You just contradicted yourself. You said that my ‘heart’ decides what is and isn’t an obligation and then you say that I ‘decided’ that I don’t have an obligation to save a human life.

You don’t ‘DECIDE’ things with your heart. You ACT from your heart. It’s spontaneous. This is why I said that the survey about the heart is absurd. People are answering the survey with their MIND not their heart.

And that was my whole point of why Prager’s research is flawed.

Most people DON’T act to save others (and that includes religious people). That’s why we call the ones who do ‘heroes’.

This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with the mettle of the person in question.

Nope. I don’t deem myself better then anyone. Its not MY or the PREGNANT WOMAN’S decision to make. Human life intrinsically is sacred and no person has to right to take a life.

As far as editing, perhaps if you asked rather then assumed you might learn something. The Original (Old) Testament) – the five books of Moses are written in one scroll. There are strict rules that one scroll must be scrupulously copied letter by letter from the original scroll. If one letter is slightly off then the whole scroll is deemed useless. They read the scroll every single week to make sure that every letter is where it should be. So there is a strict system as to how a scroll can be written. In fact it takes a ton of studying and dedication to become a scribe.

Abra,

Now you are just playing with semantics. You and your heart are one and the same. The point is that you are allowing your emotions to make decisions rather then using guidelines and values set forth in the Bible.

Using your intelligence and sense of right and wrong - Do you or don’t you believe that there is a moral obligation to save a human life?

What you miss here altogether is that I don’t even THINK in terms of moral obligations.

That’s a mental thing. That’s using your mind. That's all I meant by that statement.

When I see someone in need of help I don’t stop and think to myself. “Hmmm? Do I have a moral obligation to help them?”

There is no thought process at all. I react instantly and spontaneously from my heart. There’s no need to even think about mental concepts like “Was I taught to do this?”

All I need to do is be who I am and everything else will take care of itself.

Earlier you wrote:


This is where we disagree. If I act on my heart I will always do the right thing. No questions asked.

I don't need to stop and think about what some ancient book might have to say about it.

We just view the world from two entirely differnet perspectives is all.

No, IT TOOK not takes, unless there are still people writing on scrolls. And your avoiding the point.


"If there was a god, don't you think that paper would have been invented sooner and by a Christian for record keeping purposes?"
Instead the Chinese invented it, unless the christians have taken it upon themselves to blur that fact. Which really isn't surprising since the whole book you claim to live by is full of contradictions and blurs.

Absolutely today it is still written on parchment. In fact that is one of the rules for it to be valid – it must be written on parchment. Paper would invalidate it. Education is a wonderful thing. ;-)

Like I said, please ask rather then assume.

I for one am done this debate. Neither one of us will agree PreciousLife. We have both been raised to think differently. Not to say one is better, just different.

Okay, Abra, Let me simplify it then. Is every human being obligated to save another human being if that human being is in danger?

I hope you don’t answer that when the situation comes up that’s when you will decide. Do you believe we need to teach our kids right from wrong?

Free country and all that jazz my friend. However this wasn’t about agreeing or disagreeing this was about how we form our opinions about what is right or wrong. I believe Prager made an incredible logical distinction HOW people form their sense of right and wrong. It’s worth thinking about in an honest fashion.

since you want to get nit-picky I said scrolls not parchment."unless there are still people writing on scrolls"
and yet you side stepped the pertinent question yet again. Why didn't Christians invent it?

That would have made sense if there was an all powerful being right?

Oh boy. My friend the scrolls have been written ON parchment from when they were first given at Sinai 3000 years ago and still continue to be written on scrolls of parchment today.

Inventing paper doesn’t help us here because an authentic Bible can only be written on scrolls of parchment. Paper is worthless in regards to keeping the accuracy of the Original (old) Testament. I hope this ends the paper discussion. ;-)

Simple answer - No.

More complex answer – it all depend on who the people are.



The situation will definitely dictate what the right thing to do will be. Nothing is absolute.



Yes, but not without explanation. Teaching them what’s right and wrong without explaining to them why it’s right or wrong isn’t teaching, that’s just dictating.

And so to just teach them “Because God says so” is a cop out. If you can’t justify the morals yourself then you have no business teaching them to your kids. And if you can justify the morals yourself, then clearly you never needed the Bible in the first place.

I also believe that the very best way to teach children write from wrong is to ask them what they would want others to do if they were in such-and-such situation. There is no better way to teach people good morals than to have them view the situation from the “victim’s” point of view.

That makes them see the value of the golden rule.

This world is not perfect. No human being can be perfect. No law can be perfect, and that includes religions that claim to have “God’s Laws”.

You know very well that I do not believe that the Bible represents any divine being. The Bible is the work of man and it contains flaws. Huge flaws.

I would notteach my children that the morals I teach them are the laws of any God. That can only serve to give them the false impression that they have something that is from the highest order of authority. I don’t want to them to think like that. I want them to respect that all men are responsible for their own morality.

Actually no.... it is not an emotional response on my part...those were the facts...

Your statement is that I am not compassionate because I disagree with your judgemental statement that a pregnant woman, through being raped, 'SHOULD' adopt the child out.

I am saying unless you have been in that situation, you have absolutely no moral, nor relative place with which to cast judgements..

I am far from emotional over the issues... I have more insight into how all options for a woman who has been traumatised by violence are presented, and so, have a much clearer and MORE objective view on the matter.

The ole' 'emotional woman' trump card won't wash here, PreciousLife, and once again you judge, that which you have no idea of.

1) Your profile isn't private, so why shouldn't he click on your profile?
2) If you clicked on his profile, you would see that he's Jewish and therefore, quoting Jesus to him isn't going to have the desired effect.

Hi Spider!!! Long time no spar!!!

Your questions...your insistance that you must have experianced certain events in order to have an opinion on certain topics, that is emotions trumping reason. And please don't play the "gender" card, it's a dead give away that you know you are on shaky ground and you want to shut up the opposition (PreciousLife) by accusing him of discrimination.

Spoken like a true male, thanks Spider...actually no... PreciousLife brought up the emotion word not me... and also who gets to decide where compassion is supposed to lie?
The Unborn child?

Or the woman carrying the product of a rape?

If your daughter was raped, you would MAKE her carry full term, give birth, and then adopt the child???

I wonder......

He said emotional...that's the point of the thread. Humans can be ruled by their emotions, it has nothing to do with gender. That was you playing the "gender" card. It was a logical fallacy, either "Strawman" or "Hasty Generalization".

If my daughter were raped, it would be her decision to make what happened to the child. I would hope that she could value her child, my grandchild's life enough to put it up for adoption, raise it herself or allow me or her mother raise it. But if she choose abortion, I can't "MAKE" her do anything. I know what my advice would be if she asked for it.

I love that about you Spider.... shape the thread, mould it, and form it, to suit what you need to ..it's definitely a gift.

And the disagreeing, with titles, and labels.... always a favourite of mine.... categorise....homogenise.... generalise... the three henchmen of debate... classic... I love it!!! Thankyou.

On a more serious note, I sincerely appreciate your response on my question , re : daughter, and choices, and respect your views.

well i feel that the article is very interesting and thought provoking. i have read Prager before.

i agree that the heart is an unreliable guide regarding right and wrong and that there has to be a higher standard than what each individual's heart suggests is right.

Stalin's heart was a dank sick place...from the same general point of view which brought the Armenian massacre and the suicide bomber.

if we are to find ourselves on the path to enlightened morality then it is imperative that we examine those who have discussed and wrestled with these issues in our past. learn from them or sages, leaders, philosophers, and teachers. this includes the bible as one of the earliest and most thoroughly analyzed source of such thought. i believe those who have attempted to work through the question of right and wrong as a universal truth are divinely inspired.

in the three examples given in the article my opinion runs along the following lines.

i feel that the moral teachings of biblical literature and commentary can be used to support opposing opinions on each of the three examples cited. so it is a question of how these opinions and arguments wash out on balance as to the best course of action.

there is nothing wrong with gay or lesbian couples supporting each other in a loving and nurturing way. i don't see any reason or biblical justification to demonize them. the world has always been full of alternative lifestyles and these have not resulted in societal breakdown in the past. the biblical preference for male-female familial relationships is not in any serious danger. if we sincerely value human life then we must sincerely consider how to support all human life.

nothing inherently wrong with animal testing in my point of view as long as it is done in such a way that the animals are appropriately cared for and not gratuitously harmed. a great deal of thought has gone into regulation of animal and human testing and rightfully so. and we can do more.

in the case of abortion the issues are likewise well known. if we are to value human life we must balance the life of the parents - with the proto-life of the embryo and developing fetus. this balance in my view is rightfully tilted heavily in favor of the mother and father and their pre-existing family. although the baby also deserves some consideration. i view life as developing at conception but do not value this developing life as equivalent to the lives of the parents or siblings until the embryo is more fully developed. whose consideration? why the parents with their family and spiritual advisors of course and no one else.