by cofty 210 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Catholics hold that life is sacred from conception. How do you disprove that objectively?
A detailed study of embryology shows conclusively that a new unique person does not exist the moment a sperm penetrates an egg. These objective facts - as opposed to RC dogma - should be part of the data on which we base a decision regarding stem cell research.
As I understand it, Catholics hold that life is sacred from conception. How do you disprove that objectively? Or do you describe their opposition differently?
Yes, we believe that the soul is directly created and infused by God in the very moment of conception.
It's not about the embryo having a neural system or not or ability to feel pain. It's about the soul already created.
A detailed study of embryology shows conclusively that a new unique person does not exist the moment a sperm penetrates an egg.
How does that prove life isn't sacred from conception?
It's late but just one simple example - a fertilised egg might split days later and become two or more people. Where and when did the extra souls come from?
Most zygotes fail before implantation - where did all those souls go and why?
Sometimes two fertilised eggs will fuse creating a chimera. The person will develop normally. How many souls do they have? etc etc etc.
Objective facts expose Catholic dogma and ethical values as superstitious bollocks
We believe humans are not just material bodies and not spiritual beings neither.
Humans are the very union of a spiritual soul and a material body. Two different natures forming the unique human nature. And the soul is created at the moment of conception and is destined to be mysteriously united to a body.
Humans are not bodies and are not souls. Humans have bodies and souls.
And we believe the ultimate destiny of humans is to have an eternal union of body and soul.
The ultimate free intentions of the soul will define its eternal destiny with the body.
I have no interest in Catholic dogma and superstition. We have no need of it. Objective secular morality is far superior.
John Mann:
What's the problem to a Christian if morality comes from directly from God's nature (as opposed from His will or intellect as you put as "divine command"). I don't see any dilemma in this.
The problem for Christians is that the Bible contains accounts of morally abhorrent actions claimed to have been commanded, sanctioned or performed by God, such as genocidal ethnic cleansing, killing children, etc.
You're right about Protestantism. The Bible read with the Sola Scriptura makes no sense.
Jews wrote the OT in a dramatic way with a lot of exaggeration. Just like special effects to make a lasting impression. It was their writing style.
Catholics do not read the Bible as Protestants (and Atheists). We consider the OT primarily as historical waiting for Jesus. History show us that some accounts is literally impossible.
Every battle and genocide is a symbol for our inner faith struggles.
Catholicism is not founded on Bible. The NT is a product of Catholicism. Outside Catholicism the Bible is pure nonsense.
Amazing how Atheists here seems just to take the Sola Scriptura approach. If Sola Scriptura is the only approach so I'm an Atheist too.
Sam Harris' metaphor for objective morality is the "Moral Landscape" where higher peaks represent better states of well-being and vice-versa.
He asks us to imagine the deepest possible valley that represents the worst possible state for the maximum number of conscious creatures. Morality is about moving away from that position. There will be numerous places in the landscape of equal height just as there are equally moral positions and states of well-being.
In this landscape there is no need to know how high the highest possible peak is: no absolute state of moral perfection. Just as we cannot define perfect human health but we can take steps to objectively improve our health relative the the worse possible state - nothing is more unhealthy than a corpse.
I found it to be useful metaphor. His book is well worth your time. Substituting "god says...." for difficult answers is not satisfying.
Amazing how Atheists here seems just to take the Sola Scriptura approach. - JM
For the second time - if you bothered to read the OP you will see my argument does not depend on scripture.
