I’ve always been rather curious myself as to whether the blatant incongruity of both the attitudes of Left and Right towards 'Abortion and Capital punishment'

I've long thought that the positions held by each end of the political spectrum have less to do with reason and principle than with gender instincts. If you realize that the right wing is driven by primitive masculine values and the left by primitive feminine values, all becomes more clear. Most of the standard political positions of the two wings make more sense in this light. Thinking about evolved primitive gender roles and the instincts associated with those roles is a taboo subject in this politically correct age, but it can yield some insights.

I can't tell if you're being coy with me or not. — Thorongil

I'm being a bit coy. When I said that about the Fall, what I mean was that people have amply demonstrated their capacity to be terrible. We are terrible, and we didn't get that capacity from God, or not from God. We are just that way. The best role I can give to God in all this is that of appalled by-stander. Man didn't come from God; it's the other way around. In God we have projected our most superlative selves, something that we have not been, are not now, and likely never will be.

Alas.

You sound more sad than bitter here, BC O:)

Surely Christ in the flesh was a unique emanation, and wasn't always there, right? What did Mary birth then if that's not the case? — Heister Eggcart

The Word became flesh at a certain point in time, yes, but the Word itself didn't come into being.

Wouldn't it be possible to create nothing? — Heister Eggcart

An ambiguous question. In some sense, the world is nothing, in comparison to God, just as God is nothing in comparison to the world. St. John of the Cross says this somewhere. But this is to use the word "nothing" in a relative, not in an absolute, sense. In another sense, the answer is no, as God couldn't not create something other than himself. Or better: he could not have not intended to create something other than himself.

I'm being a bit coy. When I said that about the Fall, what I mean was that people have amply demonstrated their capacity to be terrible. We are terrible, and we didn't get that capacity from God, or not from God. We are just that way. The best role I can give to God in all this is that of appalled by-stander. Man didn't come from God; it's the other way around. In God we have projected our most superlative selves, something that we have not been, are not now, and likely never will be. — Bitter Crank

Alright, well carry on, then, Feuerbach.

The Word became flesh at a certain point in time, yes, but the Word itself didn't come into being. — Thorongil

I feel as though language breaks down at this point. If the Word did not come into being, then how does it follow that the Word be-came flesh? If Christ is God, and vice versa, surely God cannot create, somehow, more of himself, right? You just stated that the Word (God, correct?) did not come into being, which to me says that God did not facilitate his own act of being to be. In my mind, this means that God can only create the world. So, how does Christ fit into that?

If you are looking for a slightly deeper explanation, you will find it in the creation myth, which holds that woman was created from the rib of a man. Hence, it was held that the union of a man and woman is a return to the unity before man was divided and woman created.

At first there was only one human, but God decided that his creation in his own image needed a companion, so it was written in the Zohar, the taking of his rib signifies the breath of his soul, which moves between the light and dark. But as his soul was split, then just as God first separated the light from the dark, the light of the human soul became man, and the dark of the human soul became woman.

As the division of the human soul was before the great fall from perfect grace, the union of man and woman in blessed state restores the original unity of light and dark. The emanation from that pure union creates a new virgin conception, which is why the conceived child is purely innocent. There is no question, in such interpretation, that the child is part of God's order at the moment of conception, due to conception's mystical connection to the creation.

As to whether the rib was physically taken to make a woman, the answer from such tradition is no, it is a metaphor to explain the division of the soul to children, who cannot imagine or understand the deep before the separation of light and dark on the first day, or the consequences of such division.

then how does it follow that the Word be-came flesh? — Heister Eggcart

It "took on flesh" is another way of putting it.

God cannot create, somehow, more of himself, right? — Heister Eggcart

Yes, this is why the Council of Chalcedon declared that Christ had two natures, one human and one divine. Moreover, he was both fully human and fully divine, not partially one and partially the other. So God does not create more of his own nature, he takes on a human nature in the man Jesus. The Word is a reference to Christ's divine nature; to God in other words.

If Christ is God, and vice versa, surely God cannot create, somehow, more of himself, right? You just stated that the Word (God, correct?) did not come into being, which to me says that God did not facilitate his own act of being to be. In my mind, this means that God can only create the world. So, how does Christ fit into that? — Heister Eggcart

I think these kinds of questions can benefit considerably from the perspectives of comparative religion and cultural history. For example in Vedanta, which is the philosophical school of Hinduism, one of the fundamental tenets is that the individual self (atma) is a counterpart to, or epitome of, the self of the Universe (Brahman). The task of the spiritual life is to overcome the attachment to 'the flesh' (i.e. the sensory phenomenal world) and realise the identity of the self and Supreme, by which immortality is gained.

According to current teachers of 'Christian spirituality' (who are generally not mainstream or particularly orthodox in their approach), when Christ speaks of 'I and the Father' being One, this denotes the 'unitive vision' that is not far in spirit from the non-dualist (advaita) vedanta.

You can make the case that early Christianity was much nearer in spirit to this kind of mentality than to the later dogmatic formulations that were developed by (for example) the Protestant reformers. It can be argued that by their stage in history, the tradition had become so freighted with conceptual baggage and symbolic meaning that it's original intent had become quite obscured, Throughout that period, however, there are the occasional seers and sages who realise the original intent of the teaching, but I think overall they're outnumbered.

There's an interesting book on Amazon by Richard Rubin, called When Jesus became God (http://a.co/b20aGfE), which looks at the history of when the dogma of Christ's divinity was formulated in around the 4th Century. There are also some interesting studies made on the basis of the rediscovery of the gnostic scriptures which likewise throw a very different light on early Christianity.

So I think it would benefit you to study some of these alternative perspectives. So much of our thinking is trapped in the 'believer vs atheist' dichotomy.

Hi Oysteroid, good to see you've joined! (Y)

Hey Wayfarer! Thanks. I don't know if I'll be too active, but I might pop in now and then.

Golder rule of ethics: Do onto others as you want them to do onto you. I don't want to be killed, so killing others is unethical.

I am not an atheist so I can only speculate, but I would assume that not all atheists are pro-choice.

I don't see how God can be considered to care about life and children considering he lets children live in poverty, warzones and starve to death every day.
He allows children to grow up in abusive homes and be bullied, die of cancer etc.

Aborting a child before evidence of sentience is probably more humane than inflicting this on it.