|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is biblegod pro life? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Perdition writes:
Ok, I think we may just have a difference in philosophical views about choices and the consequences of those choices. Laws are essentially anti-choice. For instance, if a man were to make the choice to break off an engagement with his fiancee, there would be no impact from the law. However, there would be consequences for the action which would later inform the man whether or not his choice was "right" or "wrong." There is nothing inherently wrong about the choice itself and nothing prevents the man from making the choice. It is the consequences of the choice upon which we judge whether we made the right choice or not. Hence the saying hindsight is 20/20. Our choices and the consequences of our choices are not independent of each other, but because we don't have prescience, we are only able to weigh the perceived consequences of our choices. For a man who is running late to an important meeting, that man has the choice to either follow the speed limit or to break the law. That man will weigh the consequences of each choice and then make a decision on what to do. He weighs the consequence of speeding versus the consequence of being late to the meeting. What happens afterwards follows from the choice he made. The person makes the determination of the consequences of each action and from that takes a course of action. That person is given the free will to live as they please. But I believe every action (or nearly every action) has a consequence, even if the consequence is infinitesimally small, and very few choices have a clear "good" or "bad" ending. In the case of our speeding man, he may have gotten a ticket for speeding, but because he got to the meeting on time and was able to make the presentation, he got the promotion. He may not have gotten the ticket but wasn't fired because he showed up on time for that meeting. Maybe he got the ticket and was still late and fired for arriving late. And so on and so forth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
According to the Bible, God punishes people for choosing something that people don't like. According to the Bible, God does not condemn people for what their own consciences do not condemn them for. Surely, he cannot do so.
I do have a slight problem with that statement since there are people out there with no compunction about murder, thievery, rape, or violent behavior in general. You know, sociopaths. Does that mean God won't punish their behavior simply because their conscience doesn't tell them it's wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5238 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:The Bible describes such people as having seared, deadened consciences. But those consciences will, we may suppose, be revived.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
The Bible describes such people as having seared, deadened consciences. But those consciences will, we may suppose, be revived.
That seems terribly unsatisfying if you are making a supposition about it, especially since some sociopaths are born without a conscience. Could you specifically find the part of the Bible that actually says they will be reborn with their conscience? Assuming that you can't, wouldn't it be valid to assume that those people would actually get away with murder simply because they feel no guilt about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
For instance, if a man were to make the choice to break off an engagement with his fiancee, there would be no impact from the law. However, there would be consequences for the action which would later inform the man whether or not his choice was "right" or "wrong." There is nothing inherently wrong about the choice itself and nothing prevents the man from making the choice. It is the consequences of the choice upon which we judge whether we made the right choice or not. Hence the saying hindsight is 20/20. Our choices and the consequences of our choices are not independent of each other, but because we don't have prescience, we are only able to weigh the perceived consequences of our choices. But you're conflating natural consequences of doing something (anything) versus imposed consequences by a position of authority. If doing action A naturally results in consequence B, whether we know about that consequence or not, there's no conscious effort to influence our choice. Imposing a non-natural consequence onto a choice is an attempt to sway the choice to the preferred one, and is thus an exercise in removing choice from the equation.
For a man who is running late to an important meeting, that man has the choice to either follow the speed limit or to break the law. That man will weigh the consequences of each choice and then make a decision on what to do. He weighs the consequence of speeding versus the consequence of being late to the meeting. What happens afterwards follows from the choice he made. By speeding, he goes faster and thus arrives sooner. That's the natural consequnces of speeding. Other consequences are more distance covered during the time it takes to react to an unforeseen event, more force upon impact with another object, etc. These are the things that are natural consequences of pressing the gas pedal harder. Police (and society at large), however, see the potential negative consequences as too costly, and in an effort to make the choice of going faster less tempting, they impose a non-natural consequcne should you be caught speeding. It's an attempt to control the choice while maintaining the illusion of free choice. Edited by Perdition, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5238 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:They are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Well, perhaps genetically predisposed towards antisocial behavior is a better way of saying it. According to Wiki antisocial personality disorder might have biological or genetic factors.
So if true, then yes, some people can be born without a conscience, or at least a malfunctioning one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5238 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:A way of misrepresenting it. Again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
misrepresenting... what exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
But you're conflating natural consequences of doing something (anything) versus imposed consequences by a position of authority.
Then that's probably where we differ. I don't make a distinction between natural and imposed consequences. I haven't really seen a reason for making such a distinction. To me, a consequence, whether natural or imposed, is still a consequence. If you could make an argument for why I should make a distinction, I'd be willing to listen. But I'll be honest, I don't know if I'd actually consider making such a distinction myself. Still, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
But I'll be honest, I don't know if I'd actually consider making such a distinction myself. Still, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. I'm just saying that someone deciding to impose consequences not inherent in the choice in order to sway that choice is not "pro-choice" as being pro-choice, regardless of whether you agree with the choice made or not, implies you will uphold that person's choice and protect their ability to make it rather than punishing them for exercising a faculty you claim to like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Ah, ok. I never considered it that way. My definition of pro-choice, intuitively because I never really thought it out, has always been to allow a person the freedom to choose disregarding the consequences and the nature of said consequences or the effect of the consequences on said choice.
My usual example is a man holds a gun to a person's head and says do this or die. To most people there is no choice but to do as the gunman says, but to me there is a choice, although the alternative is highly undesirable. You can choose to die. (Of course there are other hidden choices too, but let's assume for this example that it is impossible to realize the other choices.) The gunman may have given a choice, but is probably expecting the person to do as he says. Thus the gunman is not really pro-choice. I think a quote from Futurama (Season 5, Episode 4) is appropriate here:
quote: Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I don't condone what Dr Zoidberg did but I'll fight tooth and nail for his freedom to do it. Exactly, and that is what I would consider the pro-choice position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
So now you understand that God isn't truly pro-choice and that Exodus 21:22-24 is talking about personal injury, not abortion the pro-lifers are against.
The one instance I remember that might concern abortion is Numbers 5:11-31.
Numbers 5:22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away." "'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." Unfortunately, I don't think people today really know what the idioms mean. Some say it prevents the woman from having a child, some say it causes her to abort the child if she is pregnant, some say it does nothing other than make her ill for a bit. The originator would have done better to present the scriptures used by pro-life Christians against abortion and analyze those verses. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
I won't yet agree that God isn't truly pro-choice. However, I will agree that I probably haven't provided a viable proof for it and I can agree, until I find otherwise, that Exodus 21:22 probably has little to do with the argument since there is no clear consensus on the translation and quite possibly deals with premature birth rather than miscarriage, so I'll drop the argument concerning Exodus 21:22.
Sorry if my words seems unclear... I've been filling my head with a lot of science recently. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024