A real life dilemma - tonight!

Originally posted by FMF
I don't think there is any moral dimension to his decision. Some might see his act as inspirational or significant. Some might not attach any actual 'meaning' to it at all. I attach no meaning to the crucifixion. The people who crucified him were, as far as I am aware, acting immorally.

Huh? Why all the avoidance? Are you Christian? Do you honestly not understand what I am asking? This has nothing whatsoever to do with wither or not you attach meaning to crucifixion - and I really can't see how you could think that it did.

My question is very simple. Jesus refused to renounce his beliefs even though he knew that he would be killed as a result. He probably also knew his followers would also be persecuted. Was he morally wrong or not? Or does your morality only apply to your actions with regards to others not your actions with regards to your own life? If he did know that his followers would be persecuted, do you think he should have renounced his beliefs?

Originally posted by FMF
So?

So, I can understand if religious people believe it is immoral. I recognise that they have a different morality system.

Originally posted by FMF
So in what way are you linking this not-eating-pork thing to causing someone's death because of superstition? There is no moral dimension to not-eating-pork and eating-pork.

If a Muslim persons daughter was dying of starvation and the only food available was pork, would they be morally wrong to choose not to feed their daughter pork for religious reasons? This is hypothetical, because I believe Islam does allow the consumption of port in emergencies - its a generally more reasonable religion than Judaism. Christianity just throws out all the rules and pretends they don't exist.

Originally posted by FMF
Where have I ever claimed "that it is only JWs that think religion superceeds instinctual morality"? I oppose pretty much all religionists' attempts to superimpose their groupthink and creed onto others whilst, in the course of doing so, claiming it is religion-therefore-morality. Where is it you think I said that "it is only JWs" who do this?

Do you equally attack Islam and Christianity for similar beliefs? And why pick on this particular issue? Almost all religious beliefs could be said to be superimposed groupthink.

Originally posted by divegeester
Comparable with what, giving blood?

Your examples were things that you probably have chosen not to do for you own health. Obviously breaking the rule once or twice to save a life is worth the trade off. Its just not comparable.

If you feel compelled to think of a more comparable examplethat would satisfy whatever point you want to make, please feel free to do so and let me have it.
Can you give an example of something that you believe God has commanded you not to do but you believe is not morally wrong (when looked at independent of religion).

Firstly, I was talking about my conscience not my life.
You were talking about your conscience with regards to someone elses life. I am asking why your conscience would be bothered at all.

Secondly why should Christians not be concerned about the preciousness of life?
I am not saying they shouldn't. I am saying it is not obvious that they should. It must be justified. And if you want to project it onto someone else, you must justify that too.

A strong statement and strikingly atypical of your usual objectivity. What makes you think I hate JWs? I don't hate anyone. I speak out against the JW "organisation" almost exclusively in my posts, not the people. I certainly do not hate the JWs here.
My apologies then. My point still stands with regards to your deliberately attacking the JW organization. Your description of their belief (which is based on the Bible by the way) as coming from "the pits of Hell" is seriously overboard considering the ridiculous stuff you believe as a Christian.

But I do have a problem with this - you are also being unusually presumptive today.
Yet you still call yourself Christian.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you equally attack Islam and Christianity for similar beliefs? And why pick on this particular issue? Almost all religious beliefs could be said to be superimposed groupthink.

I would always condemn someone letting another person die unnecessarily because of superstition. If you can present other examples of this 'moral dilemma' from "Islam and Christianity" - as you frame it - then I will "attack" the thinking that places superstition above the the moral imperative to avoid the needless or preventable loss of life. And why pick on this particular issue of a life saving blood transfusion? Well because it is the thread topic and the question being debated.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If a Muslim persons daughter was dying of starvation and the only food available was pork, would they be morally wrong to choose not to feed their daughter pork for religious reasons? This is hypothetical, because I believe Islam does allow the consumption of port in emergencies - its a generally more reasonable religion than Judaism. Christianity just throws out all the rules and pretends they don't exist.

I think your 'analogy' or 'parallel' about pork, if that is what it is, doesn't work. But I would condemn starving a child to death because of a superstition, yes. If that is what you are asking.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, I can understand if religious people believe it is immoral. I recognise that they have a different morality system.

Well I can "understand" that people murdering a woman, and calling it an "honour" killing, is "a different morality system", for instance. You and I agree that religious people believe that certain things are moral and some things are immoral.So what?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Huh? Why all the avoidance? Are you Christian? Do you honestly not understand what I am asking? This has nothing whatsoever to do with wither or not you attach meaning to crucifixion - and I really can't see how you could think that it did.

My question is very simple. Jesus refused to renounce his beliefs even though he knew that he would be killed as ...[text shortened]... know that his followers would be persecuted, do you think he should have renounced his beliefs?

No, I am not a Christian, twhitehead. I think making assertions about what Jesus "knew" and what his "meaning" was to his followers is a matter for his followers. The persecution or killing of people for their beliefs was - and is - immoral in my view. Does my morality only apply to my actions with regards to others [and] not my actions with regards to my own life? Well I think that if I were to commit suicide, it could be seen as immoral in terms of the harm it causes my children who are dependent on me. I do not see suicide as a "sin" in its own right, if that's what you mean. If would-be murderers came to my door and threatened to murder me and my family unless I declared myself to be a Muslim or a Christian, then I would protect my family by lying. The threat to murder us would be immoral. Lying to someone threatening violence would surely not be 'immoral'? Do you think it is?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Christianity just throws out all the rules and pretends they don't exist.

That is a clumsy and deliberate misrepresentation of NT teaching, and you know it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you still call yourself Christian.

Are you suggesting that because I say that "I do have a problem with it" [i.e. I sometimes struggle to understand the scale and scope of God's judgement], that I shouldn't call my self a Christian? Doesn't God say somewhere in the Bible "come let us reason together" ?

I enjoy your interjective posts but the more I read of you, the more I catch glimpses of what I percieve must have been a particularly poor experience with 'christianity' at some point.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is hypothetical, because I believe Islam does allow the consumption of port in emergencies - its a generally more reasonable religion than Judaism.

Interesting I did not know that; and to your point, Islam (on this issue) is therefore also more reasonable than Jehovah Witnessism when comparing the eating of port inemergencies to the recieving of blood in the same (despite the aledged softener that it is a 'matter of conscience'😉.

Originally posted by divegeester
Interesting I did not know that [Islam allows the consumption of pork in emergencies]

As far as I know, Islam has a 'law' that allows them to deny they are Muslims if a non-Muslim is threatening to kill them for being a Muslim.

Originally posted by FMF
Well I can "understand" that people murdering a woman, and calling it an "honour" killing, is "a different morality system", for instance. You and I agree that religious people believe that certain things are moral and some things are immoral.So what?

So you need to argue that your moral system is better than theirs, or accept that we are different. So far in this thread you have assumed your moral system is better, but you haven't given reasons why.

Originally posted by FMF
I think making assertions about what Jesus "knew" and what his "meaning" was to his followers is a matter for his followers.

But they are also irrelevant to our discussion. Again, why the avoidance? Why are you so reluctant to answer any question relating to Jesus? Are you not understanding what I am asking?

The persecution or killing of people for their beliefs was - and is - immoral in my view.
And also irrelevant. It is not what we are discussing.

Lying to someone threatening violence would surely not be 'immoral'? Do you think it is?
I personally do not, but I can understand someone else believing that it is.