I am a Christian. However, I don't attend church, because I'm not very social. On the other hand I keep God close to my heart. I am a sinner, and my heart is full of regrets. I feel that every day I find a new way to spit on all I have been given and I just can't turn back some things. So I feel the need for salvation. I believe Jesus came to earth to show us the dangers of ``amor sui', and is our savior. I certainly accept him as my savior.
Is anyone else here a Christian? I imagine most of you are atheists, agnostics or of other religions. This is ok with me, as I understand it is what is fashionable amongst young people these days. However, I'm always happy when I meet a fellow Christian in an unexpected place :)
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-14 12:21
I know a guy named Christian, but I'm not one myself
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-14 14:01
>>1 I'm Christian, but like you have difficulty dealing with people and don't attend church. Remember that repentance is the opposite of regret: if God has forgiven you for something, once you've decided it was a sin, then there's no reason not to forgive yourself.
Jesus' main lesson was about love, and loving yourself is not a bad thing. "Amor sui" in the sense of screwing others over is bad, but you're going to have a tough time loving life and others if you don't allow yourself to love yourself. That sentence sounded better in my head but I don't know how else to phrase it. Anyway, my point is that you basically can't go wrong with genuine love. Even if you screw up, at least you were trying. Much of the other trappings of religion can get you away from that, which I think is dangerous.
as I understand it is what is fashionable amongst young people these days.
Sadly, yes. I've met some people who have ``outgrown'' atheism. They must be the same people who get a fairly attractive woman to like them and leave the wizard thing in the past.
I feel that every day I find a new way to spit on all I have been given and I just can't turn back some things. So I feel the need for salvation.
Why do you even care? From your point of view, no matter how hard you screw things up you are practically guaranteed to have an afterlife (possibly a quite dis-pleasurable one, but still an afterlife); with that in mind, you can lead a merry and practically carefree life, knowing that even if you don't do your very best in this world, it doesn't really matter since it's just a transition to the next world, for you and for everyone else. Earthly life is just the waiting room to the afterlife: you can read a few magazines, you can check your email, you can talk with the other people waiting there.
All that to say: is it just me or atheist oblivion is far far scarier than Christian hell.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-14 17:09
Jesus was a Jew, and actually his name was ישוע !
>>3 Yay cool! Hi! Glad to know you're here fellow Christian /prog/rider
Now in response to the other things you wrote,
I am but man, not God. So even if I know God will forgive me (or has already, it doesn't matter), I can still have trouble forgiving myself. I forget, recognize and move on (I do not dwell), but forgive? sometimes, other times it can be very difficult. I try forgive others to my fullest (even that not always), and I find this hard sometimes too. It's easy to say you forgive someone but have you really forgiven them if you're repressing feelings of distrust and hurt? This is one of the reasons I admire our Lord so much. I can't fathom the kind of love and courage you must have to be able to forgive everyone of all their sins. Actually forgive them! How far us men are from all that!
Time helps. Remembering Jesus's example, love and forgiveness of all the wrongs I (we) do, also helps. The trouble is I don't always have Him on my mind. Even as I type this it feels like lip service. I know God is always with us but just how open is my heart to him right now?
A wise man, interperting St. Augustine told me "Without amor dei, there is only amor sui". This is what led me to (re)discover my Christianity (which had been lost when I was a teenager). So this phrase has special significance to myself and my faith.
The great scholar himself put it thus: ``Fecerunt itaque civitates duas amores duo, terrenam scilicet amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei, caelestem vero amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui.''
Scripture is meant to be read philosophically, in all religions. Furthermore translation after translation has warped some of the meanings heavily.
English Bible(s) are a (many times not direct) translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is itself a translation of the Hebrew Tanakh.
Jewish folk are Semites, and most of their religion is taken from the beliefs of the inhabitants of ancient Iraq, which was called Sumer, and its people Sumerians. Related people are Akkadians, Babylonians, etc, which are even referenced in the canon.
Even the hieroglyphic-like alphabet of the Sumerians gives clues, such as the cuneiform "Dingir", which means both "Heaven/Heavens", "Deity/God/Gods", and "Star", consistent with their beliefs that their Gods came down from the Heavens/Stars, as well as words/names like "Adamu", which means "Created Man" (Adam being taken from this in Hebrew, which means "First Man"), and is the name in Sumerian mythology for the first man, created by "Enki", the creator god and inventor of civilization.
Think about the fact that the writing system of Sumerians existed about 4000 years before Christ was born, and most of their mythology / beliefs developed around that time as well, at most between 4000BC and 1000BC.
In conclusion, Christianity is only a modified version of Judaism which is itself a modernized version of Sumerian mythology, with some other elements throw in from various philosophies and religions around the world.
I much prefer eastern philosophies such as Taoism, it's mostly the "real" underlying message of all other religions but without all the deities and nonsense.
Oh, and to add, I seriously don't understand why people don't just accept that knowing whether "God" exists or not is absolutely impossible. Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism are all imbecilities, there isn't "knowing there is / knowing there isn't / not being sure". No, there only thing you can be sure of is that it's impossible to know, unless this Universe actually receives information from outside of the Universe itself, and if that's the case, the creator of this Universe must be a shitty mathematician because that fucks up all the laws of entropy, thermodynamics, etc, that govern any sort of stable or working systems.
A being capable of creating Universes would surely welcome and/or respect this line of thought. As a programmer/mathematician, you should be free from belief and only arrive at concepts using logical deduction, and base as little of it as possible on your faulty perceptions of reality.
>>11 It is possible to prove the existence of god if god decides to interfere with the world and make eir existence known in a rather earth-shattering and physically-impossible manner.
>>11 God is a man-made creation. I don't seen any point on discussing that. "We will never know" is accepting the legacy of a few niggers who thought the sun and potatoes were life-making fairies, and lumping that with the current developments in logic and philosophy. Associating a fuckton of symbolism from our ancestors
Sorry if I sound like an ebin reddit fuck, but it's been a good while (probably decades) since I last partook in a redditargument. Feel free to point out any errors in my retort; I'd like to know if I'm saying something really stupid but it's unlikely I'll reply with another retort because these conversations are fucking pointless and it'll take another 10 years to recharge my inner reddit.
>>16 Don't refer to it as "God". I think we can be fairly sure that the "God" depicted in, say, Christianity is just lunacy.
In that post, I meant a "creator" in general, in the same way that if you were able to run Universal simulations, and if you programmed that simulation, you would be the "God", or creator of that simulation.
The point is, we will never know if the Universe was created by someone/something for a reason or whether is just exists by some mechanism that will likely forever elude us until the end of time.
Regardless, when discussing about the "reality" of concepts at this level (i.e., what exists outside/before/after the Universe) realize that everything you know or perceive is a "man-made" creation for you are just a information processing system that creates its own understanding of the world. For all we know, you could be "God" (the creator of this simulation) running through it yourself because you feel like it.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-14 22:20
>>16 I'll reply with a bunch of random thoughts and go nowhere cause I don't intend to discuss this anymore either.
I can't see any ``errors'' in your retort.
You're probably sophisticated enough to see a clear distinction between the symbol which represents a number number and a number itself (or any other such examples). Well, you can say some symbol e.g. '4' is a man made creation but saying the number that symbol represents is man made too, is, to me, ludicrous.
It's not something that just exists in your head. It's something that exists period. It's not physical, you can't touch it, see it, taste it, or hear it, but it exists anyway. You can know it exists with certainty.
With the same certaintiy I know God exists, and I know my soul exists.
So, to me, its not about finding some set of morals or ethics and knowing what's ``good'' in this way, it's about discovering God. This is the ``amor sui'' vs ``amor dei'' thing. If there is no God, if deities are just some relic of ancient symbolism or whatever, then all you have left is love of self. You are God in your own head and you have the power to create and destroy all the gods you please (sort of like the very amusing take on religion and gods in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels (and numerous video games))
To me Christian theology is by far the most sophisticated, and aside from that I truly do believe Jesus was God and that God came to earth to guide us and that God, Jesus and the Holy spirit are all one holy union. I understand this sounds borderline insane to someone who doesn't have faith, but its not that insane ;). If you accept this, and then e.g. read the great scholastics and really give things some thought, you'll be surprised at the sophistication (the kind a programmer ought to appreciate) that's been put into the Christian faith. It's the only faith I know that actually studiedGod, and not man; descriptive not perscriptive.
Anyway, I share the same distate for this sort of discussion.
I started this thread just to see if there were any other Christians here, say hi, maybe share some experiences, and generally feel good. That is all.
I didn't really want a debate on whether this religion or that religion is the right one etc. etc.
God is never just "what's right for man", in any religion. The concept of "God" is, again, philosophical.
I can't tell you what it meant for the people who decided to personify it in Judaism / Christianity / etc, but originally it's just an abstract metaphor for the "foundations of reality".
>>19 Whoops, that should have been >>15 instead of >>!5
Name:
mailto:age2014-01-14 22:27
>>17 Why does the creator always have to be a human-like entity, though?
If dogs were able to communicate and think rationally, would they also form religions around the One True Dog? I mean, what kind of retarded inbred dog would think there is such thing as a Supreme Tiger? Of course it's a dog, what the fuck else would rule this dog-ridden world?
Don't humans think that way too? With this vast universe and the characteristic terminal retardation of humans, it would be very unfortunate if it had been created by some sandnigger. It would have been much more likely for it to be created by some intelligent species that doesn't revolve around le 420 weed and Facebook. Yet humans seem to think the only way the universe could come to be was some skyjew? That's why I agree with you, the "God"s depicted in mainstream religions are outright bullshit.
As an unrelated comment, is it impossible for a sentient life form to be something other than a torso+head+limbs combo, or a big ball of slime with eyes that goes GRHRHRHRHRHBRHBRHBRHBH every time it opens its fucking mouth? Actually, who the hell said all species need an opening near their processing center to be able to communicate their thoughts in form of utterances? Is there some kind of rulebook that restricts sentient beings to be made in those shapes?
It's always those two options. No wonder "Creator" and "God" are always depicted as a Caucasian bearded guy.
I started this thread just to see if there were any other Christians here
I was raised as a Catholic and I have a question for you. What sets apart a ``mainstream Christian'' from a ``Catholic''? Is it just their beliefs about the Pope and the Vatican? Some people here call themselves ``Christians'' and they have odd customs like not decorating their house in Christmas and their women being forbidden from wearing skirts or using makeup.
There is a strong qualitative difference between God as God and God as some sort of personification of the laws of nature which man observes. There is an even bigger difference to the kinds of conclusions the different views lead to.
It's not something that just exists in your head. It's something that exists period. It's not physical, you can't touch it, see it, taste it, or hear it, but it exists anyway. You can know it exists with certainty.
There's a difference between knowing something through logic and knowing it because you "feel" that you know it. Not even the number itself really exists.
The axiom of the relation of the quality is defined by: "Two objects x and y are equal if and only if x has every propertyy has, and y has every property x has."
The definition for property can be made more "rigorous" by using things like propositional functions, but in the end it always relies upon assumptions and high level concepts created by what you've learned from the world.
If the world or your perception is faulty or obfuscated, you can't know that anything you know or feel that you know really exists.
You can only know that what you know is a representation of something that exists, but you don't know what it is. If you can't even satisfy the basic axioms without running into mutual dependence problems, drawing far more complex conclusions out of thin air like "God and my soul exist because I know it!" is nonsense.
When thinking about these things, you should always assume you're living in a dream. In your dreams, nonsense and illogical things happen, and they don't even segue properly, but you don't notice/care because the logic you use and take as "normal" in dreams is twisted anyway. When you wake up, you realize that the dream was messed up and strange.
Realize that reality is probably the same thing. To some system that can process the world "better", we would likely seem absolutely insane and broken. We can process the world better (assumingly) than people with mental diseases like psychosis and schizophrenia, therefore they seem broken to us because their behaviour seems illogical, inconsistent, or destructive.
People who choose to know that they know things because they feel that they know them seem broken to me.
I think the Catholic church defines what you need to do to be a Catholic.
As for forbidding people to wear skirts and makeup, I understand when Christian parents have certain rules for their children (in order to give them a Christian education (i.e. educe; to bring forth the Christian in them) but I don't think that aside from this worldly duty as a parent there is any heavenly obligation to combat sin in others (and for a large class of sins, I don't think there should be any [b]wolrdly[b] right to do so either). If anything your duty is to recognize your own sin and forgive others when they seek forgiveness, as the Lord does.
A Christian should always help his fellow man, and tell them about God if they are interested. We are all Christian souls, it's just a matter of recognizing it.
Try explaining to a 6 year old child the difference between a symbol and the thing the symbol represents. They will have much difficulty.
If you have a pet cat or dog, it probably understand numbers to an even smaller degree. For example your pet may exhibit the ability to count.
In the same way your cat probably has an even less sophisticated understanding of God than you (i.e. you in general, myself included) do.
Now, speaking of dreams, in the eastern religions, it is not uncommon for followers to get intoxicated to induce a hypnagogia like state, in order to have ``spiritual'' or ``mystic'' experiences. This is the great folly of not understanding and recognizing God. Think about your ability to understand a number in such a state. It probably isn't very good, in fact I imagine this sort of confusion and meddling of concepts is similar to how a dog or cat might understand a number.
Humans have the ability to recognize things that exist, that other creatures cannot. We understand these things clearly and intuitively. However, some things not quite, like the soul. I can imagine a creature however that would be capable of understanding and maintaining as clear a model of the soul as I have of e.g. understanding a "function".
>>28 Abortion is so clearly murder that it staggers me that it's allowed. The only difference between a baby and an unborn baby is that you can't see the unborn one; physiologically they're the same. I think people rely too much on visual information. The hysterical last stand of pro-choice people is often that "it's my body." Their body contains another body, which does not rightly belong to them. They had the choice not to risk having a child, and they allowed themselves to be overcome. The selfishness of killing a person when all you have to give him or her is nine months of your life is astounding to me. We (or I at least) live in a country where you can just give up an unwanted child and be pretty sure they'll have an ok life. So other than the pregnancy itself you need to do nothing. I think probably a lot of people have abortions to spare themselves embarrassment.
There's some limited stuff about not approving of homosexuality in the Bible. However in Christianity strongly homophobic behavior is a fairly recent development, arising a few centuries ago during a political power struggle in Italy. Or so the story goes. This is not useful as an argument, but I thought it interesting, unless of course it's one of these manufactured "facts" the left is fond of. In terms of homosexuals, it seems pretty clear that God has ordained that these people be gay, and that it is not a choice; my religion tells me above all to love people, and this overrides any of that limited and largely disputable biblical evidence I mentioned earlier. I don't think there's anything to be done "about" gay people at any rate. They exist, and it's wrong to hate and/or kill them.
A general point about the difference between Christianity and Judaism: Christianity is a religion of love. Judaism consists of the tribal beliefs that have been discussed here already; Christianity adds a message of love from the mouth of God himself, putting it higher than other commandments. To me, this is the critical difference.
This is also why I choose this religion over, for example, the Tao to which someone alluded earlier. I read the Tao or Dao or whatever you like to call it, and it seemed both obvious and repetitive: the primary message I took from it was one of passivity. For example, one suggestion in it is to "Be like water flowing around a rock," meaning that one should take the path of least resistance. Sometimes being genuinely good means taking the hard path instead. In a similar vein, Buddhism seeks to reject the material, which has the ultimate worldly effect of turning its monks into beggars - they take food from the mouths of the poor. If you don't believe me go and see for yourself. Compare this with the work of the Jesuits, or other Christian orders. Where is the good in trying to deny one's worldliness? Where is the love in failing to help the hungry? I think that in the West we tend to view Asian religions as the least harmful, because they have a less violent history, and less of a culture of interference. However I believe they are insidiously harmful in refusing to address or even acknowledge the material needs of humankind. Intervening on behalf of the helpless is a good thing, and one which I think is worth the mess and unhappiness is causes in the short term.
This is also why I choose this religion over, for example, the Tao to which someone alluded earlier. I read the Tao or Dao or whatever you like to call it, and it seemed both obvious and repetitive: the primary message I took from it was one of passivity. For example, one suggestion in it is to "Be like water flowing around a rock," meaning that one should take the path of least resistance
That is not the message of Taoism, at all. In all the literature it mentions that becoming a "sage", i.e., one who truly understands the Tao is a very difficult thing to achieve.
The only difference between a baby and an unborn baby is that you can't see the unborn one; physiologically they're the same.
Aside from the fact that one of them is over 9 months old, has a more-or-less functioning brain, and can survive without parasitism, and the other one is a 1.2 months old parasite the size of a cyst with an inactive, undeveloped brain.
I would agree with you that people who wait until the 3rd fucking month to get an abortion are kinda pushing it, but that's another issue.
I wonder how things would be if humans laid eggs instead.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-15 16:37
>>38 That seems like a built-in appeal to authority, which makes me even more wary of it. Is there a different message you believe it contains? Additionally: I paraphrased directly from the primary Taoist source to support my assertion. Is there evidence I was wrong?
>>39 Yes, that's right, I live in Canada. I know adopted people going to med school, (well, one, anyway), and leading happy lives. I understand our conditions are better than most places, but I suspect that few people anywhere would choose death over their lives: if they do choose death, they are always able to kill themselves. I don't believe killing someone to spare them the potential moral responsibility for suicide is a healthy parenting choice.
>>40 The issue for me is that their existential value as humans (as opposed to economic value, which is not by my belief system a morally correct measure to apply to human life) is still quite high. Again, I'm referring to the developed world, but the chance of a foetus making it to term without killing its mother is extremely high - miscarriages occur in about 1/4 of pregnancies, and maternal mortality is very rare - so by that standard a newly-conceived foetus has about 75% the humanity of a newborn baby. Using years of human life as a unit of measure, the math on the "parasitism" argument is now easy to do, given a conservative average lifespan of 75 years:
0.75 * 75y - 0.75y = 55.5y
So using years of human life as a measure of value, even assuming the 9 months are "lost" for the mother, the human race is vastly ahead. I'm disregarding child-rearing years, because I can safely assume in my country that the unaborted child has at least equal odds to a "normal" child of finding a family whose parents will consider its presence to be a benefit.
I will disregard your description of the age and physical characteristics of the foetus because I do not perceive their relevance. Please correct me if they are in fact relevant to the question.
Note that in a region with a saturated human population, this argument is not so clear. In such a case, I would still prefer use of contraception or even sterilization over murder in order to control the population. And if we are to resort to murder, why should it be babies getting murdered? Why not old people, who are economically useless? Why not the sick or disabled? The chronically unemployed? These are not choices I think we should force ourselves to make by refusing contraception.
The underlying assumptions of these arguments are that human life is precious and that it is of equal value between individuals. That's where the Christian faith comes in - these are two statements strongly affirmed in the bible. I believe it to be valuable because it provides general assumptions that make a difficult issue like the abortion debate easily soluble by rational analysis. Of course in practice the world functions more selfishly, but here we are discussing an ideal system ;)
So if killing a 2 year old baby would extend the life of 2 people by 100 years, we should do so? Just because you're not using dollars doesn't mean you aren't being utilitarian in your thinking.
I'm disregarding child-rearing years, because I can safely assume in my country that the unaborted child has at least equal odds to a "normal" child of finding a family whose parents will consider its presence to be a benefit.
Until all the families who want children become saturated. What then?
I will disregard your description of the age and physical characteristics of the foetus because I do not perceive their relevance. Please correct me if they are in fact relevant to the question.
It is relevant in that the foetus in question (at 6 weeks, giving ample time to the mother to become aware that she is pregnant and to take a decision regarding it) is unable to think or feel (since the brain is not only undeveloped, but also just a few millimetres in length), nor has it ever thought or felt in the past, nor does it hold any experiences and memories (relevant to information-theoretic death). It is as alive as a person whose entire brain has been obliterated by an some accident; biologically alive, but doesn't qualify as "human life".
To see my point, what if we managed to make animal muscle tissue in labs (for the purpose of replacing meat taken from traditionally farmed animals)? Sure, the muscle tissue is `biologically alive', but you can't say that the animal itself is alive. What if now we also produce animal livers and hearts in the same manner, would that change anything? What if we produce the entire animal [i]except[/i] for the brain, would you call it `alive'?
Note that in a region with a saturated human population, this argument is not so clear.
Such as the entire planet?
And if we are to resort to murder, why should it be babies getting murdered? Why not old people, who are economically useless? Why not the sick or disabled? The chronically unemployed?
Because old people, the ``economically useless'', the sick, the disabled, and the chronically unemployed are proud owners of functioning human brains, are able to think/feel, and hold experiences and memories of their past lives. 6 week old foetuses aren't.
The underlying assumptions of these arguments are that human life is precious and that it is of equal value between individuals.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you, it's just that we don't define human life in the same way. :)
Also people seem to never consider non-penetrative sex among the `solutions' to the no-babies problem, I wonder why that is.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-15 20:20
Also people seem to never consider non-penetrative sex among the `solutions' to the no-babies problem, I wonder why that is.
Like mutual masturbation? Of course people do, why do you think otherwise?
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-15 21:23
>>43 Australia can fit another 300 million or so people.
>>40 Pretty much everyone would contract millions of STDs because of birth control consisting in discarding the egg. Women would also shit from their vaginas. Well, maybe.
>>41 Am I wrong, or do you support the birth of a child who was the byproduct of unprotected sex between a dudebro and a slutty cheerleader?
You don't seem to consider the scenario where the parents had sex not with the purpose of procreation. Is ``fixing'' an ``accident'' really considered a sin?
I will disregard your description of the age and physical characteristics of the foetus because I do not perceive their relevance. Please correct me if they are in fact relevant to the question.
Not the guy you're replying to, but last time I checked babies didn't have the ability of making conscious decisions. Without delving balls deep into a pointless discussion of ``when does life really start'', newborn animals are full responsibility of their parents and they can decide what the fuck they want to do with the soggy piece of flesh that came out of her vagina inseminated by his penis.
I know this sounds really immature, but the "everyone should be given a chance" shit shouldn't be taken so far. Hell, I'm gonna go full edgy and say babies are completely worthless (and only considered a valuable object by their parents) until they show some survival instincts.
True, they might be leeches to the government, but everyone was a leech to their parents when they were young. Killing all children because they're leeches would mean eradicating the human race and that doesn't make much sense. If you were to do that, this argument should end right here, we should all kill ourselves and we would be done with this shit. Since that doesn't make sense and we're not killing children, why kill old people?
Why not the sick or disabled?
Same, hospitals and rehabilitation centers are sources of employment. Sick and disabled people can still contribute to society with stuff that doesn't require you to use your body. For example, you could have terminal autism and be a Javashit ninja rockstar making $300k from home.
The chronically unemployed?
I... don't know. Saying they are potential 3.0 ninja rockstars is too far-fetched and not really an argument, but whatever.
These are not choices I think we should force ourselves to make by refusing contraception.
Now if people actually used contraception this would be a better world.
A question for you: do the microscopic frogs living in your balls count as living beings? Because masturbation would be abortion. If you don't, then you're setting a starting point for life. Are you killing someone if you remove a fertilized ovule out of an uterus? What if it's a 5 days old ovule? How about 20 days old? When does it start being murder?
>>54 I doubt they would leave their favorite subreddit just to kill people. Calm your tits.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 1:06
>>54 The majority of comments have been civil, which is somewhat surprising. I don't think I've ever seen such a polite discussion of abortion. Of course a few people will advocate genocide, but this is to be expected on progrider.
>>53 The difference between sperm and a fertilized ovum is that the latter's individuality is set. An individual is created at the moment of conception, or at least, the biggest single collapse in possible outcomes occurs then: at that point, destroying the fertilized cell means you are not destroying one of millions of possible people (or halves-of-people), but a specific person who most likely will be born.
A side point: I don't have any frogs in my testes. If you do, I strongly urge you to seek medical attention. :)
>>51 You've hit upon a major difficulty I have. I think the child shouldn't be blamed because it will probably be an idiot like its parents, but my real problem is that I can't help feeling contempt for those people. I ought to love them but I just can't. My (probably inadequate) solution to this is to live as if these people did not exist, unless of course I can't ignore them due to some imminent threat, which is not usually a practical concern. So for example, some club-type losers (who I happen to know make about a third of what I do) made fun of my $9 shoes in an elevator in an office building. Naturally I felt like punching their stupid faces into a nice red mess, but instead I just ignored them, as if I were alone in an elevator. It was difficult not to make fun of them, and would have been easy to make them feel bad, but I felt it was neither morally right nor necessary, as they did not pose an imminent threat. I looked like a huge loser for doing this, but that's what the high road sometimes looks like. Fuck it.
The other thing you said that I found interesting had to do with accidents vs. deliberate conception. I don't think the parents' motives are relevant as a rule when deciding whether a child should live or die. The exception might be rape, particularly since the tendency to rape can be congenital; not aborting a rapist's child might mean more rape in future, and that seems like a good thing to breed out. But I'm not sure of whether it's morally defensible in that case.
>>43 Your first question is interesting. It becomes easy to answer if the other two people are also two years old, so since all human lives are equal, I think the answer in that (thank God hypothetical) situation is that yes, it would be morally correct. Of course, if someone were to kill another person in order to prolong their own life by, say, twice the expected lifespan of the deceased, the issue should clearly be decided in the other direction - that individual should be imprisoned and stopped from murdering anybody else. So I guess there are some actions that do reduce your value as a human being.
Also, non-penetrative sex is a great idea. I think I'll buy space on a billboard and write out "Help make a better future - give somebody a blowjob TODAY!"
I really have to overcome the impulse to answer every post I see.
>>59 >>60 Why did you both feel the need to comment on the ``Helenic peoples'' aspect instead of everything else. I could have just as easily said ``The Martian peoples...''. It wasn't an argument from authority, just an example.
The difference between sperm and a fertilized ovum is that the latter's individuality is set. An individual is created at the moment of conception, or at least, the biggest single collapse in possible outcomes occurs then: at that point, destroying the fertilized cell means you are not destroying one of millions of possible people (or halves-of-people), but a specific person who most likely will be born.
Genetic make up (assuming nothing else fucks with it after that) is the only thing that is determined after fertilization. How do you define individuality? Also, what if every human male, or human female, collectively abstained from intercourse, causing the end of humanity. Would this be murder of the next generation, or does the next generation simply not exist?
>>58-60 The Spartans were so proud of how great they were that you could never become a Spartan. You had to be one already. So eventually, since they also required that one risk one's life before reproducing, they became hopelessly inbred. They weren't such hot shit on the battlefield after that, now, were they. Sic vanitas remunerat est.
And remember Latinam ad profundum notiones vulgares altum elevat
>>58 A life of suffering and nothing else, with no chance of survival is not humane. This is subjective, but would argue it's more humane to give it a clean death (or elimination of existence before it became sentient) than to give it a brief glimpse of the worst parts of life and nothing else.
>>63 That is my favorite question yet because it is so unlikely. Although I would not myself define that as murder, I think it would be a bad idea. I also disagree with monks and nuns who abstain from sex. I think they are harming the world when they do that. I think God would be pleased with them if they took a wife or a husband.
I tried to head off that individuality question with the hastily written bit about "collapse in possible outcomes." I mean that a whole lot gets decided when genes are set. Environment and free will lead to many changes, but I would guess that the biggest one, with the possible exception of events that lead to your death, is the one that more or less cements your genetic makeup. That's not to say there aren't others that are significant, but I think it's probably the biggest.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 4:08
>>66 Have you not heard of Moses? Romulus and Remus?
Although the ideal case would be to give it a chance at life, whatever its life may turn out to be. But this isn't possible as the amount of newborns surpasses the amount of parents accepting children.
But there are other points in the abortion debate.
What about the choice of a woman? If a women doesn't want to have a child, and the state forces the women to have a child, she no longer has a right to her own body. Some consider this rape.
What if the pregnancy was a result of rape?
What about consequences of making abortion illegal? It wont got away just because it's against the law. But it will be performed by less qualified individuals, or by the woman herself, in less sanitary conditions, and the woman will have a much higher risk. You know the imgery, a women dead in a room, slumped over in a small pool of blood, with a bloody coat hanger nearby. That's the result of making it illegal.
>>68 I'm not getting the reference, but if you link to it I'll read it. I don't use stories from the bible to shape my morality. I draw from personal experience mostly.
>>73 There is a christian church that refers to G-d as Her. I forget what it was called.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 4:31
>>72 Moses was cast away as a baby but survived and led the Israelites out of Egypt.
Romulus and Remus (not Abrahamic myth) were raised by a female wolf, then they became bandits, then they founded Rome.
Name:
>>752014-01-16 4:33
Moral of the story is if you kill the baby, it's dead for sure and that's murder. If you don't, who knows. It might grow up.
All is fair in nature. My cat kills a rabbit. The sun sets.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 4:38
>>69 This is more the sort of argument I expected: an attempt to induce hysteria rather than to explore the issue rationally. There are a lot of problems with your arguments, but the one worth mentioning is that they're so bad they're not even wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 4:47
>>75 Those are nice stories, and while I agree with the message that those that appear doomed may still prevail in a more abstract context, I don't think you should take this as literal evidence supporting a baby's ability to survive in the wild. If you did an empirical study and left 500 babies in the wilderness, I'm pretty sure 200 of them would drown face down in the mud or face up in the rain, 200 would be eaten by wolves and then the 100 that weren't found by wolves during the first night and didn't drown would die from hypothermia before morning. And if there were instruments to quantify their pain during their excruciating remainder of their lives, I'm pretty sure they would be feeling just about the maximum amount possible. I'm assuming we are talking about newborns here, rather than 2-year olds. If you don't have basic motor control yet, and you're in the wild, you are essentially a piece of a meat that expires slower than a corpse.
>>77 The typical christian approach to the issue of abortion is purely in morality. Because it is immoral, it should be illegal. I think it is consistent if they said it is immoral and therefore should not be done. But making it illegal does not make not be done. It makes it done under much more dangerous circumstances. That's the core of what I'm saying if you can't handle the details of the dangerous circumstances. This point does not consider the ethics of abortion, but the consequences of it being illegal.
I'm assuming the hysterical one was women dying from crude abortions. This used to be a common thing. A women's sovereignty of her body as a right is another practical issue created by abortion being illegal. You can respond if you want to, or ignore it, but don't create an excuse to ignore it. Is there really a hysterical question?
sorry, I didn't mean to uncivil this thread. It was going nicely for a while even if I took offence to a lot of the responses those are your beliefs and I respect that I would be fukin pissed off as fuck if those beliefs materialized into policy though. My advice to christians on abortion is to accomplish the goal the right way, teach your morality to the public so people choose to not have an abortion done. That's the only scenario where there are no abortions, neither in hospitals, nor on the streets. Although safe sex practices would solve it obviously.
>>79 Ends justify the means justice systems aren't highly regarded for a reason.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 5:32
>>79 Besides, from a utilitarian perspective the best ends would be achieved by making abortion legal for doctors to perform, but with a 2 year prison sentence and $200,000 fine enforcable by wage garnish to both biological parents. Furhtermore the prisons the aborters would be sent to should be run as private companies, essentially making the prisoners slave laborers. This would be beneficial to everyone :)
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 5:40
>>83 Abortion isn't an issue that is effectively met with the justice system, as making it illegal results in women accidentally killing themselves. See >>80 if you want to have a world with no abortion and no death from crude abortions. Fucking cunt. I'm fucking pissed off now. The state doesn't exist to enforce your fucking arbitrary moral code. Why don't you move to Iran or some shit.
>>84 Legal with penalties is still illegal. Adding negative consequences to the action pushes it into the black market, which is not a fucking safe place for medical procedures. You fucking cunt. I hope you succeed in making abortion illegal in your country and your daughter dies from a failed self induced abortion.
You kill a person and you get 2 years and a fine. Be happy its not eye for an eye.
Are you a child? Do you think that life is a game? Do you think others exist as just objects? play things?
You're not even talking about abortion anymore, you've regressed into some infantile rebellion.
Actions have consequences. There are correct actions and there are incorrect actions. Not all actions are the same.
What do you propose? You let people build deathtrap elevators without consequences? You let people take this and that and drive around without consequences? You let people run people over without consequences? OH IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT OH WE DIDNT MEAN TO BOO HOO?
The question is then do you want to live in a society where fucking around like apes and then cutting eachother up to kill the unborn is considered normal? That it should be coddled? ``oh of course these things just happen don't worry the state will pay for it, here's a support group. Come back any time''. That mudering the unborn should be seen as less horrific than even simple tort? People get heavy fines for having an uneven driveway during a yard sale, yet killing a baby should be seen as no different from forgetting to brush your teeth and needing a tooth pulled?
And you don't need to get angry and stomp your feet like a child and write a bunch of swear words. Your view is what is popular these days. Very popular. You have no real enemy in religious groups (except maybe the Ahmeds) because religion is dying. Many Christians vote yes on abotion anyway (likewise some non-religious people vote no on abortion). There is no danger of abortion becoming any less legal, if anything subsidies towards it will grow. You have nothing to fear. You won. Understand? You won. It is the way you want it to be and it is not going to change. Feel secure in this. You don't have to get all bothered.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 6:39
>>85 If we take this cold-hearted view towards life, then the woman aborting her baby has already proven worthless, her child might not be.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 7:06
>>84 What's with the emote you condescending bastard.
>>85 Stupid liberal nutcase kill yourself since that's all you dream of doing you fuckin emotional childish pussy.
I told Ted Bundy I’m not afraid of him and he whimpered like the faggot he is. I took him and took him with ease. You think you're cold, motherfucker? Try me.
You kill a person and you get 2 years and a fine. Be happy its not eye for an eye.
Because prison totally reforms people which is why the relapse rate is practically null in every lock-away-and-forget penitentiary system (which is practically all of them), right? Right?
Actions have consequences. There are correct actions and there are incorrect actions. Not all actions are the same.
And some actions have artificial consequences, that is, consequences that are imposed by other people.
What do you propose?
Not treating people who break the law as no longer being human, eliminating the term and idea of `punishment' from criminology, and finally seeing the despicable places you call `prisons' for what they really are -- the hateful revenge of the 13th century France mob, with somewhat less blood and gutting (and it doesn't really count when the prisoners do it to each other because they totally deserve it anyway, right?).
You let people build deathtrap elevators without consequences?
Because throwing the said people in prison and making sure they never get a qualified job afterwards will totally fix the damage done to the victims and their families and friends, and will [i]obviously[/i] not lead them to a life of (even more serious) crime.
You let people take this and that and drive around without consequences?
Of course not, you throw them in prison where they can get addicted to even more of those things. Maybe if they get beat up sufficiently by other prisoners they'll suffer some injury preventing them from ever driving again; that oughta reduce the relapse rate.
You let people run people over without consequences? OH IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT OH WE DIDNT MEAN TO BOO HOO?
You would put the person behind the wheel in a legitimate car accident in prison, wouldn't you? That is fucking sick.
The question is then do you want to live in a society where fucking around like apes and then cutting eachother up to kill the unborn is considered normal?
If the said ``unborn'' are in the 6th week or earlier, then yes, yes I would.
You kill a person and you get 2 years and a fine. Be happy its not eye for an eye.
Again, you are blurring the line between enforcement of moral code from the bible and the role of the state. I assume you live in a secular country. If you don't like it, move to iran or go back in time to medieval europe. Although Russia is on the rise. Maybe you would like it there.
Are you a child? Do you think that life is a game? Do you think others exist as just objects? play things?
I don't understand the purpose of this question.
You're not even talking about abortion anymore, you've regressed into some infantile rebellion.
Consequences of abortion being illegal, having nothing to do with abortion? You are all alike. Do the right thing, and have no idea what you are actually doing.
Actions have consequences. There are correct actions and there are incorrect actions. Not all actions are the same.
What is the definition of correct and incorrect? For every situation does there exist an action that is completely correct? Or just more correct than the others?
What do you propose? You let people build deathtrap elevators without consequences?
The construction of elevators can be regulated to ensure safety at no cost of human life or suffering.
You let people take this and that and drive around without consequences?
Substance abuse and driving can be detected and treated. Persons lost can be rehabilitated, and become functioning members of society. This can be done without causing women to kill themselves.
You let people run people over without consequences? OH IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT OH WE DIDNT MEAN TO BOO HOO?
There are consequences for driving unsafely. These consequences can be enforced without causing women to kill themselves.
The question is then do you want to live in a society where fucking around like apes and then cutting eachother up to kill the unborn is considered normal?
Violence against one another can be dealt with by the justice system without causing women to kill themselves. Punishing the killing of the unborn causes women to kill themselves.
That it should be coddled? ``oh of course these things just happen don't worry the state will pay for it, here's a support group. Come back any time''. That mudering the unborn should be seen as less horrific than even simple tort? People get heavy fines for having an uneven driveway during a yard sale, yet killing a baby should be seen as no different from forgetting to brush your teeth and needing a tooth pulled?
I'd rather have a dead fetus than a dead woman along with her dead fetus. It's a simple calculation. Again, if you want a society with no abortion, convince each member of the society to not get abortions. You wont succeed any other way.
>>88 The child will not survive if an abortion is attempted. The gambled life is the women. Who are you to judge what a women deserves to die for? What about yourself? Your disregard for the life of a ``sinner'' could be considered a sin.
>>89 Because only liberals care about women's rights. Wait, you're right. Shit.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 8:52
>>92 Penalizing actions does not cause anyone to take them. In fact it necessarily has the opposite effect.
If the subjective cost to a would-be mother of having a child is lower than the subjective cost of abortion then the mother would have the child (by definition of terms!). My proposition raises the cost of abortion for every non psychopath.
Now, the guy who wants to continue making unsafe elevators can just as easily say: ``Look if you guys make it illegal to make unsafe elevators I'll just have to turn to the black market, and then the elevator will really be unsafe, so you shouldn't impose any legal penalties for whatever kind of elevator I want to make.''
But his threatening consequent is not what happens in the real world. In the real world he complies, because there is 1. Some legal thing in place that raises the cost of constructing a bad elevator. 2. The necessary enforcement to assure illegal elevators are not constructed.
Note, without 2. there would be illegal elevators, as the law would only be a `guideline' or `recommended best practice' (blah blah libertarian argument that the market takes care of it yes sometimes, maybe it works better idk)
Now, if 1. and 2. apply to abortions, the amount of abortions will [i]quantitatively[/i] decrease.
Furthermore, in both the elevator and abortion case, doing the illegal thing and getting away with it will have disastrous consequences: dead people in an elevator and a dead mother.
Again, if you want a society with no abortion, convince each member of the society to not get abortions. You wont succeed any other way.
You may or may not be surprised that I completely agree with you. I personally don't view the state as my right arm. I think doing so would be wrong. Doesn't mean I have to keep my mouth shut when people say incorrect things (e.g. abortion is ok, penalizing abortion would lead to more death etc.).
The child will not survive if an abortion is attempted. The gambled life is the women. Who are you to judge what a women deserves to die for? What about yourself? Your disregard for the life of a ``sinner'' could be considered a sin.
Do I also disregard the life of those who enjoy extreme sports and die during these dangerous recreational activities? Why hold me responsible to other people's actions? Wherefore is my role in a woman's selfishness, when her selifshness would risk her own life instead of nurture another's? If a woman takes her own life to kill her babies this is a tragedy. Telling me I disregard life cause I'd rather she have the baby and they both live is stupid.
2. The necessary enforcement to assure illegal elevators are not constructed.
2. fails for abortion because they can be done within the privacy of a home. Or a street alley. Or a women by herself in the bathroom. You can't stop people from doing it to themselves, but you can get doctors working in the black market with sting operations. But then the lost customers will just do it themselves, which is even worse.
You may or may not be surprised that I completely agree with you. I personally don't view the state as my right arm. I think doing so would be wrong. Doesn't mean I have to keep my mouth shut when people say incorrect things (e.g. abortion is ok, penalizing abortion would lead to more death etc.).
I'm not surprised. This means that we can be friends :). Despite having different viewpoints on this controversial issue, we both respect the rights of others to come to their own conclusions on it. I don't wish the state to oppress your view and you don't wish the state to oppress me for mine.
Telling me I disregard life cause I'd rather she have the baby and they both live is stupid.
I got the wrong impression on that sentence. Too many ``christians'' say both the woman and the doctor deserve to die, send death threats, bomb clinics, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 9:28
JUST KILL ALL THE JEWS OR SOMETHING, THIS ARGUMENT HAS GONE DOWN THE SHITTER
The fuck does this have to do with women's rights? The point is that the little shit doesn't have any rights because it does not qualify as `human life'. What's next, a pro-life movement for pimples?
>>97 Does it ever. But now everyone's ignoring the /prog/ side. So I'm going to go and post some questions about clang. That ought to restore the natural balance.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 21:59
Daily reminder that National Socialist Germany was a Christian nation, and yet America sided with the godless communists.
>>99 The Nazi Germany believed in Judaism 2.0? What the fuck!
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 22:24
>>99 Daily reminder that people will always use Christianity to advance political ideals even though Christianity teaches Christians to only care about politics in so much as they can still practice their Christianity (otherwise you just obey the laws you have to).
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-16 23:39
Daily reminder that JESUS WAS A JEW WHO GOT HIS PENIS MUTILATED
>>100 No, 99 appears to have made that up. The Christians got rounded up and oppressed to varying degrees as well. I would go and get proof but I don't really want to shit up my search history with "Hitler's religion" and all that shit.
You do realize that historically there has always been animosity between Christianity and Judaism, right? Since Jesus Christ died on the cross because he was disliked by the jewish and all. So it's not surprising in the slightest.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-17 16:00
>>104 Christianity is the western world's interpretation of Jesus' interpretation of Judaism.
>>111 That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. Outside of the backwards and dying United States of America this is seen as such a ludicrous view that anyone who would utter it would be quickly ostracized by society.
>>111 Does that mean I can call you a nigger if I'm a beaner?
I'm a male human, by the way. I have the male privilege and the human privilege. That's if you don't count able privilege, non-mentally-retarded privilege, has-black-hair privilege, can-count-to-10 privilege, can-buy-cheap-food privilege, has-bed privilege, can-breath-through-both-nostrils privilege, can-type-with-a-computer-keyboard privilege, Scheme privilege, upper education privilege, has-a-foreskin privilege, literate (as in ``can read and write'') privilege, not-an-aboriginal-community privilege, heterosexual privilege, has-five-fingers privilege, can-scroll-a-scroll-bar-without-having-a-seizure-privilege, cis privilege, non-otherkind privilege, posts-on-/prog/ privilege, STEM privilege, not-being-white-but-not-being-an-indian privilege, can-get-semantic-satiation-from-writing-privilege-a-lot-without-having-my-dick-fall-off privilege, can-post-on-/lounge/ privilege, not-reddit privilege, gentile privilege and many others I could be forgetting right now.
But hey, I'm not white, thus granting me the ability to call everyone who doesn't like me a inracist assbred whitefucker genetic trash or whatever you call the meanies who hurt your feelings.
Also don't forget your virgin-privilege you disgusting fucking spic beaner or whatever south american rain forest monkey you are, fucking savage
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-22 13:29
>>116 I thought virgins were the ones bitching about non-virgin privilege? Who in their right mind considers virgins privileged scum?
What the hell do those two things in your quote have to do with each other? Sure, being a beaner is disgusting. Did the Jews invade the Amazonian rainforest of niggerkuluku, though? I still have my corn fields and my (uncut) pet monkey; nobody has ever tried to forcefully circumcise us.
In case you get turned on by sucking baby penises: As-Shalom Salamihashem, Mohammed Bernstein. I might be a barbarian living in a jungle but you are a nigger kike living in a desert.
IHBT, but this is /lounge/ and I have nothing else to do
God bless all of you. God love all of you. Niggers, beaners, fags, aborters. All of you. May god's love reign over us all. Blessed are the sinners. Blessed are the meek.
Name:
Anonymous2014-01-24 23:39
Not to sound reddit-y, but it's interesting how Christians like to top off their arguments with "God loves sandniggers, kikes and atheists all alike". I understand you're trying to show how kind-hearted you are and how you want everyone to live in a world of peace and love, but the way most Christians use it is "dude this isn't going anywhere, better end this shit".
Reminds me of some comic where some atheist guy says "WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS THE JEW" and ends with the Christian guy absolutely ignoring his argument, proceeding to talk about how Jesus loves us all and not even answering his question.
