Spirituality
07 Feb 12
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot so. Someone believing there is life after death and wanting to help someone else to prolong their life, are not mutually exclusive at all. Believing there is life after death doesn't make unnecessarily letting someone die "moral".
But unless you can explain why a theist - who believes in a life after death - should hold preserving life to be the ultimate moral good, you have no leg to stand on in this discussion.
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know many Muslims who do actually eat pig, pork if you prefer to simplify it, and I see many Muslims wearing the most expensive of pork shoes. Eating and wearing? Showing I do or I don't? Is that of relevance.
My question to you is whether such criticism is fair or valid. Do you equally criticize the Muslims for not eating pork? Or only if a life is at stake?
Would you criticize a Christian who refused to renounce his religion at the cost of his life or someone else's?
Do you criticize Jesus for essentially taking this stance?
Why do you put instinctual morality above religion and it is reasonable to do so?
No atheist criticized Jesus for any stance, simply because he doesn't and didn't exist!
We all have instinct. A pen approaches your eye, swiftly, you blink. Your body protects itself. God is going to punish me. Do I flinch? Not one iota, because what is God - I don't see it, and if all the rules of the favourably insane have content, he isn't going to hurt my eye. An eye, for an eye, in the bible teaches me that if some twat hits me, I'll hit the fecking twat back, and hopefully knock him out!
What is religious morality? I think it's non-religious to hit the twat back, and I have seen religious people hit the attacker back!
What's your real Question?
-m.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFWell I would agree that letting someone die if you can save them (assuming that this isn't a euthanasia discussion)
Not so. Someone believing there is life after death and wanting to help someone else to prolong their life, are not mutually exclusive at all. Believing there is life after death doesn't make unnecessarily letting someone die "moral".
isn't moral... However if you really believe in a life after death that this person will go to that's better than the life they
have now then it's totally logical to let them die.
In fact if you hold the position that there is a 'grace period' after birth and before you become old enough to reason
and ask forgiveness for your 'original sin'.
During which period if you die you get an automatic pass to heaven (there are those that think this) then the ONLY
logical conclusion is that you should kill your children and send them to heaven where they can have an eternity of bliss.
Rather than take the risk of them reaching the age of reason and then rejecting god and going to hell for all eternity.
I am eternally grateful that the massive overwhelming majority of people who do think that heaven exists, believe in 'original
sin' and in a grace period DON'T come to this conclusion. However it is the only logical conclusion you can come to if you care
about your kids going to heaven and believe in the above.
As I believe in a secular objective morality, I can claim with justification that such actions are not and never can be moral.
But for those inside the system of warped perspective that is religion I can see how it's only too possible to conclude otherwise.
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn what way does a Muslim not eating pork cause harm to another person?
My question to you is whether such criticism is fair or valid. Do you equally criticize the Muslims for not eating pork? Or only if a life is at stake?
Would you criticize a Christian who refused to renounce his religion at the cost of his life or someone else's??
I think any religionist choosing not to tell someone who is threatening to kill him or her that they have 'renounced' their beliefs because that is what they want to hear is not responding to a genuine 'moral dilemma' according to any meaningful definition o00f 'moral' that I can subscribe to; unless you can challenge me with one?
Do you criticize Jesus for essentially taking this stance?
I have no particular reason to support or criticize "Jesus".
Why do you put instinctual morality above religion and it is reasonable to do so?
I think religion and morality overlap in places, that's all. I cannot see any moral virtue in refusing to donate blood due to superstition and vanity, and thus allowing a person to die, whereas I can see moral virtue in saving someone's life. For me it comes down to the logic of rooting morality in terms of empathy and doing no harm, as opposed to rooting it in alleged supernatural 'instructions' that are obtuse and illogical.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI think to superimpose your speculation and hopes (i.e. faith) with regards to your own immortality onto another human being, and then allow you to tell yourself that you are in some way "authorised" by your own superstition to allow that person to die -unnecessarily - would be, for all intents, psychopathic.
Well I would agree that letting someone die if you can save them (assuming that this isn't a euthanasia discussion)
isn't moral... However if you really believe in a life after death that this person will go to that's better than the life they
have now then it's totally logical to let them die.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
08 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieeasy there big fella. i was'nt stating what id been told as fact. feel free to correct me if im factually wrong but no need for the hissy fit.
actually the medical profession has moved on and there are now lots of alternative
treatments, but you never knew that, clearly you need to check your sources, once
again, they prove to be inaccurate. Do you people ever get anything right?
ill tell you a quick story - when he was 13 my wifes brother found out he had bone cancer. he'd had it for a long time so by the time he was diagnosed it was looking bad. he was in and out of hospital fighting it for a few years. at the worst point he had to go for surgery and his parents were told to prepare for the worst. the next day some jw's (who had learnt of the families situation) turned up at the door to offer some kind words of support....oh and to convince the parents (despite them being atheists) that letting their 13yr old boy go into surgery and have a blood transfusion would be a terrible thing to do and one actually said "if god has decided its his time then let him go". just what they needed to hear at a very difficult time. he had his surgery and despite the odds made a full recovery. he has a wife and kids that he would never of had a chance to love if his parents had been jw's or listened to them.
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFI did not say they were mutually exclusive, I said that you needed to substantiate why wanting to prolong earthly life is required in the light of eternal life. Believing unnecessarily letting someone die is immoral doesn't necessarily make it so, and it is much harder to argue that it is, given immortality.
Not so. Someone believing there is life after death and wanting to help someone else to prolong their life, are not mutually exclusive at all. Believing there is life after death doesn't make unnecessarily letting someone die "moral".
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat "eternal life"?
I did not say they were mutually exclusive, I said that you needed to substantiate why wanting to prolong earthly life is required in the light of eternal life.
Believing unnecessarily letting someone die is immoral doesn't necessarily make it so, and it is much harder to argue that it is, given immortality.
Unnecessarily letting someone die equals "harm". Projecting personal theories about "immortality" onto others and playing down the reality of death is not "empathy".
What broad principles is your moral code based on?
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by mikelomNot sure what you are saying there. I don't think its relevant. My question was whether you would criticize a Muslim who chose not to eat pork, and whether you would if it was at the cost of someones life. I don't think you answer this.
I know many Muslims who do actually eat pig, pork if you prefer to simplify it, and I see many Muslims wearing the most expensive of pork shoes. Eating and wearing? Showing I do or I don't? Is that of relevance.
No atheist criticized Jesus for any stance, simply because he doesn't and didn't exist!
Do you criticise the actions of the Jesus in the story?
What is religious morality?
I don't know, I didn't mention it.
What's your real Question?
I asked several questions, none of which you have answered.
08 Feb 12
1 edit
twitehead ask me about this early in the thread and seeing how the thread has developed, I'll be clear on my position regarding this.
I said earlier that I could not give up my beliefs and I can't, they are what they are; however if someone’s life depended on me saying words no matter what those words were I would utter them because God knows my heart.
If saving someone's life depended on me taking something into my body which I hypothetically speaking completely opposed, such as tobacco smoke or alcohol or even cannabis or whatever, as long as there was no danger to me (real danger), I would do whatever it took to save that person's life. Living with the consequences of the alternative is too terrible to even consider.
As I said earlier "mercy triumphs over judgement" it's in the Bible lots of times.
As for the JW stance; as a theist/Christian I believe that doctrine of allowing someone to die rather than give them blood or allow them to have blood, is from the pits of Hell. I would also say it is in the same vein as the spirit that drives those extreme cults to have mass suicides.
My wife is home resting; she is very tired as she was under observation all night during the transfusion. I will never bow the knee to any God who condemns/judges me for what I've done in the last 24 hrs. My God won't.
Thanks to those of you who posted good wishes - they were appreciated.
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFIn what way is that relevant? We are not talking about causing harm we are talking about withholding assistance - not the same thing. I also asked about whether you would have an issue if someones life was at stake. Would you?
In what way does a Muslim not eating pork cause harm to another person?
I think any religionist choosing not to tell someone who is threatening to kill him or her that they have 'renounced' their beliefs because that is what they want to hear is not responding to a genuine 'moral dilemma' according to any meaningful definition o00f 'moral' that I can subscribe to; unless you can challenge me with one?
I am not sure what your answer is here. Yes, or no?
I have no particular reason to support or criticize "Jesus".
Seems like you cant give a straight forward answer to a single question. Isn't that what you were accusing Robbie of doing a moment ago? Did you not understand the question?
I think religion and morality overlap in places, that's all.
But you think morality - specifically instinctual morality, superceeds religion?
I cannot see any moral virtue in refusing to donate blood due to superstition and vanity, and thus allowing a person to die, whereas I can see moral virtue in saving someone's life.
Well first you must show that it is "superstition and vanity", not a religious belief. Why don't you call Muslims beliefs about pork "superstition and vanity"? In fact all religious beliefs could be called "superstition" if you are not a fellow believer.
For me it comes down to the logic of rooting morality in terms of empathy and doing no harm, as opposed to rooting it in alleged supernatural 'instructions' that are obtuse and illogical.
Well most of the world would beg to differ. Most religious people put religious commands higher up the scale than emapthy. Or so they claim. They often don't actually act that way, but then most people claiming to be religious are not really or are really somewhat agnostic.
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadMuslims beliefs about pork are "superstition", of course, and "vanity" too if they claim that not eating eat will help them get eternal life.
Well first you must show that it is "superstition and vanity", not a religious belief. Why don't you call Muslims beliefs about pork "superstition and vanity"? In fact all religious beliefs could be called "superstition" if you are not a fellow believer.
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou should direct questions about "Jesus", and about "God's instructions" generally, to Christians. Jesus is unrelated to my perception of what is moral and immoral.
Seems like you cant give a straight forward answer to a single question [about Jesus]. Isn't that what you were accusing Robbie of doing a moment ago? Did you not understand the question?
08 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere religion involves doing harm or extinguishing empathy, then it deviates from morality as I see it. So yes, religion is often 'superseded'. Of course.
But you think morality - specifically instinctual morality, superceeds religion?
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by divegeesterWell obviously you do not consider it a religious requirement to be honest about your beliefs, and you believe that God will forgive such action. You do realise however that not all theists believe that God is like that and with good reason:
I said earlier that I could not give up my beliefs and I can't, they are what they are; however if someone’s life depended on me saying words no matter what those words were I would utter them because God knows my heart.
“…but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” - Mark 3:29 (NIV)
If saving someone's life depended on me taking something into my body which I hypothetically speaking completely opposed, such as tobacco smoke or alcohol or even cannabis or whatever, as long as there was no danger to me (real danger), I would do whatever it took to save that person's life.
Your examples are hardly comparable.
Living with the consequences of the alternative is too terrible to even consider.
Why? I thought you were Christian? Why is life so precious to you?
As for the JW stance; as a theist/Christian I believe that doctrine of allowing someone to die rather than give them blood or allow them to have blood, is from the pits of Hell.
And I say it has more to do with your hatred of JWs than actual logic.
I will never bow the knee to any God who condemns/judges me for what I've done in the last 24 hrs. My God won't.
Yet you have no problem with a God who orders genocides and kills the first born of every Egyptian.
Not to mention the fact that your God, despite being supposedly omnipotent, would not have stepped in to help had you been unable to give your wife a blood transfusion.