Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[thessalonian]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388719' date='Sep 19 2007, 03:48 PM']Thank you Thessolonian for coming down all this way towards properly identifying to everyone what I have already been pronouncing as my beliefs.[/quote]


Then you violate what you believe by saying things like these:

[quote]Homosexuality is not a violation of Natural Law
Birth control is just another way humans have hacked Natural Law. It is neither right nor wrong.

I guess what I am trying to express is that every entity existed in the spiritual realm before incarnating into a physical form. The spiritual realm contains knowledge that an entity can access because this realm is not bound by our time

There is a GOD but He doesn’t dole out souls

Relax. Homosexuality is not a threat to anybody.
The only moral dilemmas that I have observed for both heterosexuality and homosexuality are the biased beliefs and opinions that some individuals have placed upon it.

it does not mean (contrary to some people's beliefs or opinion) that it is wrong or in violation of Natural Law.[/quote]

You have no business making statements on morality pro or con as I said and on whether a certain action does no harm or not. You do not know and there may be a clear glass that looks like water on a table and you may tell someone to drink it thinking it to be water and it is poison. Here come the question marks again I suppose.

Edited September 19, 2007 by thessalonian

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1388733' date='Sep 19 2007, 04:19 PM']"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is an ethical theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere"[/quote]

thank you

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1388751' date='Sep 19 2007, 05:58 PM']thank you[/quote]Your welcome. carrdero has mistaken 'Natural Law' with the 'Law of the Jungle', meaning it isn't about 'ethical choices', it's the ability to do an 'action' and avoid consequences, or dealing with the consequences that are a result of your action.

In other terms, most of us posters here define Natural Law as self evident moral parameters for right/wrong. carrdero rejects the basic parameters of right or wrong for consequences/no consequences. Not to be mean (well, not really, let's be honest), carrdero has really come up with a sophistry masquerading as 'philosophy'. Humanity's collective awareness and knowledge has developed far beyond that. But hey, even Monet may find a fresh box of 8 crayola's and a stack of blank paper 'a fresh discovery'.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1388758' date='Sep 19 2007, 05:20 PM']Your welcome. carrdero has mistaken 'Natural Law' with the 'Law of the Jungle', meaning it isn't about 'ethical choices', it's the ability to do an 'action' and avoid consequences, or dealing with the consequences that are a result of your action.[/quote]
The Law of the Jungle????

[carrdero]

[quote]Thessolonian writes: Then you violate what you believe by saying things like these:[/quote]
[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: Homosexuality is not a violation of Natural Law[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: Birth control is just another way humans have hacked Natural Law. It is neither right nor wrong.[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: I guess what I am trying to express is that every entity existed in the spiritual realm before incarnating into a physical form. The spiritual realm contains knowledge that an entity can access because this realm is not bound by our time[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: There is a GOD but He doesn’t dole out souls[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: Relax. Homosexuality is not a threat to anybody.[/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: The only moral dilemmas that I have observed for both heterosexuality and homosexuality are the biased beliefs and opinions that some individuals have
placed upon it. [/color]

My belief.

[color="#000080"]Carrdero writes: it does not mean (contrary to some people's beliefs or opinion) that it is wrong or in violation of Natural Law.[/color]

My belief.

[quote]Thessolonian writes: You have no business making statements on morality pro or con as I said and on whether a certain action does no harm or not.[/quote]

Now, here is how this debating game is played. You take any of these beliefs that you feel you disagree with and compose a rebuttal based on your knowledge, observations or experiences that you have collected and would like to share.

[thessalonian]

But Cardy,

My point above went right over your head. If YOUR belief is only in the capacity of your human brain, which you admit is severely deficient to know whether something is harmful to us or not, especially when there is evidence to the contrary, (higher suicieds in gays, std's, etc) then why on earth would you tell someone, even as an opinion that something is not harmful? Some of the glasses of "water" that your passing out are bound to contain some poison, though you cannot see it. The only reason one might do this is personal pride in his own thinking. When we realize that we are closer to an ant with regard to the workings of nature than to God (or do you claim to possess in your brain cells more than 1 percent of the knowledge of earth and history and science and humanity), I would think a little humility might work it's way thru the neurons inside that head.

By the way, I am debating. Just not what you want to debate.

Blessings

Edited September 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388992' date='Sep 20 2007, 09:54 AM']Now, here is how this debating game is played. You take any of these beliefs that you feel you disagree with and compose a rebuttal based on your knowledge, observations or experiences that you have collected and would like to share.[/quote]Debate requires communication. Dude, this is how the communication game is played. Use the same definitions for the same words as the people around you are using, otherwise you are speaking in a different language. Natual Law is a concept that is used to evaluate ethical choices. Some things are self evidently 'right' or 'wrong'. The concept of Natual Law is not negotiable, as you would have to convince human civilization a new meaning for the term. Come up with your own term or state you don't ascribe to the concept of Natural Law.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388992' date='Sep 20 2007, 08:54 AM']My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

My belief.

Now, here is how this debating game is played. You take any of these beliefs that you feel you disagree with and compose a rebuttal based on your knowledge, observations or experiences that you have collected and would like to share.[/quote]

If any of your beliefs had more basis in them than a kid thinking a monster was under his bed then we could debate. But you are not using knowledge, observations or experiences. You are imposing yourself as the authority and then telling us to argue with your authority. If you think the sky is pink and cant back it up, cant give evidence. heck, even still a term like neuroimmunology. So then when we are arguing "no-a pink sky is not an auto-immune issue" you can argue back cause you changed the term.

This is not a debate. You have never addressed an isssue, and you refuse to.

[carrdero]

[quote]Thessalonian writes: My point above went right over your head. If YOUR belief is only in the capacity of your human brain, which you admit is severely deficient to know whether something is harmful to us or not, especially when there is evidence to the contrary, (higher suicieds in gays, std's, etc) then why on earth would you tell someone, even as an opinion that something is not harmful?[/quote]

I do not believe that death and disease are tragedies, that they are bad or wrong but that they are part and parcel of this physical existence. One must ask themselves, why are suicide rates higher in gays and are there cures for sexually transmitted diseases? If these are concerns of our society, it is easy for humans to place judgment on these concepts but if we had the answers to these questions and solutions to these concerns would they still be depicted as problems or harmful to humans? If there are permanent medical solutions to herpes and AIDS, would we still be having this debate?

[quote]Thessalonian writes: Some of the glasses of "water" that your passing out are bound to contain some poison, though you cannot see it.[/quote]
Then you don’t’ have to drink or accept this water. That is one of the freedoms to believing. I believe in people. I believe that someday humankind will resolve diseases and deaths and we will learn to understand and comprehend and even tolerate other people’s lifestyles and belief systems. This doesn’t necessarily have to involve pride or faith and I may not even be alive to see this happen but I can assuredly believe it.

[quote]Thessalonian writes: When we realize that we are closer to an ant with regard to the workings of nature than to God (or do you claim to possess in your brain cells more than 1 percent of the knowledge of earth and history and science and humanity), I would think a little humility might work it's way thru the neurons inside that head.[/quote]
When I “look” at GOD, I “look” directly at Him. This is the way I confront any entity. I do not look up at GOD because this will eventually strain my neck. When GOD looks at me, GOD does not look down at me because GOD remembers who I was and where I originally came from. If one thinks of themselves as lowly, than lowly is where you will always find them, if one thinks of themselves as equal, well then “the heavens are the limit” aren’t they?

[carrdero]

[quote]Anamoly writes: Natual Law is a concept that is used to evaluate ethical choices.[/quote]
Human Nature is the Law to evaluate ethical choices and these choices vary from individual to individual. When have you ever witnessed the “winds not blowing” or the clouds “not raining” or the sun “not shining” based on the ethical a moral choices of humans?

[quote]Anamoly writes: Some things are self evidently 'right' or 'wrong'.[/quote]
And “some things” may eventually be corrected through intelliegent manipulation or creation. These manipulations can come through very Unnatural means but one may still be hard pressed to prove them wrong, bad or evil.

[quote]Anamoly writes: The concept of Natual Law is not negotiable, as you would have to convince human civilization a new meaning for the term. Come up with your own term or state you don't ascribe to the concept of Natural Law.[/quote]
Humans by [b][i]their[/i][/b] very behavior do not ascribe to Natural Law, that is why we have air conditioning and umbrellas.

Edited September 22, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Revprodeji writes: If any of your beliefs had more basis in them than a kid thinking a monster was under his bed then we could debate.[/quote]
We all have beliefs and we all have to put on the pants of understanding one leg at a time. We all live in the present and we both have experiences and observations that we can draw from our existences. If there is a card that you feel you are holding, that can readily, reasonably resolve this discussion by all means do not hesitate to play it.

[quote]Revprodeji writes: But you are not using knowledge, observations or experiences. You are imposing yourself as the authority and then telling us to argue with your authority.[/quote]
These are my beliefs, these are not my truths. I recognize them as beliefs, I do not accept or trust them as truths. I can only share my beliefs, I cannot impose them. How can any belief hold authority over someone?

[quote]Revprodeji writes: If you think the sky is pink and cant back it up, cant give evidence. heck, even still a term like neuroimmunology. So then when we are arguing "no-a pink sky is not an auto-immune issue" you can argue back cause you changed the term.[/quote]

I think the term and usage of Natural Law was determined and defined before there were even humans existing on this planet to define and discern this for themselves. This is the term that I am trying to express and evaluate. Like I mentioned previously, in determining Natural Law (assuming one believes that there is a programmer behind the program) one must not only evaluate what the original intentions and purpose of the design was but also anticipate and wonder how much space and foresight the creator has given for other entities to creatively effect and build upon this Law.

[i][b]"We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of the dream"[/b]
– Gene Wilder from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”[/i]

[color="#FF0000"]Also wanted to extend my apologies to all participating debators for not getting back to you sooner.[/color]

[carrdero]

On an extra note there was a thread that I think might help in this discussion and understanding of Natural Law that Cures Of Ars started entitled “Good=Truth”

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72229"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72229[/url]

Though we did not get into as big of discussion concerning Natural Law, I believe video games provide a valid blueprint to the understanding of Natural Law and how humans interact and effectively relate with it. Whether one is playing a strategy, first person shooter, platformer or RPG, (and even before the player purchases or starts the game) the original programmers effectively outlined the playing universe for the player and what they are allowed to do and cannot do. Also the amount of time other programmers (besides the designers of the game) have devoted to compliment and experiment with the experience (extra maps and skins and other programmable add-ons). Some games even allow codes and leniency for GOD MODE which doesn’t surprise me when we compare Natural Law to our own intelligence and reality.

Edited September 22, 2007 by carrdero

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1390538' date='Sep 22 2007, 07:41 AM']Human Nature is the Law to evaluate ethical choices and these choices vary from individual to individual. When have you ever witnessed the “winds not blowing” or the clouds “not raining” or the sun “not shining” based on the ethical a moral choices of humans?
And “some things” may eventually be corrected through intelliegent manipulation or creation. These manipulations can come through very Unnatural means but one may still be hard pressed to prove them wrong, bad or evil.
Humans by [b][i]their[/i][/b] very behavior do not ascribe to Natural Law, that is why we have air conditioning and umbrellas.[/quote]
I now realize how much of an jerk you intentionally are. Read up a little on Arisototle, Plato, Thomas, and other philosophers and come to realize what Natual Law is, not the Law of Nature. Trying to discuss ethical concepts to you is like trying to explain tennis shoes to a sea slug.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1390553' date='Sep 22 2007, 08:38 AM']I now realize how much of an jerk you intentionally are. Read up a little on Arisototle, Plato, Thomas, and other philosophers and come to realize what Natual Law is, not the Law of Nature.[/quote]

I am familiar with those philosophers that you have referenced but I was just wondering, is there anyone that you could recommend to me that was born after the 20th century?

[quote]Anamoly writes: Trying to discuss ethical concepts to you is like trying to explain tennis shoes to a sea slug.[/quote]
If you want to discuss Human Law (behavior) we can discuss it but it will not be productive if one is trying to shoe horn Natural Law into human judgment and behavior. What a discussion like this will only reveal is that one believes that the creators of Natural Law were human (or behave or have ethical morals like humans) or that humans have invented God (or at least created their version of this BEing based upon their own or someone else's opinions or preferrences), both being conclusions that I do not expect anyone would want to reach.

Edited September 23, 2007 by carrdero

[Anomaly]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1391352' date='Sep 23 2007, 06:59 AM']I am familiar with those philosophers that you have referenced but I was just wondering, is there anyone that you could recommend to me that was born after the 20th century?
If you want to discuss Human Law (behavior) we can discuss it but it will not be productive if one is trying to shoe horn Natural Law into human judgment and behavior. What a discussion like this will only reveal is that one believes that the creators of Natural Law were human (or behave or have ethical morals like humans) or that humans have invented God (or at least created their version of this BEing based upon their own or someone else's opinions or preferrences), both being conclusions that I do not expect anyone would want to reach.[/quote]
Dude,
It's impossible to discuss things with someone who is making up their own langauage and cannot communicate with you. Especially you when you have arrogantly decided you are way more intelligent than the rest of humanity and do not need to utilize any human knowledge, thought, or ideas that have been developed over the breadth of human existence. I'm not really interested in playing in your personal fantasy world. The really sad thing is, you're playing an 8 year old's imaginary game, and we're trying to discuss death and life issues. There's a word to describe 'humans' like you, a physically mature person with mature mental facilities, but without the understanding, experience, or ability to comprehend the human society around them. Sociopath.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Anomaly