By naming "the consciousness" it seems you are describing the sense of self - the thoughts I have, my awareness of who I am. Of course my thoughts, as being conscious thoughts, happen in the brain. My thoughts appear to me to be located behind my eyes. But there is more to my consciousness than my thoughts, because also the gut and the heart are contributors to the spirit's sense of ease.

Time isn't a property, it is a concept. Even in absence of changes to observe, a mind that is observing will still conceive of the concept.

Time is a perception of a rate of change, most ultimately the lifespan. It is a concept useful to humans who organise, to manage their actions and ensure that they remain in control of circumstances when a future (anticipated) situation arrives. For that reason, the sun has traditionally been useful as a dictation of regular patterns of light and darkness, hot and cold.

I don't know if there are any creatures who don't perceive of time, even if they don't think much of it. Babies don't seem to think much about time, that's for sure, because they have not learned the rhythms and patterns of life. They wake and sleep whenever, they don't dwell on past trauma and they don't plan on pooping as soon as they leave the house. Does that mean time does not exist in their world? .. of course it doesn't, because time exists merely as a result of someone conceiving of it, and that comes naturally as we grow to recognise patterns of need and provision. Also, animals can quickly learn to anticipate regular feeding times (birds can identify such patterns after only two events!).

Because it is a concept, it isn't a thing that exists by itself as a rock does. Time only exists as a result of someone having conceived of it. Change happens regardless of someone measuring the rate of change as time.

Hi Wheatley! .. one thing that you might find interesting, is the relationship between honesty and intelligence. Creativity is one thing, but when it comes to deciding which creative ideas to believe or discard, that is where honesty is key. Intelligence really is just a measurement of how accurately a person can answer a question (ie: truth). That is why most people are actually not that good at discerning truth. They allow their desires to blind them, and hence they are unable to recognise when a person is speaking with a deceitful motive. This aspect of intelligence is really valuable for detective analysis, but there is also that creativity aspect too, for example to imagine the motives of a criminal when those motives don't come naturally to the detective's own way of thinking.

Without an imagination you can’t plan an offensive, or calculate strategies to avoid potential dangers. — Yadoula

This is interesting!

All creatures without an imagination [are lacking] the ability to imagine potential future scenarios — Yadoula

I'm looking for an example of such a creature, so that I can consider the validity of this claim. As it is, of the examples you have given, I do not agree that a spider or a tree are lacking imagination, but rather you probably have arrived at that idea through having not empathised with their reasonings. I have worked with trees a fair bit, so I know their ability to reason for optimum growth. Similarly I have observed the personality in spiders when we make eye contact and they come to have comfort and intrigue about why a human is speaking to them. Also, have you ever observed their activity of feeding? In fact, it quite resembles the mentality of a hunter that is human.

without an imagination the creature can’t: design complex strategies. Can’t percieve how it’s own actions will effect external phenomenon. It can’t comprehend how to effect the actions of other decision making beings. — Yadoula

That is really interesting too, but it also shows that imagination grows. Children, as an example, begin as babies who simply observe. Then as they begin to learn functional differences, they begin to create with those elements. So imagination draws upon experience and knowledge as it is motivated by desire. But does that constitute consciousness? .. I have a hard time accepting that, because the word "conscious" describes a mind that is self-aware, and we need to accept that a baby may be conscious even before having developed imagination.

On the day this spider evolves to have an imagination, it will be able to plan the future — Yadoula

.. I just need to make sure that you haven't got the wrong idea about this, (because the moral rights of life in all forms is a core value to my philosophy that I cannot bear to compromise), so when you see a spider sitting on his web, do you think he hasn't reckoned that it is a good idea to put the web there because a, b or c, and that he should sit right in the middle of it because then he is best positioned in optimal proximity to any incidents across its breadth?

.. and furthermore, have you ever seen his heartbreak when his web is broken? .. do you understand why it is so traumatic to him?

You could say that the whole reason we have a conscious mind is TEACH the body how to better strategise. — Yadoula

That's interesting too! (Three's a charm ;)). I do think though, that consciousness is purely consequential of life and that it doesn't necessarily have a purpose. So I go even further at that, to say all living things are conscious, because they are aware of their self. Therefore, to be aware is not enough, because that would include a robot. Thus, it needs to have an awareness of it's own existence, with an intellect that is useful to it for managing the preservation of it's life. That is why the sleeping or concust brain is named "unconscious", - that is to say that it is not aware of itself in a capacity such that it can exercise intelligence.

The general question I suppose is why I have this weird conviction or premonition which is nearly supernatural based when I am usually very rational minded and logical (although I suffer from anxiety in general). No amount of reason has affected my fear and repression. This might relate to anyone leaving a strict religious experience behind and still feeling paranoid about the strictures they no longer believe. — Andrew4Handel

You are suffering from an unresolved cognitive dissonance, in which the conscience is participating, that empowers the conviction to feel "supernatural" - it isn't coming from your logic.

I found the pleasure I got from self pleasure was conflicting with my religious beliefs in a way because the religion was so forbidding but this was like free pleasure. — Andrew4Handel

So the religion has been the environment wherein your conscience has formed, having adopted core values and attitudes reflecting the culture that you naturally aspired to as the child.

I left Christianity and stopped believing in it. I became atheist then agnostic. But I have never recovered from my "superstitious" or paranoid attitude towards sexual release. — Andrew4Handel

.. and there will be other residues of your faith, too, that remain with you, despite that you have been driven beyond accepting the ideologies that conflict with your better sense.

I think I would feel less guilty having sexual experiences mutually and in a loving relationship. — Andrew4Handel

Of course, that is the natural way to express love, to allow them into that private place that everyone knows is off-limits. In fact, the natural purpose of sex without any social indoctrination, produces the hesitancy that you describe wrestling with.

sometimes I find an exquisite attraction to a person you find beautiful/handsome/lustful can be very painful and unfulfilled desires can make one consider death. But I don't know how widespread this is. — Andrew4Handel

Just keep in mind that it is only possible because of discontentment.

What I was interested in here though is analyzing the nature of what seems irrational and superstitious and why I have just this one superstition and no others. — Andrew4Handel

With what you have said about your preference for men, it seems that there is a great potential to lead you into a severe addiction if the exploit is successful. I said severe, because it would become a potent wedge between yourself and God if you were to casually expect it as a natural right. Also, it is important to notice that the punishment for offences has the fingerprint of the adversary, that counts toward developing your disgust of what you believe the character of God to be. If they can succeed in getting you to think "God is cruel because He punishes me for doing the thing that He made me to do naturally", then you become the embittered anti-Christian who, having such a rich knowledge of scripture, can do much harm in the world. You might consider 1 John 4:18.

people still claim religion is the solution — Andrew4Handel

You know, religion is the problem when it says things that aren't true as though they are true, and then come to oppose the truth in the name of God. But Jesus said that it is the truth that would set us free, and to be set free from what? .. the blind ignorance of the truth, precisely! (But the human problem is a human problem, and religion is merely a symptom of, and instrument for, that problem).

I am a supporter of medication however but I don't know if there is a pill to banish paranoia and guilt. — Andrew4Handel

There can be, but it will come at a cost (whereby other problems will creep in), and it isn't a guaranteed solution anyway. As with any mental illness, it is a combination of environment and philosophy that produces a discomfort that ultimately is unacceptable. The solutions are found sometimes by removing the environmental harms (such as bad friends, bad tv, games, porn, drugs etc), so that the environment then supports healthy mentality to grow - or, if the mentality is not producing acceptable results from an environment that it should be able to do so in, then the way of thinking needs to be adjusted, by identifying the values, expectations, attitudes etc that empower the erroneous interpretation (iow, "counselling"). Medication is prescribed in hope that the brain's chemical environment will support it to function in a specific way that subdues the undesired symptoms, but they really do not understand what makes the way of thinking change in a person, because that is spiritual.

I think we as people and societies probably don't know what the source of our sexual dynamics is and how much of it is cultural or subconscious or inherited from religion or caused by capitalist commodification etc — Andrew4Handel

I oppose saying such things. You only need to look at children to see how pliable they are, and that society forms them, through various means, to develop tastes and then to cling to their identity through instruments of ridicule or wrath, invoking pride. You were 14 when you became aware of it, but if you look further back you will remember things people said that exercised your thinking to explore and draw conclusions that became axiomatic to your decisions in later explorations.

Well, it's interesting to see you discussing things so openly!

it seems that in fact we are passengers along for the ride as our brains decide what actions to take. — dazed

The soul is the article of interest for the spirits, because it is the ego that combines all faculties (brain, gut, heart, conscience, memory, name) into a person who perceives that his life is his own life.

It is the soul that, (depending how it has been formed and its placement in relation to the world), summarily goes toward the success of God or Satan in leading it to follow their directions. That is why Christian scriptures emphasise so greatly to be separated from the world, not loving the things that the world loves, being "transformed" by "renewing" the mind. It literally is about bringing the soul into freedom and safety from the adversary, the destroyer.

Also, do not forget that Jesus would have healed anyone who was with him who had suffered brain damage (eg Luke 22:50-51), and that is God's vision for the end of the war (ie: John 14:12, Romans 8:20-21).

The spirit is the way of thinking. When we make decisions about which ideas to believe (as it happens every time an idea comes to us - whether by words in direct conversation like this, or through media like books, tv, music, imagination etc), then if we choose to stay thinking in the way of the truth, then our thinking is being led by the Spirit of Truth (AKA: The Spirit of God, John 14:15-21).

However, in order to stay with the truth, we need a sufficient reason to follow it (as opposed to following the desire that would put us at odds with the truth).

Therefore, the judgement already happens in the moment we make the decisions (John 3:18-21). That is how people get cut off from God and eventually come to grope around in darkness while wrestling with the efforts He is making to bring them back to the authentic knowledge of Him. Their soul already is enslaved by sin at that stage (Romans 7:14), because they aren't thinking in the way of the truth. But their body is still functional, their way of thinking is still capable of coming into purity (notice that word: purity - of the knowledge of truth, to be thinking truthfully without compromising it. Jesus speaks about unclean spirits in Matthew 12:43-45, Mark 5:12-15, John 15:3 for example, which is to say that any demonic spirit is not pure - it has enslaved the mind to think in a way that is corrupted, fallacious, intellectually dishonest).

So this is how the story of Lazarus and the rich man shows that after death the rich man who had died while having been severed from Christ (eg: Matthew 25:45, 1 John 3:17, 1 John 4:16), and he calls to Lazarus to bring him some water, but Abraham says there is a great chasm set so that one cannot pass over to the other. That is because our name is all based upon who we are and what we have done (Proverbs 22:1). When I say that our name is our way of thinking, it is the reputation that I call to mind - not just the sound of the syllables, it is "who I am" according to my knowledge of myself and what the world's opinion might be. Once a person's body has expired, there is no way they can do any further in reality to change their name, but as long as a person is able to manifest into reality, they are able to create evidence in reality of who they are that is useful to The Holy Spirit as He is healing us and giving us confidence to stand boldly in the knowledge that we are righteous in His sight because of our devotion to following Him (John 14:6).

Now at this stage, realise that the person who is demonically possessed does not understand the truth of reality such that they would act with care and responsibility toward creation - thus they act irresponsibly and cause all sorts of suffering because their way of thinking has convinced them to think there is no cost to bear for it. But when they do finally come to realise that they have done evil upon the earth, they are ashamed and full of self-pity at their foolishness. That is true torment when they wish they had done better while they could - and that is like a worm that eats them up (Mark 9:48). That realisation actually can happen before the body expires, btw, and when that happens, there is an opportunity in Jesus Christ for new life in the covenant of baptism (Romans 6:4-7, 1 Peter 3:21).

The brain is only an instrument for the spirit. The soul in fact is responsible for the judgments that render it into the possession of the spirits. Brain doesn't determine personality, it is the spirit operating the brain and heart to lead the soul to act according to its intention.

The concept of the soul is integral to the judeo christian framework. It is the focal point for responsibility and human personhood. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny: — dazed

Yep. Keep digging into it - look at the root word in the scriptures, Hebrew נפש "nephesh". You are describing a concept that is prevalent in churches, that is essentially extra-biblical lore, and you are naming it "the Judeo-Christian" idea of soul. It isn't beneficial to do that, because it will prejudice your discussions with other Christians, as myself for example, and your reading of the messages that the writers were expressing through the bible.

Pure morality doesn't do that, and that is what compels questions such as yours and those who become vegetarian when they realise that the way of the world, that everybody grows into, really doesn't make sense when questioned about fairness. Over time, human rights have developed internationally (in general) to a point of saying that all humans are entitled to a basic fair treatment of sorts, regardless of their differences. But it hasn't always been that way. For example, racism, sexism, religionism etc - all have been cultures of thinking that did not put humans on a pedestal for the mere fact that they are human, as you are finding.

Therefore, the key is in the definition of similarity - where does the judge draw the line of inclusion to those rights? .. and by default, a human does not have any awareness of that question at all. A baby just eats whatever is on the spoon, but there comes an age when the child learns that the food they are eating has also been the chickens they feed and the lambs they pat at the park. In that moment, the parents are responsible for guiding the child into immorality - by training the child's mind to justify the double-standard. It also would have been the case for when a white child was playing in the yard with a black child in America's times of slavery - because the children naturally do not see race as racism, they see people that are light skinned and dark skinned.

So in order to justify the actions against one class that you would defend against in the case of another class, one has to exercise empathy. They have to see that what is happening is not a pleasant thing, and they need to empathise with the one who is suffering. They choose to either identify with them as a same kind, or regard them as inferior to themselves, and that is why through history many theories have been produced in order to justify the inferiority to those who empathise with animals, such as for example the idea that animals don't feel pain, so it is ok to beat dogs and whip horses, or that goldfish have a 5 second memory so it is ok to shut them up in the corner of the room their whole life. Utimately, all it comes down to is "I want to do this, so I have to find a reason to explain my actions to those who would question them". It then becomes a battle of wills of morality versus immorality, where in this case the animals can't vocalise their own views, wherein their advocate's relative intelligence, demeanour (authority) and sense of self-power (cost vs wealth) are factors determining the ultimate victor in a disagreement/discussion of the ethics of it.

AFAIC, being vegetarian, morality almost always falls on the side of the animal rather than the human who is exploiting them, and thus I use my vocabulary to explain my reasoning and to call fallacious reasoning into light. As you can guess, from my language saying that humans in their proper form are naturally moral, I do not place humans who have fallen into a state of justifying immorality, on a pedestal - but rather I say they are of a fallen mind, in fact having a mind less respectable than the mind of an animal (whose minds I find wholly reasonable and decent).

Seems that 'God' allows this cosmic evil and/or the Devil, which allowance can't be approved and thus prevents the following of 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

It's cunning, how it appeals to our desire to blame a higher authority - because that is a natural human response. In order to be a valid complaint, one has to prove that the authority has been sinful to allow the evil - because without sin, evil does not exist. A bad thing in absence of sin is only bad because of a mistake or mishap - and then it is not an injustice, it is only sad.

When you look at examples individually, however, it is clear that the human choice is what empowers evil. If our faith and knowledge has been made perfect, we would be consistently choosing to empower God instead of evil, and that is precisely why the cosmic war goes on. Where on Earth, this day, is the person who has such a perfect knowledge and faith? Why? (iow, is it truly God's fault or humans' fault).

.. So when you say that God allows the cosmic evil, it is only partially true, because the human is expressing his preference to follow the lure of the cosmic evil when he chooses that which appeals to his desires instead of the wisdom of God.

Ultimately, we have to acknowledge that no human is born with desires that empower sin, but rather it is through the exploitation of those enslaved by sin in the world, that children are led and pressured to assimilate.

Do you see how children are shielded from the knowledge of evil at a young age, and as age advances, the world invites them to participate? This happens because ultimately, the sinful world is sick: it suffers from a cognitive dissonance wherein it admires the innocence of children but it also is convicted by their conscience in light of that innocence that it is eager to shape the children into it's sinful form.

So, really, it is because the whole world is of the propensity to do sin, that evil is allowed within it.

Something is valuable when it has the potential of being appreciated. — Congau

Yes, of course. In morality, it is the life of the one who is living that is appreciated by it, and it is exclusively its complaint that its life has been mistreated, that morality is concerned with.

the fetus is "assaulting" the will of the female individual — Gus Lamarch

This appears to be contradicted by your previous comment:

It resulted by the individual choice of the female, and only by her choice. — Gus Lamarch

Do you accept that contradiction? .. that a fetus does not assault the mother by being present because the mother's actions caused it to be formed?

I am a native English speaker.

the food in your refrigerator is a potential human. A pile of un-decomposed trash is. — frank

You are saying absurdity, you have to explain.

What's potential, exactly? — Echarmion

Potential is from the word "potent", meaning a thing that can make a big impact when it is activated, but whose impact is presently dormant or unrealised. It also does not guarantee that the impact will be big, because it depends upon the optimal release.

As an example, petrol is a potential source of explosive power, but only if it is ignited, and only if its ignition occurs where it has vaporised with sufficient oxygen.

If you think it’s wrong to murder people because you think they are valuable in themselves, it would also be wrong to kill potential people. — Congau

I can see what you are saying in this, and I just want to suggest giving consideration to the idea of what a person is. As I had mentioned to Banno, personhood is of recognising a person, as the word personality describes the person's expression, where personal rights are recognised according to the intrinsic value that being a person has.

A person is one who has an individual right to have their views recognised in law, to express that they suffer and plead for justice.

Personhood is, therefore, the fundamental qualifier for standing, when bringing a moral complaint.

The ones who do not recognise the right of a fetus to have a complaint, do not recognise that the fetus is a person. They qualify this by identifying anthropological qualities that the fetus lacks, that justifies their inability to grant empathy to it, as a person. Going beyond human beings, the same applies to animals, where dogs are more emotionally expressive than chickens, therefore the idea of killing a dog for food is more controversial than the chicken because it is easier to anthropomorphise the dog's behaviour than the chicken's, thereby to empathise with it personally.

But to do that, the one who quantifies the value of the dog as being more than the chicken, is showing favouritism in judgment. To judge without partiality, one would recognise the chicken has an equal moral right to complain about being killed for food, as a dog would.

In showing that there is a difference between intrinsic value and perceived value, I want to bring you to consider how far we should go with impartiality in judgement, by showing you that insects have an awareness of self, of danger, a will to survive - and yet their personality (though being distinct and strongly expressed), is not so much observed through facial expressions and voices. Then, of course, the plant - quite a difficult creature to personify, because of its maleability - it can be split, cloned, grafted etc. So one entity can become two entities by striking root of a cutting, and two entities can become one entity by grafting. Yet, it demonstrates vitality, suffering, intelligence - all proof that the force of life expresses itself through them, but do they have self-awareness (ie: soul)?

Then, you can see that morality exercised without partiality really cannot give preference to one person's rights over another on the basis of the potential of that person, because doing so would be perverting justice for the preferences of the judge!

I think it is good though, that you have mentioned the fetus' potential to be recognised as a person - because a fetus (untampered with) naturally will appear to be a person, as time progresses. Therefore it proves that the fetus is in fact a person who is developing personality, even if the one (or a law) who does not value him as a person cannot see that he is in fact a person.

as the fetus is being carried by her, — Gus Lamarch

How did that happen? .. Did it result from the choice of the fetus, or the mother?

it's not categorized as murder. — Gus Lamarch

Murder is simply categorised as taking life from another, especially where it is intentional or violent, and more especially where it is premeditated.

Perception of ownership (by a murderer or a law maker) does not negate the validity of a moral complaint by the one who was murdered.

Consider and answer this question therefore: if the fetus who is to be aborted, rather would live, does the fetus have a right to request a safer environment? Does it have the power to move to a safer environment? Given that it has no opportunity to move to an environment where it can be kept safe until the age of independence, why do you not say it is enslaved and held under the threat of murder?

replaces inquiry — Banno

That is not the purpose of my having given reference to material for further consideration.

If you think that evil minds, evil spirits, or even the devil himself, are devoid of creativity... you need to look again. — staticphoton

Well, yes ok, but that is different from what I have said though, so it really does show that we aren't going to achieve much good by continued discussion.

What you said here is a bit like the statement that Jesus said "when the devil lies, he speaks his native language because he is a liar and the father of it" - which means to say that even though the devil can say things that are true, it isn't said for the purpose of telling the truth.

Just as evil can be creative, it isn't creativity for the purpose of creating ("the thief comes for nothing other than to steal, kill and destroy").

When a man is confronted with a fork in the road he makes a decision based on many things such as desires, capacity to evaluate consequences, tolerance to risk, moral adherence, etc. — staticphoton

Yes, both sides are aware of that. It is the subject's ignorance of the mechanism of his decision, that puts him at risk of making poor decisions. Why does he make a poor decision?

I don't believe that evil and good forces are wrestling for control of the joystick of his mind, — staticphoton

Yep, it's just as I mentioned, axiomatic. That's why you won't enter the path into knowledge of the cosmic struggle, to understand why people become demonically possessed, agents of deceit.

I believe that man is fully responsible for his actions. — staticphoton

Well, you can only think so if you don't agree that sin takes the mind captive into slavery, but it is obvious that people do get stitched up in denial of truth, lying, and being unable to express themselves freely because of sin.

The bible tells of a time before sin, when surely man was responsible for his own actions. But ever since sin has been here, it has been an adversary to us (Genesis 4:7), and the tragedy of life is that we, mortals, are born with zero experience and wisdom regarding sin, while sin has thousands of years of experience of finding corruption in every single person that has ever lived.

I seriously doubt that "...But the evil spirit made me do it..." will be a valid excuse on judgment day. — staticphoton

No, it probably won't because the next question will be "why did you believe what he said but not what I said?", and because God has wisdom, he will have ensured that you won't be able to say that you didn't have a chance to listen. So it is wise to think about those things early and see whether we can't receive His judgement sooner (John 3:17-21, Ecclesiastes 9:4-5).

I cannot pretend to convince you to believe otherwise, as your faith has to be uncompromising to function.
But the meaning of goodness is acquired in the "movement" from bad to good. Good is what happens when men rise above adversity in times of difficulty... "the worse of times bring the best in men" was not stated without precedent. Creativity is what happens when men strive to overcome hardship, difficulty and need are the engine that moves ideas and imagination.

And although it is true that justice has seen fluctuations through time, the trend from the beginning to now has moved towards improvement. You reject that but that is how I see it.

I'm going to step down from the discussion at this point, as neither of us is ready to concede, but I wish you my best. — staticphoton

So before our conversation is over, I see that I haven't clearly shown you the difference between evil and bad. I say this because what you are speaking about comes from a view of the world that does not see the spiritual forces of evil and good that are behind human actions.

When you use the example of hardship, difficulty and need as being bad things that are a driving factor for creativity, and the overcoming of that bad is good: that is acceptable, logical and true in my view, but it doesn't quite reach to address the message of what this thread is about: that (cosmic) evil creates bad, and (cosmic) good is at war with it for life's sake.

Everything I have said about justifying evil, has not been said in context of the bad that you have spoken of, and that I have found acceptable. It has been spoken of in context of the cosmic forces of good and evil that vie for dominance in the mind. And that is an important difference to understand.

I have said that if the world gave no place for cosmic evil in the mind, then all that remains is good, and there is still ample creativity in that setting. Further to that, I said that (cosmic) good is the only reason creativity exists, and that (cosmic) evil is only a destructive force.

While I speak hypothetically of a perfect world in which every mind has learned to not give evil a hold over it, in that world where the spiritual environment is only good, there is still opportunity for hardship, difficulty and need (IOW: bad can still exist in the absence of evil). This is made possible in my use of language because "bad" is a description of a thing that desire would prefer to change.

To give an example: a child gets a new toy and instantly breaks it. It is bad because the toy is broken, and therefore it needs to be fixed before it can be good again. But did evil inspire the child to break the toy? No, in fact it was creativity that caused it. So bad things do not always come from the manifestation of evil spirits. On the other hand, an evil spirit might create bad, such as for example siblings play and one begins to be offended that the other will not share, so in the absence of the (cosmic) good subduing it (consider Genesis 1:28), rage eventuates and he breaks his sister's toy. So evil does certainly cause bad to happen.

So in terms of conflict, I observe the spiritual reality as cosmic struggle - where the mind is the battleground. Each mind must decide whether it will think in the way of (cosmic) good or (cosmic) evil, that is to say that either the mind will choose to think in the mode of love or in the mode of sin. In my vocabulary, according to my understanding, sin is the cosmic adversary of all living things. I say it is cosmic because it can only manifest into the physical realm through the mind having yielded itself to the spirit that ensnared it by the lure of sin.

St. James wrote that we are tempted by our desires to do things that cut us off from righteousness, and then when we choose to go that way, it gives birth to sin. Then when sin has grown to maturity, it brings forth death. This is describing cosmic death, of course. There are many examples of people who develop their sinfulness well beyond maturity, and their body endures to old age. So the cosmic death that Christian philosophy speaks about, is an utter detachment from reality and truth.

When a person begins to do sin, they are hesitant, and their heart races, but then they become comfortable with it. Then their attitude toward it is so adjusted that their worldview is actually so disjointed from reality, that they say things that aren't true and they are blind to their hypocrisy. They are cut off from life spiritually, because they do not see reality in truth.

It is the cosmic evil that has the intention to corrupt our thinking and lure us into sin so that we become enslaved by sin to do the actions belonging to evil - as opposed to the cosmic force of good that works to bring our mind to an opportunity to break free from the power that sin has, so that by resisting the desire to do sin, we think according to the truth and increase in understanding of the truth.

So the spirit that operates within us is the result of our decision to do good or evil (to do what is right according to the truth, or to do sinful desires, requiring distortion of facts to evade conviction). That is the difference described in 1 John 2:9-10 for example, where the darkness conceals things whereas the light makes all things visible. We who are living without sin, actually have nothing to hide! .. and you can see a stark contrast between us and them with a very simple test. They are afraid of having their conversations recorded because their heart is wicked and they instinctively fear being exposed.

So, to bring it back into focus, consider who Jesus was, in Christian philosophy: the one who had no sin. Since He is without sin, we say that He was a pure expression of cosmic good, there was no expression of cosmic evil through Him. Yet, someone once asked the question of how his father Joseph would respond when He, as a carpenter, broke His first piece of timber. It is purely speculative, of course, to suggest that Jesus might have over-salted his food while learning to cook as a teenager, or that He might have coloured outside the lines as a four year old learning to draw. We don't have explicit information that He did make such natural mistakes, but it is a safe assumption because such things are natural for a human who is learning, and they can be said to be bad things, but not necessarily evil - the spirit in which they are done, and the spirit of the parent who would punish or forgive, that is where cosmic good and evil should be recognised as distinct from the carnal judgements we make - whether a thing is good as it is, or whether it is so bad that it should be changed into good, evil behaves such as in order to destroy, whereas love behaves so as to build-up.

Go on then, set out the circularity exactly. — Banno

You are hard work, Banno. And you aren't making it worth my while!

That's because not all unborn are living persons. — Banno

To say "that's because", is circular reasoning.

A blastocyst lacks sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality; — Banno

I don't agree with this. I only agree that you don't see it.

it is not a person. Over time, and with considerable support, it might become a person. But it isn't there yet. — Banno

Now, to use the word "person" as the qualifier for moral consideration, is shifting the goalposts again. I am saying any self-aware living entity has a right to resent unfair treatment, hence they have rights in moral consideration.

The word "person" is the root of the word "personality" - meaning that it is a type of life that expresses a character of individual personality - so that would most likely exclude plants (only because a personality is difficult to detect without animation). But I have also mentioned that I do recognise the moral rights of plants.

A person has moral standing because they have sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. — Banno

I disagree with this. A person has moral standing because the one judging his rights gives recognition to those rights. As I said, the best definition is found where a living entity has been transgressed so that he has a valid cause to complain "he did to me what he would not have done to himself".

Blood cells do not have sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality; hence they have no moral standing. — Banno

You are wrong to say that.

SO the question to you is when do we assign moral standing? — Banno

I am most interested to answer that question well. I need a bit more information from you before I can do that:

You assign it to blood cells; would you assign it to skin cells? Carcinomas? Nasal Mucus? Each contains living human cells. — Banno

Could you please show me proof of the claims "skin cells, carcinomas and nasal mucus contain living human cells".

And the philosophical point here is to question the coherence of your assignments of moral standing. — Banno

A living entity does not want to die, it wants to thrive. When a living entity has its life taken from it, it therefore loses a thing that it valued. It also may suffer in the process.

Morality is a law that prescribes how a judgement should be made for or against the complaint. The Golden Rule of morality is defined simply as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Therefore, when making a moral judgement about the suffering inflicted by one upon another, the judgement must consider "would the one inflicting the suffering complain or not, if the roles were reversed?" - and in so doing, objectively and without favouritism, morality proves whether an action is moral or immoral.

Justice is a worthy ideal to fight for, yet my point only being that although an epoch of justice for all might lay in a far future, I cannot think of a time in history when (in proportion with the number of humans living on the planet) the justice situation was better. — staticphoton

I appreciate your input, but I really don't think that is the best measurement. Any injustice is too much for me to be satisfied, but what we have in the present age is destruction and harm on scales that the world has never seen, that indeed would have seemed impossible before the industrial revolution .. so the responsibility upon justice, and thereby the gravity of it's failure, contributes to the measurement of my complaint and desire for better days.

As you step back in time it progressively diminishes, all the way to the point where it completely disappears with the early homo sapiens. — staticphoton

I don't accept that view, because as I have said, it depends upon culture and culture is constantly fluid. When I look at the records in the Old Testament of the bible, there are fluctuations of periods of righteousness and wickedness, where my complaint of the present is rooted in a knowledge that the world's knowledge of righteousness has seen better days. And, righteousness is paramount in justice, because those who exercise power in the name of justice are tasked to discern and judge right from wrong - but how can a judge who is not righteous, possibly discern righteousness? Of course their skepticism is weighted and biased to automatically presume that every person has wicked intentions just as they do, and thus comes the declaration of moral depravity "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is". You might see in the very words of official judgements in courts of law, judges gloating about how clever they are at evading possible recourse as they declare how they have managed to present the law in favour of their chosen party. It truly is a sickening reality.

Good and bad are relative terms... after all the bad is gone, the meaning of good would only last as long as our memories of the bad that once was. — staticphoton

But there would be no cause for complaint about any bad, so therefore it can only be said to be good.

It is a twisted logic that says bad is necessary for good. I don't buy it. As you know as well as I do, by removing all bad, only good remains, and even within the realm of all that is good, there is ample provision for creativity.

This "battle between good and evil", the light that emanates from a star to fill the darkness around it, the forces that attract from one place to another... that is what sets the universe in motion, and without that motion reality would not exist. — staticphoton

I think you have gone too far with that metaphor. For instance, light does not fill darkness, it travels through it. Only when the light encounters an object that it cannot penetrate, does it become known in the darkness.

I do understand what you are trying to achieve with the metaphor - that the relationship between gravitational bodies demonstrates "potential difference" (an electrical expression), where in terms of spirituality and life, it is the potential difference between people that provides for creativity. That is valid logic to follow, but I just caution against following the argument that says evil is necessary for good to be appreciated, because it only gives support to the idea that evil is somehow a thing to be appreciated. As soon as someone takes an axiomatic approach like that, they have yielded themselves to arguing for the sake of the argument rather than assessing the reality for what is true and right.

I say that in absence of evil, all people being individuals with individual strengths, interests and experiences, together are no less able to create than if evil is to exist. I say this because creativity itself is an expression of love, which is antithetical to evil. IOW, evil is, in truth, the force that destroys. In absence of evil, therefore, is potential for everlasting life - and it's interesting when you dig into the meaning of the text in Genesis 3:24, to find out what it means to have Cherubim and a sword of fire guarding the way to the tree of life. Only because Adam had guilt, could the flaming sword sear his conscience, and only because he had fallen, could he not stand in judgement of the one who would rob him of his access to life.

I grew up as a Christian, and although I can not confirm the strength of faith I have now, I have been immersed in all things “Christian” for many years. Growing up with this, I was taught many different reasons for the way that certain things were when it came to God, in attempt to explain them fully. These reasonings have left me confused now that I am older and processing things more deeply. One of the examples I often think about is that the explanation for “Hell” was that it was the place where people who do not believe in God go.
For example of where this belief may have come from, I look to Psalm 17 : “The wicked go down to the realm of the dead, all the nations that forget God.” The “realm of the dead” of course meaning hell- and the “nations that forget God” being the people that don’t recognize Him as their God. — whatsgoinon

It's a rich expression! "Forgetting God" - well, who is God? "God is love". Does the name Jesus convey love? Not necessarily, and why? 2 Peter 2:2 "The false teachers will introduce destructive heresies. Many will follow their depraved conduct, bringing the way of truth into disrepute."

So to know God is more than to know the proper pronunciation of His name. It is to understand His character, to know love. Those who forget love, go down into death - and it is more real than you have said, because it is a spiritual death. An instant spiritual death (Romans 7:9). Thus the Psalmist observes "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death" - richly describing the path he is on - a long vast channel where death is all around, casting it's shadow, because "many take the broad road that leads to destruction (they forget God, they abandon love)".

The idea that I was taught is such as this (ish):

1. Person learns about God.
2. They then get to decide whether or not they believe in Him and accept Him as their savior.
3. If said person accepts God as their savior while they are alive, they will then get into heaven.
4. This godly person will get into heaven.
— whatsgoinon

It smacks of the antichrist's doctrine. Jesus warns in Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone saying 'Lord! Lord!' to me will enter heaven. Only those who do my father's will: for many will say to me "See, I have done many great things in your name!" yet I will say to them "I never knew you, you cannot be with me, for you are a worker of iniquity".

He also said through Matthew 25 that the final judgement is merited upon morality and love, not belief: "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you were doing it to me" - so, "The righteous (morally justified) will go to everlasting life, but the wicked to everlasting punishment".

For those not so “lucky”-

1. Person learns about God.
2. Person decides whether or not they believe in Him and accept Him as their savior.
3. Said person does not accept God as their savior, they will not go to heaven, but rather sent to Hell.
4. As the Bible says, Hell is the lack of God and all things God created- — whatsgoinon

(Interjection upon point #4: .. could you please prove that the bible does in fact say that? .. I am pretty sure you won't find anything like that).

thus leaving hell to be a fiery burning apocalyptic like land with no sense of time or space.
5. Person goes to the place without God, aka Hell.

I just have so many questions when it comes to a faulty argument such as this. First of all, what about people that don’t know about God or haven’t had access to the bible or teachings about Him? — whatsgoinon

It is for God to make that decision, right? Remember that He is in the spiritual realm, and most people do not perceive the spiritual realm (because "unless a man be born of the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God". But we who are born again, we do see the spiritual realm. We recognise that words come from the spirit that is in a person, and "God is compassionate to all his creatures" - so it is unreasonable to think that there is any one person to whom God has not spoken. Just as in Matthew 25 mentioned above, they say to Him "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a naked or poor?" and just as He said to Philip "Have I been with you so long, and yet you don't know me? How can you say to me "Show us the Father"? .. whoever has seen me has seen the father". The issue then is whether they recognise Him, and remember the thief on the cross - we don't see that he recognised the father in Jesus, only that he chose to side with justice and truth against the mockery of what he saw as a righteous man wrongly condemned. That is the basis upon which Jesus said "today you will be with me in paradise".

So, His judgement is about justice, not belief. If it were about belief, you would be absolutely justified to say He is unjust, just as the antichrist would have it, and as he achieves through the false doctrines "bringing the way of truth into disrepute".

Beliefs are only as good as the behaviours they produce. If beliefs produce bad behaviours, they do not produce any good, and no judgement of justice can reward a person for them.

What about people that accepted Christ when they were really young, or didn’t exactly understand the religion fully? — whatsgoinon

I don't fully understand why you have asked this question - if what I have said already isn't enough, could you please provide some clarification?

What about the people that believe in their own Gods, do they go to the Christian Hell as well as whatever their religion considers to be the idealized end of time for them? — whatsgoinon

God is love, so any religion (including the counterfeits of Christianity) that teaches a person to oppose love, will cause them to be condemned in judgement. Ultimately though, it is God who makes those judgements - based upon the merits. A person who breaks a law cannot really be held responsible for breaking that law if they have been reasonably led to believe that it was lawful to do so (remember that the adversary operates through deceit - drawing us away from the truth that would keep us free from condemnation).

Basically, I’m just wondering how this could even be a justification for how Hell would maybe work. I haven’t read the bible from cover to cover, so I’m sure I am missing out on things. But does anyone have any thoughts to add to this? — whatsgoinon

Just as has already been said, hell is the existence being separated from God, who is love. So, to be cut off from love is to be cut off from God, and as you might already have found out, as we age there is less natural affection toward us from the world around us, so there are many people (and indeed, animals) who experience hell on earth in the present day, by definition

I'm going to PM you something too, a link to an online booklet about the gospel that is very good and I think it will be helpful for you to get the right idea about some things that most churches actually don't have right. I can't post the link in public though because of the forum rules.

The failure to establish union with God, failure to seek repentance, or failure to have faith can all resort in damnation to Hell and eternal suffering; however, why would God inflict suffering on someone who fulfills all three conditions above (establishes union with God, seeks repentance, and has faith)?

Job, a blameless being in God’s eyes, is put to the test when Satan challenges his faith to God. — PhilosophyAttempter

You actually have it pointing the wrong way: it is God who challenges Satan (Job 1:8), and it is Satan who puts Job to the test (Job 1:10-11).

God inflicts severe suffering onto Job: kills his family, ends his job, and destroys his health. — PhilosophyAttempter

Satan did the afflicting though, God was entirely passive, invoking the sin of envy from Satan by asking innocent questions (Romans 6:23, James 1:13).

I’m not quite sure if it was God’s goal to prove Himself to Satan or to set an example for others by doing this, — PhilosophyAttempter

It is important to notice that Satan came to be among the sons of God (iow, the angelic realm - eg, Ephesians 6:12, Luke 10:18, Hebrews 12:26-29). It also is important to recognise the error in common folklore about Satan - that the word itself is a name for the spirit that opposes God. It isn't a name of a fallen angel as the folklore teaches.

So in Job 1:6 (see the interlinear) the spirit of opposition to God had come to be among the sons of God - therefore, the sons of God were found to be unholy in God's presence - tainted by disloyalty and resentment against Him. God knew this, and He addressed that spirit in the congregation: "where have you come from?". The answer? "Roam all over the earth, see for yourself". Thus, God responds "Did you see my servant Job? He is upright." - and in thus doing, God demands that the sons of God restore their faith in Him, because He does yet have an opportunity to reign through His servant. But, as you know and I know, that discomfort produces impatience, and impatience anxiety - so the spirit of Satan was not cast out by the fact that God had testified of Job's righteousness. Instead, the Satan rose, through the power of resentment in the sons of God, to put Job to the test.

For the context of what I am saying here, recognise that the sons of God are of the heavenly realm (Luke 20:36, John 14:2), servants of God, tasked with watching and directing mankind. In Hebrews 1:14 the rhetorical question asks "are they not all ministering spirits, to serve those who are inheriting salvation?" and in 2 Peter 2:4 he says the ones who did not serve their proper function, have fallen and are bound with gloomy darkness (therefore, they are cut off and do not see the light of God's plan - yet they still operate according to their natural function, but not according to their original purpose - they are the fallen angels, the demons). In Genesis 6:2, it speaks of them as the sons of God who looked with desire upon the women of men, and produced offspring with them - for "having sinned" as St. Peter wrote.

Job later refers to "the watcher of men" as his enemy, as also in Daniel we find the expression used a lot (https://biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=watcher&qs_version=TLV), and as Daniel 9:22-27 shows, there is an angel called Gabriel who comes with a message that "the time is running out. 70 weeks are decreed for your people, to put an end to transgression, to anoint the holy of holies and bring in everlasting righteousness".. and as we know through Jesus' testimonies "with man it is impossible to be saved, but with God all things are possible" and "My father, I am the one who knows all things are possible for you .. nevertheless if this cup cannot pass away unless I drink of it, may your will be done" (for God indeed loved the world, that He gave up His only begotten), and yet you see that Gabriel knew this when he spoke to Daniel: "Messiah shall be cut off, having nothing for himself and the people of a prince that is coming shall destroy the temple - and until the end of the war, desolation has been determined".

So that gives you a glimpse of the insight to heaven's war against the sin on earth - and just as in the says of Noah, when Noah found favour in the eyes of God, only eight souls were saved (but we presently have a promise that there are multitudes of those who have washed their garments, having come through the tribulation). Also notice that the expression Jesus used in Luke 10:18 when He was reflecting upon the miracles that His disciples had done at His having sent them: "I am beholding Satan having fallen from heaven" - the word "beheld" is indicated in the Greek as "Imperfect tense" - meaning that it is a present ongoing action.

One more thing that I have noticed WRT this topic, that the angel Gabriel is named in Daniel as having delivered the message of judgement coming upon the earth, also is the one named by Islam as having delivered the message to their prophet Mohammed - though, I do not say this to necessarily affirm that it is the same angel, because it is not mine to say. It is fair to say that there is only one angel Gabriel, but as the example God Himself gives us - that there is only one Holy Spirit but many counterfeits, there is no guarantee that a carnal name badge really does represent the person it claims to represent (2 Corinthians 5:16). So "test all things and hold fast to the good", that's what I say. Every liar will have his place in the lake of fire.

but regardless God intentionally inflicted suffering on a blameless being. — PhilosophyAttempter

Hopefully that has formed a clearer picture for you, to see that God did not have the intention of inflicting the suffering on Job - but His intention was to exorcise the Satan from the midst of His sons in heaven, and they allowed the Satan to have a voice against God in their midst, at Job's expense.

If God was an omniscient being, wouldn’t he have known from the beginning that Job would worship Him no matter the pain He inflicts on him? — PhilosophyAttempter

Yes, that is exactly what God declares by saying "see for yourself! .. he is in your hands".

If so, why would He continue to cause pain to a blameless being to prove something to Satan that He already knew to be true. — PhilosophyAttempter

Hebrews 12:26-27 has a good answer to that.

Was this violating Job’s free will and thus being unjust? — PhilosophyAttempter

Yes, it was.

Does this looks bad for God and thus for theists who define God as all good, powerful and just? — PhilosophyAttempter

As always, it depends upon the individual judgement of the one who is looking at it. Ultimately, it is Job's right to make that judgement, and we can see that in Job 42:1-6.

Who says that God is timeless? The bible says that God knows time (a thousand years is like a day to Him).

Yes, time is present wherever there is change, and since God knows change, then He knows time - the only real assumption we should make, is that God, being beyond reproach, can not die. Therefore He is endless.

If you're scrounging the bottom of the barrel, that is exactly what you will find. There is PLENTY of good also to be found if that was what you were looking for. — staticphoton

My real complaint is that the bad keeps getting in the way of the good, and there is no power against it because justice is woefully absent.

Ah we have to disagree then. — staticphoton

If you say so.

If you feel that living today is worse than in an epoch when it is commonplace for an enemy to march into your home and kill your family or take them into slavery, when it was normal for disease or famine to kill a significant portion of your offspring and neighbors. To constantly fear the unknown, or worse yet, the complete lack of empathy from those who ruled and exploited the land you lived on. — staticphoton

Yes, that is my life, precisely!

I think you overestimate the "goodness" and "decency" of folks of them old days. — staticphoton

That is fair to say, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't days past where folks were decent and relatively good. It also does not negate what I have said (read again, carefully).

But worse yet, you underestimate the goodness of the common man of today. Although it is the scandalously wicked and the atrocious acts that make the headlines, most of us are hard working, we educate and nourish our children, and we look forward to a better day. We have faith in the new generations to negotiate through the flaws of past generations.
Your characterization is unfair and does NOT represent an accurate picture of today's humanity. — staticphoton

It is only a reflection of my experiences and knowledge, especially in context of a world that keeps burying itself into wrongness by opposing the true things I say. What your experience is, is different from mine. Where the real distinction is found, is not in the value of optimism as you have proposed, but real justice, that I am warning has failed to hold back the tide of evil that is rushing over the minds of the people.

Oh, yeah. I have presented grounds for personhood: sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. You have said being human is dependent on having a face, hear sounds, and reactions to environmental stimuli.

Your notion of being human could apply to a doll. — Banno

That's not what I said. In fact, I haven't provided a definition for being human, but there isn't really a substantial difference between what you and I have said about being human.

You said it has sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality, and I have said that they (transgressors) have difficulty seeing the rights of the unborn as a living human, because they cannot observe its face, see that it hears sounds and responds to external stimuli. It is only said to show that the transgressor justifies his immorality by refusing to recognise the unborn as a living person.

I have also shown consideration for human life being aware of its life in various stages (eg to speak of sperm and eggs, and blood cells, as having moral rights), where those expressions of life don't have faces or ears to hear with. It is because of that fact, you are wrong to say that what I have said is a definition of human life.

Do you know why you chose to take what I said and misuse it, by saying it is my definition of human life, when it isn't?

Where moral law is defined by the principle "do unto others as you would have them do to you", and when there is no objective judge, the transgressors are the judge of the morality of their own decisions. Therefore in order to do unto others what they would not have done to themselves, they need to see their victim as being inferior to theirself.

I said that they find it easy to identify a fetus as inferior to themselves because they don't see its face, they don't see that it hears sounds and responds to external stimuli.

I also said that parents who are in a bad mood do the same to children, because when, as a third party, I see the anguish in the face of the children when the parents are doing such cruelty, it is clear that the parents are not seeing it.

I based that belief on your misogynist writing. What else am I to judge you by, if not what you do? — Banno

What you are judging me by is an imagined character. You are not, in fact judging me by what I do. In order to be effective in judgement, you must judge by what I do. Then, and only then, will I as a judge, be capable of accepting your judgement.

Do you think the bible is the source of our morals? — Banno

That statement shows that you do not understand morality, and assumes that you think I have made an idol of the bible - as the imagined character that you think I am, would do.

No, I do not think the bible is a source of morality. It is a potential source of education. It is through learning about the human problem from the words of a teacher who can lead us to grow beyond it, that moral justification can be found. But moral justification is only found as a result of acting in love.

If a person acts in love, he does no harm to a neighbour - therefore he does not come under the judgement of morality.

The bible is able to teach us how to identify sin in our life, so that repenting of sin releases us into the freedom of justification according to truth, where love abounds simply as a result of being a human not doing sin. But, also the bible is no guarantee of producing that result, because a student cannot be greater than his teacher - and I have not yet found a translator that has escaped non-biblical indoctrination, so as a result, I notice in every translation a tendency toward doctrinal error in their interpretation of the bible and their subsequent explanation of it to the reader in the new language.

So, basically, the Bible's authors were on to something valuable, but to grasp that value is not as simple as reading the bible - it is only by tapping into that same thing that they had found (John 5:39-40).

Lets face it, the farther you look back in human history the lesser quality of life and the greater suffering you find. — staticphoton

Not necessarily. Culture is constantly fluid. One thing we can know for sure, is that vacuum cleaners and chemical technology have (potentially) contributed the greatest advances in environmental health, by reducing presence of toxic dusts and molds in homes. On the other hand, the pollutants from vehicular transport exposes us to harmful dusts and fumes that probably life would suffer less if the clock was rolled back. And that's besides mentioning the more obvious sufferings that polution has brought to the world, the extinctions from humans pillaging the environment, mass murders, riots, man-made diseases, nuclear fallouts, indoctrinations, forced medications, politicians disregard for justice, judges revelling in their wickedness, social disdain for holiness, beggars lying for drugs, cities imprisoning homeless to prepare for sports events, radicals chopping heads off in the name of God, laws making pregnancy an alternative to working and marriage, etc.

No, the world is in a bad way, like never before, and on a global scale, and in the whole world, with the whole world aware of these things, nobody has stopped it, and the ones who would stop it if they had power, are not drawing interest from those who have the power.. in fact to the contrary they are seen as enemies because of the natural indignation that the truth is, the powers are afraid of standing in proximity to them, for fear of how they might measure up to the stature of their name in light of the truth.

You have said three things that I don't understand:

• It seems that the time is good for me to stop reading the bible.
• Things work out (somehow - context is undefined).
• I need to put myself in order with that ("the way things work out").

I said it is a strange thing to say because it doesn't contain enough information to understand what you mean by saying it, and it is said in a way that assumes it carries the implied meaning you wish for it to carry. That assumption of reader inference is a strong device when people have a history that is useful for it, but you are a person I don't remember having spoken with before, so it is strange that you have omitted all the necessary context for me, as a stranger, to understand what you want me to understand.

So, I'd like an explanation so I can know how I should respond. Thank you.

If you condemn a child to a life of unwanted unhappiness in this dreadful society, you are surely evil beyond serious belief, at least to those who know something about what happens to children. — iolo

Yes, wholeheartedly I am agreeing. But, I am saying that the moral solution is not to kill the child as some sort of act of mercy, but to heal the parents who make the child's life misery. As I mentioned, the problem is systemic, and authorities being uneducated and ignorant of the causes, unable to discern right from wrong, thereby using their power to oppose true justice, are empowering the evil to thrive upon the world.

I'm not attempting to make a point by it (isn't that interesting!). I am simply asking you to explain why you take the commandment that says "eating shellfish is detestable for you" and then say that it is a commandment of morality.

Cysts are not persons. — Banno

This is where you and I have fundamental difference in philosophy, which empowers you to do that which is immoral in my view. You deny the rights of a blastocyst because you do not acknowledge the rights of personhood that the blastocyst has:

Being a person involves sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, an appetite, and rationality. A woman is capable of all of these. — Banno

and it is a distinction I have made clear from the start:

There are some people though, who do not recognise an unborn baby as a human being. I think that they have found an opportunity to disregard the perspective of the unborn because they do not see it's face, hear it's sounds, see it's reactions to environmental stimuli. But, that also can be said of parents who are in a bad mood, who also are completely unable to see those things in children. — Serving Zion

.. so, there is a clear pattern in this conversation, where right from the beginning when you approached me even until this moment, you have not engaged with me respectfully to hear what I am saying, but to argue against me in any way that pleases you. In order to do that, and as a consequence of your having chosen to do so, you have believed me to be someone quite different from who I am, and that has resulted in a large number of accusations against my character that are invalid. It is distracting whenever we are dealing with people of such a spirit that refuses to cooperate toward mutual understanding.

What? — Banno

Do you not understand that morality is different from desire?

But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

So one assumes you do not do anything so moral as to easy prawns or oysters.
— Banno — Banno

It is interesting you have found it to be a matter of morality, where it has said only "a thing detestable" to you - שֶׁקֶץ Sheqets, from Leviticus 11:10, interlinear.

Could you review that and explain why you have said it is given as a commandment on the grounds of morality rather than just feelings of disgust? — Serving Zion

@Banno, this is another important unanswered question too, along the same lines.

Your name, your predilection for scriptural quotations, and my experience of those who oppose abortion; — Banno

That is prejudice.

together with a lack of a coherent ethical argument. — Banno

Then the fact is clear that your failure to read me is the cause of your opinion, as you have admitted here. In light of what I have said, and what you have not understood, you do not speak truthfully when you accuse me of not making a "coherent ethical argument". The truthful statement would be that you do not see that I have made a coherent ethical argument. I strongly advise you to make an effort to understand what I have said.

.. and can you show any statement in the bible that supports your idea
— Serving Zion

No. Nor do I grant any biblical authority. — Banno

Then you really have no right to complain about my position as being "of the book" - and that figures, seeing as it is true that my position is only of judgement according to morality.

Another one? .. ok, in addition to those you have already ignored, what makes you repeatedly say that my moral views wrt abortion are from what the bible says? .. and can you show any statement in the bible that supports your idea (ie: where is abortion mentioned in the bible, etc).

If you were interested, you would see quite the opposite - that is what I see.

I also see that you made many accusations, some repeatedly, without justification, and you have not answered any questions I have asked you that would force you to find your error.

It's about rights and enforcement of responsible behaviour. Does a person have a moral right to take life from a living entity that came as a result of irresponsible sex? Nope. Morality can't say it does. Book or no book.