|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2019 4:47:10 GMT
It’s a sin that can be forgiven, just like any other sin. ...that's only because 'sin' is a stupid made up word for a stupid made up concept that REALLY means doing something that religious people don't approve of....until they change their minds about it for convenience.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 12, 2019 10:38:32 GMT
a collection of views is a shared standard which is a law. Sin is simply a religious law so it is irrelevant whether someone who doesn’t follow the religion believes sin exists as long as the followers do. Law exists and has always exists regardless of personal view. No one is living their life solely based on how their personal view. That’s how people land in prison. The whole point here is that religious law only applies to believers. Secular law applies to EVERYONE. ...and it should ALWAYS stay that way. 1. Can you find where I disagree with that? 2. That wasn't the point. The point was nothing matters except our personal views which is obviously incorrect whether we are talking about religious belief or secular law.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jun 12, 2019 13:23:28 GMT
The whole point here is that religious law only applies to believers. Secular law applies to EVERYONE. ...and it should ALWAYS stay that way. 1. Can you find where I disagree with that? 2. That wasn't the point. The point was nothing matters except our personal views which is obviously incorrect whether we are talking about religious belief or secular law. In matters religious, personal views certainly do matter when held by those who don't concur with or practice/follow the 'religious belief' in question. (That those same personal views can also apply in the sphere of secular law also holds true, insofar as it wouldn't be possible to mount legal challenges against laws held as unjust by some of the holders of those 'personal views' in the population, otherwise.) As far as religious belief goes, at any rate, you are quite clear on the point that in your universe only Xtian belief and Xtian morality counts as having any worth, so your own prejudiced personal views certainly do count for quite a lot in your view of religious law when the religion in question is any religion outside of the Xtian, biblically-derived one.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 12, 2019 16:16:53 GMT
drystyx Well the Catholic church teaches life begins at conception and they are THE authority on serious moral issues like abortion. either way, no matter how someone wants to sugar-coat the abortion issue, at the end of the day... abortion is murder (Popes have basically stated this). those for abortion are either really blind or evil. I suspect most people are just blind even though those who vehemently promote it are more likely to be the evil type (like those more directly tied to it like those who benefit financially etc). they got a big surprise coming when they pass from this life into the next if they don't change their evil ways. St. John Paul II (1920-2005)... also, from The Catechism of the Catholic Church (i.e. CCC #2270)... www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm ; basically #2270-2275 but those on the left tend to look at abortion as a "choice" (more like a choice to play God and determine who lives and who dies) instead of what it really is, which is a basic life issue of which it should be pretty much common sense to protect life at it's most innocent stage as once someone finds life to be disposable in a mothers womb, life in general starts to become disposable for those types and that leads to further chaos since it's disordered. order is a characteristic of God unlike satan who's all about disorder since satan prefers sin to truth. but those on the left tend to be really blind on many issues because, like I always say, once someone fails to get the abortion issue right (i.e. those for abortion), they tend to be backwards in many other moral areas to. So, are those of us not Catholic going to hell? In a hand basket and in a New York minute.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 12, 2019 19:18:38 GMT
1. Can you find where I disagree with that? 2. That wasn't the point. The point was nothing matters except our personal views which is obviously incorrect whether we are talking about religious belief or secular law.What is incorrect, is you thinking religious views— which are personal—should be dictated onto those that aren't. You really don't agree with secular rule having to apply to EVERYONE, that is just your own duplicity of character to pretend that it doesn't matter. It matters much, when religion gets mixed in with secular law\politics and creates a massive melting point. It becomes about the delusion of God's law wanting to override common sense and objectivity. if there is a religious organization then the views are not personal as they are shared/mandated by that organization. No one is required to stay amongst that shared view though and can live happily ever after provided the don’t break secular law which is just a secular sin with heavier repercussions. This is not a difficult concept to grasp unless you’re an idiot. Are you an idiot?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 12, 2019 19:24:35 GMT
If only abortion was specifically mentioned in the Bible. In fact it was legal under the Romans, so you would have thought any differing moral view would been explicitly expressed. Meanwhile God's works include human miscarriage quite often as a natural event - by which one can gather than the process is approved of and God supposedly offers inspiration. This while justified killing is never murder in scripture, a distinction the faithful are often keen to make when it suits the subject. But this has been covered on a recent thread.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 12, 2019 19:38:24 GMT
If only abortion was specifically mentioned in the Bible. In fact it was legal under the Romans, so you would have thought any differing moral view would been explicitly expressed. Meanwhile God's works include miscarriage quite often as a natural process by which one can gather than the process is approved of - this while justified killing is never murder. Just sayin'. Rome did a lot of things not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible was not about reactions to the Roman Empire.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 12, 2019 19:48:04 GMT
If only abortion was specifically mentioned in the Bible. In fact it was legal under the Romans, so you would have thought any differing moral view would been explicitly expressed. Meanwhile God's works include miscarriage quite often as a natural process by which one can gather than the process is approved of - this while justified killing is never murder. Just sayin'. Rome did a lot of things not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible was not about reactions to the Roman Empire. Never the less, one might have expected it come up by way of a 'do not' if it was a big moral issue to contemporary believers. The OT and NT are, after all, famously full of laws and rules for living compliant with a fussy supernatural. Unfortunately the Biblical silence specifically for or against abortion (and its non-condemnation of miscarriage ... which we now know you claim is considered identical in scripture), its happiness with the idea of justified killing, etc, might just give the cynical reader, or all those nasty atheistic theophobes around the wrong impression as to what final view is to be taken.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 12, 2019 20:00:54 GMT
Rome did a lot of things not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible was not about reactions to the Roman Empire. Never the less, one might have expected it come up by way of a 'do not' if it was a big moral issue to contemporary believers. The OT and NT are, after all, famously full of laws and rules for living compliant with a fussy supernatural. Unfortunately the Biblical silence specifically for or against abortion (and its non-condemnation of miscarriage ... which we now know you claim is considered identical in scripture), its happiness with the idea of justified killing, etc, might just give the cynical reader, or all those nasty atheistic theophobes around the wrong impression as to what final view is to be taken. [Why would it be a big moral issue? It’s not even a big moral issue now. The churches have very clear cut rules in whether they approve of abortion or not and women who have them likely have already reconciled it and determined their beliefs and abortion aren’t that big of a deal and especially if they’ve been scared into thinking death or destitution is imminent if they have a kid.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2019 20:31:47 GMT
What is incorrect, is you thinking religious views— which are personal—should be dictated onto those that aren't. You really don't agree with secular rule having to apply to EVERYONE, that is just your own duplicity of character to pretend that it doesn't matter. It matters much, when religion gets mixed in with secular law\politics and creates a massive melting point. It becomes about the delusion of God's law wanting to override common sense and objectivity. if there is a religious organization then the views are not personal as they are shared/mandated by that organization. No one is required to stay amongst that shared view though and can live happily ever after provided the don’t break secular law which is just a secular sin with heavier repercussions.This is not a difficult concept to grasp unless you’re an idiot. Are you an idiot? Two things: 1. The word 'sin' is one of the silliest in the English language. It is dripping with religious connotation and in that sense there is no such thing as a secular 'sin'. What you are referring to is an action outside of the secular law. 2. The problems arise when religious organisations have input into the making of those secular laws on religious grounds premises or beliefs, that are NOT shared by the secular community.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 12, 2019 20:31:48 GMT
Why would it [abortion] be a big moral issue? It’s not even a big moral issue now. I beg to differ; most notably in the States where, as you might know, there is a swelling and widespread attempt by the Christian right in some southern states to work through to an overthrow of Roe v Wade now that Trump has installed a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. In the UK this week one of the candidates in the current race to be the new PM has raised the idea of lowering the termination limit. And there have been two threads on this board covering this very subject in the last week, with probably more on the politics one. I think you are playing down, or choosing to ignore, the wider reactionary forces at work and the attempt to role back the right of women to have control over their own bodies by (usually male) fundamentalists.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2019 20:35:57 GMT
Why would it [abortion] be a big moral issue? It’s not even a big moral issue now. I beg to differ; most notably in the States where, as you might know, there is a swelling and widespread attempt by the Christian right in some southern states to work through to an overthrow of Roe v Wade now that Trump has installed a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. In the UK this week one of the candidates in the current race to be the new PM has raised the idea of lowering the termination limit. And there have been two threads on this board covering this very subject in the last week, with probably more on the politics one. I think you are playing down, or choosing to ignore, the wider reactionary forces at work and the attempt to roll back the right of women to have control over their own bodies by (usually male) fundamentalists. I tried to keep my reply above simple and clear, however this is EXACTLY what I was referring to in my second comment. Same sex marriage is another prime example.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 12, 2019 21:06:57 GMT
if there is a religious organization then the views are not personal as they are shared/mandated by that organization. No one is required to stay amongst that shared view though and can live happily ever after provided the don’t break secular law which is just a secular sin with heavier repercussions.This is not a difficult concept to grasp unless you’re an idiot. Are you an idiot? Two things: 1. The word 'sin' is one of the silliest in the English language. It is dripping with religious connotation and in that sense there is no such thing as a secular 'sin'. What you are referring to is an action outside of the secular law. 2. The problems arise when religious organisations have input into the making of those secular laws on religious grounds premises or beliefs, that are NOT shared by the secular community. of course sin has religious connotation. But in the end it describes something you cannot do. It’s a law or rule within religion. Secular law is a law or rule outside of religion and its stricter. To get bent out of shape about one and not the other is silly. There are few if any secular laws built on religious grounds except those specifically tied to religion. What a politicians and what a law states are different from each other. There is no scientific standard for when humanity or life starts and so the law determined it...Something it is wholly unqualified to do. As a result you have heartbeat laws and you have 3rd trimester laws and it’s all based on politics and legality.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2019 21:17:55 GMT
Two things: 1. The word 'sin' is one of the silliest in the English language. It is dripping with religious connotation and in that sense there is no such thing as a secular 'sin'. What you are referring to is an action outside of the secular law. 2. The problems arise when religious organisations have input into the making of those secular laws on religious grounds premises or beliefs, that are NOT shared by the secular community. of course sin has religious connotation. But in the end it describes something you cannot do. It’s a law or rule within religion. Secular law is a law or rule outside of religion and its stricter. To get bent out of shape about one and not the other is silly.There are few if any secular laws built on religious grounds except those specifically tied to religion. What a politicians and what a law states are different from each other. There is no scientific standard for when humanity or life starts and so the law determined it...Something it is wholly unqualified to do. As a result you have heartbeat laws and you have 3rd trimester laws and it’s all based on politics and legality. NO! not at all, The fact is that religious law is applicable only to a subset of society and secular law is applicable to the whole of a society. I repeat again for the dummies. They should NEVER be interchangeable. That is abject nonsense. The far right religious crowd seem to have considerable sway in USA, just look at the States overturning Roe v Wade locally and maybe a push for federally with the stacked Supreme Court, just as one example. Hence it is way better to leave the circumstances to a medical decision between a woman and a doctor that is based on the individua circumstances of the case and not a one size fits all approach. Old white men Christian men in politics or legislature have no business in the privacy and autonomy of a woman and her reproductive rights.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 12, 2019 21:48:41 GMT
of course sin has religious connotation. But in the end it describes something you cannot do. It’s a law or rule within religion. Secular law is a law or rule outside of religion and its stricter. To get bent out of shape about one and not the other is silly.There are few if any secular laws built on religious grounds except those specifically tied to religion. What a politicians and what a law states are different from each other. There is no scientific standard for when humanity or life starts and so the law determined it...Something it is wholly unqualified to do. As a result you have heartbeat laws and you have 3rd trimester laws and it’s all based on politics and legality. NO! not at all, The fact is that religious law is applicable only to a subset of society and secular law is applicable to the whole of a society. I repeat again for the dummies. They should NEVER be interchangeable. That is abject nonsense. The far right religious crowd seem to have considerable sway in USA, just look at the States overturning Roe v Wade locally and maybe a push for federally with the stacked Supreme Court, just as one example. Hence it is way better to leave the circumstances to a medical decision between a woman and a doctor that is based on the individua circumstances of the case and not a one size fits all approach. Old white men Christian men in politics or legislature have no business in the privacy and autonomy of a woman and her reproductive rights. i never said they were interchangeable. The notion of hating sin because it’s telling people what to do is silly since you have to do what others tell you secularly or face greater consequences all the time and you have no consequences at all for defined sin which does exist whether one wants it to or not. Basically only a moron would think sin since the concept of sin, rules, exist in every organization in existence. You clearly agree with this so no need to argue about it. Medical decisions are a great example law putting limits on choice since there is no medical procedure that is not dictated by secular law. You can’t even taken Tylenol without the law saying you can. The reason why women have a variety of standards for abortion is not based on the medical field but the legal authority.
|
|