possible be made in the interests, far wider than matters of faith, of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views.[/quote]
Exactly Chris.
chris walker wrote:
"It would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them because they would suffer death, loss and pain. Similarly, it would seem curious to say that a God who cared about people would not create any of them if, in their creation, many embryos and foetuses did not live long enough to develop into the mature bodies of human beings." - Hugh McLachlan This God conundrum - whether he exists or otherwise, or what sort of a chap he is if he does - is precisely why legislators have no business to frame laws based on their own religious convictions. Society is not a religious organisation like a church. Laws must as far as possible be made in the interests, far wider than matters of faith, of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views. As legislators, MP and governments must consider the consequences of the measures before them, how they will probably affect society and whether they will do more good than harm. Thus it is the role of legislators to be consequentialists, repeat consequentialists. They must not ask "What does my religion teach about this meaure.?" (Far less what does the Bible exhort us to do.) But "Will society benefit from it in the empirical world?" That's what our legislators did a fortnight ago, on a free vote, and we should be thankful that that is exactly what they did. "It's time to move on." I hate that phrase, since it was Blair's favourite cliche, but for once it is apposite.
Society is not a religious organisation like a church. Laws must as far as possible be made in the interests, far wider than matters of faith, of all members of society, whether or not they hold any religious views.
Exactly Chris.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 4:32pm Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]John J. Sheridan[/bold] wrote:
Surely part of the question must be, why? Why 'create us in the first place if our only reason for existence is to struggle and die ( in some very unpleasant ways) in a very short span of time? The notion that a being has the wherewithal to create an entire universe and everything in it but would be as vindictive as to create something supposedly in his own image and then watch it suffer all manner of tribulations and horrors, is proof enough for me that he is a mere invention of humanity. I mean what is the point? To have a laugh at how flawed his creation is? To make himself feel better about his uniqueness / loneliness ? Oh sorry...I know..we cannot know his plan for us as it is too mind boggling for mere mortals to understand, much better that we just accept his ' will' and go along for the ride. The idea is laughable were it not so worrying, that rational and obviously intelligent human beings feel the need to ascribe the universe and all its diversity to a creator. It is proof positive to me of the immaturity of our species regardless of how much we learn, that we still feel the need to huddle around the fire at night telling ghost stories to each other as some sort of security blanket. Forget the ludicrous aspect of this earth we live on being his choice for the creation of his great work. Or are we just one of many 'experiments'? We live on a small speck of dust on the not very fashionable outer spiral arm of a very ordinary galaxy made up of billions of star systems, within a universe consisting of millions of such galaxies. Yet we are the special beneficiaries of the attention of a 'god' who takes such a close interest in us that he worries about our every little indiscretion and feels the need to put it all down on paper via his ' chosen ones', one of whom is an illiterate trader living in the Arabian peninsula. He is so desperate to get his word out that he gives up trying by around the 7th century and fails to make any more personal appearances in an age where his 'message' could be heard, seen and accepted by the entire population of the planet in hours. No...this super being has done all his best work with people who still thought it ok to kill for adultery, slaughter enemies using his word as the excuse and to keep slaves amongst other fun things. He has been an absentee landlord as far as we are concerned for around 2000 years.....I wonder why? You can rationalise about free will and faith all you want too, these are merely the get out clauses of the convinced to use against the rest of us who question the logic of the idea....and be under no illusion, that is what it is.....a human idea. I could go on for hours but the whole thing is just too silly for any more words imho. However......I will defend to the death your right to believe it if it makes you feel better. Please do me the same courtesy.[/quote] [quote]we cannot know his plan for us as it is too mind boggling for mere mortals to understand, much better that we just accept his ' will' and go along for the ride.[/quote]
Some people do seem overly keen to accept this, a matter of faith no doubt.
John your cynicism is as healthy as ours on this religous front, no doubt ,along with the rest of us, you'll be heading for hell and damnation for this herecy.
To quote you
[quote]I could go on for hours but the whole thing is just too silly[/quote]
John J. Sheridan wrote:
Surely part of the question must be, why? Why 'create us in the first place if our only reason for existence is to struggle and die ( in some very unpleasant ways) in a very short span of time? The notion that a being has the wherewithal to create an entire universe and everything in it but would be as vindictive as to create something supposedly in his own image and then watch it suffer all manner of tribulations and horrors, is proof enough for me that he is a mere invention of humanity. I mean what is the point? To have a laugh at how flawed his creation is? To make himself feel better about his uniqueness / loneliness ? Oh sorry...I know..we cannot know his plan for us as it is too mind boggling for mere mortals to understand, much better that we just accept his ' will' and go along for the ride. The idea is laughable were it not so worrying, that rational and obviously intelligent human beings feel the need to ascribe the universe and all its diversity to a creator. It is proof positive to me of the immaturity of our species regardless of how much we learn, that we still feel the need to huddle around the fire at night telling ghost stories to each other as some sort of security blanket. Forget the ludicrous aspect of this earth we live on being his choice for the creation of his great work. Or are we just one of many 'experiments'? We live on a small speck of dust on the not very fashionable outer spiral arm of a very ordinary galaxy made up of billions of star systems, within a universe consisting of millions of such galaxies. Yet we are the special beneficiaries of the attention of a 'god' who takes such a close interest in us that he worries about our every little indiscretion and feels the need to put it all down on paper via his ' chosen ones', one of whom is an illiterate trader living in the Arabian peninsula. He is so desperate to get his word out that he gives up trying by around the 7th century and fails to make any more personal appearances in an age where his 'message' could be heard, seen and accepted by the entire population of the planet in hours. No...this super being has done all his best work with people who still thought it ok to kill for adultery, slaughter enemies using his word as the excuse and to keep slaves amongst other fun things. He has been an absentee landlord as far as we are concerned for around 2000 years.....I wonder why? You can rationalise about free will and faith all you want too, these are merely the get out clauses of the convinced to use against the rest of us who question the logic of the idea....and be under no illusion, that is what it is.....a human idea. I could go on for hours but the whole thing is just too silly for any more words imho. However......I will defend to the death your right to believe it if it makes you feel better. Please do me the same courtesy.
we cannot know his plan for us as it is too mind boggling for mere mortals to understand, much better that we just accept his ' will' and go along for the ride.
Some people do seem overly keen to accept this, a matter of faith no doubt.
John your cynicism is as healthy as ours on this religous front, no doubt ,along with the rest of us, you'll be heading for hell and damnation for this herecy.
To quote you
I could go on for hours but the whole thing is just too silly
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 4:35pm Wed 4 Jun 08
One of the more curious features to have emerged over these last few weeks is the use of the word "taught". Significantly, even Sam talks of what he was 'taught', although happily he is well beyond that world as an adult and has a refreshing oulook on difficult issues.
There is one self-styled "pro-life" poster who is forever telling the rest of us what she was 'taught' at school, by her parents and most often, by the church. She seems well into middle-age. Whatever happened to discovery, learning and thinking for yourself? I think these are Scottish traits. Yes?
One of the more curious features to have emerged over these last few weeks is the use of the word "taught". Significantly, even Sam talks of what he was 'taught', although happily he is well beyond that world as an adult and has a refreshing oulook on difficult issues.
There is one self-styled "pro-life" poster who is forever telling the rest of us what she was 'taught' at school, by her parents and most often, by the church. She seems well into middle-age. Whatever happened to discovery, learning and thinking for yourself? I think these are Scottish traits. Yes?
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 4:48pm Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote]Whatever happened to discovery, learning and thinking for yourself? I think these are Scottish traits. Yes?[/quote]
Indeed they are Chris.
However I despair at the inexorable rise of the worst aspects of religious fervour in the world.
It was tolerable at one time, when I was young I actually believed that we would have outgrown religion by the time I was an old man.
Well, I am on the way and it seems to me that the fear engendered by the 'great' religions is growing like a virus.
This growth is taken as proof by the faithful that the message is true.
Well the quickest growing religion on the planet is Islam, this has nothing to do with the faithful spreading the word and it being accepted as the truth, and everything to do with birth rates and apostasy being a death sentence.
Don't start me on the other two 'great' religions and their made up facts.
Council of Nicaea anyone?
Whatever happened to discovery, learning and thinking for yourself? I think these are Scottish traits. Yes?
Indeed they are Chris.
However I despair at the inexorable rise of the worst aspects of religious fervour in the world.
It was tolerable at one time, when I was young I actually believed that we would have outgrown religion by the time I was an old man.
Well, I am on the way and it seems to me that the fear engendered by the 'great' religions is growing like a virus.
This growth is taken as proof by the faithful that the message is true.
Well the quickest growing religion on the planet is Islam, this has nothing to do with the faithful spreading the word and it being accepted as the truth, and everything to do with birth rates and apostasy being a death sentence.
Don't start me on the other two 'great' religions and their made up facts.
Council of Nicaea anyone?
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 4:51pm Wed 4 Jun 08
Ps
It was your birthday last week was it not Chris?
If so....sorry I'm late my friend and a belated HAPPY BIRTHDAY !!
Ps
It was your birthday last week was it not Chris?
If so....sorry I'm late my friend and a belated HAPPY BIRTHDAY !!
Posted by: Gilbert McAdam, Manila on 4:52pm Wed 4 Jun 08
The biblical answer to the "problem" of suffering and death certainly relates to man's use of his free-will. But it goes further than previous posts seem to suggest. Man's sinful choices have brought the human race under God's judgment. "Through one man, sin entered into the world, and death through sin ..." (Romans 5.12). "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men ..." (Romans 1.18). Until we grasp and accept that the whole world is under judgment (a point which Paul makes at length in Romans chapters 1 - 3), the message of the Bible will make very little sense.
Of course, nobody wants to hear this, and no doubt I shall be pilloried for mentioning it.
The biblical answer to the "problem" of suffering and death certainly relates to man's use of his free-will. But it goes further than previous posts seem to suggest. Man's sinful choices have brought the human race under God's judgment. "Through one man, sin entered into the world, and death through sin ..." (Romans 5.12). "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men ..." (Romans 1.18). Until we grasp and accept that the whole world is under judgment (a point which Paul makes at length in Romans chapters 1 - 3), the message of the Bible will make very little sense.
Of course, nobody wants to hear this, and no doubt I shall be pilloried for mentioning it.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 5:04pm Wed 4 Jun 08
Exactly Mr Sheridan, Paul was the Peter Mandlesson of his day, and Christianity was the project.
It had nothing to do with the historical Jesus who was a leader of a Jewish, repeat Jewish, sect.
Exactly Mr Sheridan, Paul was the Peter Mandlesson of his day, and Christianity was the project.
It had nothing to do with the historical Jesus who was a leader of a Jewish, repeat Jewish, sect.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 5:05pm Wed 4 Jun 08
John J Sheridan
While I understand some of your pessimism, I retain a certain robust optimism My hope lies in the lack of homogeneity among and within the Abrahamic faiths. The great majority of Muslims want little to do with the extremism of, for example, the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. Islamophobia thrives on the daft notion that there is only one kind of Islam. That's why it's a phobia, as well as historically ridiculous.. Put it another way Iraq was a completely different cultural experience, for me anyway, than Saudi.
Christianity, too, is a heterogeneous phenomenon, especially in Northern Europe, where it is contained within a secular framework of governance - I would argue that on balance it is a force for good.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" (John McLean). So, nae despair, pal - its upwards and onwards, JJ, with plenty still to play for, and I say that at 70.
John J Sheridan
While I understand some of your pessimism, I retain a certain robust optimism My hope lies in the lack of homogeneity among and within the Abrahamic faiths. The great majority of Muslims want little to do with the extremism of, for example, the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. Islamophobia thrives on the daft notion that there is only one kind of Islam. That's why it's a phobia, as well as historically ridiculous.. Put it another way Iraq was a completely different cultural experience, for me anyway, than Saudi.
Christianity, too, is a heterogeneous phenomenon, especially in Northern Europe, where it is contained within a secular framework of governance - I would argue that on balance it is a force for good.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" (John McLean). So, nae despair, pal - its upwards and onwards, JJ, with plenty still to play for, and I say that at 70.
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 5:08pm Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
<i> Exactly Mr Sheridan, Paul was the Peter Mandlesson of his day, and Christianity was the project.
It had nothing to do with the historical Jesus who was a leader of a Jewish, repeat Jewish, sect. </i>[/quote] Indeed.
He was such, and it can be argued, a military leader within that sect too whose pedigree went all the way back to King David.
But that does not square away with the myth, does it?
Still...why pick on the Christians....they are the best of a bad bunch in my opinion !
Ho hum....
Observer wrote:
<i> Exactly Mr Sheridan, Paul was the Peter Mandlesson of his day, and Christianity was the project.
It had nothing to do with the historical Jesus who was a leader of a Jewish, repeat Jewish, sect. </i>
Indeed.
He was such, and it can be argued, a military leader within that sect too whose pedigree went all the way back to King David.
But that does not square away with the myth, does it?
Still...why pick on the Christians....they are the best of a bad bunch in my opinion !
Ho hum....
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 5:10pm Wed 4 Jun 08
ps: John J - belated or not, your good wishes are much appreciated.
ps: John J - belated or not, your good wishes are much appreciated.
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 5:11pm Wed 4 Jun 08
[quote][bold]chris walker[/bold] wrote:
<i> John J Sheridan
While I understand some of your pessimism, I retain a certain robust optimism My hope lies in the lack of homogeneity among and within the Abrahamic faiths. The great majority of Muslims want little to do with the extremism of, for example, the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. Islamophobia thrives on the daft notion that there is only one kind of Islam. That's why it's a phobia, as well as historically ridiculous.. Put it another way Iraq was a completely different cultural experience, for me anyway, than Saudi.
Christianity, too, is a heterogeneous phenomenon, especially in Northern Europe, where it is contained within a secular framework of governance - I would argue that on balance it is a force for good.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" (John McLean). So, nae despair, pal - its upwards and onwards, JJ, with plenty still to play for, and I say that at 70.</i>[/quote] Thanks Chris !
I will try to let your good sense and optimism wash over me.......but I am a natural pessimist and sceptic!
Besides....I quite like the grumpy old man thing...very liberating!
chris walker wrote:
<i> John J Sheridan
While I understand some of your pessimism, I retain a certain robust optimism My hope lies in the lack of homogeneity among and within the Abrahamic faiths. The great majority of Muslims want little to do with the extremism of, for example, the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. Islamophobia thrives on the daft notion that there is only one kind of Islam. That's why it's a phobia, as well as historically ridiculous.. Put it another way Iraq was a completely different cultural experience, for me anyway, than Saudi.
Christianity, too, is a heterogeneous phenomenon, especially in Northern Europe, where it is contained within a secular framework of governance - I would argue that on balance it is a force for good.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" (John McLean). So, nae despair, pal - its upwards and onwards, JJ, with plenty still to play for, and I say that at 70.</i>
Thanks Chris !
I will try to let your good sense and optimism wash over me.......but I am a natural pessimist and sceptic!
Besides....I quite like the grumpy old man thing...very liberating!
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (125)
