Skip to main content

Productive argument

 i think that this discussion will not be fruitful in any way as long as the terminology isn't established.. We need to be on the same page first, to have the same definition of "Life" and its "anthropic importance" before we can continue.


What I'm saying is, as long as there is no persuasive argument against the abrahamic God's existence/omnibenevolency (as this seems to be an interpretation of His law), any discussion will be futile, due to the simple fact that the concept of God is a foot in the door that introduces the factor of divine inerrancy, which vetoes any rational thought on basis of a claim, and this brings a flood of a whole doCtrine that does not fit the bill for the burden of proof it has.


it is explicitly shown that YHWH does condone such acts. That is fact. But I'm referring to the concept of an omnibenevolent God that the people here most likely believe in, since theists have and can always cherry pick their verses to define the ideals of their current morality. the heart of this argument is not in the subject of abortion_____ it is in the Word of God (that one believes to be omnibenevolent)?


 [1] i know believers would bring up the justification of how this is a jealous and righteous God at work, doling out judgement bcs he's the cause and the effect and he holds the rights to create and destroy,, like the flood as a genocide? [2] There's a ton of scripture to deal with, and apologists will defend every one of them in unique ways, but one popular defense for Christians would be Jesus (of the new testament) spreads the message contrary to the pillaging in the Old Testament, as the judgement of death for sin in general is already paid by hiS ultimate sacrifice.


Christians believe in an omnibenevolent God. Unfortunately, to deny God's omnibenevolence would only bring alternative interpretations of doctrine into the picture. we would have to deny God's existence as a basis for the moral argument of abortion as an objective sin, as, want it or not, this current belief system of Christianity holds on to the idea that God has mandated modern pro-life perspectives as his Law.


tldr: if we accept that God doesn't exist, his laws don't either. If we accept that God exists, we'll be stuck forever trying to piece out which interpretive literary piece of the Bible can and can't be trusted

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ABSURDISM, EXISTENTIALISM, FREE WILL, POSTMODERNISM

 After the war, Introduction The first world war threw society into a state of disillusionment, and a fracturing of the staunch belief in morals became prominent, sparking literary advancements that challenged romantic ideals, advocating for a new perception of stability and sensibilities. In the poem Gerontion by T.S. Elliot, the modernist stance of fragmentation and the pursuit of purpose lies in man’s actualization of himself. Meanwhile, Samuel Beckett’s waiting for Godot written in the post-war environment of World War II can be viewed as an attack on modernism, rejecting its ideological claims to legitimise purposeful meaning that interprets the world of Estragon and Vladimir with a Grand Existential Narrative . Nonetheless, both these arguments provide a post-war lens that views life without inherent importance nor singular purpose/essence, resulting in the rise of ‘absurdism’— a search for answers in a world that offers no true answer . In this essay, the aforementioned conc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bredlik

 https://yeahwrite.me/writing-help-bredlik/ Bredlik isn’t as easy as it looks, folks. It’s a very tight form with very tight parameters. Technically bredlik is four lines (two rhyming couplets) in iambic tetrameter, or two stanzas of four lines each in iambic diameter with an ABCB rhyme scheme. The other thing that bredlik has going on is that the original poet took inspiration for the poem not only from the incident but from the fact that it happened in a re-enactor setting. So he used 18th century spellings (or reasonable facsimiles thereof) for some of the words.
Post a Comment
Read more

Manglish and its Cina Particles

"The ubiquitous word lah ( [lɑ́]   or   [lɑ̂] ), used at the end of a sentence, can also be described as a particle that simultaneously asserts a position and entices solidarity.  Note that 'lah' is often written after a space for clarity, but there is never a pause before it. This is because originally in Malay, 'lah' is appended to the end of the word and is not a separate word by itself." SNEAKING SUSPICION: "lah" was originally from the Cantonese practicing south of China. The land of Malaya had relations with China since the Ming dynasty, when China was the protector of the Malaccan Sultanate (maybe even from the 5th-6th century), and the use of la as a sentence-suffix particle got integrated into the Malay language its formation, probably during the second phase is Early Modern Malay (1500-ca. 1850) that witnessed the indigenization of Arabic loan words, changes in the affix system, and a rather liberal word order.  Confirmation alternatives: ...
Post a Comment
Read more