Yeah, you had the wrong story. In the right story, the one I am talking about, Israel came together not to defend women's rights, but to defend father's and master's property rights. — Banno

Could you show where the text makes that distinction?

Your holy book is full of such misogyny. — Banno

I really am suspecting now that perhaps you genuinely don't understand what that word means...

It's anachronistic to expect it to set out virtues worthy of today. — Banno

Oh well, times change. Moral law doesn't.

Actually, I have noticed that you'd quoted a story from Judges, and I had read the gist as being the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In review of that story, from Judges 19-21, it is clear that since the whole of Israel came together to make war on the tribe of Benjamin and destroy them, for having not turned over the murderers, you have no right to say that the bible promotes that treatment of women. You are misrepresenting the bible.

It doesn't say that though. Lot subjected his daughters to the townsfolk instead of the strangers. They are girls that had lived in the town all their lives, and the townsfolk all knew who they were. Do you not think that Lot was expecting they would come to their senses and do the decent thing?

Leviticus 11:

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

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?

I am the judge of what is moral or not in my own words.
— Serving Zion

Yeah. It doesn't work like that. We get to judge what you say, too. — Banno

Well, I have complained plenty that you seem to be hearing something different than what I am saying. That's not unusual, but it does make it impossible for me to accept that your judgements against me are valid.

You are presenting a patriarchal view of womanhood. — Banno

You know, I'm not really doing that. All I am saying, is that having sex is a pretty serious thing, but the present culture that you are lobbying for, and that is pretty well consuming the whole world, makes it seem like sex is as normal as eating food. There's a whole lot of problems that come as a result of that.

as found in the Bible. — Banno

That's laughable, Banno. I am the judge of what is moral or not in my own words.

Do you eat shellfish? — Banno

What on earth does that have to do with the topic? .. and after all I have explained about the moral rights of blood cells, do you think I am not vegetarian?

With morality and self-respect (as I would say for men too, if you would like to venture into that realm of conviction).

Misogyny is inappropriate because it does not accurately describe my views toward honourable women. There is a character of behaviour, not a gender, that distinguishes a woman from a female slut. One is honourable, the other does not invite respect. Gender does not define that distinction.

Well, yes, it is nasty. It tells of a person who does not respect women; — Banno

For the third time, Banno, It is not women that I disrespect, but those who despise children, whether male or female. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to the title of woman to suggest that a woman should be characterised as someone who feels entitled to have sex at will, aborting babies as nuisance side-effects. A woman is a person in whom the noble characters of womanhood have developed - and that contains a vital essence of love for children among other things that are of good virtue for a woman. If a woman is despicable and doing what is dishonourable, then it is unreasonable to expect me to respect them. It does not mean that I do not respect honourable women. This is an approach to judgement that I can see is somewhat foreign to you.

... who assigns them roll based on their gender alone — Banno

Wrong. It is gender that assigns them that role. It is a role that only that gender can have!

, without regard for their personhood
— Banno

That's crazy. You plucked that from thin air.

, their potential,
— Banno

Oh, you try now to say that I did that? .. would you like to explain how that one whose potential is wasted by the baby inside of her, has happened to become pregnant with a baby she doesn't want?

their needs and desires.
— Banno

Again, you do not understand morality in the slightest. Why is it necessary that her needs and desires should force her to kill a human being?

There is nastiness also in your quoting from the bible — Banno

Again, again. That is what you see but it is contrary to what I have shown. You are viewing what the spirit of the devil is showing you instead of the spirit of truth according to what I am giving.

- as if that decrepit text had any remaining moral authority. — Banno

It is offered for the potential, that's all. Just as Jesus did, explaining "To whomever already has, more shall be given and he will have an abundance, but to whomever does not have, even that which he does have shall be taken away from him".

Here's a bit form the Book of Judges, demonstrating how women are to be treated: — Banno

.. here's a bit from the book of Jude, that refers to the event you quoted, and shows that God in fact destroyed the city because of the wickedness found there:

Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them—having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after a different sort of flesh—are displayed as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

St. Peter wrote about it too:

He devastated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to ashes—making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.

SO at least be honest and admit that your objection to abortion is not based on a proper consideration of the morality involved — Banno

No, it honestly is moral because of the one fact: that they think babies should be killed to make way for unrestrained sex. Their desire for sexual gratification is so important to them that they will kill for it, and, they do not have any love and affection for children. That, in and of itself, is immoral.

... , but instead on your acquiescence to an irredeemable, antiquated, uncivilised text. — Banno

You are just plain wrong. But hey, I know it's not convincing you by saying it.

I'm happy to say those things. It's not ugly or nasty, but tells of a person who does not love children: it is they who are ugly and nasty. It is only self-seeking insofaras I share in their suffering (Matthew 25:40, Proverbs 31:8, Isaiah 1:17).

SO a twelve-year-old rape victim ought not be permitted a neat, convenient abortion? — Banno

I wouldn't recommend it, Banno. Remember what I said earlier:

Those considerations are in fact justifications for adjusting the moral compass, and they don't have any strength when faith is involved. — Serving Zion

That's a strange thing to say. I don't remember that we have spoken before.. could you please explain?

That's what you see. It's not who I am.

No, Banno, you don't know me at all. You are describing some other person, probably that you have thought is me because we are both called "Christian".

I offered you the opposite, but nevertheless, it is your decision and my words could not have been more persuasive.

Calling out this misogynist crap: — Banno

You have some other person in mind. There are people who are mysogenists that you can describe as you have described me. But you can't name me mysogenist. I hate evil, and the mentality that despises children - whether through male or female. It is not women that I hate.

Women are for having children; — Banno

Women get to be mothers.

any woman who does not wish to bear a child to term is insane; — Banno

It is insane to not cherish new life.

a woman who is not happy in the role of mother is deranged... — Banno

Well, delusional at least. To be unhappy about a reality that doesn't yet exist, and that could well be different, is delusional. To kill because of that delusuon, is deranged.

You've lost any moral standing you had, Zion. — Banno

I don't accept your judgement. It is clear that you have no understanding of morality.

What you say here shows your judgement on ethical issues is not worth considering. — Banno

As I said, your judgement is authoritative in your view but not mine, and why? .. it is because you want a judge that will say it is ok to kill babies so people can have unrestrained sex. It just cannot be justified morally, and when I judge, I am constrained by morality.

Think on how you degrade women while extolling a mere cysts. The bankruptcy of this position should be obvious even to you. — Banno

So to those that are watching, and who are capable of growing, Luke 21:23 mentions the wrath of God being upon mothers of infants, and why? Just as I have described of the mechanism of judgement, for refusing to follow truth into righteousness.

So sometimes it is OK to kill things. — Banno

I didn't mention killing blood. To kill is to take action to cause death. In the examples, the blood clotting is in response to a necessary or accidental wound - therefore, nobody has accrued moral debt for the life of the blood.

It is moral to kill blood cells immorally — Banno

It seems that you have misread me. Please check or explain how you have arrived at this idea.

So one ought not kill blood cells immorally (?) — Banno

No question about it, in my mind.

Blood cells have a right to life so killing them is sometimes judged wicked (?) — Banno

That is truth.

People who kill blood cells needlesly are bad. — Banno

The more important point is that when a person is confronted with truth that demands them to change, yet they don't want to change, they need to rationalise their thinking. The only way to do that is to employ deceit, and since the devil is the name given to the father of lies, it is a devilish spirit that they choose to follow in their thinking. It is no longer the spirit of truth that they follow, even though they convince themselves to believe they are of the truth. That is the nature of demonic possession. That's why it is important to really love the truth, because Jesus says truth, way and life are all one in the same "I am the way, the truth and the life" - there is no life outside of the truth, and there is no way apart from the truth. To depart from the truth is to be cut off and to die, hence all the immoral fighting etc - that is what demons achieve through human refusal to repent.

The blood cell and the blastocyst are on the same moral level — Banno

There is no such thing as "levels" in morality. Life is life. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and purpose prescribes duty.

Is that what you said? — Banno

That's what you said I said. I have said what I said, and I have shown you what I think of what you thought I said. Some of what you thought I said is not accurate. It looks like you have rushed, or you have not been interested in understanding what i have said, or the ideas are so new to you that you need more time to fully grasp what the words mean.

Yes, it is a question of women's rights (and indirectly, men's rights), where the question is whether they have the right to take human life for convenience.

What you also introduce by asking that question, is sanity of a woman who resents bearing a child. When you consider the female body's function in reproduction, it is clear that it's regular function is a hope to bear offspring. It produces and holds an egg in hope of fertility, and when the fertilization does not arrive before the condition of the egg deteriorates, it discards (at a cost) and makes another attempt.

A woman who does not cherish the offspring is suffering an unnatural depression. I agree that a baby is more likely to suffer less by having been aborted than raised by a resentful spirit and deranged mother. But, the real question then, is where justice must decide whether a woman of such insanity should not be treated and whether society is not entitled to be protected from the spirit that abides in her (which I do! - too demanding of my patience, are parents who resent and mistreat their children, and authorities that support them. It is an abomination).

Your argument is poorly drawn. — Banno

That, again, is your doing, not mine.

Set it out so it can be seen. — Banno

I have done so, according to my own expectations. If it is insufficient for you, yours is the responsibility to seek clarification, as I note you have proceeded to do:

A blood cell from your veins would be human, but not a human being. — Banno

Good fact.

It is alive - at what cost must it be kept alive? — Banno

A conscious entity's experience of life produces an intrinsic value for it's own life, according to the prospect of the alternative/s. Therefore morality considers the living entity's intrinsic right of life whenever there is a cause for complaint that its rights of life have been transgressed. So wherever the taking of its natural right is immoral, the cost of not supporting its life should be considered too great.

Bleeding kills blood cells - is it therefor immoral? — Banno

Sometimes it is, sometimes isn't.

There is sometimes opportunity for a living entity's "rights to live" to be not supported by morality. As in the example of the case of a blood cell, it's primary function is to serve the needs of the life of its human being. Therefore while its life is sacrificed in order to clot a wound, it is not necessarily immoral to expect its sacrifice because upholding its right to life would be transgressing the human being's right to life where the blood cell's purpose and duty in life is to serve the maintenance of human being's rights of life - but, it can be immoral to cause the death of living blood. Eg, if the wound is inflicted for an immoral reason, then it is causing an unnecessary loss of life, therefore the cost should be rightfully borne to preserve the life of the cell (the cost to be borne, is the refusal to support the immoral action). To refuse to bear that cost is counted as wickedness by judgement where the rights of the blood are brought to consideration, thus the person doing such immorality loses right to belong to the spirit of innocence and truth (iow, they are drawn into possession by the spirit that deceives them, by their refusal to follow the truth into repentance).

What is it about the blastocyst that makes it worthy of preservation, in a way that blood cels are not? — Banno

Nothing, because a blastocyt's intrinsic right of life is entitled to the same considerations by a judge of morality, as a blood cell.

Can you present your position in a way that is consistent? — Banno

I haven't seen that my presentation is inconsistent, so I really am not able to acknowledge that such a question can be answered.

if all there is is Good and Evil, then that being was part Good and part Evil — leo

I don't see the person as possessing good and evil, but good and evil possessing the person according to God's judgment of that person, in response a) primarily, the reward for their decisions, b) secondarily, the right of good treatment for those whom God is working justice, by those who are not His possessions (as above).

Therefore, whether a person is of good or of evil in their spirit, changes from moment to moment, and whether their heart and philosophy tend to yield toward one or the other, is a result of the influence of the words (concepts conveyed) by good and evil over time, and resentments / detachments.

IOW, "heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool" and "as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways".

But if all there is is Good and Evil, then that being was part Good and part Evil, so he doesn’t simply disappear the moment he dies, he keeps existing in some way, he doesn’t suddenly turn into a heap of dead matter that disintegrates, rather his will dissolves into his surroundings and retains an indirect influence on everything else. — leo

It seems to me you would have to agree that it is speculative and theoretical only. Would you agree?

("For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing.
They have no further reward,
even the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Their love, their hatred, and their zeal
have already perished;
never again will they have a share
in anything that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:5-6).

if fundamentally everything is will then it wouldn’t make sense that this will suddenly disappears into nothingness. — leo

Make sure to include the caveat "individual" wills, because my will is not her will and neither is hers his, or that's. So new wills come into the world through new life, but those wills pass out of the world through death. There are eternal wills too, as you know, of good and evil, of God and the sons of God (John 8:34-36), etc (eg Matthew 25:41).

Most of what you've said is agreeable, and is a typical religious philosophy. I cannot understand how a person can have a philosophy that does not acknowledge good and evil, unless they have (somehow) chosen to deny the meaning of the words.

fundamentally there is no randomness, no laws, no destiny and no death, rather everything that happens is a result of the fight between Good and Evil — leo

Those statements are at extreme odds with the truth.

• Randomness is what empowers the war between good and evil (ie: the potential for the devil to doubt God).
• Laws are merely described ideas, and ideas certainly exist.
• Destiny is at odds with randomness, but one who has power to maintain control even when circumstances are beyond their control, can manufacture destiny.
• To say there is no death is to misuse language itself. Death describes the end of a period of life, and everything that can be observed as living, also can be observed as dying.

What makes things happen is the will of Good and the will of Evil. — leo

They are the motivational forces. It is the individual's decision that empowers those forces to manifest.

When we die we keep existing in some way. — leo

Are you describing life after death? If so, can you show evidence to support this?

Right now, I imagine the sperm and the egg's individual anxiety: "I must find a mate, else I will perish". It reminds me of an unmarried human's intrinsic anxiety when the age of realisation comes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r56ogtlni8Y

The unfertilized egg and the sperm have about the same status in terms of life. They each carry 1/2 the chromosomes needed for a whole human. The sperm is more like pollen than a seed. — frank

I note those points, thank you.

Human egg, dead or alive? — tim wood

The human egg appears to be a living cell (ie: a unit of human tissue in which life operates). Although it is more difficult to see an egg as a living thing than sperm, there are descriptions of scientific research that shows it does behave with characteristics of intelligence, which are a sign of life operating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization#cite_ref-9). Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

is your understanding of sexual reproduction c. 350 BCE? — tim wood

What is significant about that date, that you chose it?

Ad hominum is pointless (and disgraceful). If you think I need to learn something, give me information to consider.

Exactly so, as with the egg. Therefore, no new life created. Let us now forever dispense with that leg of the argument. — tim wood

I don't see that an unfertilised egg is alive. The statement is still true though, there is no new life created in conception. The life is in the seed.

You confuse human beings and human tissue. — Banno

I haven't done that, the confusion is your doing. I have acknowledged life present in various stages of growth. Are you suggesting that a blastocyst is not alive?

What more is humanity than a squiggling fungus — frank

"Moreover", it is a "squiggling fungus" that found a perfect opportunity to adapt and thrive!

There's no arguing with that level of rationality. — Banno

That appears to be a concession.

Why are you talking about cysts? — frank

It wasn't my choice.

The thing that gets aborted looks just like a tiny human... because it is. — frank

That deviation began when I said that they see a fetus as inferior (therefore they do not see it as a tiny human) because they do not see it's facial or vocal expressions. Any opportunity to establish a class of inferiority is sufficient to support immorality (and, in fact, is required for immorality - otherwise one could not bear to do it, because doing it to anything that is not inferior, is in fact doing it to themselves).

FWIW, I consider life to have begun before fertilisation (ie: sperm is alive).

We have to wait until there is a fetus. — frank

The morning-after contraception is sufficient to achieve the same effect - abortion by putting to death the life within (they do not want the life - they choose to kill it instead of loving it).

Understanding the "fruits of the flesh" is a good start (see Galatians 5:19-23, and you might consider James 4:1).

Do you have a problem with unrestrained sex? — Echarmion

I am only against the problems it causes.

If you're going to refuse every counterargument as demonic, what's the use talking to you, exactly? — Echarmion

That question is loaded with a false premise. There are many times I observe counterarguments as not being demonic. But, even if a person does speak to me in a demonic spirit, the words can be useful to produce a better knowledge of the truth.

Yes, that'd be the more basic question. — Echarmion

Ok, well we just need to see what prevents a person from accepting the absolute truth. Then, by removing those barriers, they can advance to know the truth.

Sounds awfully condescending. — Echarmion

I am sorry, I have reworded it to try and soften the blow. I don't know if that will be enough for you, but let's see.

Perhaps it's your moral compass that's in need of adjustment? — Echarmion

What, seriously? .. that people can kill babies for unrestrained sex? You would work yourself to death while trying to adjust that compass, I can assure you.

A lot has been written on the topic, some of it very thorough. It's not a matter of willful ignorance or denial. — Echarmion

We will need to part ways over this. Nobody is born demonic, they become demonic by yielding their mind to the thinking that shields them from the conviction of the truth.

But, given that we accept limitations even to the right to life — Echarmion

Who does? .. don't get me wrong, the parasite takes a risk by invading a host. I do not grant the same terms to describe pregnancy, one would be severely warped to arrive at that.

it's no longer a simple question of whether or not the unborn child is indeed alreay a child or still a foetus. — Echarmion

It doesn't make a difference though, to the judgement. The fact is, that it is taking life, and the question in the judgement is whether it is morally justified.

It's also a matter of what circumstances we are going to accept as justification for ending that life. It's not a black of white issue. Plenty of people who are "pro life" accept special circumstances, like danger to the mother or pregnancy as a result of rape. — Echarmion

Those considerations are in fact justifications for adjusting the moral compass, and they don't have any strength when faith is involved. So it does remain a black and white issue, IMO.

On the other side, plents of "pro abortion" people accept limits to the right of abortion based on the state of the pregnancy or the circumstances of the decision. — Echarmion

It would be useful to analyse some of those differences.

How do we know the absolute truth? — Echarmion

I think it's better to say "how can we know the absolute truth?" .. is that what you meant?

The unborn cannot lodge such a complaint, even in theory, though. So really it's you making the complaint, — Echarmion

Yes, that is true. I also am not the only one who makes that complaint on their behalf. There is a spiritual reality that speaks, pricking our conscience. Whenever we fall foul of the judgement of the absolute truth, we must wrestle those voices. To achieve peace of mind, some people refuse to hear those voices (eg: 1 John 4:6), or they might adjust their moral compass to deceive themselves (thereby rejecting their conscience in favour of an alternative spirit). Neither of those options is good for us, but it is what we choose to do when we are unable to confess our errors.

It is sometimes necessary to kill in order to protect other rights. Like when we are acting in defense of ourselves or others. — Echarmion

In those cases, the absolute truth yields itself to our support, because the aggressor was doing immorality to begin with - they were transgressing the moral law "do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Why would you want to do what? — Banno

You said I would cut out any other cyst without hesitation, so I have asked you to give an example of why I might want to cut out a cyst.

You seem to be suggesting that a blastocyst should be regarded as a cyst, and the name "cyst" means it is something that ideally should not exist in the body. I will look to identify why you should regard a blastocyst as distinct from a cyst (Eg: everyone has been a blastocyst, but no cyst has become a living person).

What is "strict morality"? — Echarmion

It is just judgement of the absolute truth. When one says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", then the judge decides whether the complaint is credible or not.

That's just one way to draw the line. No "shifting" is going on here. — Echarmion

Actually, you are only able to say that because you do not acknowledge the complaint of the unborn: "they took my life".

You're also oversimplifying the issue to "killing is wrong, not killing is right". That's not a viable moral stance. — Echarmion

Can you please explain why?

What goalposts though? Who set up the goalposts that are allegedly being moved? — Echarmion

Morality doesn't have an author as such, so it's pointless to ask who set up the goalposts. The point is, they will believe it is immoral to kill a breathing baby for convenience, but not an unborn. In making that distinction, they shift the goalposts (where "killing" is to take the life of a living, and "baby" is the one who is not independent/self-supported).

It's not about "life" either. We kill lots of life all the time. No-one much cares about the billions of bacteria. — Echarmion

Strict morality does condemn that though.

You would cut out any other cyst without hesitation. — Banno

Why would I want to do that?

A blastocyst does not have a face, hear sounds nor react to stimuli. — Banno

You are only 2/3's correct though .. and furthermore, those two are not necessary definitions for qualifying life. It is meant to show that the immorality relies upon moving the goalposts for the definition of life, so that they can believe themselves innocent of putting life to death.

Why is this considered moral by human standards and not frowned upon? — EpicTyrant

It isn't considered moral in human terms, and it is frowned upon. 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.

There is just a state of ignorance that a human sometimes slips into that causes them to become incapable of empathising with others. I name it demonic possession (based upon John 3:36 - whoever does not obey the son does not see life, and the wrath of God abides upon him).

So those ones you mention, who are unable to see the life of the baby, it has become their delusion to think that what they do is not murder, only because they have refused to obey the son of God. Anyone who obeys the son of God will come to exercise sexuality according to the principles that He teaches, hence no desire for abortion, and much love for God's gift of new life.

If you are trying to understand the word itself, think about justification. People have all sorts of different ideas, but they aren't all reasonable. Some people just can't be reasoned with - they are incapable of giving or receiving reasons for the ideas in discussion.

Reason requires a love of the truth, because reasoning is the justifying of ideas as truth by way of demonstrating their accuracy and reliability (to quell doubts), and invariably the truth demands that unreasonable ideas be abandoned.

Therefore, somebody who is prejudiced is incapable of reason - their idea is so precious, the truth forces them to use deceit to create a fallacious reality that conforms to their ideology.

Arguing about panpsychism is really beyond the scope of this thread. — Pfhorrest

Yes, of course! .. but some things need to be said.

The more salient point is that having my philosophical opinions didn’t send me spiraling into desperate search of meaning. — Pfhorrest

Yes, that is true, but I am saying that your philosophy is a conduit for the attack. Philosophy is instrumental in mental health: the way that we think is, in fact, the manifestation of the spirit.

I philosophized for decades holding broadly similar opinions all the while before this kind of angst started to afflict me. — Pfhorrest

That really doesn't work as an argument though (I just have to say).

Philosophy is neither the cause of nor solution to existential angst. It’s just a mental health condition. — Pfhorrest

But, it is precisely your philosophy that lends you to believe (and follow) the thinking that keeps you from knowing the real cause of the mental health condition, is a spiritual attack.

I just can't see past the deflection in this response. The most value I can offer you, is to suggest reflecting on why. If I was to indulge my own interests, there is a lot that we could establish about the difference between the life of trees and humans, and to secure the definition of consciousness. But I can't begin to do that while you are fixed on the idea that rocks have a perspective (in all seriousness).