by Shining One 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Then Jstalin, you are not at all logical and your belief is sheer fantasy.
Lol - thanks for the update on my beliefs. You clearly have not read (or not digested) my previous posts on this subject.
What's more logical? Believing in the sanctity of life based on each individual's humanity and right to exist, or believing in arbitrary moral rules that a being can change and exempt both himself and others from on a whim?
There is a continual reference to law and laws to a point of obsession throughout this and other threads by Shining One.
Laws are made by people in power. The laws then have to be regularly enforced so that they act as a deterrent. If those in power never enforce the laws they have made, in time the laws become useless and the population assume that they are no longer in force. More than this, they see the law maker as weak and unable to maintain the laws he has made. Governments succeed or fail to the degree that they can enforce their will and laws.
Thousands of years of human history shows us this reality in action. It would be pointless for a supreme being to make absolute laws and then do nothing to enforce them. That would create a worse state of affairs than not making laws of any kind. Even when those in power cause the death and suffering to millions of people, there is no intervention or law enforcement from a supreme being.
The only logical conclusion is that no universal laws have been made in the first place. There has never been a universal code of conduct that has been accepted by every nation.
We as humans are on a journey of discovery. Laws are made by each society as they are deemed helpful or necessary, either for those in power or the population in general.Whether a supreme being God exists is not the issue here. What is clear is that no such supreme being has operated through the making and enforcement of laws, throughout the whole of human history.
Once that concept is grasped it becomes possible to see what forces are really in operation throughout the universe.
Why should that few inches from womb to exit make any difference? Why is it 'immoral' to execute a murderer but not 'immoral' to abort a baby
I'm not prepared to share my personal beliefs, but I believe mankind 'adjusts' morality to suit. Morally we (in this Society, at least) protect the vulnerable (generally). When a woman is pregnant and seeks a termination SHE is regarded as vulnerable (emotionally, phsically etc), and SHE is the one Society can relate to.
In the case of a driver who kills or injures, he will receive a far lesser sentence if judged by a Jury (this is a fact I learned in Law), because the 12 jury members are likely to be drivers themselves and it's a case of, 'there but for the Grace Of God go I'.
Really, then how can it be 'moral' to abort a premature baby of say, 3 months, 6 months or almost due and partially birth him/her as you kill it? If that is 'moral' then what about just dumping them in the trash can, after all it is a woman's right now to kill any life within her if she so chooses? Why should that few inches from womb to exit make any difference? Why is it 'immoral' to execute a murderer but not 'immoral' to abort a baby (a typical liberal belief contradiction)? I remember the 60's and 70's well. This kind of thing was practically unheard of and now it is ROUTINE. Society is on the downward grade and just like Rome, this civilization is headed for a fall.Again I ask, if their is no absolute truth then how can you justify any law? How can there be any moral law when you refuse to admit there must be a Divine Arbiter to set that moral law? I have just used one of the same examples again to help you recognize (and admit the validity of) the point.
You totally rock, Rex!
>Rule us oh Lord. Show us the way. Oh wait... what if you are wrong?
Pascal's wager.
Rex
Trace,
This place is so full of liberals that they've made it illegal for anyone to fart for fear it will deplete the ozone in here. LOL What really takes the cake is that they have no idea that their present views are the result of Watchtower indoctrinated nihlism. They have been taught to hate (real) Christians, hate and fear our own government, especially the military. Every liberal position seems to be taken by the majority of the posters here. They 'toe' the liberal belief line to the max. The ones who agree or see my points are usually afraid to take a position in opposition to their peers. Just like when they were JWs.
Rex
Midwich,
I ask again: Why should that few inches from womb to exit make any difference? Why is it 'immoral' to execute a murderer but not 'immoral' to abort a baby. Why is it moral to abort a baby and immoral to kill him/her after it's birthed? That is exactly what abortionists and their weaselly supporting politicians are guilty of. We would have made it illegal to do a partial birth abortion but Slick Willy vetoed it! Even the NOW witches refused to condemn his actions toward women, practically raped one, fooled around on his wife even in the Oval Office. Liberals all stick together or they are cast out and ostracised.
Rex
Pascal's wager.
Although I'm sure you've heard this rejection before, I'll state it anyways: Even if you chose to follow Pascal's wager, which religion? There is no way to know which is right and if you choose the wrong one, you're damned anyways (unless a universalist god is the "real" one).
Nevertheless, the wager itself deals with a subject that is totally irrelavent to the human condition as the proverbial teacup orbiting Mars. You expect me to base my whole life on a notion that can never be proven while alive and I have to wait until death to see whether it is true or not? Of course, if I'm right and follow Pascal's wager anyways, I will have wasted my entire and only life. Even if I'm wrong, doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to go to hell, since, as stated before, any religion that has beliefs in the afterlife could be wrong and all possibilities do not lead to hell.
The most rational thing to do, therefore, is to wait and see if this cosmic comedian decides to show himself to us. If a god did create us, he must've "endowed us with reason." Reason dictates that we shouldn't believe, much less base our lives around something, without any proof (doesn't seem very smart to believe that you have invisible beings around you all the time, without any proof at all, does it?); since all our proofs about the universe around us come from sensation (ie., sight, etc.) and invention (ideas, like math, etc.), to use Lockean terms, it stands that god's existence can never be known by humans.
Rex - I thought I answered. Apologies if you didn't understand. I didn't say it was morally right to distinguish between life and the unborn, I meant that it's human 'instinct'. We cannot relate to an unborn child (even if it IS within inches of being born), but we CAN relate to the mother/murderer (because we COULD find ourselves in that position).
Also (just for your interest), PRO-abortionists use a BIBLICAL argument. Until God breathed air into the body of Adam, he was not a living soul. (Genesis 2 v 7). They maintain that until God does likewise to a child, it is just a dead soul (only God can create life). But I think that's another discussion, lol.
