Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of kurros

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kurros

1
Raising kids is incredibly difficult and destroys your previous way of life quite thoroughly. No one should do it by accident or without being thoroughly prepared psychologically, and also financially. In all these debate about abortion, there is often an important factor missing, namely that if you want women to give birth to children that they aren't prepared to raise, then there needs to be a significant shift in social norms around giving babies up for adoption or into state care, and significant improvement in the capabilities of the state to provide/ensure high quality care for those children. There needs to be no social stigma around choosing not to raise a child yourself, and there needs to be high confidence that children raised in state care will have happy childhoods, if suitable adoptive parents can't be found. If those criteria are met then you may find that many more women would be quite prepared to undergo labor and birth with unwanted children.

Reading you is giving me chills, kurros. This reads like a sci-fi novel about the grave future of mankind. Are we going to have farms for babies? How can anything replace the paternal love?

No state employee could ever take care of one's very own children, because no state employee will ever have the same relation to them, and the depth of care extended due to said relation, as the very mother and father the baby.

We are talking about alternatives to abortion here, no one claimed it was optimal. Just think it through: there are only four possibilities here:

1. Death
2. Raised by the state
3. Raised by adoptive parents (if it can be successfully arranged)
4. Raised by biological parents (forced)

Which of these do you think is the best option? Is it really 4? I don't think so.

Quote
And then you'll tell the "paranoid" Christian that "no, the liberals are not after destroying the family". The views of the modern man on "children", or man in their early stage of growing, reads as if man is just stock moved around that only has external fleshly needs that need to be satisfied, and if they are, then said child is "properly taken care of". That sounds to me a lot like the parent, who does nothing to build their children up through lessons and morale and morals, yet when the child disobeys the parent goes to say "I give you clothes, food and the roof over your head(as if that alone exhausts what the child needs and what the parent owes to the child)".

No surprise that this kind of views come from a skeptic. The skeptical community is infected with rather Marxist views on the human being(where there are only external needs to the being of man - such as food, roof, clothing, work and "education", which will of course will happen to align with the current party line of those in power).

Indeed, paranoia and a lack of critical thinking about the situation is what we are seeing here.

2
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What are your thoughts on Islam?
« on: Today at 02:28:31 pm »
Well I think the question is complicated, and requires an appreciation of the diversity of Islam to answer. Sunni/shia divides, cultural differences across the world (e.g. Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan to Iran to India to Indonesia are pretty huge differences), fundamentalists vs moderates. It is just as enormous and varied as Christianity is and Christians are, and thinking of it monolithically will not lead to good reasoning about it.

3
Anyway, I have 9.  I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor.  Doesn’t matter to them.  All they need is your time=love.  And food.  I prefer “supervenes” to “destroys”.

9?!? Jeepers, you're brave. We aren't even sure if we want a third one. The two we have are already nearly killing us.

Quote
I don’t know what shift in social norms you’re talking about.  People fight over babies to adopt.  They pay big money for the chance to take one home with them.

That's only half the equation. Women giving up babies for adoption are still made to feel awful about doing so. It isn't something people consider "ok". And plenty of kids still end up state care for a long time, despite lots of people wanting to adopt. The barriers to adoption are possibly too high, though I am not well informed about the process.

Quote
Maybe the best social norm shift would be responsible sex habits?  Wait till you’re married would solve a lot of problems.

No it wouldn't, you'd just be encouraging people to get married way too young, and probably end up with even higher divorce rates and more broken families. It's also never going to happen anyway so kind of a moot point.

4
Raising kids is incredibly difficult and destroys your previous way of life quite thoroughly. No one should do it by accident or without being thoroughly prepared psychologically, and also financially. In all these debate about abortion, there is often an important factor missing, namely that if you want women to give birth to children that they aren't prepared to raise, then there needs to be a significant shift in social norms around giving babies up for adoption or into state care, and significant improvement in the capabilities of the state to provide/ensure high quality care for those children. There needs to be no social stigma around choosing not to raise a child yourself, and there needs to be high confidence that children raised in state care will have happy childhoods, if suitable adoptive parents can't be found. If those criteria are met then you may find that many more women would be quite prepared to undergo labor and birth with unwanted children.

How many do you have?  Just asking, not a trick question.

I have two, age 2.5 and 0.5. And I haven't slept properly in two and half years. I love them both very much but I wouldn't want anyone to be doing this unwillingly.

5
Raising kids is incredibly difficult and destroys your previous way of life quite thoroughly. No one should do it by accident or without being thoroughly prepared psychologically, and also financially. In all these debate about abortion, there is often an important factor missing, namely that if you want women to give birth to children that they aren't prepared to raise, then there needs to be a significant shift in social norms around giving babies up for adoption or into state care, and significant improvement in the capabilities of the state to provide/ensure high quality care for those children. There needs to be no social stigma around choosing not to raise a child yourself, and there needs to be high confidence that children raised in state care will have happy childhoods, if suitable adoptive parents can't be found. If those criteria are met then you may find that many more women would be quite prepared to undergo labor and birth with unwanted children.

6
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Should Fauci get it first?!?!
« on: December 03, 2020, 11:02:44 pm »
Just saw a news article saying more than 40% of Americans think Fauci should be the first to get the vaccine over all the other people named for the poll.  I just found it a little humorous. Personally, I think I would’ve gone with Trump.

So,  let’s hear it..who do you think the national vaccinated guinea pig should be?

Pretty sure that thousands of people have already had it through the clinical trials.

7
We as a society?  We as a society are are heavily divided over this issue - at least here in the States.

But, since you said “We as a society” as relates to a greater value placed on the mother’s bodily autonomy over the very life of the baby she carries..then why should it be that?  Why is that right? Is this just a preference for you, or do you assign an objectively moral standard to it?

"Objective moral standards" as you believe in make no sense, so not that. But I think that there are good reasons to hold this position, such that it isn't merely "preference". The dichotomy you present is a false one.

As for what those "good reasons" are, I think we have discussed them at length in other threads so I am not keen to repeat them, and I think it would be going off topic for this one. But if you want to make yet another thread about it then feel free. I probably won't have time to get into it in depth again, but others might.

8
Quote
..then we should do so in preference to abortion...
Why??

Because we as a society value their lives. Just not more than the bodily autonomy of their mothers.

9
I’m still waiting for a good answer from the pro-choice crowd as to why a mother can’t kill her already born, week old DS child if/when she comes to realize that she won’t be able to cope with the stress of raising it.

Because it can be kept alive and healthy by people other than herself. At such point as the same can be said for fetuses then we should do so in preference to abortion.

10
Yeah until such time as it becomes possible to easily extract a developing fetus and transfer it to an artificial womb, and the state is prepared to take full responsibility for caring for and raising the child no matter what problems they may have, then I think we have to leave the hard choices about what children they think they are capable of raising to the parents.

But on the matter of a double standard, I don't think there is one. There is no such judgment of "worthiness of life" as you suggest. That's a strange concept to begin with, and I think it makes even less sense applied to a fetus. Also, encouraging people to treat disabled people with respect and equality is a separate matter from encouraging them to give birth to disabled children. Disabilities suck to have, I don't think there is any argument about that. Attempts to make their lives better in no way require anyone to wish to trade places with them, which is the kind of thinking your logic seems to imply.

11
Not sure what's funny about it. You are making hopelessly vague objections and then failing to clarify them when asked. This achieves little other than derailing the thread.

12
^^

Yeah it’s necessary.  The whole intent of ArtD OP is to say that nobody agrees with what the passage actually says.

I thought the disagreement was with how to interpret it, not what it says when read literally.

Quote
I asked ArtD to define “iniquity” for us, which he didn’t attempt.

It was extremely unclear why you asked that, since anyone can just look it up in a dictionary. So I can see why he didn't bother to do it.

Quote
How can anyone say what it means when they can’t tell us the definitions of the words used?  Isn’t that his (and others) point?
I don't think that was the point, no.

Quote
Since you claim the “literal” interpretation, and Ben’s claim that God is actively causing sin, ou should be able to define the words.
Which words? I don't understand where you think there is ambiguity or confusion with regard to the literal words used. Of course we (or at least I) are just going off the English translation, so if you want to raise some issue related to that then I am happy to hear it, but I don't see where there is much room for confusion with regard to a literal reading of the English words.

13
It doesn't make any literal sense, but figuratively speaking the notion of "generational sin" does make sense.

If a father beats his son, and his son grows up and beats his son, etc. that's what generational sin refers to.
It makes a lot of since from a natural perspective, but the problem is that God is saying he DIRECTLY causes the evil here which is very disturbing. Like Gods mad you beat your son so he intervenes and makes your son beat his son, etc. I'd be interested to see Dr. Craig respond to OP.


I don’t see it that way.  Maybe you can give an explanation of how you arrived at that interpretation of the passage.

Is that really necessary? It is the literal reading of the passage. Well the direct intervention part, anyway. The bit about making your son beat his son is just an attempt to merge the literal reading with observations of the kind of natural consequences we observe.

However I find AgapeFire's examples and arguments that these passages are just a bunch of bluster and hyperbole pretty convincing.

14
This is actually a really good study. Especially relevant in this political climate where more people seem to understand their opponent's position based on their own comedians' strawmen than their opponents stated claims. I've never had religion debates deteriorate the way politics seem to. It's really sad that this is happening in the age of the internet when so many sources are a click a way: RT, AJ, Huffpo, Breitbeart, Slate, Intercept, cable networks etc. Not to mention all of the think tanks from every conceivable position, with libraries of information available free of charge in pdf.

Yeah, no kidding. For some reason religious debates tend to be much more cordial than political debates. Not sure why that is?

Well, probably because politics involves life and death decisions that can impact people's lives in the largest ways possible. Whilst religion is mostly about esoteric matters with little practical importance (and the parts with practical relevance quickly escalate into political issues).

15
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: public nudity
« on: December 01, 2020, 04:05:23 pm »
If we’re talking mixed gender, I think a big part of the Christian concern is that it can lead to a lot of lust and coveting...which can then quite easily lead to other things. Personally, it would be really uncomfortable for me watching my nude wife walking by nude guys, and then seeing the guy “salute.”

Culturally, I’m not sure if this would work. We tend to be pretty horny here in the West...not to mention the “package” envy getting much worse.

Maybe the causality goes the other way. Perhaps people would not be so horny over a bit of nudity if it was normalized. I mean a lot of tribes from hot places in the world never bothered with much clothing, and they seemed to get by just fine. They did mostly cover their genitals, so perhaps there is something to be said for being able to hide your involuntary impulses (though perhaps it was more to protect against errant tree branches etc.), but certainly women being constantly topless was common in many places.

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 791