Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post Reply
Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Seth » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:59 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Seth wrote:... [T]hat fallacy [no true Scotsman] does not apply to those who are not Christians even if they claim to be Christians while engaging in un-Christian behavior.
Do you see your fundamental error here?
No, because there is no error on my part. This is because claiming to be a Christian does not make one a Christian just as claiming to be a Scotsman doesn't make one a Scotsman.
The thing with Mr Dear is that he can (presumably) rely on a fundamental interpretation of Christian doctrine to justify his acts of terror and violence,
Why can he "presumably rely" on a "fundamentalist Interpretation?" Why is a "fundamentalist interpretation" of Christian doctrine presumptively valid? You are iterating the Atheist's Fallacy again.
and in that he gets to declare the non-fundamentalists, non-Biblical-literalists as the true untrue Christians.
His ability to declare something doesn't make it true, nor does a claim of being a Christian authorize him to judge others, and that is a strict New Testament principle.
Many many Christians would hold that the Bible is unerring,
Fallacious appeal to popularity.
that God's law supersedes all human law,
Ibid.
and that divine command is not only the foundation of all ethics but places an obligation on all Christians (and on all others too).
Ibid.
The difference between the fundamentalist and the more moderately-minded believer is that the fundamentalists embraces these ideas more fully, more deeply, more fundamentally, and then acts on them.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
In a way the fundamentalist Christian is more Christian Christian that the moderate, an Uber Christian if you will.


Ibid.

However, fundamentalism's self-righteous self-certainty exposes the ethical vacuum at the heart of all religious dogmas,
Fallacy of composition, assumes facts not in evidence.
that being the abrogation of personal responsibility for one's acts in favour of the circular "I am obliged to follow the orders I am obliged to follow" excuse.


Blatant mischaracterization of Christian theology.
Christian objections to abortion fall into this category of excuses whenever the law or will of God is used in justification or whenever a Christian defers their moral reasoning to a religious authority.
Flatly false statement.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51239
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Tero » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:33 pm

There is no objective morality, Seth. Just use your guns. Not for abortion, of course.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Seth » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:35 pm

Tero wrote:There is no objective morality, Seth. Just use your guns. Not for abortion, of course.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality
Perhaps, but I maintain there is objective IMmorality.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39933
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:06 am

Seth. Seth, Seth, Seth, Seth, Seth, Seth, Are you also the self-appointed Grande Validator Christian now as well? I would have thought that self-declaring as a Christian is all that was required to validate one's Christian credentials, but perhaps you're right and Christians have to check with you first these days. Careful though, that's how schisms start, and we all know how messily they can end eh? So if you'd like to offer some evidence that a great many Christians don't hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, don't hold that God's law supersedes all human laws, and don't hold that divine command is the foundation of all ethics and a moral obligation for all humans, then be my guest. Not only would I'd love to see you argue against that (no, I really would), but I'd also love to hear you say that these are not basic Christian beliefs, and not even the sort of thing your friends the Evangelicals are ever likely to utter. While you're at it, you might take a little time to explain how fundamentalist Christians are not, you know, fundamentally fundamental in their attitude to the Bible and in their interpretation of its text, and how this has no effect on how they live their lives either. Now I know you don't like people to characterise things without your prior approval, but really, this characterisation of a brand of Christianity at the arse-end of the spectrum is hardly a misscharacterisation by any degree, and certainly not something you should be getting all hot and bothered about - unless that is your thinking that any unfavourable thing said about even the most deranged branch of Christianity is an offensive attack on the whole of the creed. And how can there be a fallacy of composition in a qualifying clause of a sentence when, you know, it's a qualifying clause of a sentence and neither a declaration or a claim? Nonetheless, I applaud your continued efforts in avoiding the issue of murderous Christians murdering in the name of their religion and on the presumed authority of their mythological deity though, and I must congratulate you for your persistence and for the energy with which you prosecute that task - you really couldn't have done more to destroy the context of my remarks if you'd broke them down into random groups of three and set them to a balalaika beat.

Over to you big fella - I'm all ears. :biggrin:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Hermit » Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:12 am

Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Islam has no strictures against birth control. :tea:
Really? How about this:
As to whether abortion is a form of killing a human, the Qur'an does not make any explicit statements. Only Surah 17:31 warns believers in general: “Kill not your children for fear of want. We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.”
You somehow forgot to quote the comment immediately following Surah 17:31 by the author of the article you linked to. It goes like this:
This Qur'anic reference is to killing already born children--usually girls. The text was condemning this custom. The Arabic word for killing used in this text "means not only slaying with a weapon, blow or poison, but also humiliating or degrading or depriving children of proper upbringing and education." The text doesn't explicitly address the abortion and therefore doesn't close the argument on it.
So, definitely not a pronouncement on abortion either way. But I'm quite used to you using that which is not said to mean what you want it to mean. You're very consistent there.
The point is that even within Islam there is substantial dispute about abortion.
No, mate. The point is that you pointed to something written in the Quor'an as if it addressed the issue of contraception. It does nothing of the sort. Nor does it address abortion, which I suspect you thought it did, or at least used it as if that was the case. Again I conclude that you are either confused or mendaciously misleading or a bit of both.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
rachelbean
"awesome."
Posts: 15757
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:08 am
About me: I'm a nerd.
Location: Wales, aka not England
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by rachelbean » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:50 pm

Seth wrote:
All the Mosaic laws still apply to Christians and Christ was a fulfilment of OT prophecies just as he had a self-declared role to fulfil God's law.
Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.
:what:

Christ's sacrifice meant other sacrifices were no longer needed, but it did not mean the old law was destroyed (even if Paul seemed to think so).
Mathew 7:17/7:18 wrote: 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…
lordpasternack wrote:Yeah - I fuckin' love oppressin' ma wimmin, like I love chowin' on ma bacon and tuggin' on ma ol' cock… ;)
Pappa wrote:God is a cunt! I wank over pictures of Jesus! I love Darwin so much I'd have sex with his bones!!!!
Image

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60728
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:52 pm

I love it when atheists know the bible better than Christians! :drool:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
rachelbean
"awesome."
Posts: 15757
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:08 am
About me: I'm a nerd.
Location: Wales, aka not England
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by rachelbean » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:55 pm

I taught Sunday School! :lol:
lordpasternack wrote:Yeah - I fuckin' love oppressin' ma wimmin, like I love chowin' on ma bacon and tuggin' on ma ol' cock… ;)
Pappa wrote:God is a cunt! I wank over pictures of Jesus! I love Darwin so much I'd have sex with his bones!!!!
Image

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Hermit » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:52 pm

rachelbean wrote:Christ's sacrifice meant other sacrifices were no longer needed, but it did not mean the old law was destroyed (even if Paul seemed to think so).
Mathew 7:17/7:18 wrote: 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…
"Verses taken out of context / misinterpreted" type reply coming up in ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
rachelbean
"awesome."
Posts: 15757
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:08 am
About me: I'm a nerd.
Location: Wales, aka not England
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by rachelbean » Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:02 pm

Well, that's the thing. A lot of Christians would say that too. But, saying "what Christians believe" is nonsensical. I was raised in an evangelical/pentecostal church, but from 18-25 spent a lot of time trying to find my home once I realized it wasn't there and in that time studied and became part of Lutheran, Calvinist, Episcopalian and finally eastern orthodox churches and the difference in interpretation and application of scripture is as varied as it can possibly be. There is no one Christian view on abortion (or birth control), for the same reason there isn't one single Christian view on grilled cheese sandwiches.
lordpasternack wrote:Yeah - I fuckin' love oppressin' ma wimmin, like I love chowin' on ma bacon and tuggin' on ma ol' cock… ;)
Pappa wrote:God is a cunt! I wank over pictures of Jesus! I love Darwin so much I'd have sex with his bones!!!!
Image

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:17 pm

Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Seth wrote:... [T]hat fallacy [no true Scotsman] does not apply to those who are not Christians even if they claim to be Christians while engaging in un-Christian behavior.
Do you see your fundamental error here?
No, because there is no error on my part. This is because claiming to be a Christian does not make one a Christian just as claiming to be a Scotsman doesn't make one a Scotsman.
I'm transitioning to true Scotsman. I was wrongly assigned American atheist by birth, but I identify as a Scottish Christian. My preferred pronoun is ye.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:22 pm

Seth wrote: Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.
Jesus repealed the Ten Commandments? Nice!
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:20 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:Seth. Seth, Seth, Seth, Seth, Seth, Seth, Are you also the self-appointed Grande Validator Christian now as well?
No, I'm the Grand Validator of Reason and Logic here at Ratz.

I would have thought that self-declaring as a Christian is all that was required to validate one's Christian credentials,
I sure you would have thought that because it makes it very convenient for you to bash Christians generally when someone who identifies as a Christian does something bad. But that's not how it actually is, which is unfortunate for your ad hominem argumentation.
but perhaps you're right and Christians have to check with you first these days.
They don't have to check with me, they have to check with Jesus, or so I'm told.
Careful though, that's how schisms start, and we all know how messily they can end eh?
It's okay, God will, I'm told, sort it all out in the end.
So if you'd like to offer some evidence that a great many Christians don't hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, don't hold that God's law supersedes all human laws, and don't hold that divine command is the foundation of all ethics and a moral obligation for all humans, then be my guest.
I wouldn't because what you posit is merely another fallacy. Or two. Or three possibly. What a "great many Christians" believe or do not believe is not relevant to the question of whether or not any particular person is a Christian. Nor is what a "great many Christians" believe about the bible necessarily the metric by which Christianity is measured. And even if they do believe as you suggest, which Christians don't, those beliefs are not inherently immoral, which is what you are trying to suggest.
Not only would I'd love to see you argue against that (no, I really would), but I'd also love to hear you say that these are not basic Christian beliefs, and not even the sort of thing your friends the Evangelicals are ever likely to utter.
Well, in my experience Christians believe in rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's. They do not, as you are trying to suggest, hold that "God's law supersedes all human laws," unlike I hasten to add, Muslims do. While they may believe that God's laws are superior to man's laws, particularly in terms of moral suasion to rightful and godly acts, Christians do not generally try to use their religious beliefs about the moral superiority of God's laws as justification for violating secular laws of their communities and societies. Indeed the New Testament expressly requires Christians to obey secular authorities even when doing so leads to their deaths in the arena. Jesus says that by being obedient to temporal authority, even when temporal authority is evil and corrupt, Christians lead by example and martyrdom and will be rewarded one day.

As to your claim that Christians believe that "divine command is the foundation of all ethics and a moral obligation for all humans," this is perfectly true, so far as it goes. They do indeed feel that way, but they are not, unlike Muslims, commanded to enforce those "divine commands" upon non-Christians by force because those divine commandments apply only to Christians. They are counseled to lead by example by living godly lives in accordance with God's commandments and allow God to work in the hearts of unbelievers, who are granted free will by God to choose or refuse to choose salvation, for better or worse, and thereby bring such lost souls to salvation through Christ. Christians are to provide warnings and offer to assist others in obtaining salvation for themselves, as such persons are drawn to do of their own accord through the workings of God. They are not authorized to impose Christianity on anyone against their will, ever.

This does not mean, however, that when it comes to matters temporal and secular that Christians acting politically within their community or culture are not permitted to have their political decisions, desires and votes informed by their religious beliefs, nor does it mean that they cannot, as members of a community with rights equal in every way to non-Christians, seek to enact policies and laws that comport with their moral and ethical beliefs, despite those beliefs being based in their religious doctrines. So long as the political advocacy and laws they argue for do not violate the First Amendment proscription on an establishment of a state religion the moral, ethical, social and political beliefs of Christians have every bit as much authority to be enacted into secular law as do the moral, ethical, social and political beliefs of anyone else.

The fact that such opinions flow from religious belief does not necessarily make public policy enacted to effectuate those opinions through the democratic process, as constrained by the First Amendment, an act of "establishment of religion" in the constitutional sense. Everyone's opinions about social structure are informed by their belief systems, including Atheists, and just because the root of those opinions might be belief in God and a desire to obey God's commandments, or a belief in not-God and a desire to extirpate theistic influences on secular society doesn't make it an establishment of a state religion. Unless, of course, it does, and at that point the Constitution intervenes by testing the law to determine if it lies within the ambit of the Constitution.

Thus, a law which commands all persons to cease working on Sunday and attend a place of worship or pray five times a day is flatly unconstitutional. But a law that prohibits abortion is not necessarily unconstitutional because it is eminently possible to object to abortion for entirely secular reasons and therefore a law prohibition abortion enacted after due process and democratic determination can, at least theoretically, survive constitutional scrutiny. This is why at the present time states have full authority to regulate abortion after the first trimester and prohibit abortion entirely after the second trimester under Roe v. Wade.
While you're at it, you might take a little time to explain how fundamentalist Christians are not, you know, fundamentally fundamental in their attitude to the Bible and in their interpretation of its text, and how this has no effect on how they live their lives either.

Why would I do so? You're positing yet another strawman and red-herring argument by implying that fundamentalist interpretations and obedience to the Bible, by which you actually mean only the Old Testament, is somehow inherently immoral, which is suggested by your use of the loaded term "fundamentalist."

It's up to Christians what they choose to believe and how they choose to (peaceably) exercise their religion, not me and certainly not you. I have never claimed that the Bible does not inform Christianity and how Christians "live their lives." I merely dispute your implication that doing so axiomatically means that they live their lives according to those parts of the Old Testament which you and other Atheists like to cite as evidence of the inherent evil of Christianity. That's a red-herring argument, as I've explained many times, because according to Christian doctrine, which is explicated not in the Old Testament but in the New Testament, your favorite strawman and red-herring arguments about the commandments of God to kill people found in the Old Testament mean that Christians are obligated to kill people in obedience to those commandments is quite simply a completely false statement, and at this point a mendaciously false one.

As I've told you many times, this is not the case, and those commandments were specifically repealed by Jesus and replaced with new commandments and guidelines for living as Christians. Obviously one who obeys only the Old Testament is not a Christian because Christianity is, by definition, adherence to the doctrines of Christ, who came long after the Old Testament went to press. That, JBTW, is why the New Testament exists. It's an amendment to the Old Testament.
Now I know you don't like people to characterise things without your prior approval,

Argumentun ad hominem
, you puerile putz. :razzle:
but really, this characterisation of a brand of Christianity at the arse-end of the spectrum is hardly a misscharacterisation by any degree, and certainly not something you should be getting all hot and bothered about - unless that is your thinking that any unfavourable thing said about even the most deranged branch of Christianity is an offensive attack on the whole of the creed.


Well, since your devious intent in this bald-faced attempt at smearing all Christians with that particular "fundamentalist" broad brush is perfectly clear and comprises a "poisoning the well" fallacy it's hardly irrational of me to point that fact out.
And how can there be a fallacy of composition in a qualifying clause of a sentence when, you know, it's a qualifying clause of a sentence and neither a declaration or a claim?
You wrote: "However, fundamentalism's self-righteous self-certainty exposes the ethical vacuum at the heart of all religious dogmas..."

That's not a "qualifying clause" it's a purported statement of objective truth.

But you're right, it's not a fallacy of composition, it's a non sequitur fallacy and a series of circumstantial ad hominem attacks.

This is because, in the first place, you have stated premises that are not supported by any evidence that comprise nothing more than personal opinion, and then you engage in circumstantial ad hominem argumentation which you claim proves the false premises.
Nonetheless, I applaud your continued efforts in avoiding the issue of murderous Christians murdering in the name of their religion and on the presumed authority of their mythological deity though,
Where have I avoided that issue? People who murder, including murdering under the "presumed authority" of Christ, are not Christians because Christ forbids such actions entirely, much less in his name. That's rather the point of the whole sub-thread. We simply disagree on whether or not those who self-identify as Christians and attempt to use Old Testament passages as justification for committing crimes are actually Christians. You want to claim them as being Christians because by doing so you get to criticize all Christians as a part of a repeated fallacy of composition. This is very typical religious Atheist sophistry.
and I must congratulate you for your persistence and for the energy with which you prosecute that task - you really couldn't have done more to destroy the context of my remarks if you'd broke them down into random groups of three and set them to a balalaika beat.
Why thank you. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:29 pm

Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Islam has no strictures against birth control. :tea:
Really? How about this:
As to whether abortion is a form of killing a human, the Qur'an does not make any explicit statements. Only Surah 17:31 warns believers in general: “Kill not your children for fear of want. We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.”
You somehow forgot to quote the comment immediately following Surah 17:31 by the author of the article you linked to. It goes like this:
This Qur'anic reference is to killing already born children--usually girls. The text was condemning this custom. The Arabic word for killing used in this text "means not only slaying with a weapon, blow or poison, but also humiliating or degrading or depriving children of proper upbringing and education." The text doesn't explicitly address the abortion and therefore doesn't close the argument on it.
So, definitely not a pronouncement on abortion either way. But I'm quite used to you using that which is not said to mean what you want it to mean. You're very consistent there.
The point is that even within Islam there is substantial dispute about abortion.
No, mate. The point is that you pointed to something written in the Quor'an as if it addressed the issue of contraception. It does nothing of the sort. Nor does it address abortion, which I suspect you thought it did, or at least used it as if that was the case. Again I conclude that you are either confused or mendaciously misleading or a bit of both.
Your claim was, "Islam has no strictures against birth control." The context of the thread is abortion, not the broader subject of birth control. I posted a quote from an Islamic religious authority demonstrating that as applied to "birth control by abortion" it is not true that Islam has "no strictures." It is, according to the authority cited, more than a little ambiguous whether Islam has "strictures" on abortion, therefore it is factually incorrect to say, or in this case evasively suggest that Islam has "no strictures" on abortion.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:43 pm

rachelbean wrote:
Seth wrote:
All the Mosaic laws still apply to Christians and Christ was a fulfilment of OT prophecies just as he had a self-declared role to fulfil God's law.
Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.
:what:

Christ's sacrifice meant other sacrifices were no longer needed, but it did not mean the old law was destroyed (even if Paul seemed to think so).
Mathew 7:17/7:18 wrote: 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…
The entire purpose of Christ's sacrifice was to redeem the sins of the world and change the rules going forward. Prior to his sacrifice God was indeed a jealous and often vindictive god who destroyed entire populations as retribution for their sins. But God changed his mind and sent down his "only begotten Son" to be sacrificed precisely in order to redeem all sin and save all those who choose salvation through Christ. Part of that deal is that God decided not to go about rendering judgment and dispensing punishment on a day-to-day basis but rather to suspend judgment for a time in order to allow the message of Christ to be transmitted to all and to give everyone a chance to accept his grace and obtain salvation from his eventual wrath and judgment.

Yes, this means that eventually those who are not saved will be judged, but they will be judged for their sins. Those who are saved are expected to follow Jesus and his commandments for living a Christian and godly life, which doesn't happen to include following the dictates of the Old Testament to the letter, particularly when it comes to judging and killing others for disobedience to God. It's very explicit in the New Testament that such judgment and punishment is the province of God, not mankind.

So when Jesus says "the Law" he is referring to the laws of God as amended by God through the sacrifice of his son Jesus. And nowhere does Jesus authorize or call upon Christians to either forcibly impose their beliefs on others or harm others. In fact he says quite the opposite.

This does not mean, however, that non-Christians will not be judged according to "the Law" and their transgressions. According to Jesus, they will absolutely be judged and punished, but by God, not by other men.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests