>>"That poor mother, look what she went through. Was I worth the pain?"<<

The answer is definitely yes, the fact that you wrote this touchy article proves it. Thanks.

I am pleased you are cherishing your life...

"But I turned to my faith, and I sought my value in what the Scriptures said.
That I was planned by God.
He had a plan and purpose for me."

However, when you are next speaking to God, Rachael/Sonia... would you convey my disgust that He achieves his plans through the violence of rape and its consequences upon your mother.

Oh, and if He is serious that "Every life matters!" would He please zap miscarriages out of existence. Sooner would be better than later. Thanks.

Rachael,

Indeed, some people are so insecure in their rejection of God that they can react to a life experience like yours only with sarcasm.

WmTrevor,
I'm with you.
Every potential mother over her lifetime has about 300 opportunities to become pregnant. Until a particular fertilized egg is a viable conscious entity why should it have preference over the other 299 potential human beings?
It is a woman right to determine the outcome of her motherhood potential, not some rapist, or some mystical improbable god, or any human busybodies.
If it wasn't for this particular rapist the author's mother may have had a fulfilling life with other healthy children.

That's a tad unfair, George... "insecure in their rejection of God".

As unfair as if I accused you of being insecure or hypocritical in your worship of God whose plan for one girl when "She was 16, innocent,when a man climbed into her bedroom and raped her. Her parents kept her locked away for 9 months. She no doubt was scared, her parentsand brothers ashamed of the baby. They kicked herandbeat her. Eventually, shelay bleeding on the door step, giving birth." and all the rest of the mother's traumas you think acceptable.

Acceptable for no more reason than that you approved of the article. "Was I worth the pain?" "The answer is definitely yes, the fact that you wrote this touchy article proves it".

WmTrevor,

>>As unfair as if I accused you of being insecure or hypocritical in your worship of God<<

I did not say anything about worship of God. Had I said something sarcastic about those who do not believe in God you would be entitled to point out that sarcasm as being due to insecurity in what I believed.

My post was meant only as a reassurance to the author (I addressed it to her since I did not expect you to be enough sensitive to understand the point) that not everybody felt about her life story (she did not state anything that could be argued for or against) that way as if to imply “it would have been better if you were aborted”.

Only informed consent should result in a pregnancy!
Rape, incest, battered wive victims, should be able to gain medically supervised, morning after pill, which just prevents ovulation, for the term any sperm remains viable.
Failing that, they should be able to access a free service, medically supervised, very discrete, early term abortion!
Perhaps in another town and across the border?
Young women still at school can have their whole of life prospects terminated, by an entirely unwanted pregnancy.
If only bible bashing moralizing men, (pious hypocrites) could become pregnant, and then breast feed a baby, this discussion would never ever arise!
Rhrosty

Sadly Rachael, I think that many people who support abortion being available would be prepared to say to you that your life is not worthwhile. If they are going to maintain their support for abortion they have to do this. To acknowledge you as someone of equal worth to everyone else would be to cut the ground out from under their own feet.

Unless every human life – regardless of how that life was conceived or how handicapped or different their life may be - is recognised as being of equal value to every other human life, then ultimately no human life really matters at all.

(And if we have unintentionally happened to evolve from the slime, for no particular purpose, then yes, none of us actually has any intrinsic value.)

Rachel,

You can also use this argument to ban contraception, as it would result in lots more "precious" people.

However, this is all irrelevant, as the cornerstone of this debate is the right of every person to have control over one's own body, and what you and I think has nothing to do with what anyone else decides.

Rachael, you have entered into difficult territory by posting to this topic and making it about the value of your life. For you what you have done may make great sense but it places those who disagree with what appear to be your conclusions at an unfair disadvantage in what is already a difficult topic.

Few of us would think that your life as a functional and self aware human being does not matter. I can say that your life matters while still accepting that there are a lot of things that matter that don't always come up trumps and that there does not seem to be any viable way of ensuring that they do.

I've pointed this out before but it seems relevant to make the point again, as a member of a relatively wealthy society we have great ecconomic power compared to many in the world. Every bought coffee, every cinema ticket, every little thing which is not strictly necessary to our own survival could potentially be redirected to saving the lives of others in parts of the world where they lack our economic power. I've not checked the figures recently but it used to be that something like $5 could buy a life saving vacination, $30 can buy a water filter for a family which lasts around 5 years.

There are people in our own society who's lives could be saved which are now lost if we poured every available resource into funding for treatment. We don't do that, rather we try and find a workable balance accepting that it's not viable long term to focus all of our energies into righting every wrong.

We choose to buy that coffee even though a coffee is worth far less than the life of a child in Africa because few are capable of living with the whole hearted selflessness that is required to always put the big things first.

R0bert

'However, when you are next speaking to God, Rachael/Sonia... would you convey my disgust that He achieves his plans through the violence of rape and its consequences upon your mother. '

Actually WmTrevor its amazing that God can and does fulfil His plan despite man's wickedness. You and me being alive is evident of that.

Great story Rachael although 99% plus baby murders are more for convenience and as a result of brainwashing by people using junk science than the young girl being raped as was the case with your mother.

The two sides on this issue will never accept each other's premises. In most areas of life, the necessary condition for personhood is sentience. That is, we can (uncontroversially) turn off the life support system of a brain-dead patient. Similarly, we would regard the murder of an identical twin just as seriously as any other murder, regardless of whether the victim's DNA lives on in the twin. We would give human rights to E.T. or Commander Data if they actually existed, and very few people would object to keeping third trimester abortions illegal (except to save the mother's life), even if they support abortion on demand in the first trimester.

runner's "baby killers" are simply extending this definition to embryos. As Carl Sagan once put it, if there is brain death, then there must also be brain birth. They would regard the idea that something with "the intellect of plankton", as Sancho put it on another thread, is a human person as ridiculous. They would also regard the idea of forcing a woman to bear a rapist's child as abhorrent, as would be forcing her to have an abortion.

It is worth pointing out that not even all the early Christians accepted that ensoulment (personhood) begins at the moment of conception. Jewish law didn't regard the foetus as fully human, although it didn't condone abortion on demand. For example, the execution of a pregnant criminal was not delayed unless she was actually in the process of giving birth. Some early Christians accepted the moment of conception view, but others believed that ensoulment could not take place until the foetus was developed enough to have human faculties. Of course, St. Augustine or St. Jerome would have said that early abortion was still wrong, but for reasons to do with Christian theology and because abortion was so dangerous for the woman at that time. Even the other camp was not as extreme as the Roman Catholics of today, who are prepared to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform an abortion, even if there is zero chance of saving the foetus.

Divergence – you say that sentience is a necessary condition for personhood. So when do you regard sentience – consciousness or awareness - as occurring? Some, like Peter Singer, want personhood – based upon self-awareness - to be recognised some months after birth. Are you in that group?

Why should “personhood” – a notoriously slippery philosophical notion - be the benchmark for protection from destruction, anyway? Why isn’t being a part of the human family enough? Is it because new human life clearly commences at fertilisation and that wouldn’t leave any room for abortion?

After all, it is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – not the Universal Declaration of Personhood Rights – that countries, such as Australia, have signed up to

Certainly human life in its earliest months is not sentient but it does have the capacity to become sentient. That is the important distinction that needs to be made between a new human life and a human life that may clearly have lost all capacity, both now and for the future, for sentience. It is wrong to kill the former but it may be acceptable to turn off the life support for the latter (depending on how certain it is that all capacity for sentience has been irretrievably extinguished).

A woman who is pregnant through rape should have a choice. If she chooses to have an abortion perhaps that is God's plan.

If she chooses to have that baby that is her right.

If there is a God and he, she or it has a mind it is arrogance on the part of anyone to claim to read that mind.

Runner wrote: "Great story Rachael although 99% plus baby murders are more for convenience and as a result of brainwashing by people using junk science than the young girl being raped as was the case with your mother."

As usual, runner, you are confusing terms. A fetus is not a baby so abortion is not baby murder. However, I assume you are using emotive language to describe abortion. You also are probably are quite willing to lie to make a point. That really doesn't say much for your morality. However, I will assume you may be telling the truth, and you have found some statistic about the reason for 99%+ abortions are for a woman's convenience. Assuming there are statistics relating to your claim please cite the source. I would be interested if perhaps you have resorted to telling the truth.

I assume you are male and will never be pregnant. In my opinion not wanting to go through nine months of pregnancy and have an unwanted baby at the end of it is a perfectly reasonable reason to have an abortion.

I mention 8.7 billion people and the ape doesn't know how to save its self.....please continue:)

Kat

'A fetus is not a baby so abortion is not baby murder. '

as usual David f using junk science as justification for murder. Try looking through a powerful microscope and again you need to shut your eyes to reality. So convenient to redefine terms to hide atrocities. Just what the Nazis did when calling Jews sub human.

I'll be a little more constructive. Religious cults have only one thing in mind, and that's self preservation. They believe in going to the end while knowing god is coming to pick them all up.....what a load of bullsh@t!....Then you have David F the Jewish, that think they are the chosen ones....your indoctrination is why your all and everything is failing....I cant believe what Iam seeing all around the world......your relying on superstition to make your futures....Its true in diagnosis....Humans can barely go one step forwards, without going centuries back......and you call yourselves intelligent!......

KAT

KAT:(

Dear Divergence,

<<It is worth pointing out that not even all the early Christians accepted that ensoulment (personhood) begins at the moment of conception.>>

I prefer the term 'embodiment' because the soul is primary while the body without it is just a piece of meat. 'Ensoulment' suggests the opposite.

"Personhood" is when a one takes up a personae, i.e. plays a character in a play or novel. In that sense, it is almost synonymous with "embodiment".

I am surprised at the general assumption as if embodiment is a binary thing, such as one moment it isn't, the next it is - why can't it be gradual, intermittent or a matter of degree?

A mother is raped and becomes pregnant. Should abortion be an option for her? What might her child think?
Rachel Jackson,
String up her attacker, get medicare to fund her abortion & charge the judiciary for failing to protect her.

Dear runner,

It is not junk science to write a fetus is not a baby. It is fact. That is something you're apparently not used to dealing with. You prefer to call fact junk science.

Meanwhile please state your source for your statement about the 99+%. I think it is simply another lie. However, I will be happy to hear that it is not a lie by your supplying the evidence that there is a factual basis for your statement.

A mother is raped and becomes pregnant. Should abortion be an option for her? What might her child think?
Rachel Jackson,

Rachel, I doubt anyone whose mother was raped would ever say they wished they hadn't been born. They can't help who their father was, or be blamed for what he did.
I admire your mother for having you anyway.

These days, there is the morning after pill for rape victims, so pregnancy is not an issue.
Abortion IS an option today in Australia, so there is always that choice.

People who believe in gods, fairies or any other man-made illusions should not have any more say in that personal choice of pregnant women than anyone else....

I think JP has provided the correct answer, even though they do not really understand what they said:
"(And if we have unintentionally happened to evolve from the slime, for no particular purpose, then yes, none of us actually has any intrinsic value.)"

You are correct that we do not have any intrinsic value, as we all make value decisions regarding different lives differently. For example, most people value their own life most, followed by family, friends etc etc. Most people find the death of a small child more upsetting than that of an elderly person.

I do not believe for a second that the anti-abortion posters here truly value the life of a rapist, murder etc. the exact same as they do themselves or a fertilised egg.

If we accept the argument that human life has no intrinsic value (set by whom?), and that we all value different lives equally, then what the argument really comes down to is: can you force others to value life the same as you do? To some extent this is possible, we make murder illegal, we make medical decisions to save lives, or not, and in the past we have made abortion illegal. However in our society, abortion in some circumstances is legal, and most people have made value judgements that agree with this.

You have every right to disagree and value whatever life (real or imaginary) how you like, but if you need to resort to magic, superstition or lies to argue your case, you will not convince many people.

PS I have observed many embryos (human and animal) in vitro, and I bet the likes of runner couldn't tell a monkey from a human. That would be an interesting sight to see! Bah, secular magic tricks, they both have tails!

they both have tails!
Stezza,
only the ones who turn out to be lefties. :-)

Science is rapidly reaching the point where any one of my skin cells -- and I have billions of them -- could be made into a viable human being. Is that 'worthwhile'? What proportion of them are we morally obliged to clone? Where do we stop?

'Having the potential to become a worthwhile person' and 'being a person' are two different things, just as 'being an oak tree' and 'being an acorn' are. It's funny that nobody seems to have any trouble with this distinction outside the touchy area of abortion. We don't, for instance, pursue squirrels for their relentless destruction of potential forests.

<<.That I was planned by God.>>
GOD Dont plan/people..personality preceede THE gift
he plans what body best suits their.our wants..and needs

<<>.He had a plan...and purpose for me.">
gods plan=our wish..aND HIS PURPOSE FOR US IS TO FIND OUR PASSIONs wants and seek meeting them.

<<.would you convey my disgust...that He achieves his plans>>
its not his plan/its yours/your LIVING YOUR LIFE[builds UP RESIDUAL KARMA..]..[INTO EVERY LIFE A LITTLE RAIn/must fall/its not..the rain/means/but the fruit..THAT WRITES OUR LINE INTO LIFES-ve a part/TO PLAY/OUT..in the book of life

there are no small PARTS/ONLY SMALL ACTORS.
some get to THE CURTAIN AND GET STAGE FRIGHT..others are so SLIPPERY/THEY COME OUT THE WATER SLIDE/..AND GET SENT BACK TO GO/

in eacH CASE..the meeds were met..[its sad the corrective KARMA..OF ONE WHO truelly wished/never to have been born/..UNTIL IT HAPPENS AGAIN/..and we realize/FINAlly/we are/THUS FINALLY REALIZE..we are glad/just please god...dont send me back..again

WE EACH haVE..our pARTS..to PLAY

<<.through the violence of rape>>
YET/SETS up..[FINE TUNES]..the relation ship..the 'fruit'..needs to be meET...for the next STAGE NEEDS....THAT SHe/HE SEEKS to be met...for further spiritual growth.

[THE Children chose the parent/
NOT THE waY/MEANS..of its own creation.]

<<and its consequences upon your mother...>>
ARE ALWAYS DUE.. via previous lifes miss leanings[I DONT KNOW WHY/BUT SOME NEED TO BE SPANKED..OTHERS A Loom is enough..sOME CAN LEARN FROM OTHERS /yet others need live it ourselves/each..life lesson..is given/the easiest least damaging way/mainly to correct PAST KARMA[we then did unto other]..ITS About empathy.

we cant concieve/ourseLVES 'DOING/such vile\to other
AND YET IN A PREVIOOUS LIFE WE MAY HAVE.thINkING IN OUR HEARTS WE EVEN 'Helped ' them..in some sick way/till iT HAPPEND TO..us/..then they know..how it feels/but knowing we did it to other/fiRST.

im told its about power/only if you make it so
its up to us how much we let THESE THINGS AFFECT US..[if its somE FOOL ON AN EGO TRIP/THATS ANOTHER TOPIC]..BUT ITS BY GODS WILL WE GET BETTER THAN WE DESERVE/EARNED.

<<..would He please zap miscarriages..out of existence.>>
beware/for what YOU ASKED/THE SPIRIT/HAS RESOLVED..ITS PAST LIFE ISSUE/living out a whoLe life sentence/YET AGAIN/ONCE THE BIG POINT HAS BEEN Overcome..isnt needed..so THE GOOD DIE YOUNG

<<>.its consequences upon your mother.>>
MUST BE SEEN..IN THE WAY IT IS..now its EXPERIENCED/ONE KNOWS.

<<..Sooner would be better than later.>>
once you perfected/thine own part/ONE GOES WHERE LEADS THE HEART.

http://rss.infowars.com/20140513_Tue_Alex.mp3

Shadow Minister wrote: However, this is all irrelevant, as the cornerstone of this debate is the right of every person to have control over one's own body, and what you and I think has nothing to do with what anyone else decides.

By George (or not since George might nor agree) I think he's got it.

Dear runner,

I am still waiting for you to substantiate your statement about the 99+% by facts. If you can't do that it would be good if you would admit that you just made a statement without any basis in fact.

Stezza – that is quite a concession you make, that human lives have no intrinsic value – but I applaud you for some measure of consistency (I’m assuming from what you write that you are an atheist).

You say that the argument comes down to, “can you force others to value life the same as you do?” Again, I would agree with you – if atheism is correct and human lives have no intrinsic value, then all that is left to try and get people to care about each other is force.

Of course we can then ask, why should anyone care about anyone else anyway? You might choose to care about your family but does it really matter if you don’t, as they have no intrinsic value? As a matter of self-interest you might look after your kids with the hope perhaps that they will look after you when you are old, but you could never be sure they would once they recognise you have no value. Indeed, if they could be sure of getting away with it, why shouldn’t they murder you so as to get their inheritance sooner?

In your world, murder is only “wrong” in so far as someone (for their self-interest) may use force to lock you up if they catch you, not because there is anything immoral about killing people – just like there isn’t anything immoral in throwing a stone into the sea.

Shadow Minister – you claim that “the cornerstone of this debate is the right of every person to have control over one's own body”. This is just a raw assertion that such a “right” exists – how do you justify it? If someone is more intelligent than you or stronger than you and thus can gain power over you, why shouldn’t they make you their slave if they want to?

Dear runner,

I am still waiting for you to substantiate your statement about the 99+% by facts. If you can't do that it would be good if you would admit that you just made a statement without any basis in fact.

No doubt with your form you are more than likely to change the meaning of 'covenience'. Why else in such a prosperous welfare hand out state would you suggest woman have their unborn killed?

JP,

I don't suppose you would start murdering people if you discovered there was no god, nor would I even if I knew there would be no punishment from the law. This common value for human life may have resulted from genetic selection within our societies, which is still ongoing in our society today. I enjoyed reading the book 'the selfish gene' even though I am not 100% convinced of all of the arguments (as a scientist I have the luxury of being able to both agree and disagree at the same time).

"they both have tails!
Stezza,
only the ones who turn out to be lefties. :-)"

Individual, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Actually I'm not sure you understand what I mean either.

Thank you for the clarification, George... it allows me to express mine.

It is wrong to impute “it would have been better if you were aborted” from my words. I even led with "I am pleased you are cherishing your life..."

Had Rachael quoted or ascribed that it was her mother - even allowing for a mental age of 12 - who believed and accepted her suffering as 'God's plan' I wouldn't have even commented. But she didn't and it was Rachael's predestination theology I was satirising.

To paraphrase Anselm, if God is that than which nothing greater can be thought, then to my thinking God's plan cannot encompass evil means justifying the ends, however good.

And I was as secure in thinking this as a Christian as I am in thinking this now as an athiest.

Channeling runner for a second: to do otherwise would be a waste of my adamic nature to endure the fruits of the tree of knowledge to know right from wrong. Even when committed by God.

JP,

Peter Singer's views are very extreme. We are developing more and more respect for the cognitive abilities of new babies. From a legal point of view, I have no problems with the existing restrictions on abortion past the first trimester.

There are some serious problems with the moment of conception argument apart from the lack of sentience in the early stages of life. There is no one-to-one correspondence between surviving zygotes and people. Early embryos can split and form identical twins or triplets. Two different embryos, arising from different sperm and egg cells and possibly of different sexes, can get squeezed together in the womb and cooperate in making a single individual, with different cell lines descending from different embryos, rather than forming fraternal twins. What happens to the soul that was supposedly infused at the moment of conception in these cases?

Another problem is that reproduction is a really sloppy process. The vast majority of zygotes never end up as live babies, even if there is no deliberate interference. Most of them die or are expelled due to gross abnormalities and are lost before the woman even realises that conception has occurred. Those of us who don't accept moment of conception can just shrug our shoulders at how Nature works, but to you, they are people. If they are people, then we have an obligation to find ways to save them, not just to refrain from killing them.

As Jon J said, human cloning is not far away, and in that case countless billions of your cells are potentially sentient, not to mention all the sperm and egg cells out there that only need to be brought together. Maybe it would be better to worry about existing people who are already sentient, although my own views on abortion are like Bill Clinton's: it should be safe, legal, and rare.

Stezza – you may have decided not to murder anyone (at least thus far in your life), for whatever reason, but that is just you and your choice. If someone decided that it was in their best interests to murder you, and they were very likely to get away with it, why shouldn’t they? Would you appeal to them that they are going against the trend of genetic selection within our society? Yes, that should work.

But really, on your own terms, you have no value and they wouldn’t be doing anything wrong in murdering you. One person’s choice not to commit murder is no better or more valid than another person’s choice to commit murder.

We surely have no responsibility to abide by any apparent trends in mindless, unintentional, genetic selection.

Dear runner,

You quote me asking you to substantiate your statement and then still don't substantiate it.

It seems it's just another one of your statements which have no basis in fact.

Don't you care for truth at all?

Wm.quote..<<.,..[ITS]..Rachael's predestination theology..I was satirising...*To paraphrase Anselm,..>>

then parap-raze..it
wrong?

<<.if God is that..>>
WHAT THAt?
IF GOD IS THAT..[UNSEEN/YET GREATER THAN..the baptisER?

IF GOd is that
<<..than which nothing greater can be thought,..*then
to my thinking...God's plan cannot encompass evil..means justifying the ends, however good.>>

true/ID YOUR SAYING NOTHiong greater thaN GOD
SO PURE VILE CANT EXIST ANYWHERE NEAR..
BUT NOT CLEARLY PUT

<<>.secure in thinking this>>

if god is good is true..[anD IT IS]
THEN ALL GOOD HONOURS THE ONLY TRUE-GOOD.

<<>.Channeling runner for a second: to do otherwise would be a waste of my adamic nature to endure the fruits of the tree of knowledge to know right from wrong.>>

TOO GOOd..so FAR
BUT THEN

<<Even when committed by God>>
I know to you he dont exists..but all that lives/lives becauSE HE SUSTAINS its being..[WHERE IFE IS/THERE IS THE LLIVIng good]..regardless IF THEFRUITS OF ITS l

THE GOOD IS THAT lIFE RETURNS..GOOD OR IL] FRUIT
0ZMOSIS../from lack to plenty\THE LIGHT REVEALING THAT THE DARK MERELY HID

GOD OMNIpresent..IS IN YOU/IS IN ME..
is the change of state/as energy self realizes ALL OF ITSELF.
AND IF TRUTH BE KNOWN/..HE LIVES VIA US..meaKLY USING OUR SENSESTO KNOW THYSELF

http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
Anselm's ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God's existence. Anselm starts with premises that do not depend on experience for their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that God exists.

His aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (Psalms 14:1). This fool has two important features.* He understands the claim that God exists.* He does not believe that God exists.

Anselm's goal is to show that this combination is unstable.
Anyone who understands what it means to say that God exists
can be led to see that God does exist. On this view, the atheist is not just mistaken: his position is internally inconsistent

Dear JP,

<<Shadow Minister – you claim that “the cornerstone of this debate is the right of every person to have control over one's own body”. This is just a raw assertion that such a “right” exists – how do you justify it?>>

An excellent question, so I was pondering it:

Yes, a person does not have such right to control one's own body.

But if one has no right to control one's own body, then surely others have no such right either over somebody else's body!

So in the context of this discussion, abortion is wrong, but throwing someone in jail for that is even more wrong.

If however it was somehow right to throw someone in jail because they interfere with the body of another, than surely those who eat meat should be jailed first because the life they interfered with was more developed, more intelligent and more attached to their body than a foetus.

Dear Stezza,

<<I enjoyed reading the book 'the selfish gene'>>

I read it too.

Yes, the genes are selfish - but that doesn't mean that you should reduce yourself to their level.

JP

"Stezza –Would you appeal to them that they are going against the trend of genetic selection within our society? Yes, that should work."

I suspect it would work as well as threatening them with eternal damnation....

"But really, on your own terms, you have no value and they wouldn’t be doing anything wrong in murdering you."

You don't understand, to myself, I do have great value. To someone trying to murder me I don't have value. That was the differences in value judgements I was talking about. Personally I value the lives of murderers less than non-murderers. Don't you?

"We surely have no responsibility to abide by any apparent trends in mindless, unintentional, genetic selection."

No we don't "have" to "do" anything. That's not how genetic selection works. If you lived in a city with lots of murderers, you would probably move, right?

I think what you are looking for is absolute rights and wrongs. I'm sorry they don't exist, never have, never will. Now, can you honestly say you value the live of a serial rapist/murderer equally to a small child

It's interesting that some US Conservative politicians and evangelical Christians still believe that it's not possible for a woman to become pregnant from rape.

In cases where others concede that it may be possible in some circumstances, they claim that babies - even those conceived via a violent sexual assault - are "a gift from God".

God certainly works in mysterious ways.

In any case, all are speaking out of self-interest and none bear any responsibility for any consequences that may follow for those affected.

Divergence – you suggest that Peter Singer’s views are extreme. By what standard are you making that judgment? - your own personal preferences? – what you perceive “society’s” standard happens to be at this time? Why should those standards matter?

I don’t know where you live, but in Australia there is no legal restriction of abortion to the first trimester. In the ACT abortion on demand has been legal up to birth for over ten years. In Victoria, since 2008, abortion on demand up to 24 weeks is legal. Elsewhere, in practice, there is no restriction on when abortions are done.

As far as twinning goes, all that shows is that there is more than one way that new life can come into being. As far as two embryos merging into one goes, I have not heard of that before, but perhaps one embryo dies in the process. You say that the vast majority of zygotes die before the woman even realises she is pregnant. Can you please substantiate that claim. From what I have read on this, such claims are based on extrapolations from animal studies, and if that is so then we don’t know that this is necessarily the case with human beings. Besides there is an enormous difference morally between an unintentional and an intentional act.

Human cloning may happen one day, and if it does, it will merely demonstrate that human lives can be brought into being by a new means. It will not show that skin cells or sperm or ova are human beings.

You say that you want abortion to be rare, but you don’t say why. If you think sentience matters, the large majority of abortions are done in the first trimester when there is no sentience

davidf

'Don't you care for truth at all? ' It is obvious that you are very loose with it when defining a life.

JP,

The question of a person's right to privacy and liberty originates as far back as the 14th century with the Habeas corpus which restricts the actions the state can take against an individual without due cause.

Further to this are laws against torture, laws controlling privacy etc. Police cannot even force you to take a blood test for drunk driving.

This is not unlimited, and one can lose one's right if one commits a crime or threatens others. If one reads Roe vs Wade, the rational is clearly laid out, and while obviously not as simplistic as my one line statement, the right of the state to intervene in a woman's control over her person is front and center.

Yuyutsu – you say, “if one has no right to control one's own body, then surely others have no such right either over somebody else's body” – I don’t see why that should follow.

In an atheistic universe (I’m not inferring that you are an atheist as I don’t know where you stand, but many other commenters here appear to be atheists), I find it hard to understand how any “rights” can be justified. It is easy to claim any right one likes but to show that the claimed right has compelling authority is, I believe, not possible.

You make a number of value judgments such as, it is a more serious offence to eat meat than to have an abortion, on the grounds that the animal eaten “was more developed, more intelligent and more attached to their body than a foetus”. Why should any of those factors matter?

Stezza – I don’t dispute that you value your own life, but the issue as I see it is, why should anyone else care about your life? Why shouldn’t someone take what you have if they want to, and murder you in the process if they feel like it? You say that you value the lives of murderers less than the lives of non-murderers, but, without wanting to sound rude, so what?

You say that absolute right and wrong don’t exist – if you are correct on that then it doesn’t matter what I, or you, think about the value of murderers compared to small children. If all morality is relative and subjective then the notion of morality is essentially meaningless. Everyone can do whatever they like unless someone has the power to use force (for whatever reasons they might have) to stop them. Hitler wasn’t bad and Mandela wasn’t good.

Shadow Minister – I was asking how any “rights” can be justified? In an atheistic universe any “rights” can be claimed but how can they be substantiated?

JP,

Peter Singer's views are extreme because it is clear that a newborn baby is sentient. You are right about Australian law, but many countries do place restrictions on second trimester abortions. In any case, the overwhelming majority of abortions are in the first trimester. Even early abortion is likely to be distressing for all concerned, even if you don't regard it as tantamount to murder. Unwanted pregnancies are best prevented in the first place.

This article from Stanford Medical School in the US gives some idea of the percentages of zygotes that don't survive based on experiments on human fertilised eggs, not other mammals.

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2010/october/embryos.html

So far as chimeras, are concerned, just do a search on "human chimeras". In a chimera, neither embryo dies, they just give rise to different cell lines. See for example

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna-double-take.html?pagewanted=all

"One woman discovered she was a chimera as late as age 52. In need of a kidney transplant, she was tested so that she might find a match. The results indicated that she was not the mother of two of her three biological children. It turned out that she had originated from two genomes. One genome gave rise to her blood and some of her eggs; other eggs carried a separate genome."

WmTrevor, I did not want to start an argument with you about believing or not in God, and as I said I didn’t think the author wanted either. My reaction was about the sensitivity of your reaction to her sharing with us her life story, not about what or why you believe this or that.

No doubt with your form you are more than likely to change the meaning of 'covenience'. Why else in such a prosperous welfare hand out state would you suggest woman have their unborn killed?

Posted by runner, Wednesday, 14 May 2014 9:37:43 AM

Runner....Religion has killed tens of thousands of people in the name of god, is this the way you shed a little guilt?

I can pull up some interesting facts about it if you like:) and I'll show the links to the general public, you just say the word:)

...and every life matters.....what a joke....lol

Kat

Dear JP,

<<In an atheistic universe (I’m not inferring that you are an atheist as I don’t know where you stand, but many other commenters here appear to be atheists), I find it hard to understand how any “rights” can be justified.>>

True, but I wasn't claiming rights: I was pondering the issue of right-over-one's-body in the light of your challenging former post and I concluded that it didn't exist.

Am I an atheist? Perhaps in a very dry and technical sense because I don't believe in God's existence, but I aspire to love God with all my heart, all my mind and all my capacity, though I know that I fall way short of that. I would like to think of myself as a religious person, but do I really deserve it?

<<Why should any of those factors matter?>>

One who is more developed, has more intelligence and is more attached to their body, is more likely to suffer and lose as a result of the destruction of that body.

I believe in the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) as the very foundation of morality and religion, that it is wrong to cause suffering and loss to others.

Underlying this universal principle is our true identity as God, as opposed to the illusion of being a limited human. Truly, I am God, You are God, the animal is God and the foetus is God - there is nothing but God.

Thus, if I hurt another, I actually hurt God and I actually hurt myself. Since I don't like to feel hurt, I distance myself from the other whom I hurt, by that I distance myself from God, I distance myself from the Truth and instead I reinforce the illusion of being separate. That's how violence takes us further away from God, that's why I try my best to eliminate it from my life.

They say evolution takes a long time, I don't doubt it:)

Kat

every sperm is sacred/that aLone condemns ME TO HELL
BUT WHAT IS HELL?..indeed what is god..seems to be the debAITABLE Point.

all will is gods will..that I CALL god..i call the unity of one god
[more rightfully called the holy living spirit/sustaining al life/living]

where LIFE IS THERE IS THE HOLY LIVING SPIRIT SusTAINING ITS LIVING.

THE holy spirit..sustains constant change of state
as energy CHANGES ITS state..yet energy/like trhe holy spirit..is in xonmtinual 'change'/like the change of state..of the sun/emmiting its manyfold energieS/PRIME OF WHICh is its choice to EMIT THE LIGHT/sustaining all living.

that we call GOD=THE SUN..BUT EVEN GOD IS SUBSERVIANT TO THE HOLY SPIRIT SUSTAINING EVEN THE SON ITS CHANGE of state/but because words are slippery..and this is satans realm..we are in continual division BY SUCH DIVERSIONS SUCH AS DEFINING WHAT WE MEAN.

TAKE EVOLUTION..DROP THE E/..ITS JUST TOO/CLEVER
VOlution = survival OF FITTEST..NOT MOST EVOLVED..evolution is that variety we see within many given genus/like aLL DOGS Evolved from wolf/genus canus..thus all breeds are fertile.

WOLF WAS A Judgment animal..SENT WHEN Herbivores got too plenty full
it evolved from spiritual CONCEPt..into materialized reality/by the unseen tweaking..opportunistic..possability/chance.

cats are another genus[caTUS]..and no dog will ever 'evolve'..into a cat/and no cat can 'evolve'..into a dog..evolution defines that process of correction/that keeps dogs dogs and cats cats..

and still we have the satanic detraction..that we some how arose by chance/and only violence.../AND\THE FIT-test/hardship saw us evolve..

AND WHY SHOULD I CARE..THAT those swallowing THE GOD FREe version of creation..are chosing by peer pressure and by 'going' alonG WITH 'Experts'..WHO NEVER EVOLVED EVEN A SPECIES WITHIN GENUS..bEcause their too lazy to justify the STUDY..

yet here we have doctors dentists astrologers hookers and priests swearing its evolution/and not one of em has botherd serious studY..[SCIENCE]

Thus made it an article..'of faith']..but
then deny..they too take their EVOLVING-thesis..on faith alone.

if you cant repeat IT/its noit science
if you dont know it..dont claim to know of it.

Divergence – interesting articles. But the first one does not establish how many embryos die in normal pregnancies. The author says, “When the researchers followed 100 of the 242 [IVF] embryos for five to six days, they found that 38 percent formed normal-looking blastocysts — about the same proportion that would be expected to be successful in normal pregnancies.” 38% of IVF embryos are normal looking according to the study, but then an unsupported assertion is made that this is about the same proportion that “would be expected” to be successful in normal pregnancies. On what grounds should it be expected that normal pregnancies have the same rate of normal-looking IVF blastocysts?

The second article does say that two embryos can fuse together but there is no indication as to whether or not one of the embryos dies in the process. One embryo may survive the fusion but still have functioning DNA from the other embryo in its body, as apparently happens in the other examples in the article.

You say that “early abortion is likely to be distressing for all concerned, even if you don't regard it as tantamount to murder”. If abortion is not the taking of the life of a fellow human being, why is it that almost everyone says that it is such a difficult and trying decision – often said to be one of the most difficult decisions a woman makes in her life? Having a tooth pulled certainly does not create so much angst.

Yuyutsu – if, as you say, everything, including yourself, is God, how can you move further away from everything/God/yourself? If everything, including you, is God then wherever you are, however you are, you nevertheless are, and remain with God.

Presumably from what you write you believe in transmigration of the soul or reincarnation. If life comes to a complete end at death, the one who dies cannot suffer loss from their death because they no longer exist to experience that loss.

I find it hard to make sense of the notions that everything is God and that we get reincarnated.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Mahatma Gandhi said, "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."

Are you non-violent in your heart?

JP,

You are setting up impossible conditions. If you do web searches on this subject, you will find varying estimates, but all agree that the numbers are high. See for example

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

Even if we just look at the 10%-20% of miscarriages after pregnancy is verified, that is still an enormous number. The overwhelming majority of them occur in the first trimester. You are left with a problem if these are people.

In terms of the chimeras, we know that cell lines from both embryos have survived because we can now sequence genomes. I recall reading about one case where a woman was going to be accused of benefit fraud, because of apparent evidence that she could not have been the biological mother of her children. It was later found that she was a chimera.

Nor are the people who disagree with you necessarily atheists, although some have said that they are. Christians have never universally accepted the "moment of conception" argument. We know that it was not even the dominant belief at some times because there are early manuals for priests that recommend much more severe penances for late abortions than early ones. Even for Roman Catholics, "moment of conception' wasn't declared a doctrine before Pope Pius IX in the 19th century, i.e., people could make up their own minds about it. It is quite possible to believe that early abortion is wrong for theological reasons without thinking it is tantamount to murder. If that position is accepted, though, then you are left with preaching to the flock and not picketing abortion clinics. It is much like the situation of Hindus who object to the slaughter of cattle or eating beef, or Muslims who object to the consumption of alcohol.

On the other hand, denial of abortion or cancer therapy to a pregnant woman (because it is likely to kill the foetus) can be tantamount to murder

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/05/2013510112715422231.html

http://www.trust.org/item/20130723041228-4l129/

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1002085.htm

Sperms’ Swimming and Navigational Skills
Disrupted By Common Chemicals

its murder out thERE
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/12/sperm-swimming-navigational-skills-chemicals-endocrine-disruptors

The Guardian | Lab study suggests around a third of ‘endocrine disruptors’ damage sperms’ function and their ability to fertilize eggs.

Common chemical additives found in sunscreens, food packaging, toothpaste and toys can harm sperm and may affect the fertility of some couples, scientists say.

Tests on 96 ubiquitous and supposedly non-toxic substances found that nearly one third disrupted the way sperm functioned, affecting their swimming and navigational skills, and their ability to fertilize an egg.

The findings – from an experiment conducted on sperm in dishes in the lab – are the first to demonstrate how the chemicals, which are so widespread they are detectable in people’s blood, can impact on sperm and potentially harm reproduction.

Dear JP,

<<how can you move further away from everything/God/yourself?>>

From an absolute, ontological perspective, you don't ever move away from God and cannot stop being who you truly are: God.

You can, however, EXPERIENCE separation from God (which in Christian terms is called living in hell). It is an illusion of course, but so long as you are in it, the pain seems real enough. It's like a nightmare: truly you sleep comfortably in bed; truly you are not pursued by any tigers, grilled by demons, or sentenced to life-imprisonment for a crime you haven't committed, etc. But so long as you remain asleep, until you wake, that truth remains a little comfort.

<<you nevertheless are, and remain with God.>>

More accurately, you remain God - there are no 'two' here to be able to 'be with' each other.

<<If life comes to a complete end at death>>

The death of one's body is a big loss. Most dearly, one loses their education which was stored in their brains - all skills from the ability to smile, wink, talk and recognise people to playing music and solving complex mathematical problems. As the brain perishes, one also loses all memories.

That's "bad enough", enough for some to consider it the end of life, but that's just an expression of despair: other than the above "inconvenience", nothing really happened to YOU.

<<I find it hard to make sense of the notions that everything is God>>

What about the opposite notion as if something could exist separately of God? Wouldn't that be restricting God or competing with Him? I would find that more unpalatable.

Dear David,

While I admire Mahatma Gandhi, I don't need to agree with every sentence he ever said. Very few people can truly state that they have no ounce of violence in their hearts, but the answer is not to act it out - the answer is to use discipline and will-power and refrain from acting this violence on others, no matter what it takes. Of course, one can always punch a boxing bag if it helps.

JP,

What arrogant nonsense!

"I was asking how any “rights” can be justified? In an atheistic universe any “rights” can be claimed but how can they be substantiated?"

The answer is simple, the mores and ethics about humanity and society existed far before Christianity and exists in atheists and people of all religions, and anyone with a brain and a sense of justice can work out the logical steps to safeguard people against the predations of those in authority.

While many christians have been involved in furthering the rights of humanity, they back pedal when the logic they have been pushing comes into conflict with religious dogma.

To answer an earlier questioned raised with the survival of fertilized eggs, a friend of mine who is an IVF specialist gave me a run down on the process including the following:

Only roughly 25% of fertilized human eggs go on to produce a foetus, with those in their teens closer to 40% and those in their late 30s closer to 10% Much of this has to do with the process of melding of the chromosomes and the damage to the genetics of the original gametes. The older the mother(mostly responsible) and father, the more damaged the gametes and the less perfect the process, and the less chance the zygote has of being viable.

The reason that IVF is relatively so successful is because a large number of eggs are harvested and fertilized, and only the small number that are viable are kept and implanted, giving the woman the same chance of success equivalent to about 2 years of normal intercourse.

Shadow Minister – you seem to be saying that atheists and others can work out what is morally right and wrong by rational means.

However there is no necessary correspondence between what is rational and what is normally considered to be moral. For example, a young man may make a decision to kill his grandmother so as to hasten receiving his inheritance. This may be quite a rational decision to make – he is poor while she is wealthy but sick and using a lot of her money on her health care; he has a plan that will ensure he almost certainly won’t be held responsible for her death; he doesn’t like her. But despite such a decision being rational very few people would say that his decision is morally right.

When rationality and morality are in conflict, which should prevail and why?

Also, how should things be resolved when atheists disagree with each other about what is morally right? For example there are atheists who are opposed to abortion (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/ ) Which atheists are right – those in favour of abortion or those against it?

JP given the number of thiestic beliefs in the world and the even greater number of interpretations of their holy writings/teachings thiests face exactly the same problem. If there was only one concept of god and no confusion about just how she wants people to live then your point might bear some relevance. Thats not the way it is.

R0bert

JP,

It is obvious that all but the crudest form of animalistic rationality eludes you. Only the most insane would think that murder is the way to a better life. Rationality requires the consideration of more than simple gains, but consequences, and the vision of a better society.

I as an atheist have worked at soup kitchens not because someone or something else told me it was the right thing to do, but because I believe it is a good thing to do.

Christians don't have the monopoly on good works, and have more than their fair share of slaughter.

'I as an atheist have worked at soup kitchens'

SM seems to think this somehow justifies baby killing. Pathetic.

JP,

You act as though all of the rules in life and morality have been given to you in black and white, and you never need to make any decisions yourself regarding right and wrong.

Is this the case? If so where do you get your rules on absolute morality?

If not, then you must use the same processes as the rest of us to navigate your decisions.

Its not that bloody complicated.

JP,

That was a good example illustrating the difference between rationality (how to “properly”, think, analyse your situation, argue) and morality (how to “properly” act).

In the first case the ultimate aim is “truthfulness”, in the second the ultimate aim is “goodness”. Rationality is more than mere logic but should NEVER contradict it; morality or “natural law” - a product of evolution (whether or not seen as guided by God) - is more than lawfulness but COULD contradict it (e. g. in Nazi Germany). Thoughts cannot be immoral, but can lead towards immoral acts, and acts cannot be irrational but can be the result of irrational thinking (assessing the situation prior to action).

I think most people can distinguish between rational norms (how to think) and moral norms (how to act), whether theist or atheist. What they actually consider as rational (except for mere rules of formal logic) is a different thing, and so is the question of what motivates people to accept this or that action as moral or immoral.

RObert – no, I don’t think that the atheist and the theist face the same problem. I do agree with you though that the variety of different theistic beliefs can be confusing and make it difficult to know if any of them are true. But theism generally holds that there is a good God who has created us and given us at least some idea of what the standards of right and wrong are.

Atheism though has no basis for establishing what is right or wrong, beyond each person’s individual subjective preferences.

Thus, if some version of theism is true it may at least be possible to establish what is right and wrong, whereas if atheism is true, there is no objective right or wrong that can ever be established.

Stezza – I would say the same to you as I’ve written above to RObert. I’m not claiming that theists don’t have to try and work out what is right and wrong, but if theism is true that is at least something that is possible to achieve. If atheism is true then there is no possible basis for arriving at any objective morality. One atheist can say they believe abortion is wrong and another can say they believe it is right and they can’t get beyond that because there are no objective moral standards in an atheistic universe.

Shadow Minister – don’t you see your problem – you want to say the young man who wanted to murder his grandmother for the inheritance is insane for thinking that way. However, I’m quite sure he would not get off in court if he pled insanity. He is not insane, he just has different moral values to you and if you are both atheists, who are you to say that his values are wrong and yours are right?

JP may I draw your attention to the fact that there are thiests in the world at the moment who's intepretation of what their god wants includes the kidnapping of hundreds of school girls, the sale of them as slaves or brides etc. Others of their faith disagree but that just highlights how subjective the appeal to a god for authority is.

There have also been a bunch of attrocities and abuses by christian thiests (as there have been attrocities and abuses by athiests).

Appeals to absolutes have to work all the way, not stop at some arbitrary point that is convenient to the person trying to use that appeal. You don't have that foundation no matter how much you may wish it was so.

R0bert

Yeah, but whose definition of “good”, JP?

<<...theism generally holds that there is a good God who has created us and given us at least some idea of what the standards of right and wrong are.>>

Who’s to say that your idea of what is good, is any better than mine?

Theists can argue this ‘til they’re blue in the face, but at the end of the day, we all rely on the same faculties to determine what is moral and what is not. Holy books are too contradictory to serve as any source of reference without having to exercise the same level discretion that you mock atheists for having to exercise.

So not only are you faced with the same “dilemmas” that we atheists are faced with, but you have the additional problem of having to interpret ambiguous old writings. You are adding an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Asserting that a god is up there somewhere to back your interpretation of what he/she thinks, is meaningless.

RObert, AJ Philips – the fact that some professing theists have done things that many people find immoral does not thereby establish that there can be no God. People are largely free to believe, and do, whatever they want, regardless of whether what they do and say coincides with what God (should God exist)may want. There may be a real God but perhaps very poor and even very few actual followers of God.

It seems to be conceded by the atheists on this thread that if atheism is true then all moral claims are merely personal expressions of preference (as no one has expressed an argument to show that this is not so). This being the case, it follows that: (1) there are no objective moral standards against which we can measure whether a particular moral claim is right or wrong; (2) there can be no meaningful moral discussion, as one person can say ‘I believe behaviour A is moral’ and another person can say ‘I believe behaviour A is immoral’ and there is no way to establish which claim is true (and really neither claim is true, beyond the individual asserting the claim, because there is no objective moral standard); (3) there can be no moral progress or regress because there is no objective standard to which we can draw closer or move away from (Nelson Mandela did not help make this world a better place and neither did Pol Pot make it any worse).

These seem to be amazingly significant things for the atheist to have to concede. And many atheists don’t really seem to appreciate where they professed beliefs lead. They will express anger at people for things that are said and done, when really if they are going to be entirely rational about it, people are just expressing a different preference in life to them and why shouldn’t they? Instead of getting annoyed at people, why not just calmly say, I prefer this, and you prefer that, and leave it at that?

Whoever suggested that, JP?

<<the fact that some professing theists have done things that many people find immoral does not thereby establish that there can be no God.>>

No, but what it does do, however, is show how arbitrary and subjective having an ultimate moral authority is.

You have not addressed the problems with your reasoning that we have pointed to. You have bypassed it with some strange interpretation of what we were saying and then proceeded to go off on an already discredited tangent.

Dear JP,

In general you may agree that it is better not to go to war than to go to war. There have been many religious wars based on different religious interpretations. This is not restricted to different interpretations of God since some religions have nothing to do with God or have a multiplicity of gods. The recent conflict between the Buddhist government of Sri Lanka against the Hindu Tamils is an example of that. Buddhism does not recognise the existence of a God, and Hindus recognise many gods. Buddhist clergy encouraged the slaughter. The Wars of the Reformation had two Christian groups killing each other and others in the vicinity of the conflict because of different interpretations of God. The Crusades pitted one group of theists against another group of theists. The Holocaust was in part the result of centuries of Christian hatred for Jews. Atheists are human with the propensity for violence that apparently all humans have. However, I have never heard of atheists slaughtering each other because of a difference of opinion concerning the God they don't believe in.

Christianity has some wisdom that Christians largely ignore. Matthew 7:20 (KJV) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Considering the encouragement of violence in many different religions one fruit of religion is slaughter. Abandoning religion would remove one cause of war and conflict.

I would rather muddle along in my confused atheistic state which doesn't offer certainty than to have the certainty of righteousness which the religious employ to justify their mayhem. Atheism doesn't offer certainty. It offers something better. We realise we may be wrong and usually cannot feel righteous enough to go out and slaughter fellow humans because they have the wrong idea. We may question authority when it tries to set us at each other's throat. Onward, Christian soldiers. We atheists realise that we only have this life and are less eager to lose it or deprive others of their lives than are the believers.

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html is a satire by a great writer on the encouragement of violence by religion.

Dear David,

<<Considering the encouragement of violence in many different religions one fruit of religion is slaughter. Abandoning religion would remove one cause of war and conflict.>>

Your conclusion as if wars and violence perpetrated by organisations that profess to be "religious", is a result of their religion (which they don't truly have) - is illogical.

More likely, that violence and conflict is a result of those groups' abandonment of religion, while retaining it in name only.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think you fail to recognise what religion is. Religion has very little to do with non-violence. You seem like a decent person who does not wish to harm others or to exercise violence. However, I really don't think you are a religious person. You are too decent. You make god and religion in the image of yourself. I wish it were, but it isn't.

david/..<<..too decent...You make god and religion
in the image of yourself>>

as usual..direct/to..the heart..of the matter.

but its god who makes us..
and we made religion

<<.....I wish it were,>>[us who make good]
and so it is as we recognise all good is of god.
[why call ye me good?..there is but one good [him..wholly spirit/the grace and mercy that sustains god beast and men..to live[ye can blaspheme jesus/the jews/even god himself..but not the holy spirit[OR RATHER VISA VERSA;}

<<..but it isn't.>>no the holy spirit..lives intimatly at the level where majic happens [change of state]..osmosis..that expansion as ice freezes..change of state,that changes the condition of the sun to radiate..emit..'light'..sustaining life..that life in the light decide to live in kove/not envey fear nor spite

no i agree its just not so..and yet every life the creator/holy spirit]sustains to live has its life lessons..that collectivly summate as the works made seen of the great unseen/revealed by his sign.

we each are but a neuron..in the big bio computer of energy changing state/as the one without peer..makes endless self recognition and self repair...take care[some excelent sumations]..no reply from auther?

Dear David,

<<Religion has very little to do with non-violence>>

Non-violence (Ahimsa) is the very first and foremost religious injunction, or restraint (Yama) of Hinduism and related religions. Yamas are also prescribed as the first limb, or step, of Yoga (which means linking with or uniting with God, same as the Latin 'Religare'), without following which, one is unable to progress on their spiritual path.

As I explained above, by mistreating others, one reinforces the illusion of being separate from them, hence separate from the common substratum which unites us all - God.

Religion is not defined by its injunctions. It is defined by what its practitioners do. Gandhi followed the injunction. However, the Hindu who murdered him acted as most Hindus do. By their fruits shall we know them. I know about the injunction of ahimsa. However, the injunction does not define the behaviour. Matthew 7:20 has it right.

Gandhi was not a real Hindu, and Martin Luther King jr. was not a real Christian.

This tiresome debate has been going on for decades.

The only thing that changes is it's name but the arguments have stayed the same.

Many of the most devout "right-to-lifers" see no problem with dropping bombs on pregnant women during war time and call for the reintroduction of the death penalty.

What they really want is the right to choose who lives and who dies and hide behind a contrived belief system to justify their prejudices and bigotry - yet have absolutely no personal stake in any resulting misery their demands may cause.

Time to put up or shut up. Tell the mother of a deformed fetus or one in abject poverty that you will personally pay for all resulting expenses for the rest of the life of the unborn child or adopt and raise it yourself.

No?

I thought not.

Don't condemn people you don't even know to a lifetime of misery just because it offends the beliefs into which you were indoctrinated.
It's none of your business and the choice is not yours to make.

That sort of morality once had women burned as witches and others enslaved.

Dear david f (and Yuyutsu),

>>one fruit of religion is slaughter. Abandoning religion would remove one cause of war and conflict<<

One fruit of sexuality is rape. Abandoning sex would remove one cause of violence.

Abandoning sex probably means mass castration. What does abandoning religion mean? In my dictionary religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. Well, I lived in a world where religion thus understood was "abandoned". Something else, not much better filled in the vacuum. So a call for abandoning religion should be followed by explaining what should replace religion’s traditional psychological and social functions, and arguments why we should think that in the long run - and classical religions had all had very long runs - this replacement would be better.

Both religion and sex have other fruits as well, so one should be careful about what one wishes.

Dear George,

There were five great extinctions of species according to the fossil record. The sixth great extinction is going on at present. It apparently is due to the changes humans have been making on the planet. The disappearance of human sexuality would eliminate human beings. The planet would recover to a degree from the human caused changes, and the sixth great extinction would come to an end. Biodiversity would benefit by the end of human sexuality. Of course one could say that humanity has done great things, but are the great things more important than the extinction of species?

Religion has provided benefits for humans and has also been a source of opposition to the human quest for knowledge. The 16th century was a time of unprecedented change, the very beginning of the modern era of science, a time of great exploration, religious and political turmoil, and extraordinary literature. What was the reaction of the Abrahamic religions? In 1553 Protestant Geneva burned Servetus at the state for heresy in doubting the Trinity. Servetus was a great mind.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 points to my essay about the incident. In 1600 Catholic Rome burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. Bruno speculated that the sun was a star, and there could be many stars with life on the planets going around them. Condemning those who speculate about the heavens is not new with Catholicism. Anaxagoras was condemned in pagan Athens for impiety in thinking the sun was a lump of metal. Jews, having no power to burn anyone at the stake, could only excommunicate the great Spinoza in 1656. Religion has also fostered knowledge, but its record in fostering ignorance is unsurpassed by any other human institution. The heirs to the kind of thinking that resulted in burning Servetus and Bruno now support Creationism.

continued

JP,

Don’t you see your problem – you want to say the young man who wanted to murder his grandmother for the inheritance is not insane for thinking that way, he just has different moral values to you and if you are both Christians, who are you to say that his values are wrong and yours are right?

Considering that there are just as many or "Christians" killing others, your position that Christians have the moral high ground is without foundation.

Continued

However, there is an intimate connection between the Abrahamic religions and sexuality. There is apparently a great fear of female sexuality and female independence. On this list it shows itself in those who are outraged that a pregnant woman should be able to decide she wants to terminate a pregnancy. Apparently the fate of a female foetus is a matter of great concern, but the pregnant woman should go to term regardless of how she feels about it or how it would affect her life. The female foetus is important but not the woman whose body carries it.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9981&page=0 contains my essay on the biblical myth about Eve coming from Adam’s rib. The legend even denies the fact that we are all born of woman. Adam must give birth to Eve. What a putdown of woman!

runner with his contempt for women and truth states phony statistics claiming over 99+% abortions are for the convenience of the woman. How dare those hussies have any right to decide about their own bodies?

Eliminating human sexuality would benefit the planet and eliminate religion. In spite of those benefits, religion and human sexuality will continue in the foreseeable future. Last week I attended a funeral and saw a three day old baby. The man’s life was worthwhile. The mother speculated on her baby’s future and took great joy in his existence. Hatching, matching and dispatching are the three big events in life. May they continue. Both the hatching and dispatching I mentioned were not connected with any religious observance.

A woman who is pregnant through rape should have the right to decide whether or not she wants an abortion. That is the right any pregnant woman should have regardless of the circumstances of her pregnancy.

david/quote..<<..sixth great extinction..is going on at present...The disappearance of human sexuality..would eliminate human beings.>>

yes/divide\us..and we..vanquish..each other.

<<The planet would recover to a degree..from the human caused changes,..>>

if/you refer to global/warming/cooling/climate change
or[whats the latest catch phrase]..sever/weather events..thats junk[sure we are poluting extincting/etc but not changing climate..to the point a nice bug green tax sooths consience.

<<..one could say that humanity has done great things,..but are the great things..more important..than the extinction of species?>>

extinction/simply wont happen[the earth is going to shift phases[its going to properly join..with hell/demons..or angels..and it will lie side by side.]

<<..Religion..the human quest for knowledge..What was the reaction of the Abrahamic religions?..>>

they did quite well in the cracks[god sent men many messengers
many/mene..men eh?

<<In 1553 Protestant Geneva burned Servetus at the stake..for heresy in doubting the Trinity...Servetus was a great mind.>>

god has sent mankind..many mess-angers and teachers
but teaching is about learning/learning is about just deserts[earning]

<<..Bruno speculated..that the sun..was a star,..and there could be many stars..with life on the planets going around them...>>

swedenberg says only 9 have humans[and we are the only nations that can read or write/like the angels and demons

<<.Jews, having no power to burn..anyone at the stake,..could only excommunicate the great Spinoza in 1656...>>

in heaven/hell..you get bannished..
or are simply not made aware/[in the loop]

<<Religion..fostering ignorance is unsurpassed..
by any other human institution.>>

its/not ignorance/its faith..
[blind trust]..obedience to heart/not\mind.

<<..intimate connection between..the Abrahamic religions and sexuality.>>[yes]..ahhhh-men?

<<..a great fear of female sexuality and female independence.>>
funny about that/but..woman dont need sperm anymore/heck skin cells is enough]/..you could be charged with rape/never even met.

2bctd

..but man/is right to be in fear[see god made adam]..ie a little bit of god[XyX]..to make Xy=adam..adam/wanted..what the beasts got[ie their sisters/for mating[so god made eve/adams sister]..god simply doubled up/on the X/tossed away the why.

anyhow dont tell eve/she has the creator\god/genes
sure/adam\gives the gift of life\but eve co-creates/with\god.

<<those who are outraged..that a pregnant-woman..should be able to decide..she wants to terminate..a pregnancy.>>

yes/it must be a mothers right\yet all life is sacred[even sperm]
even seeds/yet we kill generations of living wheat/corn/hempseed..to make our dauily bread[or soy latte]

<<..The female foetus..is important..but not the woman whose body carries it.>>

its more spiritual/than that

<<..The legend even denies the fact..that we are all born of woman.>>

learly/your mother is a woman[so is mine]
it seems a sure rule.

<<..Adam must give birth to Eve.>>

no adam/gave a rib/god extracted the dna/put the dna phetus..into a pig..and the pig..]or ape]..gabe birth to eve.

men/dont have a uterous..

<<..abortions are for the convenience of the woman.>>
lets just say..if the girl/says nothing/no one knows\till its too late

but so what..its a niggerly point..98/90 980%..who cares/the girl askes her mum/dad/peers/or a quack/its up-to/her.

<<Eliminating human sexuality would benefit the planet>>
rubbish..it needs man/to make it a garden/not a jungle..or a swamp
i couldnt survive without sex/either..id rather..be dead.

<<..Hatching, matching and dispatching
are the three big events in life...May they continue.>>dont forget mating/procreating/parenting/nurturuing/assuring/enduring/enamoring/satifying

Dear David,

Who am I to judge whether Gandhi was a Hindu or Martin Luther King a Christian?

<<Religion is not defined by its injunctions. It is defined by what its practitioners do.>>

Indeed, religion in general is not defined by injunctions, but exactly as you quote: By their fruits shall we know them. Whatever works in bringing one closer to God, is religion.

Language however has been overloaded: 'religions' came to also describe specific organisations whose stated purpose is to enhance or support religion (whether or not they effectively do so). Those, in contrast, are defined to a large extent by their injunctions. Thus one can be a non-religious Hindu or a non-religious Christian, or one could be religious but none of those.

<<Eliminating human sexuality would benefit the planet and eliminate religion.>>

Eliminating human sexuality has the potential to enhance religion, by directing all that energy and attention towards God. Of course, it could be directed elsewhere, but at least some of it is probably going to be directed towards God. In any case, the less distractions there are, religion has better prospects.

Dear david f,

>>humanity has done great things, but are the great things more important than the extinction of species?<<

It depends on who asks, member of which species. If your reference is to the human species then indeed what you are asking is “what is the point to all this evolution culminating (so far) in the human species with its unique culture(s) if it leads to a dead end?” Indeed, there is an answer in religions that see evolution (even when not recognising it as such) as having a purpose. If not, one could say, borrowing from Shakespeare, that human evolution - giving rise also to Socrates, Einstein, Beethoven etc - is a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing.

By the way, I used “sexuality” in the sense of “sexual activity” (not capacity), so abandoning it would better be expressed as ordered mass vasectomy (not castration). This would still create a vacuum that would have to be filled lest humanity went extinct. We already have IVF but maybe - I am not a biologist - one day we will have invented artificial wombs, where a pair (male and female or not) would bring their genetic material and come to pick up their baby in nine months.

These are silly speculations about what would need to be dome to fill this “procreation vacuum”. However, I think the question of what could or should fill in the religious vacuum, is not as vain. You did not offer anything, but usually something called secular humanism is being offered, a sort of plastic replica of Christianty, with the belief in the “transcendent” and the “bad fruits” removed. Whether this replica will not bring other "bad fruits", that the original was immune to, is a different question.

In this respect you might be interestd in http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/the-case-for-soft-atheism/. I liked it as a position more reasonable than many others, though I obviously do not share it.

(ctd)

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: “In any case, the less distractions there are, religion has better prospects.”

Less refers to quantity – items of measure. Fewer refers to number – items one can count. Distractions can be counted so the sentence should be, “In any case, the fewer distractions there are, religion has better prospects.”

Your definition of religion: “Whatever works in bringing one closer to God, is religion.”, to the best of my knowledge, is a definition of religion which you share with no one else. God is an invention which is not common to all religions.

Eliminating human sexuality would eliminate humans unless humans were created without the involvement of sex. Eliminating humans would therefore eliminate religion unless another species evolved that would invent religion.

(ctd)

Indeed, religion has provided benefits for humans, but sometimes also acted against achievements that we today see as posititive. There are many examples of the former as well as of the latter and which ones you see as prevailing depends on how you interpret history. The West, it is unthinkable without Enlightenment, born very painfully out of Christianity, which in its turn is unthinkable without Judaism and Hellenic rationalism, where Islam, or rather the Arabic culture, acted as a catalyst in bringing together these two sources in Medieval and post-Medieval Christianity, or at least its Catholic version (see e.g. Benedict XVI’s Regensburg 2006 lecture).

As for abortions, there are two extreme positions: (i) a foetus is a human being hence killing it intentionally is murder, and (ii) the woman has right over her body, hence removing an unwanted foetus is the same as removing any other part of her body, e.g. an aching tooth.

I think what can be defended is that a foetus or embryo is only a potential human being, (which would require a more precise definition). When I was eight years old I wanted to become a Nobel prize laureate, and it would not have been right to prevent me from reaching that goal. So I was a potential Nobel laureate, but that was very different from actually being one.

Also, as far as the woman’s right to do with the foetus inside her body the same as with her tooth, there is a difference in that the tooth, unlike the foetus, is a product of her body without any outside contribution. So one should look differently at these two “rights” as far as society’s interests are concerned.

george/quote..<<..a potential Nobel laureate,..but that was very different from actually being one.>>

in the sprit-realm..merely thinking/willing..to do something/is doing..it..depending..on the will/knowing..it will be a given[faith]
but of course in this material realm..there is 'process/needing reason/logic..that follows hard and fast material laws.

but/the spirit..is more focussed on the imediate/passion.
and as one would know..the imediate needs of a few cells..oe even a blank disk..[when aborted]..has only the extent/of its pheotus/wants needs/etc

to use this weak excuse/to put a much more advanced living creature/through guilt/hell..is imature and childish/by all means respect life[especially life that died/that ye should ongoingly live.

<<..Also, as far as the woman’s right..to do with the foetus inside her body..the same as with her tooth,>>

funny enough/no doctor\nor dentist..will allow her to take either[each is rightly classifies as biological-waste..[its a waste/but let the dead tend the dead

<<..there is a difference..in that the tooth,..unlike the foetus,..is a product of her body..without any outside contribution.>>

in spirit/both will remain/till..the teaching has had its/learning

<<..So one should look differently..at these two “rights” as far as society’s interests are concerned.>>

societies intrests are all vairiable means of control by claiming juristiction/or coercive powers..or other means to force obedience to outside will.

Dear George,

I have a different view of evolution from the one you have. I do not think of it as culminating in the human species. Humans to me are just one of many species which have survived and reproduced. To me they are no more a culmination than is the Tyto alba or barn owl. Evolution to me is not a ladder but a continuing process as new species evolve, and other species become extinct. Many species are the end of the line, and become extinct without any new species evolving from them. That may be the case with Homo sapiens. To think of humanity as a culmination is more theology than biology. Hegel thought history was a progression to superior forms of social organisation. His apotheosis was the Prussian state. Of course Hegel was a Prussian, and you are a human.

I have thought of those words, a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing, in describing evolution and our existence. I take great pleasure in enjoying the arts and science that are the products of humanity, but eventually life together with what has been produced by it will all disappear from our universe. Expansion will continue until entropy is maximised.

I do not know if religion is necessary for humanity. It may or may not be. I think some form of it exists in all societies. I know that some humans can exist without it. There can be other forms of bonding. However, if some humans cannot exist without it then it will continue. If it is not necessary then nothing need replace it. It may be that a mature society will not need it. It may be that we will never reach that point. However, I am mindful of the history of Manichaeism. It existed from the third to the eighteenth century and extended from Spain to China. It exists no longer. I think that all current religions will disappear and may be replaced by others.

Continued

Dear David,

Thank you for correcting my English.

<<Your definition of religion: “Whatever works in bringing one closer to God, is religion.”, to the best of my knowledge, is a definition of religion which you share with no one else.>>

It depends which circles of people you contact.

I understand that this definition is meaningless to those who have no personal interest in religion. This includes not only atheists, but also those whose only interest is in the social aspect of maintaining the customs, influence and solidarity of "religious" organisations. It even includes some clergy, which have no genuine interest in God, which perhaps had such interest in the past, but lost it and are now just caught in going through the motions.

That's how religion looks from the outside.

From the outside it's like saying that mathematicians are people who waste their time sitting in a room, next to a desk all day, with a pile of papers in front of them on which they scribble Greek letters and other manner of meaningless hieroglyphics.

Within the circles I frequent, we talk about religion as whatever works. I talk with Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Baha'is, Sikhs, and we all understand each other and share our spiritual experiences, so even while we may be using different terms, we see no difference between us. When someone says "Christianity works for me", we are very happy for them and encourage them to be better Christians, same when another says "for me Islam works best". The goal is the same, the methods are many. Each person should choose the method(s) most suitable to their situation and temperament.

<<God is an invention which is not common to all religions.>>

The CONCEPT of God may be an invention - not God. Some find it helpful to use one concept of God, others find it helpful to use another, while others still (such as Buddhists) find it best to have no such concept at all. That's not a problem, that's wonderful - "My Father’s house has many rooms"!

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Eliminating human sexuality would eliminate humans>>

Let alone artificial methods of procreation that already exist, eliminating human sexuality is not the same as eliminating the sexual act. Sexuality is an attitude and revolving our lives around it takes many orders-of-magnitude of energy above the act itself.

<<I do not know if religion is necessary for humanity.>>

The meaningful question is whether humanity is necessary for religion.

Humanity in itself has no purpose: it's just a matter of time either until the big crunch or until all sub-atomic particles in the universe will break down, hence even evolution itself will come to naught.

However, humanity can be meaningful when seen as a vehicle for religion - for the evolution of each individual from unconsciousness towards consciousness of oneself as God. Schools and school-buildings are meaningless unless there are children who study there. This world is but a school, it has no other purpose.

<<There can be other forms of bonding>>

But what for? No bonds will last forever. Society and all its evolutionary consequences are bound to disappear in time.

Dear George,

<<What does abandoning religion mean? In my dictionary religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”.>>

One cannot abandon religion any more than wilfully stop breathing. One is free of course to stop believing, then either their progress slows down or they find different religious methods that may be more appropriate for them. Your dictionary was written by scholars, not by religious people.

<<As for abortions, there are two extreme positions>>

I present something in between - that it is a continuous gradient, that the level of sin increases with the level of suffering and loss, especially with the loss of the victim's investment in education.

yu/quote..<<..The meaningful question..is whether humanity is necessary..for religion.>>

nessisity..is a human condition/we
are driven..to be..the means..to meet need..humanity/allows the meeting of need as a service/that is far from servile[religion does need a higher level...of need/..that cant be met purely by that readilly tangable...or strictly..material..but becoming trancendant..of the one..of the many[all]..into the many..all being of the one.

<<..Humanity in itself has no purpose:>>
not sure/re-frame of referance..[material life/has its puropse/reason..logic..]..humanity..is a higher reason.even more definitte/level\frame of referance/nessisary to realise our [thus each others]..greater humanity..

i see humanity..as being the way/we reveal our will to meet others will..that the will/works..freely..and that freewill is not threat..to the divine reveal/life facilitates..in defining that of the beast/raw-survival drivers/from that of humanity..that accords simple respects..as the way..to love other.

<<..the universe will break down,..>>[change state]..
<<..hence even evolution itself will come to naught.>>
what need has a buttefly/for the shell of the grub..it left behind.?

<<..humanity can be meaningful..when seen as a vehicle for religion - for the evolution of each individual..from unconsciousness towards consciousness of oneself as God.>>thus beholden to achieve godly works.

<<Schools and school-buildings are meaningless..unless there are children who study there.>>

i value content/more than position/location
but we are each..of different leaning..[or so im learning]..
but its not the teacher/as much as the teaching..or maybe..its not so much the learning as the learner...lean on me/hee..or thee..

[fake it till we make it..once we seen 'it;' done..we then know it can be done/but till one sees its doing..one sees little or even nothing

Dear Yuyutsu,

It was David not I who used the expression “abandon religion” and judging from the context he was referring to a society without religion (I gave the explicit definition to explain how I saw it) not an irreligious state of mind, which is or is not possible depending on how you define religion, religious.

Scholars and religious people are not mutually exclusive. You are right that the distinction between Atman and Brahman, or some other ways of saying that God is both inside and outside of us, can be translated into other religions. However, “any attempt to speak without speaking any particular language is not more hopeless than the attempt to have a religion that is no religion in particular.” (George Santayana).

As for abortions, I presented the two extremes precisely to indicate that my take was somewhere in between.

continued

I would not say that the Enlightenment came from Christianity. In my view of history Christianity brought on the Dark Ages, and the Enlightenment was necessary to free European society from the grip of Christianity. If Christianity had not destroyed the spirit of enquiry existing in the classical world the Enlightenment would not have been necessary.

Killing a human intentionally may or not be murder. We may kill an enemy in war. We may kill in self defense. If abortion is legal, it is not murder to terminate a pregnancy. Murder is an act defined by law.

The foetus is part of a woman’s body which has resulted from the contribution of part of another human’s body. We agree on that. I think we are playing with words if we call an embryo a potential human being. An embryo is an actual human being in a particular stage of development. I think a pregnant woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy which means the right to kill a human being. I think that the right of an adult woman to dispose of the human being inside her is greater than the right of the human being inside her to continue its development. However, I don’t think anyone else without the woman’s consent should have the right to harm the foetus.

In the case where the pregnancy is the result of rape or other non-consensual form of sex I think most people would agree that it should be left completely up to the woman whether she wishes to terminate the pregnancy. I think that she should have that right even if the sex was consensual. Some societies deny her that right no matter how her pregnancy happened. Other societies allow her to terminate a pregnancy under certain circumstances.

Dear Yuyutsu,

A world where nobody bothered about god in any way would have divested itself of another superstition. A world where nobody bothered with the difference between measurable quantities and countable numbers would be immensely poorer. Over 2,500 years of mathematics would have disappeared.

We talk past each other

Dear David,

<<A world where nobody bothered about god in any way would have divested itself of another superstition.>>

Nobody can avoid God because nobody can avoid oneself.

One may obviously avoid the concept of God, which is relatively new anyway, as per Genesis 4:26 - "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.", that's around 3525 B.C. Commonly, Enosh came to be known as the prototype of 'human' (rather than 'man' or 'woman'), but the traditional Jewish interpretation plays on the way 'began', stating instead that it means 'profanated': The moment God was referred to as a concept, idolatry began!

A superstition is necessarily about the world of existence, so belief in the existence of God can indeed be considered a superstition. Belief in God, however, is not: belief in God is simply a religious technique - a method (or a tool) used in the pursuit of religion.

Somewhere around the period you call "enlightenment", a tragic error occurred: Christians began to mix up their religion with the latest fashion - science (this was not Christianity's first tragic error: a previous one was to mix religion with politics). From a scientific point of view, this behaviour was simply ridiculous, superstitious and laughable. Then, as science ruled out the existence of God, the Church was devastated and Christians were losing their faith in droves.

<<A world where nobody bothered with the difference between measurable quantities and countable numbers would be immensely poorer.>>

You do realise, David, that mathematics will one day be forgotten. Meanwhile, mathematics is there to serve human pursuits - both good and evil; rather than humanity being there to serve mathematics.

I take it a step further, saying that the purpose of humanity is to serve religion, not vice-versa. Transitively, the purpose of mathematics is to serve religion.

Mathematics is used in astronomy to compute prayer-times; also, for counting the number of grains, which helps to keep humanity alive: both are great services to religion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Someday mathematics will be forgotten. Until that day let us glory in the beauty of mathematics. Someday religion along with other superstition will be forgotten. Until that day let us accept the fact that some people wish to revel in primeval slime. Thinking of mathematics in terms of its function in computing the dates of religious observances is like thinking of electricity in terms of powering the electric chair.

Mathematics engages the power and glory of the human mind. Religion activates the dark corners of its primitive past. Since a part of humanity is apparently tied to a worship of nonsense religion will not go away.

Dear david f,

Thank for the stimulating posts.

Indeed, if “having survived and reproduced” is the only criterion, then there is no difference between humans and other species. However, I think there are many criterions - intelligence, consciousness as compared to self-awareness, ability to change the environment, even to destroy life or the whole planet - by which our species is unprecedented. This does not exclude the possibility that notwithstanding these abilities we shall be overtaken as the most intelligent etc by the offshoots of some other species, though I don't think this is likely to happen.

I think we shall either

(a) destroy ourselves, perhaps including the whole planet (it is only my faith, that I cannot communicate to you that makes me believe that this will not happen) or

(b) continue to further evolve, where our consciousness will gradually take over as the driving engine of evolution (rather than survival of the fittest in the brute meaning of the word), either still remaining the same species or evolving even beyond that. If you look at where we have progressed - again according to the criteria I mentioned, not merely as an ability to survive and reproduce - in the last couple of millennia, it is not that absurd to think of humanity, or perhaps some kind of “transhumanity” as its offshoot, spreading beyond our planet across our Solar system, maybe even our Galaxy, in the next millennia or millions of years.

This could include convergence (rather than replacement) of contemporary religions towards a higher level of understanding both the worlds inside and outside of us.

Of course, these are pure speculations.

Some humans can exist without traditional religion as they can without abstract mathematics. The question is whether humanity, or even some self-contained society, can exist without them.

People without any formal education in mathematics have filled in the vacuum and developed some elementary understanding of everyday arithmetics for themselves.

(ctd)

(ctd)

My belief is that there is also a vacuum that is created - on both the psychological and social levels - if you remove classical religion, although it is not clear what will fill it in. Atheism as such is not a belief you can get obsessed with, however for some people the loss of traditional religion creates a vacuum filled in with something as obsessive or intolerant (or both) as a fundamentalist hold of religious convictions.

It is a fact that Enlightenment came from - i.e. was possible on the background of - Christianity (rather than of some other religion underlying another, e.g. Oriental, civilisation). The same for what you call Dark Ages. And Enlightenment can indeed be seen as reaction to the latter. Speculations about what would happen if an ingredient of a compound was removed can be verified in a laboratory, but this is not the case with “historical ingredients”, where such speculations remain unverifiable.

I presented two extreme positions on abortion, so I also used the word murder to underline this extremity. You are right that instead of “potential human being” I should have written “potential person” (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_person ).

I just wanted to point to the two extreme positions, without opening the Pandora’s box of “rights” to kill. The Nazis claimed the “right” to kill members of an “inferior race”, many states (including the US) claim the right to kill criminals, even more states claim the right to wage wars hence kill (using e.g. drones) people in situations that cannot be described as self-defence, there is the right, acknowledged even by most religions, to kill in self-defence, etc. We all reject the first of these "rights", and accept the last. In between there is a variety of possibilities, situations, opinions and legal positions, including those concerning abortions. Many emotions are caused by confusing what is legal with what is moral.

georges/link..<<..A potential..(future)..person>>
a human being[one of the people]becomes a 'person'/under the act/the second..'a named/known..person..puts them/on the birth[berth]..register*..[ie they are 'created;/duplicated..on paper/in writing/but its clear/that person=legal/but people..is lawfull[note the 'insertion'..of person/as the link mainly talks of people[humanity]

<<..(in plural,,,sometimes termed..potential people)..[p/people]..has been defined..as an entity*,..which is not currently a person![ie emerged from the waters/and regesterd on the berthing certification[cretification..of people=person]..

potentate people<<..but which is capable*..of developing*..*into a person,..given certain biologically..completions..and/or technically possible conditions.[1][ie regerstration/of\live birth./creates..'the person'..

<<..The term unconceived..has also been used..in a similar sense,..but does not necessarily include..{>>

caution..include/excludes all else]..

<<..the capability of being conceived..or developing into a person.

Contents [hide]
1 Definitions
2 Value of potential persons
2.1 Bringing people into existence
2.1.1 Practical consequences

Definitions[edit]It has been suggested..that potential people are able to be defined*..merely by the currently existing genetic material..that..*will constitute them,>>

physicly/biol-logicly..systematicly/spiritualy/materially
the point being..like makes like..[a person=ie a person under the act..includes gcorperte person]..ie limited to state created personhood

<<Potential people..>>may also be defined..from reproductive capability,..which also includes*..the presence of other necessary factors..for becoming a person,[1]>>

to wit regersterd as a living 'person'[ie a ward of the state]
next they take an imprioint..of their foot[soul]/that is returned to the imf/as an asset]..of state.

Also,.. including*..the will to conceive
as a necessary component of a potential person,>>

<<..to not let an embryo grow inside her uterus may be regarded as sufficient to disqualify that embryo as a potential person by definition,>>

<<..abortion makes it certain
that there won't be a necessary uterus for the embryo to grow inside to become a person.>>

<<>.When there is only one..or a few factors absent to constitute a potential person, that entity may still be termed "a potential person except for...", but the ensuing arguments from this may differ.

Another factor that has been suggested is the possible positive or negative value of nonexistence, which can be regarded as weighting against or adding to the values of existence when considering the rightfulness of bringing potential people into existence

George wrote: “Indeed, if “having survived and reproduced” is the only criterion, then there is no difference between humans and other species. However, I think there are many criterions - intelligence, consciousness as compared to self-awareness, ability to change the environment, even to destroy life or the whole planet - by which our species is unprecedented.”

Dear George,

There are a lot of values implicit in the above statement. “Having survived and reproduced” is the only criterion for evolutionary success in a Darwinian sense.

Intelligence is an arbitrary criterion. It could as well be acute eyesight. That is a criterion in which an eagle is far better than most humans – even my uncle Leon. Normal human eyesight is 20/20. My Uncle Leon was 20/5.

A sense of consciousness is possibility an attribute into which we have been socialised. A person raised without contacts with other human beings would possibly not have such a sense. Apes have been able to learn language including self-referential statements. Lacking the vocal apparatus they cannot make such statements vocally, but the ability to understand such statements indicates consciousness.

The greatest change in the environment was made by anaerobic bacteria. They produced free oxygen as a waste product making it possible for most existing forms of life to evolve.

None of the criteria you mentioned stand up under critical examination.

I share the faith that we will not destroy the entire planet. However, the sixth great extinction is manmade. The other great extinctions changed the biota tremendously. The current one is doing that.

I think it will come to humanity determining its own evolutionary progress consciously, and I am frightened by the prospect. As frightened as I am by religion I am even more frightened by some secular ideology such as Marxism determining the future of humanity.

continued

continued

I think most humans have a great capacity for understanding mathematics. In everyday life there is little need for it other than numeration and measurement. In fact many people are unaware that mathematics consists of more than numeration. I think all normal people have a natural sense of rhythm. Exposure to poetry and music is a means by which people can appreciate and create using that natural sense. I would like to see people’s lives broadened by exposure to the entire range of mathematics.

I also don’t know whether humanity, or even some self-contained society, can exist without traditional religion.

There will be a vacuum if we remove classical religion including the theistic religions. I don’t know that the vacuum needs filling. One consequence would be the disappearance of atheism.

The vacuum is impossible in the opinion of Aristotle whose philosophy had a firm grip on the Catholic church at one time. Therefore straight line motion is also impossible as an object moving in a straight line would leave a vacuum behind. Catholic theologians also rejected the idea of a vacuum, the infinitely small and the infinitely large. Aquinas declared that God could not make something that was infinite any more than he could make a scholarly horse. However, that would imply that God was not omnipotent which also contradicted Catholic theology.

However, you may be right that the vacuum will be filled by fundamentalism. It may also be filled by New Age blathering. I certainly think traditional Catholicism is to be preferred over fundamentalism or New Age.

However, there is a fundamentalist faction in the Catholic church expressed in Opus Dei and such breakaway movements as that under Lefebvre. Fundamentalism is primarily a reaction to modernism. The main body of the Catholic church can live with it to a large extent, but many Catholics can’t.

continued

david/quote..<<..I also don’t know..whether humanity,..or even some self-contained society,..can exist without traditional religion.>>

of/course..humanity/can exist..sans religion
[but it cant exist long/with variable application...of some base..'law'..[or common rules of eticate/protocol//and governing\the affairs of huh?-men.

<<..There will be a vacuum..if we remove classical religion including the theistic religions.>>

that simply/cant..happen[people hate having to think on these things..themselves/ie its learned helplessness..[and/or..'enabling..the two essentials for freedom..in expresion and act.

<<..I don’t know that the vacuum needs filling.>>
its not a vacume

<<..One consequence would be..the disappearance of atheism.>>
it/isnt..any realistic thesus.

<<..The vacuum is impossible..>>

<<..Therefore straight line motion..is also impossible
as an object..[moving ]..leave's a vacuum [immediatly]..behind...it.>>

mate..its not logical..[in nature any 'vacume'..oppens up..a new area to explore..any/novement..creates a vacume..in its opposite direction[so what]..unless you can make that principle..moove a boat.

<<..Catholic theologians..also rejected..the idea..of a vacuum,>

thats..nice..for them..but\lets hear..why?

<<..the infinitely small..and the infinitely large...>>

HUH?..[leave/bigger/smaller,,'vacumes'?]

<<..Aquinas declared*>>thus didnt 'proove'..<<..that God could not make something..that was infinite..any more than he could make a scholarly horse...>>

ok..so lets see..the holy-spirit..sustains change of state

god[ie the sun]..[is temporal/and material
the sun we are told has a limited life[materially]
it too lives/gets red..and dies..[god the sun dies and returns to dust/too]

the sun can make finite/things that live on in spirit
like we being born..of the sun..get born into the spirit[eternity][where we too can become a sun..of the holy spirit'

<<.However,..that would imply..that God was not omnipotent
which..also contradicted Catholic theology.>>

there are degrees of omnipotance
id would say/if god wanted 'earth gone'..earth would be gone
god does have 0mnipotant-power..in its own house[realm]..solar-system..in this realm/the sun is god/live with-it..its not worth dying over...[god loves us../or we wouldnt be here.]

<<Fundamentalism is primarily a reaction to modernism.>>
our god=the sun..how far back/does..that go?..everything old=new again?

<<..The main body..of the Catholic church..can live with it to a large extent,..but many Catholics can’t..>>

the two fathers..need two mothers.

continued

Peter Kennedy was a Catholic priest in Brisbane. He was somewhat unorthodox having a statue of Buddha in his church and making statements in his sermons which questioned traditional doctrines. He advocated people giving refuge to undocumented aliens, allowed women to preach, blessed homosexual couples and did other controversial things. Archbishop Bathersby was not bothered by Kennedy. Bathersby is a jolly fellow who once told me at a party that the original Bathersby in Australia was an Irishman sent to Australia because ‘he had an inordinate fondness for other people’s horses’.

However, there is a local group of Catholics who go around sniffing for evidence of unorthodoxy. They go from church to church observing the ambience and taking notes on the sermons. One of them complained to Bathersby about Kennedy. When Bathersby did nothing he complained to the Vatican to tell Bathersby to sit on Kennedy. The Vatican ordered the archbishop to bring Kennedy into line. Kennedy left the church with most of his 700 parishioners. He now holds services at the Trades and Labour Council Building and is attracting more to his congregation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kennedy_(priest) gives more details. My account above has a bit that is not included on the net. I am friends with Peter’s brother, Jack, who gave me the additional information. We don’t know what will happen in future with the Catholic Church. However, it is under stress.

George wrote: Many emotions are caused by confusing what is legal with what is moral.

There is not a clear line between what is legal and what is moral so we cannot always differentiate between them.

A quote re legal and moral.

In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man’s ultimate responsibility is to God alone. – Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury.

david/quote..<<..There is not a clear line \..between what is legal and what is moral..so we cannot always differentiate between them.>>

legal/lies under lawfull..and that lawfull but imoral
can only be made legal via a warrent/licence or other dispensation.

<<..A quote re legal..and moral.:..'In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins,>>

that hurt other/that are intended to hurt injure deprive..'other'..deliberatly..or accidentally/the wrong..has a price in spirit/..[we become that we love]

<<..but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes>>

but its so easy..to backmail..the guilty in their own mind

anyhow..every sperm is sac*red*[right royal-red]
energy once created..cannot be destroyed..[the aborted children..live]
and those intended to live chose the right parents/or trust god to chose the right parent..for the right energy-spirit/forming its soul

phetus//live..but barely have a proper soul
many thus need pass through hells temptations..to affirm freewill

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/05/16/scientists-claim-quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-another-universe-death/

Dear David,

Thank you for pointing out the story of Peter Kennedy. I never heard about him before, but from the little I read he seems to be religious.

<<Someday religion along with other superstition will be forgotten.>>

We agreed that the belief that God exists is an example of superstition. However, what's religion got to do with it?

If anything, that specific superstition is detrimental to religion, because had God existed, then one's relationship with Him would be reduced from devotion to business and prayers into give and take bartering, then one would no longer be worshipping God for love alone.

<<Religion activates the dark corners of its primitive past.>>

The age we live in over the last millennia is one of the darkest ages, because in this age we have seen religion decay and deteriorate faster than ever and taken over by power-seeking social institutions.

I am speaking for religion - not for those institutions that claim to own religion.

Religion takes us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality.

<<Since a part of humanity is apparently tied to a worship of nonsense religion will not go away.>>

You obviously refer to materialism, the worship of material vanities and of the human mind. Yes, religion works by removing those obstacles.

Yuyutsu wrote:

[quoting me] <<Since a part of humanity is apparently tied to a worship of nonsense religion will not go away.>>

You obviously refer to materialism, the worship of material vanities and of the human mind. Yes, religion works by removing those obstacles.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It is a slimy tactic to twist someone else's words. I was not referring to materialism, and I think you know it. Shame on you.

.

Dear Rachael,

.

Rape is forceful, non-consensual sexual intercourse.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines recently condemned a husband for raping his wife. The couple had been married for 24 years and had two daughters :

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/602613/high-court-rules-for-first-time-husbands-cant-rape-wives

Criminalization of marital rape in Australia began with New South Wales in 1981, followed by all the other states from 1985 to 1992. New Zealand outlawed marital rape in 1985. In the United States the movement began in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states. In the UK it became a crime in 1991. It is also outlawed in most Western countries, including Russia and the previous Soviet Union countries.

As you probably know, Rachael, the large majority of rapes, whether marital or otherwise, are never reported to the police. Though it’s no comfort to you, I am sure you are not alone and that there are quite a number of people around today who owe their existence to a brutal act of rape – though many of them may not necessarily be aware of it.

The spermatozoid which fertilized your mother’s egg committed no fault. It was just as innocent as you and your mother. Like all spermatozoids, it simply performed the task nature had designed it for.

The spermatozoid’s host forced himself on your mother merely to satisfy his own, selfish, sexual impulses. It had nothing to do with procreation. That was another question. You were your mother’s idea – and her’s alone. She fought with all her might to keep you. She sacrificed herself in order for you to live.

Your mother is a genuine hero and I pay tribute here to her immense courage, dignity and determination. She told the truth. She did not pretend it was a virgin birth. She suffered pain and humiliation and bore her cross to the point of losing her mind, without a whisper.

Morality, if there is such a thing, is plainly on your mother’s side. She did what she considered was right. Others did her harm. She gave only love in return.

.

Dear David,

I apologise. I misrepresented your intention.

Nevertheless, your original statement,

<<Since a part of humanity is apparently tied to a worship of nonsense religion will not go away>>

the way you wanted it read, was a false accusation, equating religion to the worship of nonsense, whereas using the same words, I have turned it into a gem.

Dear david f,

>>“Having survived and reproduced” is the only criterion for evolutionary success in a Darwinian sense<<

I agree; the criterions I listed were not what Darwin would have had in mind. The fact that there are individuals in various species that can, or can be taught to, do things that hitherto only humans were supposed to be capable of, is irrelevant here. There are six years old children that can do many things that their peers cannot, nevertheless, an adult human is considered to be more intelligent, more capable of doing things (useful as well as detrimental) to his/her environment, than an average six years old.

>>A sense of consciousness is possibility an attribute into which we have been socialised.<<

I am not sure about consciousness being socialised into, but yes, a human baby (though probably not all of them), but NOT a baby chimpanzee or other animal, could be “socialised” by adult humans to become an artist, an engineer, scientist or philosopher. This is one way of seeing that humans are more intelligent and capable of changing their environment than other species.

>>The greatest change in the environment was made by anaerobic bacteria<<

The humans’ capability to change the planet’s environment - for better or worse - has not yet been completely realised and it might not stop at our planet. But even so, I think most of us will agree that man is more intelligent than a bacterium, both individually and in a group.

I do not understand how criteria - “a principle or standard by which something (actually defined by these criteria) may be judged or decided” - should stand up to examination. The criteria I mentioned attempted to define what I meant by saying that our species was unprecedented.

>>I think it will come to humanity determining its own evolutionary progress consciously<<

This is exactly what I meant by saying that consciousness was becoming the driving engine of evolution.

Not every religion, not even Marxism, are frightening only their extreme forms as we have known them.

(ctd)

This explosive mixture

http://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2225190/Can-quantum-physics-explain-bizarre-experiences-patients-brought-brink-death.html#axzz2JyudSqhB

http://www.news.com.au/news/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fnenjnc3-1226507686757
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
http://www.hameroff.com/penrose-hameroff/fundamentality.html

has given birth..to the new theory of..biocentrism,..which the professor has been/preaching ever since...Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness..are fundamental*..to the universe...

..It is consciousness..that creates..the material-universe,..
[not the uni-verse..that creates*.the/conciousness.]

Lanza points to the structure..of the universe itself,..and that
the laws,..forces,..and constants..[of the..visable..universe appear to be fine-tuned..*for life,..[implying intelligence existed..prior to matter's/existance]..

He also claims../..evidence..\..that space and time..are not objects or things,..but rather tools..of understanding...Lanza says..*that we carry space..and time..around us..“like turtles with shells.”..

meaning that/when the shell..comes off
..ie..(space and time)[body/meat]..yet,..we..[our awareness]..[life experiences/hopes doubts/fears..]..*still exist.

The theory..[proof]..implies that
any/real-death..of consciousness..simply does not exist.
http://new-birth.net/books_life_after_death.htm

death..only exists..as a thought/expectation/hope]fear..because people identify themselves/exclusivly..with/as-if..their body...They believe..that the body..[energy../in\..stasis]..is going to perish,thus/that..sooner or later,..their/thinking their\consciousness..thusly/will disappear..too.

If*..the body..[generates consciousness,]
then..consciousness dies..when the body dies...But

*if..the body..receives consciousness..in the same way
that a cable box..receives satellite signals,..then of course consciousness..does not end..at the death/switching-off]..of the physical/reciever-vehicle.

In fact,..consciousness exists..outside of
any..constraints..implicite..of time..and space...It is able to be anywhere:..[like a hollographic/plate]..with/in..the human body..and outside of it.

In other words,..it is non-localised..omnipresent/presence
..in the same sense..that quantum objects..are non-local...

...Consciousness resides,..according to Stuart..and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose,..in the microtubules..of the brain cells,..which are the primary sites/of quantum processing.[by sympathetic/imputus]..

Upon death,..this information..is released/ignored..*from
recieving,,by..your material-body,..meaning that/your consciousness goes with it/change..of state;responce..leaving.

[They have argued..],,that our experience*..of consciousness
is the result..of quantum..gravitus-effects..in these microtubules,..[a theory which]..they dubbed..orchestrated objective..*[reductionism]..[Orch-OR).

Consciousness,..[or at least..proto-consciousness]..is theorized by them..to be..a fundamental property of the universe,..present even at the first moment/of the universe\during the Big Bang.

“In one..such schematic..proto-conscious experience..is a basic property../of physical reality\..accessible to a quantum process associated*with brain's..[sensory],,contective sympathetic/activity.”..centers..

linking with other immediate body/material reality recognized/inputs.

Our souls..are in fact constructed..from the very fabric\dust/..of the universe –..and..will/have existed since the beginning's of time's.

Our brains..are just..[tuned][sympathetic-receivers]..and amplifiers/speakers..for the unspokrn/wull..for the proto-consciousness..that is..in/of..herself..intrinsic to the fabric of space-time...humanity/humility/matriachy..most holy-spirit/unseen..be seen...[set/the\scene][sTs]

(ctd)

Another point I was trying to make was that we have an “innate propensity” for religion as well as for, for instance, mathematics, and there are “primitive” versions of both. A person who was not taught formal school-mathematics will still develop some “primitive” understanding of numbers etc, filling that gap. In case of religion, I said, I did not know what would fill the gap. More precisely, although individuals will find - many have already found - other worldviews (on all levels of rationality and tolerance) to fill the emotional, explanatory and guiding functions that used to be catered for by classical religion, on the level of whole societies it is too early to say. It would take a couple of generations to tell if something at all - “secular humanism”? - can replace traditional religion’s cohesive function.

If you do not like Opus Dei you will certainly abhor the American Michael Voris (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Voris). I vaguely remember you already mentioning Peter Kennedy. He is apparently just one of the many progressivists, who, as you say “question traditional doctrines”.

In the Catholic Church there are

(a) “traditionalists” (that Micheal Voris is an extreme example of), who “cannot read the signs of the times”, as well as
(b) “progressivists”, who want the millennia old Institution to succumb to the zeitgeist.

This shows what a Solomonic task is there for the Pope (and his followers) in trying to cater for both of these “wings” of the mammoth Institution, which both have their moderate as well as extreme adherents (Lefevbrists are out of the Church, though still falling under the heading of Christian, like e.g. the Protestants).

You are so right, that more extremism on one side breeds more extremism on the other. This is true not only in the Catholic Church but also, for instance, in American politics.

I agree that there is not a clear line between amoral (what my conscience says I should not) and illegal (what the state says I must not) but that is another can of worms.

Thanks again for stimulating my brains.

ceo/geo\quote..wrote..<<..“innate*propensity”..>>
i call it..sympathetic harmonics/a/tuned-resonance

we resonate..set up vibe..sympatheticly..
sympathetic/with..awareness<<..for religion..>>

for..infinite reason/..but mostly
for..a..yearning/affirmed/link..[vibe]..to\the..unseen

<<..as\well..as/..for,..for instance,,,mathematics,>>

gay/or..sex..or sexless/..aborted or supported
seen secret/..known..knowable..bio/interacting\..awarenessies
like subscribed/skill/sympathies/order../protocol..majic

*thus knowing..the..'jargon'..symbology/scale/key*

seeing..the meaning/*\behind the symbols/!

the logic..in the letters/..names..[with-in their specialised frames of referance]..[of aware/interconnected/being and inter-being]...[of/with]..all..[that able to be 'seen'/known/called\or recollected/percieved]..

ob-served/by its linked[sympathetic]..vibratiry 'recievers/
upto..and..including..demons/as-much-as\de*mons

like light..
has..it's..'spectrums'./heavem\hell..its realms/sheres[of influence]..

<<..and\there/are..“primitive” versions..of both..[A person who was not taught..formal]..school-mathematics..[symbiology]..will still develop..some..“primitive”..understanding..of numbers..etc,..[filling that gap.]..>>

we see/one seed=one
one/plant=infinitly vairiable..more seeds
some seeds/yield/by tens..others..yeild/100 fold..yet other seeds..in thousands..

but millions come..only by spoors/moulds/fungi..each according to their root/source[seed/that..was..[planted..in/on..fertile soil]

<<..In..case/of..religion,>>

and..near\anything else/that..expands mens..concepts..[with those/of finite/infinte/good/ill..]

ie..<<..other worldviews>>

exactly/but..also..under-standing..all\other/being*
regardless..of/our percieving..their reason/of\being

<<..(on..all levels..of rationality..and tolerance)..to fill\the emotional,..explanatory..and guiding-functions>>

dennis/walker..is..treaty member/with

<<..Peter Kennedy.>>

<<..In the Catholic Church there are

<<(a)..“traditionalists”..[who..“cannot read..the signs/of the times”,>....

interesting..i thought peter was..a sign..'of these times'[..he signed treaty..on behalf of heaven/hell?\[let/neye..be nay]..with denniswalker[black panther/elder of..cuba/angola..fatima...[i would think/him../as\..the 'progresss-ive]..

<<..as well..as>>..possesive..<<..(b)..“progressivists”,..who want..the millennia old..Institution to succumb>>

are both popes..possesive or regressive?
like soon..one..or the other/must die...<<<to..the zeitgeist.>>..[?}

peter/goes..to rome/riding on..a pinto..he must pass-by..the east gate..to open..the river/of life\upon..which emerges..the messiah...[or so angels or demons]..in my minds-'cules'..reverberate..into my words.
http://bit.ly/1jMMVjM

<<.This shows/what..a Solomonic task..is there for the Pope>>

go to..the nest of vipers
with..only christ..as his shield
in the name of the holy ghost/wholly spirit..to unite the fathers divided house/..to concrcrate russia..to mary[declare the judgment/upon god;casting down/into these realms\..satan and his band of freethinkers..[now suns..in thyne heavens\pit/.\../to\set them free?..

<<..these “wings” of..the mammoth Institution,>>
needs to divide..one wing..to seve love..of god/histry creed/paternalistic protection..of holy texts etc/..as a sacred trust/the other totaly to service/materialistic\post gods creation]

<<..which both/have\their moderate>>

let..the paper work/be gatherd/sorted..in the same place
recognise the many saints..of christs..divided church/..as well as the manyfold others..given reveal/from spirit/\ luther/wesly/swedenborg/bakker-eddie..mormans..fox etc

their revealations/need be gatherd/honourd\concsecrated/humanity
to the son/in rome\..and..russia..to that arte..of motherhood/nurture..and mary.

<<Thanks again..for stimulating my brains.>>

me/too.
pope/going..to the mountain/
to unite the fathers divided house
do../or\..die..[?]..but death..where is thy sting/?\
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632447/CIA-knows-missing-Flight-MH370-says-former-Malaysian-PM-Dr-Mahathir.html

know..it wasnt/iran/russia/nor china.

one man..walks/but not alone/see
the army/of spirit\walking along/with the peace bringer[comfort-her]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=pope+israel+peace+treaty&

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632858/The-ultimate-living-How-poor-carve-living-SEWERS-Eastern-European-city.html

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/evidence-meritocracy-made-poor-people/

http://www.newsforage.com/2014/05/food-should-be-regulated-like-tobacco.html

Dear Yuyutsu,

You started out apologising to me, but you ended up bragging how clever you were in distorting my words. Oh, vanity! Have you no shame?

Your pride in your distortion of my words in order to make a defence of religion pales in the face of the massive evil encouraged by religion such as the Inquisition, witch hunts, Holocaust, 9/11 etc. However, it illustrates how religion encourages evil even in a normally decent person which I feel you are.

George wrote: The humans’ capability to change the planet’s environment - for better or worse - has not yet been completely realised and it might not stop at our planet. But even so, I think most of us will agree that man is more intelligent than a bacterium, both individually and in a group.

Dear George,

The last sentence you wrote indicates a spectacular failure on my part. Whether man is more intelligent than a bacterium is not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that intelligence is only one of many attributes by which an organism survives. Fungi, plants and bacteria have no discernible intelligence. Yet all three kinds of life can survive. Some bacteria can metabolise rock. That ability is unique to that kind of life.

George wrote: I do not understand how criteria - “a principle or standard by which something (actually defined by these criteria) may be judged or decided” - should stand up to examination. The criteria I mentioned attempted to define what I meant by saying that our species was unprecedented.

Our species is unprecedented in certain areas. However, other species such as the rock devouring bacteria have other capabilities which are unique to them. Implicit in your evaluation of humans as the culmination of evolution is the implicit acceptance of intelligence as more important than other attributes. The simple fact is that the earth and life on it existed before Homo sapiens and will continue to exist if humanity should disappear.

continued

George wrote: Not every religion, not even Marxism, are frightening only their extreme forms as we have known them.

It may not be frightening to you, but it is to me.

George wrote: Another point I was trying to make was that we have an “innate propensity” for religion as well as for, for instance, mathematics, and there are “primitive” versions of both. A person who was not taught formal school-mathematics will still develop some “primitive” understanding of numbers etc, filling that gap. In case of religion, I said, I did not know what would fill the gap. More precisely, although individuals will find - many have already found - other worldviews (on all levels of rationality and tolerance) to fill the emotional, explanatory and guiding functions that used to be catered for by classical religion, on the level of whole societies it is too early to say. It would take a couple of generations to tell if something at all - “secular humanism”? - can replace traditional religion’s cohesive function.

I agree. I think there is an innate propensity for religion. It is possibly due to the fact that it was a great binding force in tribal society and was a distinct aid to tribal survival. However, human society is changing faster than evolutionary changes in human beings. Evolution in microorganisms is rapid due to the short time for their generations. That is seen in their rapid development of existence to antibiotics. However, the propensity for religion is a source of conflict in the modern world where various cultures rub against each other. It may in this world do more harm than it does good. Like the fact that cave-dwelling organisms may lose the power of sight humans may lose the propensity toward religion as we evolve further.

Some of our genetic heritage is due to the fact that when gene(s) are selected for, those located on the chromosome close to those genes selected for are brought along. If the propensity for religion is associated with some desirable trait it will continue.

continued

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=9979

He reflected..that the..“frank discussion”..between the apostles
and..the other disciples..helped them..to arrive..at a “division of labor.”

“The apostles..make a proposal..that is accepted by all:..they will devote themselves..to prayer..and to the ministry..of the Word,

while seven men,..deacons,
will provide service..at the tables..for the poor.”..[who..]..know no [table]

The/men...who..were chosen..as deacons..were not necessarily..“experts,”..[gods incarnate..if you will]
think like..a benificient govener-general/lording-it over/india...but there..for*..the very/very poor..to provide..a base/minimum deserving of a living heir..of the immortal/good.

The Holy/Spirit..was also there..“to crown/this agreement,”[for/where..is our onmiprent/holy-spirit/otherwise..to be/known,

added/the Pope...“this tells us..that\when/we allow..the Holy-Spirit to guide,..us/of..love/service..[he]..leads us..to harmony,..into unity and..by..respect for..our/different gifts..and talents...by/his\mercy../or his\grace/.

Do you understand?..No small-talk,
no envy,..no jealousy!..Get it?”..he emphasized

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=9980 Jesus’ message of salvation,..

the Roman/Pontiff..continued,..observing..that it\is..the Holy/Spirit who gave..him/this firmness..of heart.“With\this/.example,”..[indicates/lived/example][..

he went on,..“we..can/ask ourselves\today:..What kind*of heart..do/we have?..[recall/the heart]of/plenty..in maries/concecrated garen.

Is it..a fickle heart..which..is..like..{a\}..
dancing,..like a butterfly..unfocussed..we/flit..from one\to another…always in motion;..[unending..24/7.

Is it..[rU]..a heart..that is scared/or scarred..by the vicissitudes of life,..and is..forgivness/hiding..and..afraid..to give..witness..to most-holy..spirit..we saw/best embodied..in our/lord;..Jesus Christ?”

“Is it..a brave\heart..or..a forgiving//heat
a heart..that has..so..much fear..fear/can/no longer..draw near
and..of..the heart-light..hid..that worthy/light/rightly shouted from..the hilltops..yet//is deminished..and is always..trying to hide?

What\..do/our heart\care for?
other/hearts\comes..readilly to..minds-eye.

What treasure..does our heart..hold..in honourable..custody?

Is my heart..fixed/upon..creatures,yet/not..their humain,
..the problems..that we all have/that..comforts..de-mons..within.

?..Is my heart..fixed upon everyday..gods,,idols or idioloitry
or is/it..a heart fixed-on..seeing..the most holy..the Holy Spirit..revealed by us all.?”

Concluding his homily,..the pontiff said..that it would..do us all well.to ask ourselves,..“Where is the firmness..of our hearts/desires?”

and to keep..in mind..“the many everyday\events..with the most/holy..that we have/everyday..:..at home,..at work,..with our children,..with people who live..play/stay..with us,..en-joy..with work colleagues,..with everyone.”..have..some/fun\with-it.

“Do I..let myself get carried away..by these things..or face these events with a fixed heart..that knows where it is?”[place/time]

Noting how..“the only one..that
gives..firmness/into our hearts..is..the Holy-Spirit,”

the pontiff..also encouraged attendees..to think
about the gift..of..“the Spirit of fortitude,\..certitude..of counsel,/,..comforter..who helps us..each..to move forward in the midst,..of..and victory/over\surrounded..by every day trials.”

“We should do..this..heartining/exercise today;..ask how our heart is:..Firm or not?..And if it..is firm,..where does it's softness..now dwell?

In things..?
or in..the Holy/Spirit?

It would..do us..all good
to give/back\with..gratitude..that of good..back to thyne god/nut thyne living..of the one..wholly/holy..living\fore-giving..holy spirit

[\"!”/][/]E/e..hehe..ME?WE?he=we/the..theee/living/in\with/..thee/constantly]

deservingly..spoil/thyne/god\child..within..

Dear David,

<<Oh, vanity! Have you no shame?

Your pride in your distortion of my words in order to make a defence of religion pales in the face of the massive evil encouraged by religion such as the Inquisition, witch hunts, Holocaust, 9/11 etc. However, it illustrates how religion encourages evil even in a normally decent person which I feel you are.>>

I take it all on myself. Let not my vanity and pride reflect on religion.

It is not my religion to distort others' words.
It is not my religion to brag how clever I am.
It is my own weakness.

And so it was the weaknesses of others that brought about the Inquisition, witch hunts, Holocaust, 9/11 etc.

It is a human weakness for people to get insulted when told bad things about what is most dear to them, say about their mother, or about mathematics. Some can even feel so insulted that they are driven to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.

Yet the instructions of Jesus were to turn the other cheek.
That I failed to follow.

continued

I read about Michael Voris. He maintained that the Nazis got much of the ideology of eugenics from other countries. That is absolutely true. However, I would say Michael Voris ‘questions traditional values.’ I thought Catholic traditional values are the products of the papacy and the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Certainly the various popes have made great changes in the religion which Catholics must follow.

There are many other groups in the Catholic Church. One of those are the Catholics who live in the various Dorothy Day houses. I have friends among them and have engaged in peace vigils with them. They are neither “traditionalists” nor “progressivists” – just peaceniks who are believing Catholics.

A good friend in Connecticut is one of them. Unfortunately many Catholics in his town deride him. There have even been editorials against him in the local newspaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day tells about the woman who founded the movement. There is an attempt to have her canonised.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You are quite possibly a better person than Jesus. Your own instincts may be more reliable than the words attributed to him.

yu/quote..<<..It is a human..weakness>>..

all weakness begins..ends..in spirit
[here..in satans-realm]..we learn/the concept..of endings.
endings allow humanity..to apply the grace/mercy..never sin..no more...cure.

weakness..<<..for people to get insulted..when told bad things about what is..most dear to them,..say about their mother,..or about mathematics...>>

i was with..you not saying bad things about mummy
but then..math?..the logic of numbers..numbering our lifes sentinance.

<<..Some can even feel..>>

no i gave up feeling..feeling just hurts too much
and yet..im so caught-up/with the logic..from both sides.

<<..so insulted that they are driven..to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.>>

now hang-on..[you..yu..]
the planes were highjacked/flown by remote control/into the buildings/insured twice/via the same primary insurer..in israel
exactly/for the events..that occured..it conveniently spread its vile karma..into the early deaths..of our best and finest.

what insurance wanted two bnillion to 'cover'[ie the asbestos cleanup/was done by emeency workers/many of whome died[the true death toll..is 23 thousand/dead..in usa..half a million..in iran[who had nothing to do with it[in fact they are sworn/ennama..of saudies..who did do it/with israel/help

once the primary insurer/'paid-off/all the under writters HAD TO..pay off to[twice]..nice..eh?
plus he has a 99 year lease..over the new buildings

<<..Yet the instructions of Jesus..were to turn the other cheek.>>
allow/the tares..to grow..with the whear/till\harvest..sorts us..into heaven/hell

<<..the Nazis got much of the ideology..of eugenics..from other countries...>>[mainly british colonialism/like camps in suid-afrika/australia

<<That is absolutely true.>>

<<..\I thought Catholic traditional values..are the products of the papacy..and the official pronouncements..of the Catholic Church.>>

i thought..it more/totally up-to..the priest
or so rigedly formated so as to be duplicitous..

<<..One of those..are the Catholics..who live
in the various Dorothy-Day houses...>>

sounds like some/chriistian/commune,

<<I have friends among them and have engaged in peace vigils with them...>>yeah them hippies..

<<..They are neither “traditionalists” nor “progressivists” – just peaceniks who are believing Catholics.>>

its a big/church..\to encompluss..the works/inspired..by just one man
who did as he saw god..do..as god saw our holy ;ife=spirit..doing

and..in the beginning..the sun/said\too
let there be light..in the heavens..revealing life in the hells below us.

let us make..huh?..into human
then evolved..hugh*man..into..humane.
not urban humani..nor sub-urben..inuendi.

So a sixteen year old girl was raped by a complete stranger. Rather than the parents (christians?) subjecting themselves to the shame of admission of their daughters rape and seeking an abortion, they made her endure their 'shame'. Subjecting her to basically imprisonment and 'physical' and no doubt mental abuse. Shame on them!
The young girl, though by now clearly traumatized, wanted to keep her baby despite the abuse she had to endure from her family, she had become a mother.
'End its life to save the pain, shame suffering and abuse'
'Was I worth the pain?'
You ask these questions Sonia and they are quite challenging. You are a living breathing human being and deserve all that life has to offer, as did your mother. Your mother clearly went through alot of pain and suffering, particularly, sadly, from those closest to her.
She is your mother and you are her baby girl, I hope you are there for her when you can be.

Dear david f,

>>Our species is unprecedented in certain areas. However, other species …<<

This is why I listed the criteria for what I meant by “unprecedented”. Of course, there are other criteria for showing that some species is/was unprecedented in a different area. [If the “area” is size, then the species to which the recently discovered dinosaur belonged, c.f. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/17/world/americas/giant-dinosaur-discovery/, is the winner.]

>>The simple fact is that the earth and life on it existed before Homo sapiens and will continue to exist if humanity should disappear.<<

I agree; this does not contradict what I wrote about humanity being so far the species most capable of understanding its environment and changing it (for better or worse).

>>However, the propensity for religion is a source of conflict in the modern world where various cultures rub against each other.<<

There are many sources of conflict which by their very nature depend on human propensity for it. Sources of modern conflict are certainly also religious, more precisely cultural - c.f. Huntington’s “clash of civilisations” - but not exclusively, and probably only in the forefront, where the actual causes are globalisation of wealth inequality, scarcity of natural resources combined with need vs greed, all sorts of nationalisms, etc.

I agree, my division into “progressivist” and “traditional” Catholics was vey crude (e.g. not all “traditionals” like to be confused with “conservative” Catholics, although Voris certainly is both, etc). The distinction was not about how they lived but what they proclaim to believe, or strive for, regarding matters of doctrine and morals.

[Thanks again. I am now going to devote my “internet presence” to a more pressing (at least here, in Europe) question: how to understand the Ukraine crisis, more precisely whose intention, or stupid “unintention”, was it to get us where we are, and for 25 years hoped we’ll never be. Of course, that does not belong to this thread.]

oh george..that ukranian/thing..began..many years ago/peaked arround ww2..yet..it links too into fatima/who cautioned\regarding it..but that will/play..out..in a longer/time-setting.

the immediate..issue..is the pope/visiting\that plave..of the last supper/if i was satan..[and often/i\myself wonder]..then/i wouldnt want..that/done\..fullfilled..in that..place/but..which..the red-herring..EVERY-LIFE/matters*[one life-giver/sustaining..all..life*..

unless Israel returns the Sergei Court. Within 24 hours,..the Ministry was evacuated..(See Selling King David's Tomb).

http://www.roitov.com/articles/apifior.htm

A campaign is conducted..by Israeli right..claiming that a similar event..is planned with the Cenacle..and King David's Tomb..*below it.

"Final Agreement..Needs to be Signed"

The visit..of the Pope..at the place is significant..because it includes..a mass..[last-supper/mass]..despite not being..one of the allowed prayer days...Moreover,..Israeli officials..have acknowledged that an agreement..is ready.

[clearly/some..could\seek..to prevent/this][and set-up/arabs/russians/chinese]..to take../the\fall...for/red/flag[black-flag-event]..[using/..say..a mal-asian/plain.]

Speaking for the Latin Patriarchate,..David Noihouse acknowledged that Christians..want an agreement regularizing prayer rights..in the Cenacle.*"This is a central place..[last-upper/place]..for Christians worldwide,..and right now..it is possible to pray there only with special permits.

In certain sense,..the Church was born there,*..it is the most natural thing..for Christians to want to visit and pray there..as mother mary spake..in fatima.

Hanna Bandekobsky..(English spelling may vary)..is the Director of the Program..for Jewish-Christian Relations of the Jerusalem Center. On May 20,..ahead of the visit,..she gave an interview to Yediot Ahronot.

She said,.."Now there is a final agreement..that needs to be signed; it includes many details...As part of it.. the Catholics tried to introduced prayer rights in the room,..but the details have not yet been published."

Right\wing/activists were stopped..from visiting the Cenacle..by the police...The latter told the intruders.."It is a church up there"..[while secretly filmed.]

The video..was uploaded to the internet..and is now a source of Jewish religious hysteria;..*"King David's Tomb..*will be given to the Vatican,"..they say in a variety of ways,..despite the event being unlikely...as/because,,*

they..only..'share'..a..common
entrance/doorway\street/city..colony...planetoid...share...SHARE..

unfair..?
end/exclusive\franchise..
that dissinfranchises..indigenant/peoples'..from..their..owned-homes..into squats/camps\gulags/....when All WE GOT..IS THE ONE/OMNIPRESNT..living god*..

[pure/truth/pure-good..pre/grace/pure-mercy]..
ohhhh...mmmmm..men-enneme..me/man/many\men..mene many men/ahhh-men*

jode/rote/quote..:<<..So a sixteen year old girl was raped by a complete stranger.>>

thats/strange..most/know\their rapist..[i suspect/it wasnt..a..stranger.]..the face simularity..alone..means familiour recognition..of a known known,\.

<<Rather than the parents,..(christians?)>>

so/it..seems
<<..subjecting themselves..to the shame of admission>>

often/sadly..some/play..the person/in this case clearly..to extreem[the poor mother]..abandoned by her parents/likely 'the'/priest/the congregation/even god[or rather so the poor mother/must have felt/and clearly..continues..to/avoid feeling.

<<..they made her..endure their 'shame'.>>

where/no shame..is due/indeed..for saving what clearly/is a worthy/woman..speaking out for the 52/million aborted children[since vietnam-war]..[just usa/numbers]

<<..Subjecting her..to basically imprisonment>>
in those days/that was\the best..they could think-of[least we forget/education..wasnt a big thing/way bACK..IN THE DIM DARK/AGES.

<<..and 'physical'..and no doubt..mental abuse.>>
SO IT WOULD..APPEAR

if/so...<<..Shame on them!>>
shame..on whoever/advised..them wrongly[
their immediate/peers/confudants/mates..relitives]

<<..The young girl,[mother]..i have/little concern/for\the scribe...<<..though by now clearly traumatized,..wanted to keep*..*her/baby..[despite the abuse..she had to endure from her family,..she had become..a mother.>>of a child/with a timely-story..to reveal.

<<..ask these questions..Sonia..and they are quite challenging.>>
but/your..here..to/speak..for millions/unable..to speak[because they had/not..the strength..of mother-mission..your mum/has.

<<..You are a living..breathing human being..>>
with..a..clear..reason/of\being..laid-out..before.you[but/dont..forget..who the credit...really..is/due.to.[mum]

<<and deserve..all that life has to offer,>>
you/..great/but..what-about..her

<<as did your mother.>>..[?]

<<..Your mother clearly went..through*..alot of pain and suffering, particularly,..sadly,..from those closest to her...>>

so..it/seems\

<<..She is your mother..and you are her baby girl,..I hope you are there..for her..when you can be.>>

me/too..but it seems..
mum/has gotten..the real damage-burden..in../all\..of..this.
now/you..share/her\burden..now..your lives..values/have changed..
now..your the more../..\..needing..to..do..the../mothering\giving/after..recieving..so-much.

Just close the thread off....We cant keep breeding...so the ape will have to make some changes to the ID.

Its still the women's call.....only you can save mankind...8.9 billion and counting.

P/S....Just keep breeding:)

Kat