A thought about our significance

[Zymologist]

carpe, I don't see how your position is different than a pro-choicer who would say something like, "Of course I don't LIKE abortion, but I still support the right to choose." AFAICS, you're pro-choice. (And you repeat the tired old, "pro-lifers don't care about women" schtick, too)

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think ANY of us are "in need of salvation."

And yes - my description is a reminder that, in this vast cosmos, we are only as sgnificant as we think we are. And to think that the god of all of this is somehow narrowly focused on our "salvation," to the point of sacrificing himself/itself/herself in human form, seems to me to a) be an extension of the sacrificial lamb theme of MANY religions, and b) be the height of human arrogance. The god of ALL the universe is somehow consumed with the status of an inconsequential species on a backwater planet?

Really?

If God is who the Christian Bible teaches us He is, then He must care for each and every one of us. The entire conception of greatness or insignificance are themselves rooted in us being finite beings with limited scope and perspective, limited capacity and resources. A being that is what the God of the Bible is claimed to be can be simultaneously aware of all aspects of the universe, and can focus on what are the smallest of details without losing one iota of attention to the larger scope. Such is the nature of that which is infinite. It can be divided as many ways as desired and yet still retain all of its infinitude without reduction (consider that the integers, the even integers, and the odd integers are all quite equal in power as infinities, and even though two are subsets of the first, neither has even one less element than the others).

So such a good God can and would be just as concerned about you or I as he would be the sparrow, the ant, the star or the galaxy. That He has chosen to be our salvation is nonetheless remarkable and infinitely beyond what we should be able to expect. But it is nevertheless exactly what a truly good and infinite God would and can do.



Jim

[carpedm9587]

And, looking at a sonogram, and medical facts, and science -- how can they NOT?

I rest my case...

I support and volunteer quite a bit at a local pregnancy center, as well as quite a bit of "mission outreach" stuff to the homeless and "down-and-outters" - I'm gonna bet I deal with people "outside my bubble" far more than you do outside of your own.

Possibly...and I certainly am not going to try to compare efforts so as to "one-up" you. But it is hard to see how you could hold so intransigent a view if you have actually spoken to some of the people involved on the other side.

Calm yourself, brother - you're kinda going dramaqueen on me. I do no such things. I sit with pregnant women and listen to them.

I think I'm just going to pass on the rest of your post -- you're getting kinda ... um......

I'll pass

I confess to passion about this topic. For me, it's like watching two of my siblings in an endless feud that is impacting the rest of the family, their own families, and anyone who comes near them - each determined to prove "they're right" and the other is "wrong." Meanwhile, others are being hurt and no one REALLY cares about that - it's just about "being right."

I have almost these exact discussion with my left-leaning friends. They don't understand how I could see it as a baby, and see it as a moral wrong to terminate it's life. I am a hate monger. I refuse to have the courage of accepting the violation of a woman as a violation. I am a right-wing nut.

If the topic were not so tragic - it would be amusing.

As for "drama queen" - I'll remind you that it was you who pointed out that this is "not a game - and babies die!"

[carpedm9587]

carpe, I don't see how your position is different than a pro-choicer who would say something like, "Of course I don't LIKE abortion, but I still support the right to choose." AFAICS, you're pro-choice. (And you repeat the tired old, "pro-lifers don't care about women" schtick, too)

I am both pro-choice AND pro-life. Because it is not possible to put laws on the books that support both positions - there is only one viable option: work damned hard to avoid the need to MAKE that decision. That means education, support for women with unwanted pregancies, and everything else.

And yes - pro-lifers put the baby above the woman - and pro-choicers put the woman above the baby. Neither side acknowledges that the unique reality of one human inside another creates a dilemma. Neither side spends much time at all attempting to understand the position and concerns of the other side, and looking for strategies that could respect the views of both sides.

[Sparko]

Where did I say I meant you specifically? I'm pointing out the general tendency with that worldview, just as you are with ours. There may be a few atheists who are more humble, but overwhelmingly (especially online) atheists are unbearably egotistically arrogant with their "we've got everything figured out with science, and you religious people are so gullible". I recognise that you may not be one of them, just as I recognise that you don't mean that us lot are necessarily a bunch of egotistical jerks who think that we're the centre of the universe. I'm merely pointing out that if one view can be boiled down to "we're more awesome than everything else", then so can the other. I do tend to see a lot of atheists gloating over how far superior their intellect is over those puny religious people, though, even if you specifically haven't.

*cough* JimL/Tassman *cough*

[carpedm9587]

If God is who the Christian Bible teaches us He is, then He must care for each and every one of us. The entire conception of greatness or insignificance are themselves rooted in us being finite beings with limited scope and perspective, limited capacity and resources. A being that is what the God of the Bible is claimed to be can be simultaneously aware of all aspects of the universe, and can focus on what are the smallest of details without losing one iota of attention to the larger scope. Such is the nature of that which is infinite. It can be divided as many ways as desired and yet still retain all of its infinitude without reduction (consider that the integers, the even integers, and the odd integers are all quite equal in power as infinities, and even though two are subsets of the first, neither has even one less element than the others).

So such a good God can and would be just as concerned about you or I as he would be the sparrow, the ant, the star or the galaxy. That He has chosen to be our salvation is nonetheless remarkable and infinitely beyond what we should be able to expect. But it is nevertheless exactly what a truly good and infinite God would and can do.

Jim

ANOTHER nuanced response! Awesome. You make some great points here, Jim. Worth my spending a little time thinking on. Thanks!

[Cow Poke]

Possibly...and I certainly am not going to try to compare efforts so as to "one-up" you. But it is hard to see how you could hold so intransigent a view if you have actually spoken to some of the people involved on the other side.

Because there are FACTS and there are PERCEPTIONS.... I understand that people I deal with in real life have different "perceptions", and I allow for that, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

I confess to passion about this topic. For me, it's like watching two of my siblings in an endless feud that is impacting the rest of the family, their own families, and anyone who comes near them - each determined to prove "they're right" and the other is "wrong." Meanwhile, others are being hurt and no one REALLY cares about that - it's just about "being right."

Babies are getting killed, and you're more concerned about "keeping peace".

I have almost these exact discussion with my left-leaning friends. They don't understand how I could see it as a baby, and see it as a moral wrong to terminate it's life.

Fact - it is a human life in the womb - and even many of the leftists can't argue with that, so they play the "personhood" card - it's not a "person" yet....

I am a hate monger. I refuse to have the courage of accepting the violation of a woman as a violation. I am a right-wing nut.

If the topic were not so tragic - it would be amusing.

As for "drama queen" - I'll remind you that it was you who pointed out that this is "not a game - and babies die!"

And it was you who called it a game.

[Zymologist]

I am both pro-choice AND pro-life. Because it is not possible to put laws on the books that support both positions - there is only one viable option: work damned hard to avoid the need to MAKE that decision. That means education, support for women with unwanted pregancies, and everything else.

And yes - pro-lifers put the baby above the woman - and pro-choicers put the woman above the baby. Neither side acknowledges that the unique reality of one human inside another creates a dilemma. Neither side spends much time at all attempting to understand the position and concerns of the other side, and looking for strategies that could respect the views of both sides.

Your comments about abortion sound like fairly typical pro-choice arguments to me.

As well, your comment about pro-lifers not valuing the woman just seems to be another of those "agree with me or you're not a real pro-lifer." You might as well say that any so-called pro-lifer who doesn't support universal healthcare isn't "really" pro-life. (which I hear a lot)

I just find all that so tiring. What's the point of attempting to dialogue with someone who thinks this way of you?

[Cow Poke]

And yes - pro-lifers put the baby above the woman - ...

No, most of us recognize that there are times when the woman's life is in danger, and the woman's life takes priority. What we don't compromise on is the fact that "inconvenience to the woman" does not trump the life of the baby.

[oxmixmudd]

I do not deny that there are obnoxious atheists - just as their are obnoxious theists. But I will refute that atheism is an intrinsically arrogant worldview. To be atheist requires accepting that we are indeed small and insignificant on a cosmic scale - that our importance is actually self-importance. Anyone who is a scientist, atheist or theist, and understand science knows that science is limited - cannot explain all things - and is often misused. It is also incapable of definitively absolute statements. Proper science is always open to the next discovery that will show something we thought to be true to be wrong. An atheist, especially one with a scientific bent, is confronted regularly with insignificance.

Indeed, Quanta - I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have been told here that my worldview is one of despair and pointlessness, whereas the theist has hope, eternity, and this allpowerful creator god that loves and cares for every hair on their head - granting them significance.

In light of that - your comments strike me as...well...a little odd.

I don't see the point in trying the pigionhole people by their worldview. There may be some difference in the statistical mean, but every person is different and has to be treated individually. There are obnoxiously arrogant Christians and obnoxiously arrogant Atheists. Likewise humble and caring versions of each. The nature of Christian teaching should skew the result for that population towards humility and compassion for those that are (or claim to be) Christians vs those that claim to reject those teachings as valid. If that is not actually true of the various populations, then my first response would be that very well may imply many claim to follow Christ that actually do not.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Because there are FACTS and there are PERCEPTIONS.... I understand that people I deal with in real life have different "perceptions", and I allow for that, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.

Yes - there are facts. The fetus has no heartbeat until six weeks into the pregnancy. Brainwaves follow after. Heartbeat and brianwaves are a common measure of whether a person is alive or not alive. Both the brain dead person and the 2 week old fetus have a complete human DNA. A 26 week old fetus is pretty much 100% dependent upon the body of the woman for life - it cannot life independently. Both sides have facts, CP. And then facts are interpreted and each side comes to its conclusions. That you think you're the only side with "facts" is very indicative of just how closed your mind is on this topic.

Babies are getting killed, and you're more concerned about "keeping peace".

Now who's being a drama queen. And if you think that is what I am saying then I'm afraid you haven't heard a thing.

Fact - it is a human life in the womb - and even many of the leftists can't argue with that, so they play the "personhood" card - it's not a "person" yet....

Fact is that it is human and it is living. That it is an independent human life - that is what is up for disagremeent. I believe it is at the moment of implantation for reasons I have cited before. Sparko takes exception and wants it to be at conception. I have sicientific facts backing my position - he has scientific facts backing his. He's not stupid - but we disagree. Likewise I disagree with pro-choice peopke about this young being. I think they are morally wrong to take its life. I also think the state is not permitted to impose a form of tempoprary slavery on one of its citizens.

And it was you who called it a game.

I think that the two sides have reduced this to a game, with the winner being "the one who dominates" - or "makes the laws" or "has moral superiority." I find that kind of gamesmanship sad, especially when lives are in the balance. And I hold both sides accountable for the impasse we are in. It could be different. People just need to set aside their "I'm right" long enough to try to understand, and try to find solutions.

Based on history - and conversations like this one - I am not hopeful of that happening anytime soon.

[carpedm9587]

Your comments about abortion sound like fairly typical pro-choice arguments to me.

That does not surprise me. My left-leaning friends tell me I sound "pro-life" to them.

As well, your comment about pro-lifers not valuing the woman just seems to be another of those "agree with me or you're not a real pro-lifer." You might as well say that any so-called pro-lifer who doesn't support universal healthcare isn't "really" pro-life. (which I hear a lot)

Actually - I'm not advocating for anyone to agree with anyone. I'm advocating for people to set down the pitchforks - listen - try to understand - and then find practical solutions.

I just find all that so tiring. What's the point of attempting to dialogue with someone who thinks this way of you?

The only POV I have about people is that they are entrenched in their "my way or the highway" thinking. Left sees right as evil. Right sees left as evil. Little wonder that the two sides don't want to talk to one another. Why would anyone want to talk to someone that hates them, is angry at them, and thinks they're evil?

[Cow Poke]

Yes - there are facts.

There are, indeed.

[Cow Poke]

...I'm advocating for people to set down the pitchforks...

[carpedm9587]

No, most of us recognize that there are times when the woman's life is in danger, and the woman's life takes priority. What we don't compromise on is the fact that "inconvenience to the woman" does not trump the life of the baby.

Allowing for one small exception, CP, does not negate the bulk of the message. The left (for the most part) believes it is NOT a human life, so they are being asked to subjugate their bodies to the moral whims of the right. The right beleives it IS a human life, and it is irrational to think otherwise, so the left should be subjugating the woman to the baby (unless her life is in danger).

And the dance goes on...with neither side even ATTEMPTING...as far as I can see, to hear and understand the position from the opposing point of view.

And while the two sides continue to war - as you noted - babies die. I fault BOTH sides for their intransigence, stubbornness, and insistence that "they are right." Meanwhile, strategies exist that could significant reduce the carnage - but they are largely unimplemented and, when they are, it is in a spirit of hostility instead of unity.