351. Beware the Believers

Comment #155374 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Steve:

A sperm and egg that have not yet come into contact also have the full genetic code, and the qualities necessary to gestate into a baby.

Not so... they are not capable of gestation without having successfully combined and affixed the resulting embryo in the womb.

352. Beware the Believers

Comment #155370 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 11:58 am

MaxD, post #572

Complaints about promiscuity, bits about "responsiblity" and the like led me to believe I understood your notion of responsiblity. Namily that you thought anyone who got preggers needed to take care of the baby that could pop out. That is any possible conceptus must be taken to term because clearly a zygote has rights that trump the person carrying it. And clearly I was right about that.
Two points to me.

Nope. Two demerits.

I have repeatedly stated that I believe that it should not only be legal for a woman to choose abortion, but that in some cases it might be the best moral decision among bad choices.

You are entirely disingenuous and I now move you into the category of people that are not worth talking to.

Bye Bye.

353. Beware the Believers

Comment #155368 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 11:56 am

Annabanana, post #573:

Don't say things you don't mean.

I've meant everything I said.

I protested when Cartomancer, and then Dr. Benway, implied that I think people that get abortions are "murderers".

Subsequently, Steve played his game in posts #553 (clouding the issue by telling me that I can't rule out that tumors might be human) and #559 (ignoring the obvious implication of my statement with a crude parry). I then called him an artless dodger, which is slightly ad-hominem, but an accurate description of the behavior in question.

Then Quetzalcoatl jumped in with a single sentence dismissal of my point of view (subsequently edited), and I responded in an appropriate way, given the circumstances. That is hardly "ugly", like inappropriately putting words like "murder" in my mouth.

As for your third quote, I cannot understand how that would be "ugly" either... I don't understand their position.


You follow it up with this gem:

The last, I would argue, is the worst. He may as well have come out and said that he thinks Cartomancer and Quetzalcoatl are immoral.

Say what? As far as I know they are not attempting to persuade anyone to get a late-term abortion, or getting one them self. We are having a discussion about ethics. It would be illogical to conclude that anyone is immoral simply because they disagree with me... but that is apparently the position you are taking.

Do you think it is "ugly" for me to point out that you are being illogical?

354. Beware the Believers

Comment #155367 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 11:56 am

Quetzalcoatl, post #571:

I edited my original comment almost straight after I posted it. You probably missed that.

Indeed. Nice trick to secure your place in the queue. One of the problems with allowing editing of posts is the potential confusion of responses. I am as guilty as anyone, though I try to confine my editing to clarification or correction of typos. Overall I am impressed with this forum software... is it phpBB 3.0.x?

355. Beware the Believers

Comment #155366 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 11:55 am

Cartomancer, post #566:

I have already stated my criterion. Sentience, including the ability to feel pain. Inasmuch as a 35-week old foetus can suffer, it should be afforded some rights. Inasmuch as it cannot, it remains merely a collection of alien cells to be nurtured or disposed of as necessary.

So if I get into a car accident and end up in a coma, you should feel free to kill me since I'm nothing but an unfeeling collection of cells? That's harsh dude. I might make it. I refuse to write you into my living will.

More importantly, what happens to the 35 week old fetus that is then born premature? Does transiting the birth canal suddenly impart inviolable rights, or do you think that it is no-big deal to kill preemies?


I see your answer in post #570:

...the moral question is not nearly that simple. Even once the foetus is capable of suffering, there is still the negative impact of carrying the pregnancy to term on the well-being of the mother to consider. I even think it should be seriously discussed whether the quality of life the prospective child will lead should not be a factor - is it moral to insist that a child be born into crippling poverty and almost inevitable death rather than offer a late abortion to prevent the suffering? Is it moral to do that even if you know the mother will probably expose or abandon the child anyway? Morality is never simply black and white in the real world.

Quite. That is why we aren't talking about laws. However, it is interesting to note that you would argue that abortion might be the moral choice depending on potential future circumstances, but that it could never be immoral based on potential future circumstances. I wonder what you think about that observation...

356. Beware the Believers

Comment #155364 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 11:55 am

Steve, post #563:

If you have some clear definition of what is and isn't human, and when it arises, I would seriously like to see it.

Good Lord. I'm not gonna define the term "human" for a biologist.

Throw me a bone, and tell me what you think it means to be human, Steve. Or better yet, lets cut to the chase and tell me when you think that a fetus becomes a human being... is it at birth?


Ah... I see in post #569:

I am curious as to when I believe this becomes immoral.

So you are unsure, but I take it you think that partial-birth abortion is morally wrong (remember we are not discussing laws, but morals here).


My opinion is that it is immoral from the day of conception, but that the degree of immorality increases as the fetus develops. By the time that there is a functioning nervous system, it reaches the point of drastic cruelty and should only be undertaken if the alternative of carrying on with the pregnancy is even more dire. Since that is a judgment call, I would generally leave it up to the woman. But once the fetus gets past the point of independent survivability I would say that the only mitigating factor should be a danger to the survival or long term health of the mother.

357. Beware the Believers

Comment #155363 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 11:54 am

Again with Cartomancer, post #558:

Please explain why the tumour does not qualify but the conceptus does. All you have done so far is simply assert this by fiat. If you want to afford the one human rights but not the other then you need a valid basis on which to make the discrimination.

The conceptus not only has a full genetic code for a human (at some point in the first day), but it also possesses the qualities necessary to gestate into a baby, which I hope you'll agree is a human with full rights. The cancerous tumor possesses neither of these properties, an neither, for that matter, does a skin cell or any other part of my body that you might suggest we could chop off without violating my rights.

So your question has been answered, an coupled with my explanation above that future possibilities are in fact ethically relevant, we can now stop this ridiculous talk about tumors.

358. Beware the Believers

Comment #155361 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 11:52 am

OK, I'm back.

Since we haven't finished the discussion of abortion, I'll have to wait to deal with the first two paragraphs of comment number #546 by Cartomancer. It is a pity, because I find that topic more interesting, but I should stick to the main current of the conversation, since I am already engaged with four and a half opponents.

First let me pick up a loose end. Cartomancer, comment #551:

There is a realistic chance I could be a heart surgeon. Does this mean it is immoral for me not to do everything in my power to become such a surgeon? Is the government immoral for not providing the finances and compelling me to do this?

It is inappropriate to compare the ethics of you deciding for yourself what you wish to do with your life, with the ethics of whether someone should terminate the life of another.

There is no equivalence. The question is not whether you should strive or the government should promote your noble career choice, but rather you should terminate someone life. Your example falls flat on its face.

A better analogy would be to consider whether we should pull the plug on your respirator when there is a decent chance that you might recover your mental faculties after a terrible accident. I'd say that it would be immoral not to provide temporary assistance to your body to recover your sentience.

I might commit suicide tomorrow. I have a realistic chance of becoming a corpse. Does that mean it is immoral not to bury me today?

Well, you're at least grasping that this involves killing rather than career planning. The next step is that you understand we are discussing killing someone else.

You simply cannot take a prospective future possibility for suffering as an argument for compelling action in the here and now.

I'm not. I am talking about a prospective future possibility of living a life... and it sounds like you would vote to pull the plug on the respirator because the comatose patient is taking up bed space that could be used for someone who is fully alert.

In the here and now that collection of cells is just that - a small, unthinking, unfeeling blob of protoplasm. It is not a baby. It has less sentience than a headlouse. That is the "individual" we are dealing with.

I'll respond to this even though I have just finished demolishing your argument against consideration of future possibilities.

What you should carefully consider is that there are some humans who sadly have less capacity for emotion and intellect than a chimp in a lab. Should we use them for experimentation instead, since they are less sentient and their physiology is even closer to our own?

359. Beware the Believers

Comment #155149 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:47 am

I've gotta scoot now. I'll be back later.

Just so I'm clear when I come back, it seems that Cartomancer and possibly Quetzalcoatl are asserting that it is not immoral to kill a "conceptus"...

I am curious when they believe it becomes immoral to kill a fetus, if at all.

360. Beware the Believers

Comment #155142 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:44 am

That point is irrelevant to the specifics of what is being discussed.

LOL. You seem to really believe you are a god.

Try qualifying your statement with an explanation of why it is not relevant. Some time prior to birth, we afford the fetus human rights. I know this because it is double-murder to kill a pregnant woman.

So either you think that is bad law, or you and Cartomancer need to get a bit more specific in your qualifications. A 35 week old fetus is a "collection of alien cells" inside a womans body. You yourself are a collection of cells. Just because something is a collection of cells is not the issue.

361. Beware the Believers

Comment #155135 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:38 am

Steve, you are the artless dodger.

That is my opinion, and now we are discussing it.

But you said that I am not "in a position simply to state what is and isn't an individual human."

I am certainly in a position to state that a tumor, or a daisy is not a human. Don't be pedantic.

362. Beware the Believers

Comment #155129 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:34 am

If a tumour is not an individual human being then the conceptus is not an individual human being either. It is, like the tumour, a collection of alien cells in the body of an actual human being.

Yes... do you also think that a 35 week fetus is just a collection of alien cells, Cartomancer?

~~~

When you are carelessly making assertions, such as saying that "the conceptus is not an individual human being", it does not improve your case to note the assertions of your opponent.

363. Beware the Believers

Comment #155119 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:25 am

The question of what is an individual human is under discussion, so you aren't in a position simply to state what is and isn't an individual human.

Sweet Jesus, help me out here. I think we need a pot of coffee for the whole room.

I don't claim knowledge of when a human individual develops from an embryo. But I feel pretty safe in saying that a tumor is not entitled to human rights. Neither are your discarded skin flakes, or red herrings for that matter.

Try to stay on the ball folks.

364. Beware the Believers

Comment #155114 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:21 am

Typically, a fertilized egg hasn't a realistic chance of becoming a baby outside the womb. Most are rejected.

Uhhh, Steve that is just grasping at straws. How did you get here if your embryo did not have a realistic chance. Let's not be ridiculous.

365. Beware the Believers

Comment #155112 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:19 am

Just FYI, in case you aren't aware: the process of IFV requires the development of several embryos, and thus the necessary "murder" of several embryos.

Quite true, although I'd appreciate it if folks stopped trying to put the word "murder" into my mouth. It's like you want this to get ugly. I don't play that game.

IFV cannot disqualify RvW for the reason that you mention.

366. Beware the Believers

Comment #155107 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:16 am

[Edit] this refers to your last post on page 11.

Wow Cartomancer... it's too bad I don't have time at the moment to debate those doozies. I'll be sure to come back later and take on your first two remarkable paragraphs.

As for your contention that womens' bodies "murder" children, I think that you need to rethink matters. Both "murder" and "kill" are ethically charged words, and a biological process does not qualify as an ethical agent. A lion, which has some degree of agency, could not be said to murder you.

And while a cancerous tumor may be an individual cancer, it is not an individual human and therefore is irrelevant to a discussion surrounding human rights.

I suggest that you get a cup of coffee, and I'll be back later to answer your Quixotic assertions about religion and science.

367. Beware the Believers

Comment #155099 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 7:08 am

How long does it take for the genetic code to be determined?

As for clones, I see that as no different from identical twins, from a moral perspective. They are both independent individuals, even if their genetic code is not unique.

It is not immoral to decide not to make a clone, just like there is nothing wrong with me deciding not to impregnate various women I meet. This is the difference between a hypothetical being and one that has an realistic chance of becoming a baby outside of the womb.

If you did create a clone of an embryo, it would be wrong to kill that clone. That is why I am opposed to cloning of humans, and why I am nervous about cloning of other species.

368. Beware the Believers

Comment #155092 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 6:55 am

ForestMist,

I make it on the basis that I think killing innocents is wrong. I felt this way before I became religious.

I generally don't need God to tell me what is right or wrong, although I have often prayed to appeal for guidance when the situation is ambiguous.

Everyone has an internal sense of morality, and hopefully they act based on that code as often as possible.

The moral utility of religion is in establishing an objective standard so that we may collectively evaluate the behavior of others with something better than the group think that often leads to genocidal catastrophes.

369. Beware the Believers

Comment #155089 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 6:47 am

Hey Steve. Doing well, I hope?

I don't know when the individual starts (in their own mind), but I am pretty sure based on experience that it is no sooner than a child's first birthday. My daughter (4 months old) clearly does not grasp that she is a separate being from her mother.

Of course, if you take an outsiders perspective, the individual is created at the moment that the egg is fertilized and the genetic code for that being is determined.

Why do you ask?

370. Beware the Believers

Comment #155085 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 6:44 am

Enlightenme...

Kill means to deliberately terminate a life. Why is this difficult to understand?

Certainly, a day old human has no nervous system, and therefore is not likely to feel pain. That is a mitigating factor, but by no means does it overshadow the fact that that embryo could develop into a person like you and me. We're not talking about some skin cells here... we're talking about the beginning stages of a human with rights.

Of course, the mother also has rights... I am an uneasy supporter of the RvW decision that balances the rights of the mother against the fetus... until the fetus is old enough to survive without that particular mother, her rights to her body trump the rights of the unborn. But that condition is already tested by the reality of in vitro fertilization of surrogates. And medical science continues to push the boundaries of the age at which a fetus can be born.

371. Beware the Believers

Comment #155083 by Kardashovel on April 4, 2008 at 6:34 am

Alright MaxD.

I don't personally have any negative connotations about the word 'tryst', and I am unsure why you would seize on one word in contrast to the rest of what I wrote. But there is no point in arguing it; I'm thinking you've understood me now.

372. Beware the Believers

Comment #154860 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Simply because nature intended for it doesn't lend it any moral crediblity.

Dude... you either aren't reading what I've written or you are shell shocked from some bad experience with religious people.

I'm not saying that we should take our guidance from nature about which sexual acts are morally permissible... I'm saying that when men and women have sex they need to consider the possibility of pregnancy, which might create a morally hazardous situation if one or both of the partners is not ready to be a parent.

For example, the "typical use" per-year pregnancy rate of condoms is around 15%, and the "perfect use" per-year pregnancy rate is 2%... Either way, people that engage in intercourse with condoms for a few years with one or more partners are not unlikely to find themselves in a situation where the woman gets to make a grisly choice.

Now you may think that it is no big deal to deliberately kill a "day old" embryo, much less a second-trimester fetus. I don't share that view. I think abortion is immoral and that has nothing specifically to do with what is "natural".

~~~

And "brave words signifying nothing" means that you are tilting at windmills, and you would be better served to dig up Jerry Falwell's corpse and have your argument with him.

373. Beware the Believers

Comment #154837 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 7:34 pm

What's the official line on antique seventeenth-century crossbows that have been modified to fire surplus cutlery?

I'd need to call my bookie if you want the official line... but even without consultation I'd give you odds of 12 slugs to one spork.

374. Beware the Believers

Comment #154811 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Corylus:

Do you think there is any difference; in terms of the phallic connotations; between those that own rifles (the tool for the job in terms of hunting for food, if you eat meat) and those that own handguns??

Handguns seem to me to particularly relevant to this question as they appear so designed for fingers.

Thoughts?

Well, bigger is definitely better, if you're trying to compensate with a weapon. I'm thinking shotgun is the tool for projecting that image...

Some people hunt with handguns, but the primary purposes of a handgun are for concealed carry and close quarters combat.

Shotguns and rifles take a bit more time to point in the direction you want... which is why people saw off the shotguns or go for a carbine.

For home defense, I would argue that handgun is the best option in many situations. And for concealed carry, of course, there is no substitute.

Personally, I don't eat mammals or birds, so I look at guns as tools for protection, as well as an enjoyable hobby. I live in an area where it is very unlikely that I will need such protection (currently), so it is more of a question of maintaining a skill set that I don't hope to require.

But Goldy is right: there is something very satisfying about hitting what you aim at...

375. Beware the Believers

Comment #154809 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Goldy:

Kardy, long time no hear. Still talking to God?

Yes... but not getting any verbal responses.

I like Kardy too - he's OK. Can be annoying, but then so can my wife and daughter.

Let's just hope I can avoid their fate then...

:P

376. Beware the Believers

Comment #154805 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Dr. Benway

Your opinion, or God's?

If we're talking about your opinion, we may find areas of agreement. If you're representing God's opinion, we have a problem.

How on earth could I presume to speak for God? That is madness.

I speak for myself.

377. Beware the Believers

Comment #154803 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm

We do legislate morality...

Murder is illegal. As is rape and theft are.

How can you say we don't or shouldn't legislate morality.

We should not legislate religious morality.

Hmmmn. Well, I always thought of these laws as being derived from the axiom that the government should preserve and protect each citizen's life, liberty, and property, as Locke put it. Is this a moral framework? Perhaps...

I will agree that we should not legislate religious morality, but confine moral legislation to the axioms agreed to in our constitution. Of course, the vast majority of laws are amoral, as it should be.

378. Beware the Believers

Comment #154750 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 4:47 pm

What's the difference between a Christian blow job and, say, an atheist blow job?

The atheist will bite you if you call out to God during your rapture.

379. Beware the Believers

Comment #154612 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 2:01 pm

That is a relief. I enjoy talking to many of you as well.

380. Beware the Believers

Comment #154587 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 1:28 pm

What's up, Goldy!

381. Beware the Believers

Comment #154584 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Hi annabannanna.

I hope you aren't referring to me. I was not sent anywhere, and I think that I engaged your arguments with respect.

BTW, your new avatar is even more lovely than the old one.

382. Beware the Believers

Comment #154577 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 1:17 pm

MaxD

Uh....what are you talking about? Who pays attention to their pastor. They just ask forgiveness on sunday. And the Pastor goes and finds someone to ask forgiveness for when they get out of line. Look at all the great success religion has had at legislating morality (and yes like Doc Benway said, that is kind of what it does). I would submit that it hasn't been terribly successful on that front.

These days, very few pay attention to their pastor, which is just as well because very few pastors are worth listening to. On the other hand, religion was quite successful at bringing about prohibitions against infanticide, organized charity, and guarantees of free will, free speech, and equality in the eyes of the law. You know... civilization.

Moreover the way you phrase your moral outrage indicates the religious tendency to have outrage but no real rational, or thought behind it.

Brave words signifying nothing... What moral outrage have I expressed?

Your last comment about promiscuity without consequences is a perfect case in point. Why is sex bad? Is it bad in all cases? When should people have sex, and why does one think the way they do about it. The religious conception of sexual relations is easily one of its most terribly backward and rigid dogmas.

Sex is definitely good, at least for me. But there is no such thing as perfect birth control, so when people have sex they should consider the consequence that nature intended for their tryst. Since there is always the possibility of pregnancy due to heterosexual liaisons, people should not indulge unless they are ready to take the responsibility of caring for their offspring.

Religion has nothing to do with that... it is simply biology, and the universally accepted standard that killing innocents as a matter of convenience is wrong. It may be even more wrong to bring them into the world under certain circumstances, which is why I am a cautious supporter of the limited legal permissibility of women to have abortions… but make no mistake that choosing to have an abortion is choosing, at best, a lesser evil.

Modern sex ed ought to do more to educate people about healthy relationships and safe sex, and responsible sex than trying to instill the morality of some backwards cult's breeding explosion plans.

I quite agree, with the emphasis on responsibility.

The religious ideas about sex are causeing us to not discuss the problem sensibly but rather to couch it in terms of moral outrage and sin.
Isn't that just a bit silly?

How have I caused anyone to avoid a sensible discussion of the issue? Because I think that it is a bad thing when an abortion happens?

You addressed me, but your problem is with Jerry Falwell, or someone else. Take it up with them.

383. Beware the Believers

Comment #154562 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Bonzai

This would be a problem for Christians only because they have to accept that Jesus didn't lie. But from a secular point of view it is easy to see why he said that. What Jesus did apparently was to subvert Judaism rather than declaring war on it. So he had to say he "fulfilled" the laws of the OT even though he actually disregarded them or reinterpreted them in a way unrecognizable to the religious Jews.

First of all, Jesus said to uphold the law, not the punishments. In fact, since you are all biblical scholars, I'm sure that I do not need to provide a quote about the famous incident wherein he interceded when the people wished to stone an adulterous woman.

Secondly it should be noted that the Torah laws were meant to apply to Jews, and not to gentiles. Gentiles that lived in Israel were expected to adhere to the Noahide laws, which are considerably more reasonable for the everyday life of those not claiming to be God's archetypal people.

384. Beware the Believers

Comment #154561 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 12:51 pm

MPhil:

Of course I expected such a reply.

Then why would you plate such a rancid meal when you knew I would just send it back to the kitchen?

And - while some of the quotes are taken out of context on that site, by far the most aren't. Especially the ones about violence and cruelty in the Bible, - furthermore I'm not going to let you off so easily.

That's rich. I stopped reading after the first couple of points, because it was clear that the author of that screed lacked any sense of intellectual honesty. Why continue reading? Three strikes and you're out.

Your source sucks, as I demonstrated above by analyzing the first three links given (ie. not cherry picked, but the first three links). If you disagree, then why don't you wade through their vacuous chatter and choose some of Jesus' statements that you consider to be demeaning to women. I will agree to hear you out, but I won't shoulder your burden after you held up such a pathetic resource as your challenge.

On the other hand, if you think the source is unimpeachable, then answer my criticisms above and show me you aren't hopelessly lazy.

385. Beware the Believers

Comment #154560 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 12:49 pm

First point: Religious organizations are power structures like the state. They have their rules, which are like laws. People get disfellowshiped, excommunicated, defrocked, shunned, etc., as a consequence to breaking their policies. That looks like "legislating morality" to me.

Not like the state, unless they are a monopoly on force. In those situations, we have a theocracy. But here in America, I do not fear that my coreligionists will jail me if I don't tithe. So really they are quite different. Religious affiliations are voluntary.

Secondly, religions generally claim that God wants us to behave in a certain manner. But God never shows up to the debate. What we get instead are his self-appointed spokespersons.

On the contrary, God did show up and debated the existing religious authorities. They nailed Him to a cross, and he let it happen, because He had no interest in compelling others through force.

Thirdly, once someone believes God wants something, there's no talking with them. There's no way to move the conflict forward toward resolution without violence or political force in some manner. And that's too bad in the case of many of the things God is alleged to want, such as genital mutilation, prayer instead of medicine, etc.

You are talking with me, and I with you. It would fundamentally violate my principles to force you to behave in any particular way, unless you violate my rights, freedom, or safety.

Fourth, why not be honest. We feel what is right within us. Let's admit that our morality is simply an expression of what we want. Then we can negotiate as equals.

Hmmm. God has written it on our hearts? The problem with this way of thinking is that much of peoples moral 'feelings' are absorbed by their surrounding culture. And some cultures' moral norms, religious or otherwise, are abominable.

386. Beware the Believers

Comment #154322 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 5:21 am

Especially Paul is a misogynistic bastard

There is a reason that I phrased my question the way that I did.

I am troubled by much of what Paul says. But most of all because he says that Jesus' teachings could be distilled into the golden rule, when in fact Jesus also explained that we must love God with all our hearts.

387. Beware the Believers

Comment #154316 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 5:14 am

What tripe. I'm surprised that someone of your intellect would pass off that nonsense as an actual rebuttal.

Let's examine the first three links:

1) "Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that. Mathew 5:32, 19:9"

Mathew 5:32: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Where does this indicate that Jesus does not care about male adultery? In fact, Jesus says to keep the law, and there is a commandment against adultery that applies equally to men and women. Moreover, this passage is quoted out of context:

Mathew 5:31: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:"

So Jesus is moderating the unfair oral law of the Jews, and he refers to "wives" because of the context.

2) Mathew 19:9: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

It clearly says that the man is guilty of fornication, MPhil. The person who wrote this trash is just vapid. Does their disingenuity continue? Let's see...


3)"When Jesus' mother wants to see him, Jesus asks, "Who is my mother?""

Talk about grasping at straws.

Mathew 12:47-49: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!"

Yeah, Jesus is full of hate for Mary. Give me a break.

~~~

MPhil, have you ever read the actual bible, or just quarter-baked bible criticism like this junk.

Bring the a-game, man.

388. Beware the Believers

Comment #154302 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 4:40 am

they had a lot more respect for women and that they were granted more freedom, and could enter into positions other than maid, whore or farmer's wife :) (high priestess for example :) than under Judaism, Islam - or Christianity.

Surely you jest. Do you believe that just any Roman girl could hope to be a Vestal Virgin? And how much freedom do you think those priestesses had?

Moreover, what is it about Jesus' teachings that limits the role of women in society?

389. Beware the Believers

Comment #154299 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 4:31 am

I wrote a lengthy propaganda paper all about "The Exalted Status of Women in Islam" when I was far less of a doubting Muslimah than I am now, so I know all about that line of thought!

Probably a great deal more that I will ever know. Now it seems primitive, but at the time, in pagan Arabia, it must have been very convincing.

I don't want to bash Islam unfairly (but of course "unfairness" is in the eye of the beholder!), since the Islamic tradition still means quite a lot to me, even though I have to say I now find the religion to be completely logically indefensible (though not without a certain emotional attachment).

Naturally. How can anyone entirely reject their culture and still breath their air?

But at the same time I'm not going to defend things I don't believe in, such as women inheriting half of what men do, polygny but no polyandry, the obsession with (usually) female virginity, the emphasis on being a wife and mother to the exclusion of all other female occupations, assorted "women must obey their husbands/fathers" rules, the branding of menstruating women as "unclean," etc.

For what it is worth, I think that women should have equal rights and protection under the law, in a secular state. Unfortunately, as I understand it, there is no compatibility between Islam and a secular state, and if Islam makes the law, women are kind of screwed, no?

I do not believe that we should legislate morality; so I believe that religions, properly separated from the state, are our best hope of encouraging moral behavior. It would be far preferable, in my mind, had American men listened to their pastors and quit their wanton philandering; likewise I cannot understand the pride that some women have in the achievement of the general acceptance of promiscuity without consequence.

390. Beware the Believers

Comment #154288 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 4:14 am

You are an a-hole. Why do you post here?

Well, for the scintillating conversation, of course.

Perhaps you could join us... or at least elevate the quality of your vituperation.

391. Beware the Believers

Comment #154287 by Kardashovel on April 3, 2008 at 4:13 am

MPhil: Actually I was joking, as righton correctly surmised. But I think you might pull a hamstring with you assertion that the Greeks and Romans were bastions of female equality; although it is ironic that a pillar of modern feminism is establishing the right for women to be as proudly hedonistic as men are reputed to be.

Sadly, this equality of action does not smooth over the differences in biology, and women are left to "take care of the problem" in record numbers. The bitter irony reaches a crescendo as gender selection again rears its ugly head, although at least women can now avoid the pain of birth prior to their rightful decision that kills their daughters.

I'm surprised that you neglected to mention the role of Christianity in improving the lot of Greek and Roman women. Worshiping hedonism is certainly exciting, but it does have somewhat unbalanced consequences when it comes to the sexes, wouldn't you agree?

392. Beware the Believers

Comment #154203 by Kardashovel on April 2, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Islam made much headway by decrying the slaughter of female infants and promoting modesty of appearance, which would appeal to the vast majority of women that resented their relative inability to benefit from revealing their faces, and the solid majority of women that justifiably felt their newborn daughters were worth the trouble of pregnancy and labor.

In his time Mohammad was a great feminist, in shrewd support of his crusade to reduce worship to one god, for whom he graciously interceded. Sadly, he didn't realize that girls just want to have fun.

We've come a long way, baby.

393. Beware the Believers

Comment #154180 by Kardashovel on April 2, 2008 at 7:57 pm

What happened to that Daicanu chap?

He would have immediately seen this vid for what it is.

394. Beware the Believers

Comment #154166 by Kardashovel on April 2, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Quite right, Layla.

God said "No."
Abe said "What?"

God said, "You can do what you want, Abe, but the next time you see me coming you'd better run."

Abe said "Where do you want this killing done?"
God said "Out on Highway 61."

Here, for example.

Layla, do you keep bees?

395. Beware the Believers

Comment #154071 by Kardashovel on April 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm

He may prefer that you lose...

God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son."
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin me on."

396. Beware the Believers

Comment #154068 by Kardashovel on April 2, 2008 at 1:58 pm

What's up al-rawandi?

Did you hear God talking to you yet?

397. Beware the Believers

Comment #154060 by Kardashovel on April 2, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I think that this thread is even funnier than the video. Nice work!

398. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124252 by Kardashovel on February 8, 2008 at 11:20 pm

OK folks. Sorry for the core dump, but I wanted to answer some of the flak I took after my last appearance. I tried to be specific about to whom I was responding.

Sorry to leave the flow... I got the Big Kahuna.

399. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124251 by Kardashovel on February 8, 2008 at 11:18 pm

1906. Comment #123751 by MPhil on February 7, 2008 at 3:19 pm

That's the one argument I always bring up with theists and dualists or proponents of the classical concept of free-will. Nothing that isn't a physical entity/event can cause a physical entity/event. Actually, I think I made that point in my post commenting on Kardashovel :)

If you deny that, you deny physics - the discussion is over.

Yes, well limiting ourselves to the current understanding of physics, we can see that measurement by a conscious observer (with free will) can induce non-causal interactions, with no known mediator, and instantaneously, for all we can determine. It is merely by the act of paying attention to the path data that the quantum eraser reveals an interference pattern or not, even if the path data is examined well after the measurement is made.

Anyway, as I keep saying, God is definitely physical and real... not metaphysical.

400. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124250 by Kardashovel on February 8, 2008 at 11:17 pm

1898. Comment #123736 by MPhil on February 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The immutability-argument was one of the things I was thinking about, because I can really see no way around that, because there is no way in which 'immutability' can be used to describe an entity that is also described as having desires, as being capable of any any transition from one state to the other - like from being punishing and intervening to loving and hidden, being capable of making a decision etc.

I think this is just a matter of perspective. God clearly changes if He participates in the creation, which He does many times in the bible, and all the time through the Holy Spirit. But, given the ability for God to be anywhere at anytime (using that lovely worm hole we discussed), the same God could talk to Abraham that spoke to Moses… in that sense He is immutable. Much ado about nothing.