V
vsedriver
Guest
But science says human life begins at conception. Can you show me a person who is not human life? At what point does human life have no value and no right to continue to live?
- Status
W
Warrenton
Guest
Why speculate? We have a good example in Oedipus. The king has unwittlingly married his mother, and the city of Thebes receives a plague as a result. The seer, Tiresias, tells Oedipus that his blindness will be his undoing and that he will be cursed for his incestuous, patricidal actions.
So, it depends on the weight of the taboo and the status of the accuser. If it is a well established taboo, and if the accuser is a priest, priestess or oracle, then yes, we have to obey or suffer the curses of the people and the gods.
If, on the other hand, we are powerful enough, we can flaunt the customs secure in our knowledge that our protecting gods will avert the curses. Menalaus and Nestor both returned home to Achaea, even after defiling the altars of Apollo at Troy. Lesser heroes, like Agamemnon, died the death.
Paganism was like a vast common law: the collected wisdom and experiences of a people. The priests, priestesses and oracles collected all of this knowledge, fathers and mothers had to collect the knowledge passed down in their families, in order to know what was licit, what illicit, and in what contexts.
W
Warrenton
Guest
V
vsedriver
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
So then, it appears, that it was not* society* that dictated morals but the powerful?
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
I personally wouldn’t call a clump of cells a “human”, even though that same clump of cells has the potential to be a human, in the same way that a chicken egg has the potential to be a chicken (or a chick, if you want to simplify things).
In any case, as I’ve said, regardless of how I feel on the subject. I have no right to tell another woman (who may not have the same beliefs as I do regarding abortion) that she does not have a choice in the matter.
Well, that would be a matter for the courts, but since Canadian law doesn’t consider an unborn baby a person, I’m pretty sure they’d only be prosecuted for what harm came to the mother, but as I said, I’m no legal expert.
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
Perhaps I am all making it up. Perhaps everyone is making stuff up. Even if it is all made up, does it help you live a better life? Does it inspire you to help your fellow humans? Does it keep you out of trouble? These things are good things in my book.Fair enough. I appreciate your honesty.
However, it does cause me to question how much of this you’re making up as you go.
Maybe I would have more to tell you if I was like almost everyone else I’ve talked to who claim to have actually spoken to a god/dess. Maybe I should count myself lucky because that means I’m not going crazy, or perhaps count myself unfortunate that I’m missing out on something interesting that everyone else is doing.Which is exactly what I’ve been trying to say about paganism–there is nothing in it that binds you to something greater than that which you make up.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, Loka. It does not necessarily follow that if you’re making something up that “everyone is making stuff up.”
If your 5 year old daughter is playing make-believe that Barbie is alive, it doesn’t mean, then, that everything in her life is make believe, right?
This strikes me as a peculiarly troublesome paradigm. Truth matters, Loka. When one hides from reality, it leads to chaos and despair and despondency.
Are you familiar with the folktale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? Was this emperor, parading around naked and quite the FOOL, happy in his nakedness? He believed what others had been making up and ended up parading around the town butt NAKED.
Do you believe that this is a good way to live your life? Parading around NAKED, but, heck, you’re happy, so what does it matter?
I appreciate your candor, Loka. You’re cool.
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
I’m personally in favour of legalizing (and regulating) prostitution if that’s what needs to happen to keep sex workers safe. I’d say drug use would depend on the individual case, perhaps some substances could be treated more like alcohol. As for organs, we already donate our organs (I’m on the list of organ donors), some women even sell their eggs for cash, taking organs without someone’s consent is definitely not cool.
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
No, but in this case both of us can see that her doll isn’t alive. I used to pretend that my toy horses were alive.
I think we would have to agree as to what “truth” is in the first place. As for the tale, I always thought he was the freakin’ Emperor! If he wants to parade around naked, he can do as he pleases and start chopping off the heads of anyone who says differently.
An atheist might also turn the analogy on its head and point out that the story supports an atheist viewpoint, because only the child in the story had the brains (and the guts) to shatter everyone’s delusions. I actually find it kind of ironic that the people who use this story as an example never really stop to consider that they might ever be that Emperor (or his courtiers).
Aw, thanks!I appreciate your candor, Loka. You’re cool.
P
PRmerger
Guest
'kay. That doesn’t address the fact that some things are made up (like, as you acknowledge, some of your answers to questions here regarding paganism), and some things are not.
What’s your definition of “truth”?
Of course he can! But the reality is, he’s a STUPID emperor for believing the LIES that were told to him.
He’s HAPPY. But he’s STUPID.
And, in the end, this happiness based on a lie will lead to chaos and confusion and despondency.
Huh? How does that support the atheist’s viewpoint?
I see the Christian motif everywhere in that story. The child is the one who has not fallen for the lies of Satan, who has avoided the guise of sin.
Of course, all of us are the emperor. Until we remove the blinders from our eyes and look to the Truth.
V
vsedriver
Guest
V
vsedriver
Guest
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
I think I heard somewhere that the sex trade takes in billions of dollars a year, that money could be put to a good use by helping sex workers escape such a life. Most people don’t wake up one day and decide: “Hey! I’m going to be a prostitute!”
This is why Paganisms stress personal responsibility. No one’s going to get on your case about the sin of gluttony, but it’s important to think about what you’re doing. How is your habit affecting others?
I’ll use a milder example. Say I’m at a party with friends, my friends drink a little too much. The catch is that I don’t drink, but I don’t have a driver’s license either. I’m not just going to walk away and say: “Okay, it was your choice to drink, have fun out there,” that is absolutely irresponsible. In that case, I am going to take their keys away, drop them down my pants (if necessary) and call them a cab. They are NOT going to be driving when they pose such a risk to others. I would hope, however, that they do attend parties with a designated driver (as they always do).
It’s HIS kidney, he can do what he wants with it (provided it isn’t illegal). I don’t own him, it’s not my kidney (although perhaps I would want to talk it over with him, if he were a friend, about less extreme measures he could take). As I said though, the matter of consent is a tricky thing. How can you determine if someone truly consents to such a thing?
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is an excellent point.
Loka?
Also, in regards to my hunting analogy–would you really tell someone to go ahead and shoot the shadow, since “we can’t know for sure” that it’s a human? After all, this person who snags a deer will receive the highest honors in the tribe. Who are you to take that potential away from him?
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
You’re telling me you can’t make a distinction between a clump of cells that has the potential to be a human being and the billions of cells that make up an actual human being? This is a zygote, this is a newborn baby. I wouldn’t call the former “human” anymore than I would call one of my brain cells or a cancerous tumor a “human”, apples and oranges. Someday, it will be a baby, though, and will be able to exist independently of someone else’s body, but not yet.
Well, in that case, their right to hunt is trumped by my right to make sure that my offspring is safe. Besides, unless this is the sort of forest where there’s only one deer in the place, there will be plenty more deer where that came from, and more opportunities to hunt. A developing fetus doesn’t have the same rights (if any).
W
Warrenton
Guest
Not necessarilly; like now there was give and take. For instance, in modern society it is generally (still) frowned upon to commit adultery. Unless, of course, you happen to be Bill Clinton.
But in pagan society, the powerful generally had the assent of the gods, or were blessed by fate which rules even the gods. That is why they were rulers. Hence, the powerful were possessed of an obvious divine favor in a way that they were not after Christendom was established.
All Christ gives is authority. He does not give rulers favor. Dante illustrates this quite vividly. If one compares Dante with the Illiad, the disconnect between paganism and Christendom comes into sharp relief.
W
Warrenton
Guest
We have to be clear whether we are talking about practical politics or political philosophy. Christian tradition does not require civil laws against prostitution or drug usage. In fact, for centuries they were not punished under the civil law. These acts were matters for the confessional.
In pagan as well as Christian times, people were free to sell a lot more than this. They were, and for all intents and purposes are, free to sell the whole body into slavery.
We can only live in days, as Philip Larkin observed. If we can sell our days to the highest bidder, why not anything else?
W
Warrenton
Guest
This is an excellent observation. Divine right was only that - the right. And of course, the Church was ambivilent about the claims.
In pagan times, however, because they worshipped fate, and because luck was deemed to be the favor of the gods (indeed, the vast bulk of pagan religion concerned performing rituals aimed at securing one’s luck, or interfering with an enemy’s luck), power was a visible form of the gods’ favor. Alexander was not holy, and then declared the son of Apollo. He conquored, and his conquests confirmed his divinity.
Christianity from the start was far more circumspect regarding authority, since Christ declared that the rich are already rewarded, and have the challenge of passing through the eye of the needle along with the camel.
But again, you are correct, the old pagan idea died hard (if it can be said to be dead - to borrow of thought from Monty Python, perhaps it’s only sleeping). There is a world of difference between an idea that is central and an idea that is tolerated. One thinks of the pro forma deification of dead emperors by the senate, and contrasts this with the more or less continual discord between the pope and the kings and princelings of Europe. The contrast illustrates the difference between paganism and Christianity that I hoped to remark on.
In pagan times, however, because they worshipped fate, and because luck was deemed to be the favor of the gods (indeed, the vast bulk of pagan religion concerned performing rituals aimed at securing one’s luck, or interfering with an enemy’s luck), power was a visible form of the gods’ favor. Alexander was not holy, and then declared the son of Apollo. He conquored, and his conquests confirmed his divinity.
Christianity from the start was far more circumspect regarding authority, since Christ declared that the rich are already rewarded, and have the challenge of passing through the eye of the needle along with the camel.
But again, you are correct, the old pagan idea died hard (if it can be said to be dead - to borrow of thought from Monty Python, perhaps it’s only sleeping). There is a world of difference between an idea that is central and an idea that is tolerated. One thinks of the pro forma deification of dead emperors by the senate, and contrasts this with the more or less continual discord between the pope and the kings and princelings of Europe. The contrast illustrates the difference between paganism and Christianity that I hoped to remark on.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that if your contention is that abortion is ok because it’s “just a lump of cells”, then you, as a “lump of cells” are able to be aborted (read: murdered).
So you haven’t answered the question yet as to what changes–metaphysically, physically, spiritually, materially–when a fetus leaves the birth canal and travels 1 cm onto the delivery table that makes it suddenly become human.
And as for being abel to exist independently–newborns can’t exist independently either. Are you saying that they’re still a “potential” human being?
And is a person who’s in surgery and cannot exist without the anesthesiologist breathing for him also not human now?
- Status