The immaculate misconception

[Marybeloved]

Hey people,

I’m sorry to jump in with this, haven’t read the entire thread- but why is abortion not murder? Does making unjust laws, such as legalizing the unjustified killing of humans, change it from murder to something else? So, in the example given above about the killing of the Jews- Was it not murder if a German shot a Jew in the head at that time for no justifiable reason?

Thanks.

 

[Spock]

I’m sorry to jump in with this, haven’t read the entire thread- but why is abortion not murder?

It all depends on the definition of “murder”. The quoted dictionary definitions all say “the premeditated and unlawful taking of someone’s life” (and sometimes even add “with malice aforethought”). As such, in those places where abortion is legally permitted, it cannot be considered “murder” since the “unlawful” part is missing. It is interesting to contemplate that if the “malice aforethought” is an integral part of the definition, then a “mercy killing” is not murder. As I suggested before, the best definition of “murder” would be “intentionally taking the life of another human being, who does not want that life to be taken”.

Does making unjust laws, such as legalizing the unjustified killing of humans, change it from murder to something else?

You say: “unjust laws”… which is very nice, but how do you decide if a law is “just” or “unjust”? Now, I am the last one who would say that just because something is legal it should be considered “right or just or preferred, etc…” but in this case we talk about the legal concept of “murder”.

So, in the example given above about the killing of the Jews- Was it not murder if a German shot a Jew in the head at that time for no justifiable reason?

Yes, that was the case. It was legally permitted to harass, beat, maim, torture and kill (murder) all those who did not belong to the “aryan race”.

 

[RobbyS]

Sure. Imagine a country where voluntary euthanasia is legal. In that country taking the premeditated taking the life of someone is not “murder”. Imagine another country where the “voluntary” part is omitted. In that country even the involuntary euthanasia is legal, and as such it is not murder. Making the definition of “murder” contingent upon the current law will bring forth such problematic scenarios. My favorite definition is: the premeditated talking the life of a nother human, aganist their wishes. Clear cut, and universal.

I cannot answer that. You should ask them. And I doubt that there would be a uniform kind of answer.

Again, for a certain timeframe it might. I prefer to look at the long run. Violence and hatred brings forth violence.

You collected too many things here. Not the “collective unconscious” or any of the other psychological mumbo-jumbo. Being kind etc… generally elicit a similar response from others. The idea of “loving one’s enemies” is a mathematical nonsense. Game theory will tell us why the unconditional “turning the other cheek” is a very bad and ineffective strategy. This simple fact tells me that Jesus could not have been any kind of god. It is ridiculous to assume that God would not know any better than advocating a bad strategy for conflict resolution.

As for loving one’s enemy, you have misconstrued the text. By “enemy,” Jesus mean something like “the Romans” or “the Samaritans,” as well as the guy in the next cubical who is stabbing you in the back. And, he is not talking about sentiment, but a clear-eyed look at such persons. Be wise as the serpent and meek as the dove, as Paul said. It rests on the intellectual bed-rock of knowing your enemy, both the good and the bad, and then determining how best to live at peace with him, sometimes yielding and sometimes opposing. “Tough love.”

 

[StarFireKK]

It all depends on the definition of “murder”. The quoted dictionary definitions all say “the premeditated and unlawful taking of someone’s life” (and sometimes even add “with malice aforethought”). As such, in those places where abortion is legally permitted, it cannot be considered “murder” since the “unlawful” part is missing. It is interesting to contemplate that if the “malice aforethought” is an integral part of the definition, then a “mercy killing” is not murder. As I suggested before, the best definition of “murder” would be “intentionally taking the life of another human being, who does not want that life to be taken”.

Murder is a legal term, it comes from our common law. “Malice aforethought” is a legal term which means something very specific (and yes “mercy killings” would still be included because under common law you cannot consent to being killed.)

In the US most states have replaced the old common law murder code with statutory penal codes. That’s where we get 1st degree murder etc.

Interestingly enough in CA there was a case concerning the murder of a fetus and whether it was murder because of the requirement that murder is taking the life of a human being. (In this case the mother lived but lost the baby.) As a result CA changed their murder statutes to include fetus or the unborn. So I suppose murder is however the statutes define it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

We are all crippled in mind and body, even the best of us. The man who has one leg shorter than the other will the walk in a circle if he does what is natural to him.

If he wishes to walk straight he must constantly correct his path.

The rule that Rome sets for all Catholics serve the same purpose that St. Benedict’s Rule, which is to lay down a path toward sancity. But in truth we know that God’s grace is needed to keep us on the straight and narrow. It’s a bit like Luke let himself go in the attack on the Death Star. The true course negotiates an incalculable path.
That does not preclude training and setting intermediate goals, each in accordance with the gifts we are give. But in the end we are in God’s hands.

These are not mere ideals.

According to Catholic theology (as well as most other Christian theology) we are all deserving of Hell for not meeting these impossible standards.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

We all know there is a difference between pornography and similar art.

Really

If its so simple, explain it then.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

A more proper term would be warning, (not threatening.)

Just because you personally do not believe in the reality of hell does not mean that it does not exist.

Try to at the very least put yourself in the other person’s shoes for a moment. Say, for example, that a parent warns their child not to drink a glass full of liquid (what the parent believes to be poison). Then along comes another person (you in this case) and tells the child that the glass of liquid is perfectly safe to drink, (yet you yourself cannot guarantee that the liquid is not poison).

Looking at this issue with a Pascal’s Wager type of view we have:

If the Parent is right, they are saving the child’s life.
If the parent is wrong, the child merely loses out on a drink of {insert beverage here}.
If you are right, the child gets a drink.
If you are wrong, the child dies.

The choice should be obvious. Now add in an eternal outcome, (heaven or hell), and the choice becomes infinitely more obvious.

Giving up some relatively minor temporal pleasure for the sake of eternal happiness is a no brainer, (even if it may present some difficulty.) Risking eternal happiness for some fleeting pleasure is pure foolishness.

Again, I know that you are a non-believer, but at the very least, being a rational being, you should have enough intelligence to be able to see it from the opposing viewpoint. And after doing such, you should also be able to recognize that your position holds little to no weight in the eyes of a Christian.

I have always thought that Pascal’s Wager is stupid.

What if Islam or Buddhism is true?
There’s as much proof supporting them as there is Catholicism.

There are more options than just Catholicism or a Godless universe.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

tonyrey:
So you would advise people to ignore the commandments not to kill, steal, commit adultery and bear false witness against their neighbour?

You haven’t explained why your lack of religion exempts you from total dedication to **your own point of view **and the rules and principles you command and endorse - without any need for self-restraint at all! Do you recognise any moral authority apart from yourself?

Why would I have to commit myself to anything just because I don’t believe in the supernatural?

Do you really think that a celestial monarch setting the rules and moral anarchy are the only options?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m having trouble understanding your argument. And what does the existence of God have to do with whether the strong get what they want?

The idea is that since God is the strongest (omnipotent) his will ultimately always prevails.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Pornography tends toward caricature, the exaggeration of the erotic. It is the air-brushing of reality. A pretense of passion not felt, of the creating of fantasy creatures that can arouse a man as a casual snapshot of a beautiful woman could not, because it presents reality. The film industry has made billions by creating illusions of this sort.

So what?

Virtually all entertainment exaggerates, caricatures, and/or creates illusions.
This includes explicitly Christian entertainment.

For what good reason would you demand nothing but objective and realistic depictions of reality in entertainment?
For that matter, how could anyone possibly enforce such a thing?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The description ends where the falseness begins. Pornography is not always bad art , but its purpose is essentially mercenary.

So if art or entertainment is created to make money its automatically bad?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

God is always faithful, He never breaks covenant. It is we who walk away from the relationship. We who divorce Him. But when we do, we lose our hold on reality. Everything we do it false in that it leads us away from where we ought to be. We become like a child who lost in the forest never tries to get home. What is the consequence of this? Death.

Death is also the consequence of doing anything else.

Everyone dies eventually:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I would never ask for links unless I thought those links would be relatively easy to find. You earlier stated that the posts were allowed to stand and that you requested clarification. All you have to do is find your post(s) and that will lead you to the thread. But I’m surprised to find that it was a few posts during the years. And you extrapolated from these few posts to all (or most) Catholics? I very much doubt that what a few posters state represents the thinking of all or a majority of Catholics. There isn’t enough evidence.

So far you have a baseless assertion.

I’m sorry, Spock, but that is not logical.

Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life that one has no right to take. Christianity claims that God has the right to take our lives at any time since they don’t belong to us but to Him.

Please let me repeat what I stated in another post in this thread: I do not lie. My response was truthful and honest. What I said was not a cop-out in any way. What would you expect me to say? What would you *want *me to say? A lie?

There is no special pleading under the rule I listed. We have no right to take innocent human life because it does not belong to us. God has rights over his creation just as an author has rights over his books - he created them.

**It’s God’s law! But God cannot murder what is His. Our lives belong to God. We can murder because we can take a life which does not belong to us. We don’t have that right. But our lives belong to our Creator - to God./**FONT]

My point is that you showed the Church disrespect in your choice of words. If you wish to know Church teaching on pedophilia, the Church’s actions regarding pedophiles (or my opinions on that subject) please start a new thread. It’s off-topic in this thread.

I disagree that it is good enough. I have already apologized for my misreading of the question and have clarified my response.

Spock, where do you get your ideas of right and wrong? You have claimed that Christians behave rightly or wrongly based on their fear of punishment meted out by God. How do *you * determine which behaviors are right and which are wrong?

That’s a good point.

According to Christian theology God does not forbid things because their bad, things are bad because God forbids then.

According to this principal: if God commanded everyone who was not a virgin to rape all the virgins, such rape would become a moral act.

Moreover, God doesn’t feel bound by any of the laws he places on us.
That is why whenever God kills (or commands others to kill) its not murder.
Because anything God does is right and moral by definition.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, some people need the fear of God to stay in line. Why is this a shocking concept?

All you have to do is look through out our history to learn that humans have a tendency for violence, some more than others. (It is called our fallen nature)

Of course, I suppose it is fair to ask if God doesn’t exist do we still have a fallen nature?

Because if the only reason you don’t act like a monster is fear of punishment then you’re a sociopath.

Are you suggesting most people are sociopaths?

 

[RobbyS]

So if art or entertainment is created to make money its automatically bad?

Mercenary has a certain meaning, does it not?

 

[RobbyS]

So what?

Virtually all entertainment exaggerates, caricatures, and/or creates illusions.
This includes explicitly Christian entertainment.

For what good reason would you demand nothing but objective and realistic depictions of reality in entertainment?
For that matter, how could anyone possibly enforce such a thing?

That would means that the Church has wasted a lot of money patronizing artists.

So I must use strong terms, such as grotesque. It in fact revels in such forms. So the different is intend, such as the intent to pander and deceive, to divert from better purposes.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That’s a good point.

According to Christian theology God does not forbid things because their bad, things are bad because God forbids then.

?

I can tell you have degree in Christian theology.

 

[Windfish]

?

I can tell you have degree in Christian theology.

I sent him a PM about stuff like this. Virtually every atheist with the lone exception of Bohm Bawerk (who is cool) doesn’t know jack about the proofs for the existence of God, biblical history, Church teaching and theology, natural law morality, etc. etc. etc. It’s been 5 years since the God Delusion. These guys are still at the sophomoric level of that text.

 

[Spock]

As for loving one’s enemy, you have misconstrued the text. By “enemy,” Jesus mean something like “the Romans” or “the Samaritans,” as well as the guy in the next cubical who is stabbing you in the back. And, he is not talking about sentiment, but a clear-eyed look at such persons. Be wise as the serpent and meek as the dove, as Paul said. It rests on the intellectual bed-rock of knowing your enemy, both the good and the bad, and then determining how best to live at peace with him, sometimes yielding and sometimes opposing. “Tough love.”

Sounds nice, but that is not what the text says. “If he takes your coat, also give your shirt”… “Turn the other cheek”… “Do not resist evil”… You must give your life for your enemy… etc. It is unconditional and says not one word about making a decision how to treat the enemy.

 

[Spock]

I can tell you have degree in Christian theology.

Well, here is a typical line of “reasoning”:

Atheist: What would you do if God commanded you to rape and murder? Would you follow his command?
Theist: But God never would do such horrific things! God is pure love!
Atheist: Read your Bible. God did preciesly that and more. God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and stopped the process in the last minute. God ordered the Israelis to kill all the men, women and boys and keep the virgins for themsleves. God personally killed all the humans and all the animals. Is that a sign of love?
Theist: You are not qualified to interpret the Bible. You are not supposed to take every line of the Bible in a literal fashion.
Atheist: I see… so you indulge in cherry picking, deciding which verse is literal and which one is allegorical.
Theist: That is not cherry picking!
Atheist: It sure is.
Theist: No, it is not. I do not decide these questions.
Atheist: So who does?
Theist: Only the Catholic Church has that authority.
Atheist: So where is the official, infallible interpretation of every verse, where we can all look it up and see them? A Catholic-annotated-Bible, so to speak?
Theist: There is no need for it. If there were such a book, it would prevent us from arguing both sides of the coin, when the need arises.

That is how you guys argue. Refuse to answer a simple hypothetical, immediately diverting the question into something else. When cornered there, you lash out and try to blame the other party for taking the “Holy Scriptures” too literally, even though your assumed “official interpreter” never did the interpretation… What did the Church Lady say? “How conveeeeinient!!”… This is your “theology”.

And observe. The original question was never addressed and never answered.