Konartist said:
Answa~ said:
Money... the Church isn't a manufacturing company, they use that money to keep their priests alive and help people.
HAHAHAHAH
The
n why are almost all churches big and expensive and almost all priest/pastors/
Popes drive nice cars and live in nice houses?
Jesus said....Do not build mansions out of brick and stone, lift a stone and I'll be there, split a log and you will find me. He
's saying you can worship him without a pastor or a preacher and without going to a million dollar church. However most churches and
Bibles don't tell you that cause it wouldn
't make them any money.
Well I guess it
's best to listen to "Jesus" when it
's convi
nient for you.
Money=Power and Power=Money that
's the whole reason churches were even started,
esp
ecially the Catholic churche who had a stranglehold on all the power in Europe for several hundred years
, maybe a 1000
Whatever Jesus said is open to interpretation and people can twist it their own way, I'm not going there. The Church dominating... that was in the past, the late John Paul II begged for forgiveness for the Church's past sins.
The Church isn't a bunch of beggars, people give what they want and can. And when I capitulate the word "church", I mean the Catholic Church, so don't mix anything else in it because I don't really know how their pastors or reverends or whatever else they'e called live.
I do know, however, is that there's only one Pope. To solidify this, can anyone tell m the Lutheran pope's name without looking it up? I thought so. THE Pope, capitulized, too, is the Catholic Church's Pope.
If you've ever seen a modern Catholic temple that's multimillion, tell me. All of the multimillion ones are either very old or very important, and that's the only reason they're worth anything.
The Inquisition, the Crusades, old errors. The Church grows, and it betters itself. It will occassionally stumble, because it's in hands of human beings. And human beings make errors.
And, also, name a Jew in the time of Jesus that could count to a million. I think a thousand was their greatest number. In fact, I'm pretty sure that meant infinity to them. That was a whole lot for them to imagine.
Galaika said:
1. Do you think it is right for a child to have to be born into a bad situation because of contraception failure. (ie. Poor single parent wthout the means, teenager incapable of looking after a child, no loving secure family)
Ok, to answer this question (since I'm not of this particular situation) ask a person that WAS born in a poor state and persevered. Ask them if they wish they'd been aborted. Go ahead.
Galaika said:
2. Do you think it is right for a rape victim to have to suffer the horror of having to give birth to the child of their assaulter, and then that child to later find out the means of their conception?
Not a horror. Good things come out of bad things. You either learn of them, or you sink yourself lower. A child is not an imprint of the genetic code alone, a child learns and grows and is free. The child can decide what to feel when he/she's told of his/her origins. It is not the mother's life to take. My life is not mine to take, either, but that's another matter.
Galaika said:
3. Why do the 'rights' of an undeveloped proto-human without consciousness (of course I do not condone the abortion of a fetus grown to a stage where it is conscious) outweigh the rights of the living mother and/or father?
They don't. The zygote or any of its later stages has its own rights. Inalienable (I think that's how it's written). A miscarriage is no one's fault and also, there is no true selfless purpose for which to kill any kind of human being. None.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to enter into pure religion... Catholic Ethic holds a very interesting postulate: "No wrong thing can be done to produce any good thing, no matter how good the intention." (Sorry if it's a poor translation, I know it in Spanish.)
Also: "If there's certainty (or vast hope) that there will be good coming from a dangerous (not wrong) act (like a surgery), then all that can be done should be done, after depleting every other answer."
This last premise eludes to omission and can be applied to abortion. If you have a child, and you're going to almost surely die unless you get a c-section done. You have to make sure that there's hope that the child will come out alive, otherwise it will be omission. And if it is done if it's too dangerous for the child, then it's murder. If the child dies even with the high probability, there was nothing else that could be done to save it, and so it is not murder. (I realize murder is a harsh word to those who think it's not a human yet, but I just don't care anymore and I'll be explicit about my beliefs linked into my opinions mixed with the facts I know. Whomever gets confused, it is not my fault.)
You're right by your views then, but are you right in view of the laws that your beliefs will put in to power? Will these laws be fair?
We can only hope that the Law will make sense. Many do not, and it is human error. Loopholes exist even when they can be avoided. One thing I fear from the Law is that both Judges and Lawyers are called "interpreters of the law". I don't want my laws to be interpretable, I want them to be concise and explicit. Hermetically sealed and true to its meaning and value. And such, I shall again say that we can only hope...
Let's do it this way Answa. How about a human kept alive on a machine with no brain? They take his brain out put it in a jar and keep the body alive?
How about those vegetables you always hear about with no chance of survival or recovery without machines?
How about one born with no eyes, ears, mouth, or hands? How about that one?
Can people seriously still live without a brain? I find that hard to believe, but regardless, killing them with their consent would be euthanasia, and that's another subject by itself, and as I said above about the same thing, I'm not going there except for this: I'm not for euthanasia, either.
Without their consent, murder. People have to die by themselves, period. No matter how long you can remain on a comma (or coma, I'm not sure) you're supposed to be kept alive until you die naturally. If your next argument is to tell me that ancient people are murderers, then, for letting their comatose (or commatose, I dunno....) die, or burying them alive thinking they were dead, then my answer would be simple: They didn't have the means to keep them alive. But, now we do, that's a very big difference.
:lol: Comedy relief, finally. :lol:
You can't make decisions like that based on hope. You can't condemn innocent people to insane laws based simply on hope, you need certainty.
As was said in the Off-Topic version of this subject, if there's uncertainty, then why risk yourself? Why kill something and say it's not a sin or not wrong if you're not religious if you're not sure if it's really so?
Because once you say human, you start to get into the argument on if a zygote is or is not a human being and should have human rights. And you'll lose that argument.
Not really. It's simple: Homo sapiens. There, I won the argument.
