B
Betterave
Guest
That is a ridiculously inaccurate analogy. What we Catholics mean is not at all “completely and fundamentally different from the secular understanding” - that is simply nonsense.
- Status
B
Betterave
Guest
Spock:
If you don’t disagree with this statement, what is it that you claim (or at least claimed) not to understand about the oh-so-exotic Catholic definition of ‘murder’?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Spock:Thanks.I had a good laugh when I read this. Not because there is a disagreement with what you said.
But a funny thing came to my mind. I imagined that we are having a conversation about a “red ball”. You insisted that we are talking about the same thing, except the Catholic understanding of “red” and the Catholic understanding of “ball” are completely and fundamentally different from the secular understanding. Of course, you just summarized the basic problem. Simple, everyday words, which have a different “meaning” in a Catholic environment. That is the reason that these dialogs tend to break down.
Or, perhaps they clarify our minds. Perhaps that helps us arrive at Truth, in this world of insipidness.
God bless,
jd
B
BlueSapphire
Guest
At the end of the day, God is the Supreme Judge over all creation, and we will ALL stand before him in judgement. It will be HIS laws that we will be judged on, not man’s version of the law.
Peace.
catholicity.com/catechism/the_moral_law.html
Peace.
catholicity.com/catechism/the_moral_law.html
N
nordskoven
Guest
Laws imposed by governments are merely “ethical” and mutable, changing. Morals are immutable guides given by God. God loves murderers who repent: Moses, who killed the Egyptian beating his fellow Jew; King David, who used his authority to have the army withdraw protection from the man whose wife he coveted. Both repented. Murder is not the final outrage: impenitence is. States may not show mercy, but God will forgive all who come to Him.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
This is the epitome of the atheist arguments in case anybody wants to know.
- Completely irrational
- Terrible logic
- Ad hominem fallacies
- Assuming unwarranted claims
- No respect
- Setting up straw men.
Do your really think that we are the ones bending the definitions here? Hmm. Let’s examine:
- Unlawful
In a society where it is lawful to steal, kill, beat, etc… Is it unlawful to disobey it? Nope. Why? The objective law. Atheists complain that objective morality need not come from God, but they will still keep the idea of absolute morality and I agree.
The problem with relativism is that it goes against everything atheists claim: objectivity. So, we are in agreement that the objective law exists and binds us.
Those who deny objective law complain that God is a maniac because He is not supposed to do that. So much for denying objective law.
Conclusion: You are the one bending the definition of unlawful. You are “relativizing” it for the sake of argument. (Relativised unlawfulness is an absurd thing, not to mention to be argued by an objective person.)
The Catholic Church is right. You are wrong. No surprise there.
- Human being
So, there you have it. A human being is that which is a being of the homo sapien species. To denigrate a “fetus” as JUST that is to make an argument against a fact of biology. That is, to say a fetus is NOT a human being is not only wrong, but illogical.
There we have it. It is two distinct human beings when we consider abortion. So, it is unlawful to kill a human being.
Conclusion: “Human being” in its most simplistic everyday usage is just that, a being in the human species. So, it is not us who is changing ANYTHING here. YOU are doing all the changing. You say a fetus is not a human being. This is not everyday life usage. You shot yourself in the foot on that one.
The Catholic Church is right. You are wrong.
Summary: It is unlawful to kill a human being. Therefore, it is murder. There is absolutely no way around it. In terms of non-absolutes though, you can certainly be my guest.
S
Spock
Guest
Actually, the opposite is true. When atheists point out the atrocities committed by God, they do not argue for an objective “law”. The law is the codified and enforced set of rules. When looking at the atrocities in the Bible the atheists point out the inconsistency of the believers who condemn human atrocities and glorifying God’s atrocities.
You confuse human being with human tissue. The fetus becomes human being when it starts its independent existence, in other words: at birth. Up until that point it is a parasite, which takes resources from the woman’s body.
You confuse the fried chicken with an omlette. Both are “made” of the same DNA, and yet we properly differentiate them. The fertilized egg is not a chicken. A fertilized human egg is not a human being.
Since the law against abortion is not universal, to declare all abortions “murders” is just a lingusitic play to demonize those who engage in it.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
There are no atrocities in the Bible. G-d has never committed an atrocity and by definition cannot because it is no more “wrong” for G-d to destroy your physical body, than it is for you to put your dog down when it goes rabid.
Atheists can’t talk about Good and Evil, right and wrong, ethical unethical without admitting either there is a G-d or that what they are calling good and evil is nothing more than their personal opinion. As either position makes their claim meaningless an atheist talking about morality cannot impart any useful information.
Really? What mechanism initiates a change from not-human to human? Do you have any studies that can show this miraculous change from not-human too human? I have never seen one, I would be interested to know if your words have scientific basis, or if they are simply an apology for a genocide?
Further, by this thinking, anyone who takes in more resources than they create is a parasite and should suffer the same fate to be just. Wait…aren’t you retired? Are you creating more resources than you consume? Please provide proof that you are currently creating more resources than you consume. If not, please report to the abortion center for immediate termination. After all you wouldn’t want anyone to think you were a hypocrite would you?
Geez, I know that I have heard the parasite argument used to justify genocide before, I wonder where?..Oh:blush:
Abortion is a Crime against Humanity.
A fertilized egg is called a Zygote. Do you have any scientific evidence that a Zygote is not human? Do you have any studies that describe any mechanism by which a zygote becomes a human? If not then how do you know that you are a human being? If there is no such mechanism, then by your definition, you are not a human being and should immediately report to the nearest abortion center for immediate termination.
“Wait!” you say, that doesn’t apply to me. I know I am human! Really, how? What scientific study describes a mechanism by which we can know you are a human? If you can’t prove your humanity, then how are you any different than those children whose genocide you excuse?
Really? lets change one word here and expose this irrationality for what it is.
Gee, maybe people who commit genocide should be demonized, Unless your willing to defend every genocidal tyrant from Hitler to Pol Pot, I believe that in reality, you demonize those guilty of genocide as well. Whats it called when someone does what they condemn? I can’t think of the word…hmmmm.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Atheists and Bible is a bad combination of words. Leave the Bible up to people who actually care to understand it. There are no inconsistencies unless you want to consider the inconsistency of the atheist who look at inconsistencies. That is the only inconsistency.
Thanks for changing the definition again. You enhance my point.
Got it. You change the definitions for the sake of killing people. That was my point. Glad we are on the same page.
S
Spock
Guest
Aha. So the only people who are qualified to talk about astrology, are the astrologers themselves.
Nope, I don’t accept it. An atheist can understand the Bible just as well as a believer does.No, I stick to the only reasonable definition. An omlette is not the same as a fried chicken. An acorn is the same as an oak tree. A medical student is not a doctor. A toddler is not a teenager. A teenager is not an adult. And so on… ad infinitum.
S
Spock
Guest
Don’t waste your time. As far as I am concerned, you do not exist (like quite a few other posters around here).
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Riiiight… This is coming from the one who tried to tell me that infallibility was dog-chasing-tail doctrine. If you understood the Bible, you would understand the doctrine and you would not disagree with it. (That is not to say you would believe it; you would just not disagree with it.) If atheists did in fact understand the Bible just as a well as believers do, then they would not be arguing against an understood position of infallibility, omnipotence, omniscience, Christ’s Divinity, etc… Leave the Bible up to people who do understand it.Aha. So the only people who are qualified to talk about astrology, are the astrologers themselves.
With that said, I have no doubts that an atheist can understand the Bible… Even possibly much more so than the average believer. But, I have yet to find an atheist who had something right with the Bible. That is, I have yet to meet one who fully understood the meaning of something AND did not believe. They disbelieve misunderstandings.
That is like if I were to reject evolution based on the silly misunderstanding: “if humans came from apes, then why are monkeys still in existence? Therefore, I reject evolution.” Unfortunately, there are some Christian folk who think that. To an outsider, that is exactly what it looks like. To the one who does not care about the correct position, that is exactly what it looks like. This is exactly what most atheists do.
So, atheists should not use the Bible in creating their own atheology.
And the astrology-astrologer was a non-sequitor. I am not even saying they cannot “talk about” the Bible. I never once said that. You set up more straw men than anybody I have ever known. This includes Evangelicals. But, atheists will have the desire to create their own biblical positions according to mere syntax that are contrary to the belief. Your analogies are really really terrible. Could you please refrain so we can move on?
Ad infinitum of meaningless analogies and verisimilitudes. You may think they are good because you created them and apparently, “seems” means “exactly the same as”. And your definitions are completely unreasonable and not an everyday usage, much less simple. That is fine though. I can still work with that. I can even work with your dishonesty.
And I notice how you never once made an analogy close to my proposition that a “fetus” is a human being. No couples in their right mind or in an everyday scenario will say, “I have a fetus in my womb and it will be a human being!” or anything similar when they find out they are having a baby. Yes, it is a fetus, but it is not JUST a fetus. You have not justified your position other than to say “it is just tissue” or anything remotely relevant.
Again, how is that WE are changing the definition of “human being”? All we say is that from conception, the fetus IS a human being. From its conception until its death, it is a human being. That is simple, rational, logical, reasonable, normal and biological. Many scientists make this assertion also. It is not just a phenomenon of the Catholic Church. (Hypothetically speaking, even it were just in the Catholic Church, that alone does not make it wrong.) It is you who is changing the definition of life! You change the definition of that being at a moment in time. Tell me, when is the child a human being? And by what are the standards that you consider a human being “a human being”? These are the questions that need to be answered. If you say that science has not made a conclusive decision based on lack of conclusive evidence, then I will accept that. THAT is a reasonable answer and very honest. If you do not have answers, you do not have answers. Join the club.
But if you have an argument other to say “it is not reasonable”, then by all means, I will take it into consideration and defend the Catholic position. But, do not denigrate yourself or us by leaving it at “I stick to the only reasonable definition.” To say that a human being is understood as being that from conception until death in the homo sapien species is a completely reasonable assertion and you know it is. The fact that you do not agree is a different story. But, you not agreeing does not make it unreasonable. Then you might retort “No, but it being unreasonable makes it unreasonable” and I would agree with that statement, but there is no reason to assume it is unreasonable unless you give reasons.
Your attacks are unreasonable. There is no reason to be unreasonable. So, be reasonable.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
This is a case in point of my position that atheist positions on biblical positions are inconsistent positions. No need to elaborate. I am sure there will be another thread for this. Shall we continue with “human being” as human beings?
E
estesbob
Guest
Although that may be true I have personally never run across one who did . When you approach a work with the attitude that it is a bunch of nonsense it seriously limits one’s ability to understand it.Aha. So the only people who are qualified to talk about astrology, are the astrologers themselves.
B
Betterave
Guest
LOL! Seriously? The funny thing is, I almost believe you. Most atheists really are horribly ham-fisted exegetes!
(Of course, most believers aren’t particularly outstanding either.
)
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Yeah, that’s probably the best course. Turns out its not nearly as easy to defend killing babies when you can’t defend your own claim to being human.
B
Betterave
Guest
Right: Chicken (meat) is also not the same as a chicken, even though both are called ‘chicken.’ Fried chicken is not the same as roast chicken. Scrambled eggs are not the same as poached eggs. This is awfully banal and completely irrelevant stuff.
No it’s not! An acorn is the seed of an oak tree.
Right; and a fetus is not an infant, an infant is not a toddler, etc. But they are all human beings.
You complain about Catholics having contrived definitions, completely at odds, supposedly, with the ordinary meanings of words; then you claim that a* human being* is a being that begins to exist when it is separated from its mother at birth?
That a baby in its mother’s womb is a parasite? That is unbelievably whack, dude! If that’s supposed to be a joke, it just wasn’t funny. We love you, so let’s be honest: your hypocrisy is showing big-time here!
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
I completely agree. I just like to give them the benefit of the doubt. I used to be one, so I can of have an affinity towards their rationalistic (but sometimes fair) minds. It is a hard but fruitful task even if stubbornness is hard to get through. But, there are honest ones out there.
Every atheist book I have ever read (most being after my conversion) throws in a screwy chapter or two or three or four that deals with bad theological interpretations. Or should I say “atheoillogical” interpretations. That is not their fault completely though. It is the integrity that atheism itself poisons.
(Of course, most believers aren’t particularly outstanding either.
S
Spock
Guest
Not irrelevant at all. I am saying that an egg is not a chicken - YET. It has the same DNA, and we differentiate between a hatched egg (which is a chicken) and the one which has not hatched yet.
The same DNA, and a different stage of development. That is the case with eggs-chickens and zygotes-embrios-fetuses-babies.
Depending on the definition of a “being”. If the DNA is the deciding factor, then yes. But then so is a tumor.
Yes. What is wrong with precision? A parasite is an alien organism, which draws nutrient from the host, and gives nothing in return.You complain about Catholics having contrived definitions, completely at odds, supposedly, with the ordinary meanings of words; then you claim that a* human being* is a being that begins to exist when it is separated from its mother at birth?
Well, I love you too, and I think that you are a hypocrite.
So we are even. Sending best wishes to you!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Then what scientific experiment or study has verified that an unhatched chick is not a chicken?
Do you have any scientific evidence that shows a change in developmental stage cause a change from not human to human?
A “being” is defined as anything that exists. “Human beings” don’t and should not have a very specific definition. Attempts to define what a human specifically is lead often to an excuse for murder. If your genetic mother and father were human, than your human. Good enough.
Precise? That’s laughable. In fact “parasite” it would seem to be a word choice much like “murder” a word choice meant to demonize the child. To make it easier to kill.
Whats that word for a person who does the very thing they condemn?
Are you claiming that there is no benefit in children? or that they are different species?
Really, it seems hypocritical to say that it is OK to kill babies because they aren’t human, when you can’t prove you’re human human yourself. I wonder, how do you account for that?
- Status