Abortion: rights and flights

Isn't it remarkable that the four main local parties are at loggerheads over almost every aspect of human rights yet are unanimous in defence of the foetus? How humane and moral of them! Aren't they just such a shining example of everything that is good and true in the world? Aren't we lucky in NI to have such upright citizens when the rest of the civilised world is so cruel and uncaring?

When we look at it more closely, however, we see that a foetus is not actually of this world, and perhaps that is the clue to the political agreement. Our main tribal elders are united about the not yet living. It is the living they have problems with.

I heard this morning's Sunday Sequence discussion and felt that it was skewed against abortion. The 5 panellists included 3 anti-abortionists but only two who were pro-abortion. The former included a human rights lawyer who thinks existing rights are less important than potential rights and a party leader who condemns outright in all circumstances the killing of 'unborn children', yet not only accepts the legality of but also governs NI with a group that sanctioned the deliberate killing of real people thereby deprived of a chance to live their existing lives. One would think that 'the right to life' meant above all the right to live one's life without fatal interference by others.

Of course, in the case of opposition to abortion it presumably argues against not only fatal interference but also the denial of a right to be nourished and cared for inside a woman's body. It is rather sad, then, that NI has significantly higher levels of children living in poverty than any other UK region. These children are clearly not being properly nourished OUTSIDE the woman's body.

What are Durkan, Adams, Paisley and Empey intending to do about this disgraceful state of affairs  – a far more important question than the inflated status of a foetus? Durkan even responded negatively to William's second question above. If they can't afford private clinics in England, too bad: let the poor suffer. So much for the social concerns of a 'social democratic' party.

It makes you wonder what kind of surreal place we live in!

Brian, thanks for your comment. Today's programme also included an 8min interview with David Steele, who is certainly a pro-choice voice.

It seems to me that £600 GBP is low, actually - my root filling at the dentists last year cost more - and a reasonable consequence of creating offspring you've decided you don't want. (No, I'm not anti-abortion.) As PJ O'Rourke pointed out, "There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

That said, people in NI are being forced to pay for the NHS just like those in GB, and it seems to me that they have a legitimate claim to the same services as they do. So..... in answer to Will's questions:

(1) Yes, the Westminster Parliament should extend the 1967 Act to NI before any devolution of criminal justice takes place; as Brian points out above, putting such an issue into the hands of an Assembly which has butterfingers would be a disaster.

(2) If that doesn't happen, yes the NHS should change its policy to allow NI women access to the service; they pay taxes too.

(3) What would my ideal abortion law be? Well, laws are often too complex. I think I'd start with the idea that only individuals have rights and that the collection of cells present after conception do not constitute an inidividual with a right to life. If not at conception then when does that fetus become an individual? (I prefer the simpler spelling of 'fetus', Brian, leaving out the pointless extra letters!) I'd say the law should allow abortions up until the time that the average fetus displays Mary Ann Warren's criteria of personhood; consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness. Not all of these need to be present, but if - on average - none of them are at, say, X weeks, then abortions can be carried out up until X weeks into pregnancy.

It's an argument.

Isn't it strange how many people get so worked up about what is essentially a private and personal decision? And why are so many people ready to interfere in other peoples sex lives?

To answer your questions - 1. Yes, extend the Act to NI so that women in NI have the same rights as women in the UK.

2. If that is not possible, then yes, women should be able to travel to the UK and access the service here. The alternative is either an unwanted pregnancy and child, or an illegal abortion with all the dangers that entails.

3. What circumstances should abortion be allowed? Pretty much on demand, up to about 24 weeks. Having said that, I would add one huge condition - improve sex education. Base it on the Dutch model, so that the number of unwanted pregnancies is reduced. The Dutch have a very open and honest sex education curriculum, and the lowest rate of teenage and unwanted pregnancy in Europe. Good sex education also reduces promiscuity and the amount sexual transmitted diseases as well. And for goodness sakes' take on the numpties who simply recommend abstinence and refuse to countenance contraception. Sex is a perfectly natural act - and if you don't want children, then you need to know about and to use precautions.

"I heard this morning's Sunday Sequence discussion and felt that it was skewed against abortion. The 5 panelists included 3 anti-abortionists but only two who were pro-abortion."

Yes, well, there you have it, folks, today's Sunday Sequence broadcast was brought to you by the number FIVE! and with it complaints of bias. This is nonsense, and the fact that William should have to point out that there was another pro-choice vote is pathetic.

No doubt some people would have the BBC timing contributions down to the last second.

It reminds me of that line from Just William, "I'll scream and scream until I make myself sick."

Steady on, Peter. David Steel was not on the local panel, which was definitely biased. Even one of the two on the pro-choice side, Rev Nigel Playfair, thought abortion was immoral but, like war, sometimes a necessary evil, if I paraphrase him correctly. Dawn Purvis was the only 'secular' voice among the five. The other four spoke from a clearly religious perspective. I'm sorry, but this is local bias. You can call it what you like.

I take William's point about David Steel, though of course he was not talking from the perspective of NI, where abortion is illegal, but from that of the UK, where it is legal.

Brianmcclinton missed the sixth member of the panel - Will! He is anti- Creationist and pro-Choice.

I didn't hear the programme but if it was skewed then a) it reflects the majority view in Northern Ireland and b) it makes a change from the normal pro-choice slant of the BBC.

William, this is almost a pointless debate since the pro-choice element will always reject scientific rationality in favour of their ideological bias.

As regards your questions, no to extension of the Act; and therefore no to funding them in Great Britain; and no to direct intentional abortion under any circumstances.

Mary Ann Warren's critieria are useless - firstly because they are argument after the fact - take an early embryo and then try and describe characteristics it lacks and then use those as a basis for killing it. One could just as readily list 1) date of birth, 2) national insurance number, 3)ability to write.

Secondly the criteria could apply to a range of adults, from the severely disabled to anyone under an anaesthetic, or even Brian McClinton (apart from his regular displays of pain, but most of those are put on).

William

I am concerned that the democratic and religious views of the majority of NI on the right to life do not appear to be central to this discussion.


Also, why promote only a hyperlink for extended coverage of only one side of the debate, above, William?


Interesting that SS also had a piece that morning about "the right to life" as outlined in UN declaration.

I found this to be more than a little ironic.


As I understand it even the most ardent pro-choice advocates do not see abortion as a positive choice, but merely a right and a necessary evil.


On that basis there is so much common ground between the two camps to prevent women coming to the point where they feel it is their only choice.

Why not explore this?


I understand some very powerful people are adamantly against such any increase in adoption of such unwanted children for example, and would rather see them aborted. why?



Another point of course is that there is very clearly a democratic will not to legalise abortion in N Ireland.


It has to be said, anything to the contrary would be liberals enforcing their religious/ethical views on the majority of the people here against their will.

I am not saying what should happen, just pointing out the double standards.



Lastly William, I thought one piece on Sunday Morning on was very unbalanced.


SS is very comfortable with an ex-ex Gay giving his story but would it be with an ex-gay? There was no balance to this very controversial discussion, it was entirely one sided and unchallenged.


The ensuing discusion about Bush and oppression in America intimated that orthodox Christianity supports Bush, the war in Iraq, oppression of gay people etc etc.

Nonsense.


It came across as a very weak straw man broadcast employing questionable stereotypes.

but to be honest, which to me flags up serious double standards from SS.


PB




PS REF STEREOTYPING ON THIS BLOG

In this entry will objects to a serial killers sexuality being mentioned on the grounds of advancing gender prejudice;-

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/03/how_would_you_describe_a_seria.html


But on other occasions Will appears very happy to stereotype, when it is targets of the liberal left;-


https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/01/slightly_jaded.html
"It's been a long week, and like many I've been recovering from a bout of the flu (I know, that's male language for a minor cold), so I need a good night out. Yes, that was a plea for sympathy!"

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/how_do_we_stop_men_killing_wom.html

"...... in most reports of violence against a prostitute, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators. As a man, I find that a discomfiting fact. Men also fight most of the wars in the world, and men dominate our prison population to such a degree that we need to talk about it. What is the sinister connection between men and violence and how can it be challenged?"

So men are fairly stereotyped by Will as hypochondriac psychopaths????

I think there might be a bubbling case of internalised misandry going on here???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry


In other words, it appears we are very sensitive here when our stereotyping might infringe on some groups, but actively use the technique to stereotype and marginalise others.

Aye aye, everyone, the BBC and William are biased this way, skewed that way. Who's ever happy??

PB, are you aware that Brian McClinton started this comments section claiming precisely the opposite from you?, ie. that Will and the BBC produced a segment on abortion that was skewed in the opposite way that you claim it is? So we have a guy claiming it's skewed to the religious right, not representing the position of the secular left, and we have a guy claiming it's skewed to the secular left, not representing the position of the religious right.

Paranoid?

Hi John:

Pb would probably not want to agree with me. It would probably be a 'sin' or 'evil' to find a meeting of minds with atheists.

On abortion, I think All-powerfultinacat summed it up pretty well.

As for bias, I think Pb might do well to listen to La Rochefoucauld: "If we had no faults we should not take so much pleasure in noticing them in others".

On the question of the democratic will, there hasn’t been a recent opinion poll in NI on abortion. In 1992, 1993 and 1994 Ulster Marketing Surveys found that 59% of Catholics supported it on grounds of rape or incest, while 83% of Protestants did so.

A poll published by the Irish Examiner in 2005 found that in the Republic of Ireland voters aged under 35 are overwhelmingly in favour of legalising abortion, suggesting that pro-choice appears to be the wave of the future, with those under 35 strongly in favour.

A June 2007 TNS/MRBI poll in the Republic found that 43% supported legal abortion if a woman believed it was in her best interest while 51% remained opposed. 82% favoured legalisation for cases when the woman's life is in danger, 75% when the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, and 73% when the pregnancy has resulted from sexual abuse.

In NI a number of women’s groups including the FPA and the NI Women’s European Platform support abortion, as do the major trade unions such as Unite, Unison and Nipsa. So our four main, predominantly male, parties may be increasingly out of step.

Hello smasher lagru,

"this is almost a pointless debate since the pro-choice element will always reject scientific rationality in favour of their ideological bias."

Hmmm, I'm pro-choice (although definately no fan of late-term abortions). And I often favour scientific rationality. I find your assertion rather unlikely. Given the strong overlap between scientific rationality and non-belief, and the correlation between non-belief and being pro-choice, I think it's more likely that the anti-abortion camp has the least scientific rationality in it.

Peter

The problem, Brian, with opinion polls, is that they depend on the way you ask the question, particularly in this area. A simple example - you ask people "do you agree that a woman should get life imprisonment for having an abortion"? - you get one answer. You ask "do you wish to see abortion legally available"? - you get a different answer. When people actually understand what is involved in abortion, and when they appreciate that there is no medical requirement for abortion (for example, the Republic has one of the best records of maternal care in the world) and that the vast majority of abortions, the vast majority, are about convenience - and don't all launch in and tell me about some poor soul whose partner, parent etc was beating her - the vast majority are about convenience.

Did you see the figures in the Telegraph at the weekend for people having repeat abortions - in some cases more than eight.

Telling us that pro-abortion groups in northern Ireland, such as FPA, support abortion, is hardly an argument.

And if you don't trust believers, try visiting www.godlessprolifers.org

Pb,

You mentioned the will of the majority. Apart from Brian mentioning various data that goes against your assertion (which you pb, presented without source of data), your argument really bends it when you say

"It has to be said, anything to the contrary would be liberals enforcing their religious/ethical views on the majority of the people here against their will."

Does any of the proposed legislation force people to have abortions? Would anyone have their right never to have an abortion taken away under that legislation? Would anything be imposed on them?

At present those seeking abortion in NI have the anti-abortion views imposed on them. The anti-abortion camp claiming having views imposed on them, turns reality on its head.

Peter

Peter, your post appeared when I was in mid post.

Almost every pro-choicer I know tries to move discussion away from real biological science into nebulouos discussions about "personhood" and a "moral person" because they cannnot argue with the simple biological fact that an embryo is a human being. and often they try throwing in Aristotle and Aquinas in and notions of souls etc even though they don't believe in them - quite bizarre.

I think prochoicers make up the categories as they need them - personhood, viability, consciousness - all categories that allow them a way to do what they want but aren't based on any real scientific distinctions between an embryo and a born human. Seen at its worst with partial birth abortion of course - which, incidentally, Obama supports.

Hello smasher,

Thanks for your reply. You wrote

'the simple biological fact that an embryo is a human being.'

That sounds to me as if you're the one defining it that way. As you brought up scientific rationality, could you give some scientific arguments to support the idea that an embryo is a human being please?

Peter

John

You would argue with your shadow for sport

;-)

when in reality you agree with me about the left wing anti-conservative bias in the BBC;-


Here are some comments from your current blog;-

https://www.john-wright.net/2007/04/29/uk-politics-and-the-bbc/


You have made numerous in a similar fashion before on your old blog.

Brian I am sure raised a valid point about the make-up of one panel on one occasion, but one swallow doesnt make a spring etc etc

;-)


PB


PS Incidentally you promoted this political quiz on your blog. It may surprise some bloggers here to find I am not a rabid right winger but am in fact a centrist, which I had always known.

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html


ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

The political group that
agrees with you most is...



CENTRIST



CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.
Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

PB writes: "Also, why promote only a hyperlink for extended coverage of only one side of the debate, above, William?"

In fact, I was quite careful to include hyperlinks from both the Christian Medical Fellowship and the Family Planning Association -- two contrasting moral perspectives on reproductive ethic. That's two hyperlinks, not one.

Will in fact you have three hyperlinks, one also for the abortion act.


Of the other two, one is highlighted as the Christian Medical Fellowship and he other is the moral and political case for extending the act.

Neither in the terms of how you have presented them nor in the terms of their content can they seriously be considered equal or equivalent, but I think I have to give you the benefit of the doubt here nonethless.


Anyway Will, come on pro-choice vs pro-life is SO 20th century....

what about exploring the massive potential for common ground and cooperation between the two groups...


They both want to protect the physical and mental health of the woman and there is masses that could be done in this field of sexual health/relationships research and education long before the question of an abortion ever comes up.



What do you think?

It is bound to make innovative and interesting radio...

PB

PB- That post is over a year old and, while I do agree that BBC journalists often betray their real feelings despite the ridiculous 'impartiality' clause and agree that those opinions are mostly left-liberal, I didn't detect any bias whatever in this presentation of the abortion debate. (I was merely pointing out the comedy of you and Brian both coming away convinced that the discussion was skewed against you.)

PB,

I think it's appropriate, when discussing the Abortion Act, to have a link to the Act itself. How that can be seen as an unfairness is beyond me.

I do agree, however, that the commonplace distinction between pro-life and pro-choice positions is often unhelpful. The debate is more complex than that. Pro-choicers are also pro-life. Pro-lifers are often defenders of choice.

George Bush is a case in point. He is typically portrayed as a pro-lifer, yet he supports abortion in cases such as rape and where there is a likelihood of severe disability in the developing fetus. The pro-life contributors on Sunday's programme would not accept either of those scenarios as a basis for termination.

Peter how can you deny the simple biological FACT that a human embryo is a human being? What else would it be? I would go further The embryo is a human PERSON.

Hello PTL,

"Peter how can you deny the simple biological FACT that a human embryo is a human being? What else would it be? I would go further The embryo is a human PERSON."

Postulating again that an embryo is a human being is a fact, does little to explain why that would be so. Asking what else it would be, does not make it so either. Could you please offer something better than just saying 'FACT' (that's slightly pb'ish, he does that all the time, you really don't want to lower ourself to his level) as to why an embryo would be a human being?

Peter

Peter, I agree that mere postulates are unhelpful. A human embryo is a "being" of sorts (that's hardly controversial). What kind of "being" is it? It's human, of course. Being a human being does not mean being a fully formed human adult, or an adolescent or even a toddler. Being a human being means having human DNA and other indicators of biological identity. I would want to argue that a foetus after individuation is a human being because it satisfies all the relevant genetic criteria. Whether that being is a person as yet is something we can debate further. I also accept that merely granting that a human being is present in the womb does not lead to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. That will take an argument too. I simply maintain that what is in the womb is human. I hope that isn't too pb-ish, because I agree with you on his contributions here too!

"I hope that isn't too pb-ish, because I agree with you on his contributions here too!"

:-)

Hello PTL,

"I hope that isn't too pb-ish, because I agree with you on his contributions here too!"

It's good to see there are distinctions between those who profess to hold strong christian views. :)

I think our discussion has become mostly a matter of definitions now.

"I simply maintain that what is in the womb is human."

I'll agree with that, but not with what makes a human being.

"Being a human being means having human DNA and other indicators of biological identity."

That position is untenable I think. In a few years, it will definately be so. You may remember that not too long ago a Korean researcher claimed to have cloned a human. That proved a fraud, but research is far enough for everyone in that field of research to have believed him for a short while. So in a couple of years, it will likely work. So then it may become possible to take a few cells from a person and create a human being from it. Those few cells have all the DNA and other characteristics to become a person. What is left after I blow my nose may be enough to grow a human from. It doesn't make the snot in my handkerchief a human being. From that, you may agree with me that just the DNA and other minimum requirements to become a human being aren't enough to be a human being?

greets,
Peter

Liberalism has triumphed on the 'other island' and the rights of women protected. The reactionary amendments to the Embryology Bill have been defeated in the Commons, including the attempts to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks. The 20-week amendment was defeated by 142 votes and the 22-week amendment by 71 votes, a fairly comfortable majority.

Ireland, North and South, however, remains the conservative carbuncle on the face of Europe. Orange and Green may disagree on many things, but they are united in denying women full citizenship and the control over their own bodies.

An early foetus is not a person, just as an acorn is not an oak tree, because it lacks:
the capacity to have conscious experiences;
the capacity to have emotions; the capacity to reason;
the capacity to communicate;
the capacity of self-awareness;
the capacity of moral agency, to control one's actions through moral principles.

Brian- Is that list of categories similar to the one I mentioned earlier? And does an oak tree have conscious experiences? If not, should it be regarded as an oak tree? And if it falls on Radio Ulster when nobody is listening, do those who missed hearing it still have to shell out their licence fee to pay for it?

John:
The BBC spends £5 billion a year.
The defence budget of the UK government is about £33bn. As far as I am concerned, a tax or licence fee towards the former is, overall, money well spent. On the other hand, I greatly resent paying taxes which contribute to WMD, such as those that Britain has, or to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As an arch-liberal, you ought to be incensed at that £33bn. You ought to be suggesting that the UK (and the USA) government should be returning all the defence budget and telling people to defend themselves – if they want.

Brian- Well to fill the gap in discussion I'll say that a defence budget (up to a certain size) is certainly necessary and justifiable as a means of protecting the rights of citizens; our debate may, I suspect, centre around the justifiable size of said budget. Protecting citizens doesn't mean protecting the citizens of other countries and taking sides in their wars (although it doesn't always preclude that either). But the TV licence fee protects no rights and violates a few of them, so it's not in the same category. :-)

Ah, John,

I see that you concede the need for some collective actions. Well, in that case I say to you that my right to watch quality television is protected by the existence of the BBC, funded by licence or taxes. I don't wish to be protected by Trident missiles; on the contrary, I feel LESS protected with him than without.

I believe in a united, nuclear free Europe which speaks independently and globally in matters of foreign policy, not in a United Kingdom with continued delusions of imperial grandeur and subservient partnership with US aggression.

Brian - why on earth have you suddenly jumped to defence spending, and then supported the right to bear arms?

Your list of capacities you feel essential to be a person are interesting - so every night when you go to sleep you stop being a person? Every one being operated on, anyone in a coma - none of them is a person? Interesting.

As I said previously - this is simply an attempt, and a failed attempt, to list characteristics you think an embryo lacks and then execute it accordingly. It's very similar to what the Nazis did when they were defining humanity according to their mad racial theories.

Slightly different question for you - a rabbit embryo - presumably in your world it's not a rabbit - what is it and when does it become a rabbit and what are the criteria you use to judge when it becomes a rabit?

Hi Smasher:

As someone only interested in Catholic issues, you probably aren't aware of John Wright's bee in his bonnet about the BBC licence fee.

Your failure to understand the meaning of the word 'capacity' is lamentable.

But, worst of all, is your nerve in lecturing others about Nazi morality when your Church:

1. made a Concordat with Hitler;

2. promoted and supported supported fascist regimes throughout Europe (Mussolini, Franco, Degrelle in Belgium, Codreanu's Iron Guard in Romania, Pavelic's Ustashis in Croatia, to name but a few.

Take the last example. Mile Budak, Croatian Minister of Religion, said in 1941: "The Ustashi movement is based on the Catholic Religion. For the minorities, Serbs, Jews and Gypsies, we have three million bullets. A part of these minorities has already been eliminated and many are waiting to be killed. Some will be sent to Serbia and the rest will be forced to change their religion to Catholicism. Our new Croatia will therefore be free of all heretics, becoming purely Catholic for the future years".

3. The Vatican applauded Croatia for its ant-abortion laws, which were used by the Ustashi government to justify the persecution of Jews since 'most practitioners of abortion are Jewish'.

4. applauded the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941;

5. remained silent in the face of the holocaust.

here's what the dictionary says about "capacity" - "actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand". I'm sure you will agree the human embryo has all of those capacity - just needs time to grow into them, in the same way that a newborn baby has them and needs time to grow into them. Same with a secular humanist.

It's bit much being lectured on nazis by secular humanists since the greatest despots in the last hundred years have been secular humanists - Hitler, Stalin and Mao. None of them believed in God.

The reason the Church signed a concordat with hitler was because it didn't trust him - it was an attempt to bind him. You may recall others tried similar things but don't make the simple anachronistic error of looking at 1933 through the retrospective lenses of the Holocaust, in which some 6 million Jews and 3 million Christians perished.

The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps.

In Time magazine in 1940 Einstein wrote "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

The work of Pope Pius XII during World War II so impressed the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that in 1944 he became a Catholic, taking the name, Eugenio, the baptismal name of Pius XII.

According to The New York Times (no friend of the Catholic Church) editorial on December 25, 1941: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace." A year later the editorial continued - "This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent... "

Of course there were traitors in the Church who were Nazis or helped Hitler. There were Catholics who committed sins of bigotry. There were also Catholics, who, out of fear or indifference, sinned through silence. The Church is full of sinners for whom Christ died. But Pope Pius XII and many Catholics did not remain "silent."
Could 860,000 Jewish lives be saved by "silent" indifference?

These days there are people who claim to be Catholic but promote and participate in abortion, assisted-suicide, gay weddings and contraception. In the years ahead when people finally wise up to what is happening will they also falsely accuse the Church and the Pope for being silent during the "culture of death" holocaust? Will there be a future Brian McClinton saying "look at these quotes from Ted Kennedy supporting abortion - he was a Catholic!

Brian-

"I see that you concede the need for some collective actions."

To concede is to surrender, or to admit something after I've already denied it; neither of these are true (libertarianism insists on some collective actions, namely those actions which are necessary in order to protect from infringement the equal rights of the people).


"Well, in that case I say to you that my right to watch quality television is protected by the existence of the BBC, funded by licence or taxes."

There's no such right as the "right to watch quality television". You've simply made it up, as I could if I wanted to justify public expenditure on any of my favourite things: the right to eat quality chocolate, the right to go swimming at least once a week, the right to clean underwear. Rights are not arbitrarily selected; they exist naturally - some have said 'inalienably' - before we begin the political process. (And I should say that even if there did exist a right to watch quality television - which there doesn't - it's obvious that commercial broadcasters are capable of producing quality television and the BBC is capable of producing television which lacks quality - all of which is dependent on the premise that you can define 'quality' universally and objectively in the first place - making it very difficult to make the case that we need a licence fee or taxation to provide it in the first place.) :-)


"I believe in a united, nuclear free Europe which speaks independently and globally in matters of foreign policy, not in a United Kingdom with continued delusions of imperial grandeur and subservient partnership with US aggression."

I think that's a decent goal... though ultimately I'm unsure that the European Union is the best way to do it. But, for a collectivist like you, I can see why it would be right up your alley!

William

ref post 18

Sorry if I was not clear, I was correcting you that you had posted three hyperlinks and not two.

Obviously the link to the act is neutral.

I was simply pointing out that the way you presented the links to the Christian drs and the ethical argument link were not equal.

One was a link to a group and one was a link to an argument.

I also noted that the content of the two sites was not equal and equivalent.

I also conceded you had made the effort and gave you the benefit of the doubt.


One last point, it is so intellecutally stimulating to discuss the rights and wrongs of abortion and I see I am being used here as a type of extreme to avoid.

However, I wonder if any of those people would would have been 100 per cent behind their mother's choice to dissect them live in her womb at 20 weeks gestation?

Would they have been quite happy that their mother took the decision to cut them up?

Also William regarding pro-choice labels, obviously a big topic for debate but their must also be an argument to say that pro-death is the opposite of pro-life.

As a rule I think it is fair that people should be identified by the labels they choose, but that courtesy is not afforded here to me normally by posters.

And the BBC moderators seem very happy to allow persistent sexual harrassement against me by these posters here, contrary to house rules.

All posters are equal....but some are more equall than others????

;-)

PB

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

At 03:09 PM on 01 Dec 2007, Peter Klaver wrote: DD, "I must admit that I am only after one thing! you have seen right through my wicked sham! But could I not share just a teeny a little bit? Ppplleeeaaassseee!" No way, peab is mine and mine alone!! If you want him then that will only be after a duel at dawn. The one left standing after the pistol shots die down gets exclusive humping privileges with pb. Peter[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi John:
I would place my right to watch quality TV under the headings, 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' and 'freedom of opinion and expression', both generally accepted human rights.

The BBC protects the former, though not adequately, by giving access to a wide variety of opinions on a comprehensive range of issues. I would say that, although not perfect, it succeeds more than privately owned channel in fulfilling this right.

It protects the latter by the range of its cultural, artistic and sporting programmes. There is also a right to participate in cultural life, and this right is also protected more by the BBC (especially if we include radio as well as TV) than by another private station.

Smasher:
You are flooging a dead horse. Pius XII was, as De Gaulle labelled him, 'the Nazi pope' and the Catholic between the wars supported a plethora of European fascist regimes because they opposed communism and liberalism, the twin 'evils' of the 20th century as far as it was concerned. Indeed, I am prepared to bet that it still regards them as modern 'evils'.

In this contect, the difference between ability and capacity is obviously that the ability may not be present, e.g. when we are sleep, but the capacity remains so that the ability returns when we awaken.

The 6 criteria of personhood remain: sentience, emotionality, rationality, communication, self-awareness and moral agency.

An entity need not have all these attributes to be a person, but the more criteria are satisfied the more confident we can be that the concept is applicable.

An early foetus has NONE of these six characteristics, and therefore is not a person yet and does not have the rights that persons do.

If we are to use the capacity to feel pain as a criterion of personhood, we might argue that a 24-week foetus can feel pain and is therefore a person. However, none of the other characteristics is likely to be present, and on this criterion alone an animal ought to have more rights than an early foetus, since it can not only feel pain but also in many cases possesses a degree of reason, and perhaps even of self-awareness.

Pete

How ironic that my post 38 is 100% Peter Klaver comments from post 218 from this thread;-

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_evolution_of_a_debate_at_s_1.html


this was just to illustrate the double standards on this blog Peter.

it would appear you can write whatever you like but if I repeat what you say it is censored!

how odd is that!

Even more odd is that my post 37 was a cut-down version of my post 36!

so there is no mystery there!

PB

Hello PB,

Given your history on this blog, I'm sure you'll understand that I don't take your word on the non-verifyable claims you make in post #42.

Peter

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Brian - lots of people supported parties and regimes we now describe as "fascist" for all sorts of reasons. But as I said, that did not mean they were signing up for the future holocaust.

Communism was one of the greatest evils of the 20th century and continues today in China - it resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people and the enslavement of millions of others. I make no apology for the Catholic Church's ongoing opposition to it.

I note you completely fail to address the evidence that the Catholic Church saved hundreds of thousands of Jews and that people at the time regarded the Pope as an enemy of the nazis - that's certainly the way the nazis regarded him. Clearly you have allowed yourself to be persuaded by the KGB inspired propoganda.

Look at what Golda Meir, the late Prime Minister of Israel, said this of him at his death in October 1958: ''During the 10 years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with their victims.''

Was she making it up? Was she some sort of Vatican dupe?

Your criteria of personhood, as I said before, are an invention, perhaps based on some science fiction writer's attempt to compare a human and a computer - sounds a bit like Azimov. I can just as readily make up criteria you won't like - for me a human person is someone made in the image and likeness of God, and that includes an embryo. And how can you argue since I've made up the criteria.

So my rabbit embroys - any criteria for them yet?

Smasher:

We have been over this ground before. You are deluding yourself about Pius XII. Golda Meir was mistaken.

1. Antisemitism led to the Holocaust.

2. Antisemitism has been integral to the Catholic Church for centuries.

3. Pius XII's 1919 letter is barrage of antisemitic stereotypes and charges.

4. The letter also contains the familiar Nazi charge that Jews were the authors of Bolshevism.

5. Pius XII protested the German invasions of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but NEVER once protested the Holocaust, even though he knew of it from the beginning.

6. Susan Zuccotti and others have exposed the myth that Pius XII gave orders for Italian Church officials to hide Jews.

7. In 1949 Pius XII excommunicated all communists in the world, including millions who had never shed blood, but did not excommunicate a single German who served Hitler, or indeed Hitler himself.

Note: the criteria of personhood are not mine but those of some moral philosophers (see for example Mary Anne Warren, The Monist, 56, 1).

Brian,

I must take issue with you on one point...

"7. In 1949 Pius XII excommunicated all communists in the world, including millions who had never shed blood, but did not excommunicate a single German who served Hitler, or indeed Hitler himself."

The Catholic Church did indeed excommunicate one Nazi-none other than the propaganda minister Josef Goebbals for the heinous crime of...marrying a Protestant. I don't think I need to add anything else to that...

Except here are some interesting photos...

https://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

The comments on this thread are beginning to remind me of the social evil thread. DD and Brian, you should already know where I stand on this. Sure, there are people all over the world and throughout history who have claimed to be christians who did bad things, as did people who have no interest in christianity at all.

Christians, have compromised their faith, christians have used the name of 'God' to further dubious causes, and christians have been just plain wrong. Everybody knows this, anyone who would deny it would be an idiot.

However I fail to see what any of this proves. I for example could quote many examples of christians working for good in the world. I could point for example to Dietrich Bonhoffer who during WW2 stood against the Nazis. None of this really means anything.

What might matter however is how any of us, faced with the same traumatic circumstances, might respond. When our lives are threatened, who knows what any of us might do. It seems to me, that it is then, and only then, that the reality of our deeply held convictions may be proved. None of this is an excuse for wrong-doing of course, but in the end each one of us is accountable only for our own actions.

As Jesus once said, “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth.”

And whether we are christians or not, and however we interpret the concept of faith, the simple fact is this, it is easy to believe our own faith, whatever it may be, when our lives are lives of ease.

Bonhoeffer once said, "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

It is easy for me though, I'm only have to quote him!

Peter,

I actually agree with you. Speaking for myself I am only pointing out to people like Smashy and PB that their view eg., Biblical literalist Christianity and Catholicism are always right... but history and actions do not always show this. Look at Smashy who cannot accept facts about his Church's conduct during WWII and PB's seeming refusal to accept that literalist Christians played a large part in supporting slavery. I did make the point on the social evil thread(and on others going back a long time)that I was *NOT* saying that all Christians were like this-far from it. History and actions show this to be false I am simply pointing out the absurdity of absolutist, black/white positions.

Incidentally I have heard of Dietrich Bonhoffer and for that matter Martin Niemoller and do recognise that Christians played a large part in opposing vile regimes. However I would still say that as institutions both the Catholic and mainstream Protestant Churches behaviour during WWII could be found wanting to say the least.

There are a couple of great films about Christians who opposed the Nazi's-if you have not seen them try 'Sophie Scholl' and 'Amen'.

Hi DD

I haven't seen either film, I'll check them out - thanks.

Peter:
If you look back you will see that it was Smasher who introduced the Nazis into the argument. In #32 he likened moral arguments for abortion to Nazi arguments for racism, an obscene and absurd comparison.

Brian

The posts on this thread have been hopping about all over the place - abortion - BBC bias - the BBC license fee - defence spending - the Nazis and the condemnation of the Catholic church. And yes I know the tangents were not raised by you.

The point I was making however, is that the opposing arguments on this site often take the from of trying to establish whose philosophy is the worst. The Catholics supported the Nazis - bad. Atheist regimes killed people in Russia - bad. This does no one any good. And sooner or later the debate has to move on.

Peter:
"The Catholics supported the Nazis - bad. Atheist regimes killed people in Russia - bad".

There is NO relationship between these two statements. The regime in Russia did not kill people because it was atheist but because it was totalitarian communist. Atheists generally don't go around killing people.

Peter:

I should add that we had established elsewhere that Christianity no more logically leads to the Inquisition than Atheism leads to the Gulag.

Also, you have gone off topic yourself (by your silence). You still haven't told me what you mean by saying that "God, in fulfilment of his promises, has accomplished the finding, the saving, the giving of new life in Jesus" (the 'In the Beginning ...' thread).

Finally, I think that I have said more about abortion on this thread than any other contributor
(1, 11 and 27). Actually, you have said nothing about the topic!

Brian - you are completely deluded. "The regime in Russia did not kill people because it was atheist but because it was totalitarian communist. Atheists generally don't go round killing people".

Prefacing everything I say with the understanding that there are individual exceptions, including I hope yourself, atheistic systems deny there is a God, and therefore a role for God in life and society, and therefore a particular aspect of man. Now it is an aspect of man you don't agree with or think should or does exist, but it completely alters how you think about people. Either they are created in God's image and likeness with natural rights and dignity that flow from that, or they are a highly functioning animal, whose only law is Darwinian survival. And if that is the case then it makes perfect sense to invade other countries, particularly if you regard them as genetically weaker, which is what the nazis did. In Darwinian terms, the holocaust is only wrong because you killed some useful workers and people who contributed to the economy.

There were many Catholics who did awful things during the war - some at high levels, but I think the evidence suggests, on balance, that Pius XII was not one of them. His approach was prudent - it allowed people at the time to know where he stood (hence the New York times editorials and views of Golda Meir) and yet gave him freedom to operate in some way throughout the war. And it is a question of judgment. The bishops in Holland courageously condemned the nazis with the result that many more Jews were rounded up and killed - not the bishops.

Rabbi Dalin in The Weekly Standard in early 2001 in the midst of the controversy over Pius XII, demolished the arguments of Pius's prime detractors (James Carroll, John Cornwell, Michael Phayer, Susan Zuccotti, Garry Wills) who, as Dalin points out, lack "historical understanding" and are preoccupied with "an intra-Catholic argument about the direction of the Church today, with the Holocaust simply the biggest club available for liberal Catholics to use against traditionalists." While conceding that Jewish scholars (Guenter Lewy and Saul Friedlander) did not lack criticism of the Pope, Dalin recalls that more Jews (Martin Gilbert, Jenö Lévai, Joseph Lichten, Livia Rothkirchen, Michael Tagliacozzo, and especially Pinchas Lapide) have defended Pius.

In exposing Susan Zuccotti's Under His Very Windows, Ronald J. Rychlak, of the University of Mississippi, shows that Zuccotti's study tends to accept, uncritically, evidence against the Pope and to ignore evidence in his support.

Still waiting to hear about the status of a rabbit embryo.

Brian

First of all I was merely expressing my frustration that a lot of comments on this blog take the form of batting back and forth accusations. This in my opinion is not debate!

Secondly on the issue of Catholics, Nazis, Atheists, Russia I was not saying that the regime in Russia went around killing people because it was atheist, the statement was an *illustration* of the kind of thing that I might expect to read on this blog. I expected you to know that. I could continue this example by arguing with you that Christians don't generally go around killing people, and we could go on and on about who does what, and how totalitarianism and atheism may or may not be linked..... My point is that this kind of interaction is pointless. Discussing what we deem to be the merits and demerits of different viewpoints is one thing, dismissing others as evil is another. You're going to have to stop being so literal. Anyway if the point was established why go on in the same vein?

I might also suggest that you *seem* to be determined to attack any kind of Christianity at any opportunity. I had expected more and would be glad to be proved wrong. Seems John Wright and I are both disappointed now! And if I, as a member of the broad Protestant community, were to go around making the anti-Catholic statements you have been making I would be called sectarian.

Do I have to have a view on abortion? Do I have to make it known? Can I not respond to other comments made on a thread? Must I follow your rules of engagement? Let's leave the rules up to the moderators.

Do you want my view on embryos and person-hood?, well....... maybe sometime!! I'm sure though you could give me a 'ball park' guess.

You're also concerned about the following:

"Also, you have gone off topic yourself (by your silence). You still haven't told me what you mean by saying that "God, in fulfillment of his promises, has accomplished the finding, the saving, the giving of new life in Jesus" (the 'In the Beginning ...' thread)."

Actually I'm glad you're still interested (and I mean genuinely glad, after some of my tongue in cheek comments above) and I have been thinking carefully about what to say, because your lack of familiarity with christian language surprised me a little. And anyway, sometimes people have other things to do than sit around reading the Will and Testament web site! You will notice I have posted very little recently. You should also know though, my silence doesn't bother me.

Brian, when I have decided what I want to say and how best to anything about the issues on the 'In the Beginning' thread, I will flag up where the comments will be. Hopefully soon.

Peter

Hi Brian

First response, as requested, on post 55 "In the Beginning..." thread.

No doubt we'll talk again soon.

Peter

Peter:

Just a couple of things:

(1) I made it clear on the social evil thread that I don’t like the word 'evil' and try to avoid using it either of institutions or individuals.

(2) I do not attack any kind of Christianity (but, of course, Nietzsche said that the last Christian died on the Cross).
I have also said that Quakerism is similar in some respects to Humanism and that some Quakers even call themselves humanists.

(3) Yes, I am critical of the Catholic Church, but give me the opportunity and I will have a go at conservative Presbyterianism as well! The trouble, Peter, is that liberal Christianity is largely absent in NI. So, as far as I am concerned, Catholic and Puritan, it is a plague on both your houses. I make no apologies for that. Remember the Rev David Armstrong, hounded out of Limavady because he dared to attend a Catholic service?

Hi Brian

"I will have a go at conservative Presbyterianism as well"...

go ahead, I'm sure you need no invitation from me!

"So, as far as I am concerned, Catholic and Puritan, it is a plague on both your houses. "

My house?, Brian, and you would know what flavour of christian I am?

And as for Nietzsche, "the last Christian died on the Cross", well in a way he was right. There really only was one true citizen of the Kingdom of God. His name was Jesus, the rest of us are just followers.

And, sorry, I forgot, you don't like the word evil, religious connotations or something I suppose. But then you say things like, ...The Catholic Church "remained silent in the face of the holocaust"...

...now, what word would you prefer?

Peter:
You are misrepresenting me again.

"Your house" doesn't mean yours personally; it means the two dominant religious houses in NI.

I never said that the Catholic Church remained silent in the face of the Holocaust. I said that Pius XII never protested the Holocaust. This is factually true as far as we know.

The word evil doesn't come from the Bible but from an old English word 'yfel'. It has no connection with the word 'devil' either, which comes from 'deoful'.

Certainly, no Humanist would accept the concept of evil as a supernatural force, or as something caused by demons or devils, or something that people are born with. Sometimes the word is just a substitute for trying to understand what makes people do bad things.

Basically, though, I think the word is too absolute in its connotations.
On the social evil thread, I said that, on balance, I believed that religion did more harm than good, and I am certainly not alone in this view, as the survey indicated.

The role of most of the Christian churches during the prosecution of Jews and then the Holocaust was a disgrace, and anyone who tries to defend it with references to courageous individuals is missing the essential point that it was the institutions and many (though not all) of their leaders who were culpable, not least Pius XII.

Smasher may wriggle and wriggle, but this is what Pius XII wrote in 1919 in a letter describing the communist insurrection in Munich:

"In the midst of all this, a gang of young women, of dubious appearance, Jews like all the rest of them, hanging around in all the offices with lecherous demeanour and suggestive smiles. The boss of this female rabble was Levien's mistress, a young Russian woman, a Jew and a divorcee, who was in charge. And it was to her that the nunciature was obliged to pay homage in order to proceed.
This Levien is a young man, of about thirty or thirty-five, also Russiand a Jew. Pale, dirty, with drugged eyes, hoarse voice, vulgar, repulsive, with a face that is both intelligent and sly".

This is the only known direct public reference by the future Pius XII to Jews and it is a tissue of antisemitic stereotypes and charges. It makes the same identification of Jewishness and communism that the Nazis made.

Brian - still waiting to hear about the status of a rabbit embryo, or have you forgotten the point of this thread?

Smasher:
You seem to have forgotten that the papal trail was started by you.
Nor do I have to answer all your stupid questions.

You started the references to the Vatican in No.33.

Rather childish of you to dismiss an argument as a "stupid question". You are premising support for abortion on notions of human personhood based on philosophy rather than on straighforward biology. My view, supported by science, is that an entity which is a human being after birth, is clearly a human being before birth - what else can it be - an like the ad for cider, nothing added but time.

The reason I ask you about rabbits is that you cannot hide behind philosophical notions of personhood when dealing with a rabbit - if it's a rabbit after birth, clearly its a rabbit before birth.

I just want abortionists to admit what they know in their brains - that causing an abortion is killing a human being. They may think it is justifiable to do so and they should make that argument - but pretending it isn't a human being is a ridiculous moral avoidance. I know you hate it when I mention the Nazis, but it IS the same approach - same approach taken with slavery in the US and apartheid in South Africa and non-party members in communist states, and non muslims in jihadist states - you redefine what it means to be human and then persuade yourself what you are doing is a moral good. And yes, before you say it, Christians have been known to do it to - distinguishing between the redeemed and the damned - kill them all, let God judge them approaches.

Smasher,

Your rabbit embryo analogy rather proves my point. People do not eat rabbit embryos as far as I am aware and would probably be repulsed by the idea, but many of them do eat rabbits. But I really don't see your point: a rabbit embryo/foetus is not a rabbit; it is a rabbit embryo/foetus. It is only called a rabbit when it is born. On that analogy a human embryo/foetus is not a human until it is born, which is not what you want to prove at all.

'Straightforward biology' is misleading because biologists don't have clear answers to certain questions, such as when does human life begin? This is a bit like asking when does night become day? It is a gradual process. Few biologists would argue that a human being is created at conception, when it has no sex, no brain, no eyes, ears or other senses. So your attempt to conceal your ultramontane view on abortion behind biology is weak.

As for philosophy, as we are creatures with developed brains, all our thinking is based on it. It governs our assumptions and concepts in every art or science.
It seems to me that Mary Anne Warren and other philosophies of similar views have made good use of biology in forming their criteria of personhood.

Actually, the Catholic Church was not always opposed to abortion and did not always believe that the soul entered the body at conception. Aquinas believed that the souls of girls were implanted at 90 days (for boys it was 40!  – another case of assumed male superiority). Therefore an abortion was all right if the foetus was earlier than 90 or 40 days. This was the policy of the Catholic Church until the 17th century, when it was decided that ensoulment took place from the moment of conception.

Of course, a fertilised egg or zygote may split in two and then these two come together again. If this happens and there is a single soul, has each part of the cell a separate soul and, if so, then what happens when the two halves come toghether again?
A question which merely substantiates the view that the soul is a load of hogwash.

The Nazi charge is cheap and easy. Anti-abortionists like you, Smasher, fling it about as if you were on the moral high ground when in fact your opposition often springs from adherence to what is in itself a totalitarian ideology.
You are dressing up subservience to an absolutist, dictatorial institution in the guise of moral rectitude.

When you become incensed about how we treat REAL children, about people starving around the world and at home, about people being killed in needless wars, about how we treat our old people, about how men treat women, about how we persecute and discriminate against minorities, about how we let corrupt politicians rule over us, about the lack of basic rights for most citizens, about the abuse of power by religious institutions, then and then only will you have a moral leg to stand on.

Obsessively fuming about the rights of an early foetus pales into a pinhead beside these other injustices.

Rabbits only become rabbits when we can eat them. Utilitarian as ever, Brian.

As regards the day/night analogy, while for ordinary folk the change may be gradual and hard to see, for scientists it is very specific. Daytime is the period between sunrise and sunset and these are defined as the first (last) appearance of the Sun above the horizon each day. This occurs when the sun's altitude reaches -0º 50'. So it's a specific point in time, with the effects gradually unfolding over time - very like the growing life of a human embryo.

It's always amusing how pro-choicers are so fond of Aquinas. Here is your first mistake. You say the Catholic church did not always oppose abortion. That is quite untrue. The Church has always opposed abortion at every stage in the process. It is true that people did not understand the biology of what was happening until relatively recently and that included Aquinas who would not have known there was an egg and a sperm joining at conception.

Souls make the process easier to understand. If God puts in 2 souls then there will be splitting and twins.

The nazi charge is cheap and easy and spot on and that's why people don't like - don't want to face the reality of their beliefs and behaviour.

And this tired old argument - "what about the born people who are suffering blah, blah, blah". 2 answers - the Catholic Church and its agencies do more to help people throughout the world than any other organisation - simple fact. And secondly, the suffering endured by born people is rarely sanctioned by legislation and lauded by humanists. Who is there to speak for the unborn but us? They can't go on marches, set up blogs, burn flags etc. All they have is us.

Smasher:

Scientists are NOT specific about day and night. The distinction you make is one of convenience, that's all.

The first code of canon law of the Catholic, compiled by Gratian in 1140, stood until 1917. It decreed abortion homicide only when the foetus was formed (again, at 40 days if male, 90 if female.) In 1588, Pope Sixtus V issued a papal bull, Effraenatum, decreeing all abortion and contraception murder. But Gregory XIV annulled it in 1591, returning to the earlier position that abortion was not homicide early in a pregnancy because the foetus was not human. There were no further pronouncements until 1869. Apostolicae sedis, issued by Pius IX, directing that abortion at any stage be punished by excommunication, became part of canon law in 1917.

You have also completely misunderstood my point about rabbits, which is far from being purely utilitarian. Indeed, I omitted to mention our treatment of animals in my last posting because I want to make a separate point. In Ireland and elsewhere thousands of animals capable of suffering are slaughtered every day to feed us. During their short lives they are often kept in appalling conditions. Chickens, turkeys, pigs have awful lives. It is a shocking scandal. Battery hens standing in a space no bigger than an A4 page; sows confined in a stall where she cannot turn round for he whole life; cows pushed to the limit of milk production; horses stretched to their limit over fences; rabbits (yes, those rabbits to which you refer) having their eyes injected with chemicals; beagles condemned to inhaling smoke; up to 40% of Canadian seals not unconscious when skinned. The litany of cruelty and destruction is endless. The number of animals species is being depleted, and we are to blame. Here's a REAL and MEANINGFUL cause for your humanitarian anger. Here's a real crime of humanity.

Anna Sewell wrote: "There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind to beasts as well as man it is all a sham".

William Ralph Inge wrote: "We have enslaved the rest of the animal kingdom, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that, beyond doubt, if they were to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form".

Printing NOT in capitals doesn't change the fact that there is a scientific definition of day and night. Why would you deny this? How obtuse can you be?

Your reference to earlier codes of canon law refer to the punishment due for abortion which was different depending on the stage of development. As I have already said, earlier churchmen did not know the same biological reality we know and tended to follow Aristotle. But, and this is the point you miss, the Church always taught that it was wrong to cause an abortion at any stage.

My crack about you eating the rabbits was just to wind you up. Come back and talk to me about animal rights when you respect human rights - cos any human, born or unborn, is way ahead in terms of rights.

Loved Black Beauty by the way, great book.

Smasher:

Oh, you are a tease! We have a wind-up ultramontanist. So, can anyone take ANYTHING you say seriously? Maybe you secretly despise Benedict, Pius XII and their ilk. Maybe you don't agree with them about homosexuality or transubstantiation after all. Maybe your entire anti-abortion crusade is a wind-up.

In medieval times, the Church did not refer to abortion before the 90 or 40 day periods I mentioned as murder because the soul was not yet in the body. They changed their position on this. Of course, they didn't APPROVE of abortion back then: the killjoy male celibates liked nothing connected with sex, or women, at all! That's hardly surprising! You have slyly shifted your position here.

'Day' and 'night' are human constructs. Reality is not so clear-cut. You want a precise point to fit your own view and negate my analogy. So you have equated the beginning of 'day' with 'sunrise', which a strict scientist would not do because he knows that the term 'day' is looser and indeed subjective. We may say that sunrise begins when the sun first appears above the horizon, but the sun doesn't all appear at one precise moment and there is also the concept of twilight or dusk after sunset or dawn before sunrise. As you yourself have admitted, the change from night to day is a gradual process, and that is the crucial point, not the precise point of change that you are looking for and none of us would actually recognise if we looked out the window.

Anyway, the precise point to which you are alluding doesn't have to be conception: why could it not be at viability as the UK law largely accepts. We might argue about a week or two, but what's wrong with saying that the time limit for abortion should be, say, 22 weeks, before any viability is possible. Is that not a fairly precise cut-off point? If viability becomes possible earlier, then the time limit could be altered.

You lecture me on rights while avoiding the issue of animal rights. Do animals have any rights? If they are more sentient than an early human foetus, do they not have more rights than it?

But I could mention other rights: the rights of women and gays, for example. you aren't too hot on these, are you? Indeed, you place the rights of an early foetus above those of the woman in typicallly old-fashioned patriarchal style.

Come on, Smasher, tell us a little bit about the other human rights that YOU champion other than those of a foetus. You might find that I even agree with you on some of them!

The Church didn't change it's moral opinion, just its knowledge of biology. The Church, as you would know if you ever read or listen to Pope Benedict, values reason very highly. I think it was Aquinas (but maybel Augustine) who said you can't believe something unless you think it is reasonable.

I know pro-choicers are obsessed with the Church's understanding of biology in the middle ages - indeed the recent Irish report from the Bioethics Commission on assisted reproduction feels it necessary to refer to it - all this of course to suggest there is confusion in the Church's position, or another opinion to be valued. Presumably we can all agree on which the Church's position on abortion is - even if we don't agree with it. I really don't see what't to be gained by continually harping on about Aquinas and ensoulment.

As regards day and night - I think you are doing your argument no good at all by your position. They are human constructs in the same way that personhood, and sentience, and viability are human constructs. The scientific reality is that there is complete scientific consensus on when day begins and ends, based as I said on a specific point of sunlight on the horizon - go visit any astronomical website and they will explain it for you.

Conception is biologically a real, precise point - viability is an invented concept, with nothing in it to support a moral position that would allow you to kill a child. Irrespective of when it is, 24 weeks or 22 - just think about what you are saying - that the morality of killing someone depends on the expertise of the doctors. So in a highly skilled US hospital it would be wrong to kill a child after say, 23 weeks, but if you were in Somalia or Iraq it would only be wrong after, maybe 28 weeks - so morality (the right to kill someone) depends on their access to a ventilator?

Now supposing someone says let's define viability as being able to survive without medical attention. Does that mean people on kidney dialysis are goners? and if not why not? It's completely arbitrary. It makes no moral sense.

As regards animals, I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't support cruelty to animals. I think their lives should be as happy as they can be given that they will be killed for us to eat. I think they should be adequatly housed and fed and killed as humanely as possible. I think scientific experimentation should be minimal and only for clear human benefits by which I mean I would support practising new medical techniques on animals but not testing perfumes. I'd guess my views are fairly middle of the road with animals. I don't wear fur (apart from that trimming on my big arctic coat which looks like dog).

As regards women, I believe in the principle of double effect as regards necessary medical treatment while pregnant but you know my views on direct abortion. I believe in general in non-discrimination, though I think our society fails to value women as mothers. I don't believe in the ordination of women but I believe many of the curial structures in the Vatican could be changed and declericalised.

As regards homosexuals, I believe it is a sinful attraction as you know, but I believe in non-discrimination in most areas. What I mean is, to compare with a drug addict or alcoholic - I would not discriminate against those people but I wouldn't let them work in a chemist or pub. I believe marriage is between a man and woman and children are best reared within a family of a father and mother and I think the state should be supportive of this model without placing undue burdens on people in other situations.

I believe in religious freedom, freedom of expression (within normal boundaries as regards incitement and pornography), freedom of assembly and political activity.

As I think I mentioned before, until Amnesty International began supporting abortion I was an active member.

Smasher:

Thanks for the honest, direct response. It is a welcome change. Keep it up!

You are really wrong about this day/night analogy. The precision which you seek does not exist because there are many conceptions and perspectives on the meaning of a day. An astronomer's is only one.

The atmosphere refracts sunlight with the result that some of it reaches the ground even when the sun is below the horizon. The first light reaches the ground when the centre of the sun is still below the horizon by about 50 minutes of arc. So there is actually 'daylight' even when the sun is below the horizon.

A day is customarily measured as 24 hours (86,400 SI seconds), but really it is about 86,400.02 seconds. A day on Jupiter is less than 10 hours; on Venus it is 117 of our days. The earth's day has increased in length over time. The original length of one day, when the earth was new about 4.5 billion years ago, was about six hours. It was 21.9 hours 620 million years ago as recorded by rhythmites (alternating layers in sandstone).

The Jewish day begins at sunset.

My day begins when I get out of bed, which is usually after sunrise. My 'night' does not begin at 4 30 when it is dark in winter here but somewhere around 9pm (before which there is the evening), when it is still daylight in summer. Or is 'evening' the twilight before dark?

The universe has evolved; earth has evolved; liife has evolved; morality has evolved. Either you accept these truths or you continue to bury your head in the ancient Near Eastern sand.

Attitudes to life have also evolved. Most people's lives counted for nothing. They were generally nasty, brutish and short. Our morality has expanded outwards as Lecky predicted: from the family, to the tribe, to the nation, to the world and then to our relationship with the earth and other creatures on it. This moral evolution has certainly not been an unbroken upward path. There have been slippages,
the first half of the twentieth century being an obvious aberration as far as Europe is concerned.

But since 1945 Europe with its cosmopolitan outlook and its rights-based culture has been moving in the right direction.

Included in these rights are the rights of women to have control over their own bodies and not be dictated to by celibate old men with their heads stuck in the clouds. The laws on abortion enacted in the UK are part of this liberating agenda. They recognise that life itself evolves; it does not begin at one specific point in pregnancy. Evolution itself proves it. 500 million years ago life began with, first shells, then fish. Around 200,000 years ago the first humans strode out of Africa.

I see that the Catholic Church now accepts evolution. When, then, in this process did humans acquire a soul? When, in this span of evolution going back about a quarter of a million years, did the early foetus become sacred, Smasher?

Brian, thank you for your attmpts to patronise me.

As the big black guy in Pushing Daisies (Emerson?) said the other night - "The truth isn't like a bunch of puppies running around, and you get to pick your favorite."

It's fruitless discussing the day/night thing with you as you simply refuse to accept that there is a scientific definition, irrespective of when you got to bed.

Of course lots of things have changed over time, including our attitude to democracy, death penalty etc. and in difficult situations such as war or famine people's attitudes can change. However, basic morality remains the same - you just have to apply it in changed circumstances. So for example, the principles behind just war theory may still hold, the nature of war and the weapons used have changed in ways that make it harder to apply just war theory. But then people can take different approaches, like using international conventions to prohibit use of gas, or mines or cluster bombs. But the principle doesn't change.

Same is true for respect for human life - we can do all sorts of things medically we couldn't do a few years ago - but you apply the principles to the new circumstances.

The post-war evolution of human rights theory, essentially flowing from the Nurembourg trials, were an attempt to copper fasten natural law theory, to stop nazis or commies or even Catholic dictators using positive law as justification for abuses. But as the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, said when addressing the Council of Europe back about 1996 - "these rights exist prior to the states which we represent". They are natural, innate human rights.

A pregnant woman is not the same as anyone else - that is a reality. She has another human inside her who is totally dependent on her. and that can be a heavy responsibility for some women, who may have become pregnant in difficult circumstances but your tired old mantras of women's own bodies and celibate old men doesn't wash any more. Most people, including women, don't support abortion for the reasons normally provided (convenience). Do you seriously believe it's a good thing that millions of unborn children have been killed in the last forty years?

You do ask an interesting question about evolution and the soul. I believe in a form of directed evolution - you can call it intelligent design if you like - and at a particular point God chose to create humans with souls.

Hi Brian

You accuse me of misrepresenting you. "I never said that the Catholic Church remained silent in the face of the Holocaust." (your post 60) in reference to my post 59, when I said, "you don't like the word evil, religious connotations or something I suppose. But then you say things like, ...The Catholic Church "remained silent in the face of the holocaust"...now, what word would you prefer?"

Yes, with so many words flying out of everybody's computers that may indeed be possible. It is important that each of us take care not to do this, especially if such misrepresentation were intentional. If I have done this please accept my apologies.

In this particular case however, I don't agree that you have been misrepresented. Maybe I've have misread you, but my comments were in response to your post 33, "But, worst of all, is your (smasher-lagru's) nerve in lecturing others about Nazi morality when your Church:" (leading to point 5) "5. remained silent in the face of the holocaust."

It is true that in your post 46 you say, "5. Pius XII protested the German invasions of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but NEVER once protested the Holocaust, even though he knew of it from the beginning.", but my reference was to post 33. Anyway the point was about how we use the word evil. I would have thought that the Holocaust was pretty "absolute" (your word, your post 60)

The reason I picked you up on the word "your" as in, "So, as far as I am concerned, Catholic and Puritan, it is a plague on both your houses" (post 58) was because you we responding specifically to me (beginning "Peter"), we were speaking of Catholicism and the "broad Protestant community" (post 56), I am a christian, which you know, and the word 'your' is a second person (sometimes plural) pronoun. Therefore I counted myself as being included with the other recipients of the 'plague' pronounced!

Maybe it is also worth saying that I do not make the same distinctions between christians (acceptable christians, unacceptable christians) you make. There are those I agree with and those I disagree with on certain points, there are sane christians and nutters(!); but generally I tend towards a position of inclusion based on the bible and the ancient creeds. Specifically then, whether others like it or not, that means that people like pb, smasher, ptl and myself are probably pretty much agreed on the basics of christianity, and unless they rule themselves out, I'm certainly not going to do it.

By the way, any thoughts on the aseity of God?

Smasher:

Our positions on day and night are like... day and night. Sunrise is defined in a precise way but not necessarily the beginning of 'day', and sunset is defined precisely but not necessarily the beginning of 'night'. We shall have to leave it at that.

I don’t for one second believe that millions of unborn children have been killed in the last 40 years. Neither do the majority of the people of most advanced societies which decades ago legalised abortion. It is sheer moral blackmail to make this accusation. When you start complaining as vocally about the millions of children who have died of disease and starvation in the last 40 years, then we might take you seriously. Not before.

Three countries which ban abortion under all circumstances are El Salvador, Malta, and the Vatican City. In Poland, Ireland Spain and Portugal it is allowed only in limited circumstances. The common thread linking all these countries is the Catholic faith of a large majority of the population. This has absolutely nothing to do with the moral superiority of the Catholic Church and everything to do with its brainwashing of and control over its 'flock' who meekly obey their 'leaders'.

I think you admit that, according to Aquinas, abortion was not murder if it occurred within 90 or 40 days of conception. Moreover in Exodus 21 the penalty for murder is death; however, it also states that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a miscarriage, the penallty is only a fine, to be paid to her husband (note the discrimination against women). Murder was therefore not a category that included a foetus.

The idea that killing a foetus is murder is therefore both unbiblical and unAquinastic. It is a more recent development and a means of the Church’s attempt to maintain control over the female of the species.

What amuses me is that you think that your God chose a point in evolution to give humans souls but you haven't the foggiest notion when this happened. Did Lucy, whose remains have been dated as being between 3m and 4m years old, have a soul? Did Australopithecus africanus, about 3 million years ago? Did Homo Erectus about 1.5m years ago? Or how about Homo neanderthalensis, about 250,000 ago? Or should we restrict the soul entirely to Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago?
Has the Church not pronounced on this matter yet? I ask partly in genuine ignorance. It is a difficult one because choosing a point in time will imply that the soul 'evolved' over millions of years. it wasn't there in early man. if early man didn't have a soul, is it not possible that the early foetus likewise doesn't have a soul? Aquinas thought not.

Peter:

Hello, Peter, the man who complained of irrelevancies on this thread and who now introduces one of his own. I could say that you might have to wait as long as I did for a response on the meaning of the ever-living Christ on the ‘In the Beginning...’ thread. But I won’t bother. I read your posting, and I am sorry but I hardly understand a word of it. As far as I am concerned, this kind of language is jibberish. Aseity is a nonsense like the ontological and cosmological arguments of which it can be seen as a part. They were torn to shreds by Kant and others centuries ago. It is Christians again clutching at straws by trying to invent new concepts which are merely old ones in modern guise. I could just as easily say that the universe has aseity and it would probably be more meaningful and logical.

Peter, in all honesty what do you think it means by saying that God is not limited by anything external to himself? Is it meant to be an earth-shattering new discovery? Or a load of twaddle?

The problem is that when believers introduce this kind of language into debate about religion, they effectively destroy all possibility of debate because it contains its own internal brand of mysterious logic which is meaningless to sceptics and non-believers. You believe in an everliving Jesus and a God who is self-sufficient. Really? What can I say, except that you are entitled to your belief, but please let me have the right to be free of it.

Hi Brian

I am glad that you accept I did not misrepresent you.

Irrelevancies? I think not. I presume you mean my question about aseity. If not, please be clearer about what you are referring to. And the question about aseity, and the everliving Jesus; well you were the one who introduced that debate to this thread in post 54, accusing me of going off topic (by my silence). You will note too that I posted my response about what christianity signifies to me on the 'In the Beginning' thread to which the nature of God is directly related. We can pick up the conversation there again if you prefer. We could start with, "Peter, in all honesty what do you think it means by saying that God is not limited by anything external to himself?"

What I did say on this thread, and again I have to presume that this is what you mean by irrelevant, was that often the arguments on this web site are little more than a slanging match. I still think that, and you are doing it again ( "jibberish" ) Am I supposed to feel offended? Sorry, I ain't.

The trouble Brian is this, having read a significant number of your contributions, some of which are very good, and have been very informative, I am still left with the **impression** that you just don't like christianity, except for a few liberal ones who you deem to be acceptable. Maybe I am mistaken, but when you write about the church, on issues like abortion for example, you use accusatory language, you use the language of confrontation. Dylan_Dog saw the point I was making and engaged with it even though we don’t agree. (post 49).

Furthermore do you really expect exchanges on the various threads of this web-site not to overlap as we learn more and more of each others positions?

If it helps, let me state my position on abortion. I didn't hear the original Sunday Sequence programme, but you credit the Rev Nigel Playfair, with the view that abortion is immoral but, like war, sometimes a necessary evil. (post 6) I don't actually know what this means in practical terms, but for me, "necessary evil" means extreme, unwelcome circumstances in which one life is only put at risk when another is in danger and with the emphasis on saving human life, whatever form it takes. My wife's view on abortion is, by the way, NO, NEVER, NOT AT ALL. (emphasis hers) She calls it a mother's desire to protect her child, and to me, her stance suggests she has the capacity to care deeply for the future of another.

My/our reasons for this are:

(1) The self-existent God, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, to quote the prayer book, created humans beings in his image and therefore all human dignity is derived from him. Smasher made this point in Post 45. Oh and there we have the nature of God directly related to the subject of human nature!

(2) Human life, wherever it has been initiated and wherever it is possible, from the womb to the ward, ought to be nurtured. We are all members of a human race, we stand or fall together, we are members of one people. What I find fascinating about your humanism is the degree to which it seems individualistic, almost to the point of disconnecting us from one another. I happen to believe in the concept of unity in diversity, but them I'm a christian and I believe in mad things like the Trinity.

But, Brian, your real problem seems to be that you simply don't understand (by your own admission), any kind of theology, and so you dismiss it. (and that quite aggressively) Neither do you think through the implications of your worldview. I have already had this discussion on another thread a while back with another poster; your view has nothing but time and chance, yet you wish to hold on to the concept of human dignity while maintaining the 'morality' of ripping apart the very cells which 'time and chance' require to produce a person like you or me.

When you quoted some of the philosophers I hadn't read, I looked them up and read some of their thinking, but you dismiss christian thought as "jibberish", "twaddle", "a pack of lies" (if you want the references I'll give them to you). Brian, go and read some theology and when you have figured out, dispassionately, and with an open mind, what you think a variety of christian writers (catholic and reformed) are saying, then criticise what we christians believe, but don't argue from a position of theological ignorance. As for, "I could just as easily say that the universe has aseity", yep, I think you'll find I had already said that. Thing is you seem to think you are 'a se' and this, it appears, is the basis of every one of your arguments but I don't accuse you of ending the possibility of debate.

Religious language was not introduced in order to "destroy all possibility of debate because it contains its own internal brand of mysterious logic which is meaningless to skeptics and non-believers". I used it because I was writing about religion! If you don't like aseity, try autonomy. Put simply, christians believe that it is God alone who is truly free, however as you have difficulty with the 'God' bit, then it's pointless discussing his nature. Of course all this stems from your post 52 In the beginning... "It's all about understanding, communication, reason, truth, openness, fairness, is it not? There are almost as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians (probably the same is true of humanists), so I am trying to get a clearer picture of yours so that I can grasp it fully and properly."

Now, did you mean it or not?

Incidentally, I have never denied any of your rights.

Peter:

Please stop acting whiter than white and accusing other people of faults you display yourself such as irrevelancies and personalising issues. Yoiur last post is a tissue of personalisations.

First of all, I have read Theology with an open mind. I studied Philosophy which included theology at University. I have several books on the Philosophy of Religion, and I know all about aseity. I still think it is jibberish. "Are you supposed to feel offended"? I have no idea. But if someone cannot say an idea is jibberish without fear of offending someone, then we are at a sorry pass.

Much of modern theology is effectively a foreign language because it does not relate to any known sense of the world or reality. I am still waiting for an EXPLANATION of the significance of terms like 'ever-living', 'self-sufficient' or 'autonomous' as applied to a God, and why on earth we should care one way or the other. The fact that you are writing about religion doesn't absolve you from the need for clarity and good sense. Let me make it clear that I am not merely referring to you. I have seen no satisfactory account of modern theology that would remotely convince any open mind that it made any real sense of the world. So I am not getting at you.
But go on have a go: what is the significance of saying that A God or gods has (have) aseity?

You say: "I am still left with the impression that you just don't like christianity, except for a few liberal ones who you deem to be acceptable". This is a confused statement and an example of what I mean by the conflation of ideas and people. You start by 'Christianity' which is a system (or rather systems) of belief, and then switch to Christians. I thought that Christianity itself taught that we could love the sinner while hating the sin. Apparently not, if you are not a Christian. Oh, dear.

Peter, I lived all my life in Ireland. I agree with Lecky, who wrote: "if the characteristic mark of a healthy Christianity be to unite its members by a bond of fraternity and love, then there is no country where Christianity has more completely failed than Ireland".

We have had thirty years of sectarian murder, bigotry and intolerance carried out by two tribes distinguished partly by their nationalism and partly by their religion. It is futile to deny that religion is part of the problem. It is what makes Protestants and Catholics what they are.

The point too is that much of this animosity is based on shadows. In other words, the meaning of obtuse theology, Peter. Transubstantiation. The Mass and its significance. The hot Gospel. The Bible versus tradition. etc. etc. Arguments over this theological twaddle (yes, twaddle, Peter) are deemed more importance than the Christian ethic (or at least the better part of it).

I have lived in a society where there have been strident religious and political voices everywhere. The pope is the antichrist; Protestants aren't real Christians. The Rev Armstrong hounded out of Limavady because he dared to attend a Catholic service. Gerry Fitt hounded out of his Belfast home because he dared to criticise his own tradition. I am an ex-Protestant and a republican (pacifist, I hastily add). i am regarded as a traitor in my own community. So as J B Priestley put it, there is no point in speraking in soft, gentle tones when all around you are shouting, bullying and commanding you what to think and who to support.

Yet I find that all sexual matters these churches all agree. And why. Because it is a means of control. one of the few left, as priests can't be found and pulpits are emptying. So the Irish churches cling on toi what served them sell ion the past: a negative, killjoy sexual puritanism totally out of place in the modern world.

It pretends to be moral. it is nothing of the kind. By denying people their rights and freedoms, especially those of women, it is the true immorality.

We are indeed all members of the human race. Which is why we should be concerned about real people and real issues, not the status of bread and water imn a service or of a foetus. But it is typical of the Irish (and maybe this is the ultimate proof that we ARE 'stupid', as the jokes suggest) that we get worked up over all the wrong things.

Peter,
Most of advanced Europe are content with abortion. Are they so much worrse than we are? Are they so much more immoral? Are the Dutch, who are very tolerant people, both Catholic and Protestant? Are the Danes, who are the happiest people in Europe, so much worse than us?
Are we Irish, who have fought and killed each other ferociously for 400 years, living in a moral bubble? Who are we with our record to tell other people how they ought to behave?

You have not denied me any rights. But Christians in general have done and continue to do by controlling much of the public discourse and brainwashing children.

I notice in my last posting that, while Jesus miraculously turned water into wine, I have repaid the compliment by turning wine into water.

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your reply. I am in no way whiter than white, it's one of the reasons I am a christian. Of course my last post was personal, I was replying to you. You will note however that I sought, unsuccessfully perhaps, to avoid words like nonsense, twaddle, lies and the like, and qualified what I said with 'seems to' and 'appears'.

I guess one of our problems is a philosophical one, in other words, our misunderstanding probably extends from our respective world views. Yours is without God, mine with God.

So lets begin where we agree.

First of all, "You say: "I am still left with the impression that you just don't like christianity, except for a few liberal ones who you deem to be acceptable". This is a confused statement..."

Yes, you are correct. I noticed the problem after I had posted and could do little about it. A clearer statement may have been, I am still left with the impression that there are many aspects of christianity you just don't like, except for those which most closely resemble a humanistic world view. This may explain why you have more time for liberal christianity. Of course it still seems to me that any bits you do accept are still devoid of God. The point I have been trying to make is that christianity doesn't really amount to much without an understanding of God.

If then, you mean to criticise the popular face of much of Irish christianity, then I am with you on that. I have already said as much on the Social Evil thread. It is true too, that many of the internal arguments of christianity must be confusing and bewildering to non believers, I accept that as well. And, without trying to qualify too much, I will simply say that the examples you give are fair. Many christian arguments had more to do with self-justification than graciousness. I sympathise too with your feelings of being a traitor. I have had similar problems trying to encourage people to separate christianity from nationalism. (Irish and British) Was it difficult to find an identity outside of limited militant christianity and politics growing up in Northern Ireland, of course, we all struggled at times. However I did think I was trying to explain what christianity signified to me, and it's not possible to do it all at once. I had to start somewhere and I choose the concept of self-existence. I also tried to link it to the idea that all of us argue for some form of aseity by way of relating it to the real world.

Is there pretense in christianity - yes. Do some christian leaders seek to control - yes. Are other nations more immoral - no. Do we get worked up over the wrong things - yes. Has christianity been associated with a negative, killjoy, sexual puritanism - yes. I know christians who can make married heterosexual couples feel guilty about sex! Have christians missed the point of what they are supposed to believe - yes. Do christians moralise too much - yes. I can't be much clearer than that!

But, I still believe in God and you asked me questions and I tried to answer them. And as a christian, I don't know how to respond when you say, "But Christians in general have done (denied rights) and continue to do by controlling much of the public discourse and brainwashing children." sort of saying I think your brush strokes are too broad and your choice of words too intense for an 'in general' statement.

We are left then with the issue of God's self-existence. You are not happy with any of the explanations given. OK. Maybe we need to start further back in order to understand one another.

My presupposition is this. I believe God exists. Following from this then are the explanations of who his is, how we know about him, what he does, why the world is as it is, who we are, what God says about us and so on.

If your presupposition is different, then we're going to struggle; because either he does or he doesn't. We can't really have a relatively existing God; and reality of whether he does or not is going to change everything in the area of how we approach knowledge, morals and the way we live our lives.

Maybe this is the reason for our confusion.

If you want me to explain aseity and it's significance to the world around us, I will, but understand that I have already presupposed the existence of God, as I have already presupposed my own existence, and yours.

BTW - This might make you smile. Wine and water? I also know christians who tried to claim that Jesus turned the water into non alcoholic wine. A sort of double miracle I suppose!

Peter:

At times you 'appear' to sound like Uriah Heep, overflowing with the milk of mock humility. You say: "I am in no way whiter than white, it's one of the reasons I am a christian". I hope this doesn’t mean: "I am a sinner and need to be saved", because then you really are like Uriah Heep! Fallibility does not in an way imply the need to be religious. We are all fallible because we are human, but we certainly aren't all Christians. Arguably, of course, our imperfection is a proof of God's non-existence since arguably perfection cannot create imperfection and remain perfection.

However, I like some of what you say because it almost suggests that you are struggling to escape from your Christianity. Your paragraph about its 'pretence' was particularly encouraging: the control in Ireland, the sexual puritanism, the obsessive moralising about sex etc. But you do not carry this through. Do you deny that religions try to brainwash the young? In NI school RE, Christianity is the core syllabus in nearly every stage, and other religions hardly get a look-in and Humanism is largely ignored. Recently, the Catholic Church effectively instructed Catholic MPS to vote against certain measures in the Embryology Bill. Even the editor of the C of I Gaxette complained about this kind of pressure on elected politicians. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy (or do we?).

I feel, however, that you will never quite see the light and escape. As you say, despite everything that is wrong with it, you still believe in God. You see, all along I have been asking you why, and you throw up various obtuse or oblique answers. Then you came up with aseity, which is usually presented as part of the ontological and cosmological 'proofs' of a god's existence. But now you tell me that it is not part of 'your' proof at all but a consequence of your belief. But what then makes you a Christian? It is not God’s 'aseity' but what? In other words, Peter, you did exactly what I thought you did, which was not to answer my question at all but 'apparently' to throw up a smokescreen called ‘aseity’ and then to accuse me of theological ignorance because you assumed that I didn't know what it meant.

So, now I ask you yet again, in view of all your criticisms of Christianity, to tell us what is it that your Christian belief is actually based on?

Brian,

amused by your "even the editor of the Church of Ireland Gazette complained" reference, as if the Church of Ireland Gazette is a big supporter of the Catholic Church.

No adult is forced to be a member of the Catholic Church. Politicians who claim to be Catholic cannot then adopt positions entirely inconsistent with membership and supporting abortion is clearly inconsistent. If someone is a member of the Man Utd Supporters Club you hardly expect them to start supporting Chelsea and remain a member.

There is no point in engaging with you on theological issues since you don't believe. It's like men pretending to talk to women about fashion. I'm not saying you are ill informed before you start quoting degrees at me (though the philosophy of religion is not theology) but you don't believe. So it will always be twaddle to you whether bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Christ or not. Issues of the incarnation, the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility are meaningless to you in any real sense. They are like the rules of football to the average wife (and please don't wheel out footballing supporting women, I said "average").

I really don't understand your determination to impose Thomistic biology on modern Catholics. You think you are terribly smart and have discovered an inconsistency in moral teaching. You haven't - you have discovered that the science has moved on and the Church with it.

The Ecuadorian Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics recently said “science teaches that life begins and conception. If this truth is also affirmed by religions it does not therefore cease to be a strictly scientific truth to only become a debatable religious opinion. Whoever denies that life begins at conception doesn’t have an issue with religion but rather with science. To deny this certainty of biology is not an expression of a lack of faith, but rather a lack of an elementary knowledge of human genetics, or even worse, of simple general culture”

“No matter what name is given to this new human person,” they continued, “zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, teenage, young person, adult, elderly, terminally ill…They are all denominations of the one and same human person in the different stages of development through which he or she passes.”

Smasher:
You won't get away with quoting an Ecuadorian Federation on this issue and making an inaccurate appeal to science.

First, your attitude is puzzling. You believe that there is no end to life, indeed that we live on eternally in spirit, yet you seek to establish, through bogus biological claims, a very specific and naturalistic conception of life's beginning.

Second, you believe that we are made in the image of God, which again means not flesh and blood but spirit, yet in a crude materialistic way you regard a foetus prior to 5-7 months as a person.

Third, as I have said, the view that life begins at conception is unbiblical and unchristian up to Aquinas. Moreover, it implies that life begins, not in the mind of a God, but in a woman's womb following intercourse.

If death is determined by the death of the brain as measured by an EEG, then logically life begins at the time when a foetus registers a recognisable EEG pattern, which is at about 24-27 weeks. Thus a neurological view is that life begins at about 6 months of pregnancy.

Your appeal to science is thus quite mistaken. Unless you are not convinced, let me quote from a statement by 167 scientists and physicians, including 12 Nobel Laureates, to the US Supreme Court in 1989:

"There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of foetal development, or at birth. The question of 'when a human life begins' cannot be answered by reference to scientific principles like those with which we predict planetary movement. the answer to that question will depend on each individual's social, religious, philosophicak, ethical, and moral beliefs and values".

Now, this is what I have maintained all along. I have suggested 6 criteria of personhood (you called it a philosophical approach, but it is only partly so), and I think you will find that they largely concur, in terms of time, with perspectives of neurology and viability. They also suggest that the UK law has got it just about right (as I say we might justifiably argue the need to go down to 22 weeks, but no further).

So, in the end, Smasher the question of the beginning of life is one where biology, ethics and philosophy can agree, and it's not what you think.

Brian - Christians believe in the individual creation of each human soul - we don't believe they always existed so yes, there is a definite start, even though God may have had us in His mind earlier.

Hardly unbiblical to regard life beginning at conception - story of the annunciation is hardly unbiblical and that beautiful line from the OT - before I formed you in the womb I knew you.

You are dead when you are dead - brain death may be an indicator. So in your bizarre twisted world, a foetus is dead until it shows measurable brain activity, then it is suddenly alive. Great.

Your crowd of pro-choice "scientists" are making it up, always an attempt to pretend it's a religious issue and therefore a matter of choice. Probably the same crowd who insist there is a "concensus" on global warming.

Smasher:

Come off it. What are the bona fides of these Ecuadorian Federation scientists? Better than the 167, including 12 Nobel Laureates.

If you don't want to accept the opinions of reputable scientists, that's your problem. The same group also stated: "Science cannot define the essential attributes of human life any more than science can define such concepts as love, faith or trust".

Normally, of course, you would agree with this, and it would be part of your anti-Embryology Bill stance. Yet, curiously, it is different on abortion. Here, instead of lambasting them for playing God, you call in their aid. The difference is, however, that on the question of life and 'human life' itself your are totally ignorant about what they actually say.

Your reasoning in the second last para is bizarre. If brain death is the end of a person's life, then we could argue that the beginning of brain activity is the beginning of a person's life. In other words, brain activity is 'life' and non-activity is non-life. However, an embryo is not dead nor are sperm or egg cells. They too are 'alive'. But just as we would not describe a 'sperm' or an 'egg' as a person, nor should be describe an embryo.

A crowd of pro-choice 'scientists', gosh. The Ecuadorian 'crowd' wouldn't be anti-choice, perchance?

As for the statement that 'God may have had us in mind earlier', this is also bizarre. I thought He knew everything for all time. You mean that when he was creating the Big Bang 13.9bn years ago, he wasn't thinking of me?

Hi Brian

I've considered this post two or three times, and each time I write it, my response gets shorter. I so much want to summarise the ground we have already covered, but I will limit my comments to the following.

You have asked me **many ** different questions and I have sought to answer them all. You didn’t like them, you thought they were obscure, well OK. Now you ask me another different question, what is my christian belief based on. I have already told you. And on various threads and in various ways I have tried to expand on my beliefs by giving you detail on things like aseity and ethics and presuppositions, but If you need the basics front and centre again, here goes. I have based my belief in God on the biblical account, on the life of Jesus, on the philosophy of presupposition (i.e. God exists rather than not) and in answer to another question I have linked the nature of God (important because it gives us a basis or establishing our existence) to the nature of humanity. These concepts run through everything I have said. I am sorry you don't understand, but my answers are not smokescreens. Maybe you expect me to reduce my answers to tired old cliches, I don't know. But you're not going to get fundamentalism from me, and it is unfortunate that when dealing with real theology rather than fundamentalist sound bites you resort to words like 'twaddle'. I fear Smasher is correct, discussing theology seems pointless when you don't believe. As far as I am concerned, having tried even to explain reasons for our differences, the discussion on the basis of my belief is over. I expected more from the exchange of views.

However I see you're continuing the same approach to theology with Smasher, now on the issue of humans made in the image of God. You try to present christianity as illogical, but without success. You continue to drive dichotomies where they don't exist. You limit your understanding of what is means to be made in the image of God. You set different aspects of God's knowledge against each other; as in the statement, " 'God may have had us in mind earlier', this is also bizarre. I thought He knew everything for all time. You mean that when he was creating the Big Bang 13.9bn years ago, he wasn't thinking of me?" You doing a linear thing again and you are limiting who God is. Incidentally there is theology for this too. I could discuss the idea of foreknowledge, but I won't bother. So much of your understanding of christian belief is limited.

Anyway, maybe you would answer some of my questions. What is your presupposition? Why do you have it? What are the implications of it? How to you reconcile determinism with meaning? Where do the cells in the womb get their personality from, the ether as they are born? Or does it all just happen? And why, even if EEG patterns recognise a brain pattern only at 24-27 weeks are you happy to rip apart the very cells (which are 'alive' your word), and which 'chance and time' need to produce a person?

And a couple of more quick things.

You throw in comments like, "I hope this doesn't mean: "I am a sinner and need to be saved." Christians can't really win here, can they? Self-righteous ones are too harsh, more fallible than they let on, always judging others. Yet those who speak of their failings are saccharine sweet, insincere, and display only a false, perhaps duplicitous, humility.

And lastly, I have made no assumptions about what you might know or not know. I only accused you of theological ignorance because you kept saying you didn't understand.

Hi Peter:

You say that you have based your belief in God on the biblical account, on the life of Jesus and on the philosophy of presupposition. All three are further evidence to me that much of Christianity is indeed illogical.

The Biblical account of God is merely a series of stories, just as the Greeks had stories about their gods. There is no basis for any rational belief here. We might just as readily base a belief in Achilles on Homer's Iliad.
There needs to be some evidence for the Bible's special status other than mere assertion. In fact, all major religions have sacred texts which they claim are divinely inspired, but the mere statement of this claim does not make it true.

Moreover, why should anyone want to believe in a God as cruel and sadistic as the character presented in the Old Testament? You yourself raised this difficulty with William in relation to the Flood. This apparent sadism of God continues throughout the Old Testament and indeed is presented as his chief characteristic. Thus, for example, he supposedly orders Josuah to slaughter all the inhabitants of the cities which he conquers in the Promised Land. In all honesty, I think this is a god not worth believing in.

The Life of Jesus is more interesting. First, as to the real, historical character, he may have been a sort of itinerant social critic, the Jewish equivalent of a Greek cynic philosopher. He never claimed to be the Son of God or to forgive sins or to inaugurate a new covenant between God and man. These attributes were invented by Christians later.

As to the ethic of Jesus, although he is contradictory and condemns anyone who doesn't believe in him to 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' in the next world, nevertheless he does show a degree of humanistic love and tolerance in the existing world. This is why I kept asking you if it was possible to be a Christian if you believed only in the ethic. You said no, but the dogma, Peter, leaves a lot to be desired. Why did God take a quarter of a million years of man's existence to decide that man had sinned and that something needed to be done about it? And why did he bring the Good News only to the inhabitants of a desert kingdom in the Near East? And why did he change from being a cruel, violent God to being a loving and peaceful one? On the face of it, it all appears to be totally illogical.

'The philosophy of presupposition' is an oxymoron because philosophy is the antithesis of presupposition. Philosophy asks us to question all our beliefs and received ideas. The essence of philosophy is doubt and questioning, the opposite of presupposition. Merely presupposing a god's existence is ultimately fideism (blind faith). We could just as easily presuppose, given the endless cruelties, the Burma hurricanes and the earthquakes in China, that a bad god exists, or that the world was created by the Devil at a moment when God was not looking. We certainly make linguistic and pragmatic pressupositions in discourse, but philosophically it is logical to start from a position of doubt about anything and leave the onus on the proposer of a belief to justify their position. I would say that this is particularly important where the other bases for belief are as weak and flimsy as yours appear to be.

On abortion, your attitude is as morally conservative as Smasher's. You miss my point about a sperm or egg cell being 'alive'. Cells as such do not have a beginning. Gametes arise from preexisting cells and then combine to form a zygote, with no point where we can say that it started living. Discrete points such as the 14th day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists in order to categorise development for academic purposes. Even fertilisation is not, as Smasher in his ignorance seems to imagine, a moment but a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours. with an additional 24 hours needed to complete the process of a diploid individual.

There is also the little matter of twins/triplets etc. A zygote can split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilisation. So, as long as this potential exists, the zygote is not actually an existential individual. Moreover, if the zygote does split to form twins, does the soul split as well? Or do twins share the same soul? And what about identical twins? They are not 'genetically unique' individuals at all.

I tried to tell Smasher that the question of when 'human life' or 'personhood' begins is ultimately a philosophical one. I should have added that the answer is fluid and has changed throughout history. He deludedly thinks that science has moved in his theological direction when in fact, apart from some anti-abortion Catholic scientists in countries like Ecuador (70% Catholic), it has moved in the opposite direction in favour of gradualness. This is good, Peter, because it enhances the rights of women. If someone else controls my body I lose the basic right of self-determination. If the law and the Churches control my body, they are violating its most basic obligation to me. This violation is normally called slavery. This is ultimately why abortion as a choice for women up to about 22-24 weeks is actually pro-life and pro-humanity.

It's funny how people like Brian are always so fundamentalist and literalist whenever they try to debate theology. They demand that we accept the bible as literal fact so that they can then attack us for our fundamentalist beliefs.

Brian you clearly haven't even read the gospels if you think they describe "an itinerant social critic". Did you miss the miracles, or when he cured the paralytic and said "your sins are forgiven"? Did you miss the transfiguration, the resurrection and the ascension? Did you miss the last supper and the whole gospel of John? I'm not asking you to believe in any of them, but don't give us that rubbish about Jesus being a social worker.

Peter tried to explain why he believed and you treat it as some sort of argument. No one is trying to persuade you or convince because clearly you are trapped in the sin we call invincible ignorance. You are more dogmatic in your unbelief and your commitment to killing unborn children than any red-neck fundamentalist Christian from the blue ridge mountain. What are you afraid of? Are the hounds of heaven snapping at your heels and is this your last gasp attempt to escape?

Smasher:

You DO think the Bible is literalist fact if you believe in miracles, transfigurations, resurrections and ascensions!

As to Jesus, I don't think we really know what kind of person he was, except that I think we can rule out divinity as a delusion. Indeed, I am less dogmatic, fundamentalist and literalist than you on this question.

The social worker Jesus idea is 'rubbish', you say. Careful or you will be using words like 'twaddle' which mean the sane thing. Peter doesn't like woirds like 'rubbish', at least when used against his opinions.

As for abortion, it would seem to me that a blanket opposition to abortion is the 'red-neck fundamentalist' position (remember you also think homosexuality is a sin).

Smasher, are you opposed to abortion in all circumstances, including rape and the possible death of the mother?

Socrates is alleged to have said: "All I know is that I know nothing". In that sense, I am proud to be trapped in the sin of ignorance. Long may it continue!

My God, he thinks he's Socrates now - fetch the hemlock quick.

There you go again telling me what I believe. Here is a very simple thing - first chapters of Genesis as no doubt you know offer two versions of creation, the yahwist and the elohist. One has man created first, the other last. They cannot both be literal fact - but they can both reveal truth - that God created us as the high point of his creation.

As regards Christ, I don't think he or his followers, all of whom (with the possible exception of St John) were martyred for their beliefs, were deluded - they believed based on what they saw and heard that Jesus was God. You don't - that's fine. I do. There we can all live happy now. When we die we'll find out or disappear into nothingness - which of course means if I'm right you'll get to find out, but if you're right I won't - so it's the last word for me one way or another.

I believe it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. I'm not a pacifist so I believe in self defence if someone attacks you or if you are at war. I don't believe in the death penalty in practice though it may be necessary in a war situation. As regards abortion I don't believe in killing an unborn child because it was conceived in rape or incest, or because it is disabled. I support the principle of double effect which means a pregant women can be treated for medical conditions even though this may effect her baby - but I greatly admire heroic women who delay treatment to help their unborn child. Of course the Republic as you know as one of the best records for maternal safety in the world, despite/because of the ban on abortion.

Hi Brian

I respect your presupposition not to believe.

It is a pity that you do not address my questions directly, although if I attempt to read you correctly I arrive at the following conclusions.

I suggest to you that you have presuppositions: doubt, the questioning of beliefs, linguistics and so on. On the issue of the existence of God, presuppositions simply allow us to ask if it is valid to consider whether there is a god or not. Everybody starts somewhere. My conclusion is positive, yours is negative. Neither are illogical.

Why are your presuppositions negative, I don't really know, unless I simply accept your statement, "philosophically it is logical to start from a position of doubt about anything and leave the onus on the proposer of a belief to justify their position". And you doubt everything?

You also seem to assume meaning, another presupposition? You certainly haven't justified a position which accepts human meaning and dignity while reconciling it to materialism. Presumably you assume personality too.

And you seem to think that humans, at the various stages of their development are alive in some way, and will at some stage become persons, but we can reserve the right to terminate the process up to 24 weeks or so. Interesting.

You make assumptions about the bible, about who Jesus thought he was, about the knowledge of God, about the origin of the "Good News", yet these are only further evidence of you basic misunderstanding of biblical theology.

You assume faith is blind faith, you assume I never doubted, (I suggest to you that there is the possibility that over time I have doubted at least as much as you, doubting God included). In fact I'm pretty confident that I have doubted more. You assume self-determination.

No, I don't like words such as rubbish (applied to anyone's point of view); such words are the language of the playground. I expected that you might have been able to challenge christian thinking beyond the tired old, nasty God, contradictory Jesus, (I like him, I like him not) or the bible as a bunch of myths. The central message of the bible is nothing close to the gods of Greece or Rome nor the ideas of pantheism. You say Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. Really? In conversation with the religious leaders of his day he said, "Before Abraham was, I am." Remember the burning bush, "I Am"? I could put it like this, "Before Abraham was, Yahweh." Seems to me that he knew who he was.

You say to Smasher, "You DO think the Bible is literalist fact if you believe in miracles, transfigurations, resurrections and ascensions!" I've already explained how the bible is multi faceted. And now Smasher has given you the same interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as I did. Anyway, when we get over the believing in God bit, believing in miracles and a resurrection and a virgin birth is easy.

Deal with God first.

Maybe you could try talking to him.

Smasher, Peter:

Socrates was a better teacher than Jesus. He taught his pupils to be sceptical, to question things, to seek the truth, to love wisdom, to ask basic questions about life and the universe. And to be happy in not knowing if there is insufficient evidence.

Jesus offers instead statements, judgments and parables and demanded unquestioning faith in him. Throughout, there is a rejection of reason in favour of faith. To say that men must become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 18:3) is to praise uncritical belief, the precise opposite of philosophy. Also, Jesus asks people to 'follow' him; a philosopher asks people to agree with him.

Whether Jesus claims to be God incarnate is another matter. Peter, you quote from John, but the Synoptic Gospels do not make such a claim, and the early Church before Nicea didn't agree on it. But if he claimed it he was wrong and deluded.

You both seem to adopt a version of Pascal's wager. Let's believe or 'presuppose' God's existence because we can't lose. I remember my Sunday school teacher giving us a simple version of it when I was about 12. I came away thinking: what a silly reason for believing anything. I think, more than any other single incident, it set me on the path of disbelief, and I have never regretted it since.

The tragedy of man is the tragedy of belief. In other words, he is too prone to it. Read the Greeks. Read Shakespeare. As Germaine Greer suggests: "Intellectual life in the Shakespearean mode is a never-ending learning process: each of the plays enacts the mental adventure of scepticism". That adventure is what we should teach our young, not pie in the sky fairy tales.
We should be happy that we do not know many things while striving for more knowledge. This is part of the challenge of being human. Religion destroys that challenge by offering childish answers to unsolved mysteries.

Peter, you say that you don't like words like 'rubbish' because it is the language of the playground. OK, a letter written by Einstein the year before his death was published in the newspapers a week or two ago. In it he said that God is the product of human weaken and that the Bible is 'pretty childish'.

So, there you have it, Peter. Your comment is thrown back at you by both Jesus ('men must become as little children') and Einstein (the bible is 'pretty childish').. He is right because Religion destroys the challenge of living by offering childish answers to unsolved mysteries and equally childish answers to the problems of living, such as those of a pregnant woman wanting to abort.

Smasher, you position, that abortion should only be allowed if the woman's life is in danger, is a pretty extreme position. Is that your position too, Peter?

Brian

We continue to be governed by our world views, but I'm not convinced you are clear about mine yet.

I'm not really sure how you get from my comments about presuppositions to Pascal's wager. I said that a presupposition was a starting point, they are simply basic assumptions, we all have them. I have a number of them and have suggested you have them too. One of yours seems to be skepticism. In some ways that is good. Presuppositions form the basis of our thinking. For example I assume you exist, even though I have never met you. I assume I exist. I assume there is something rather than nothing; I quite sure you do too. I assume that it is valid to suggest that God exists, and having done all this I move on. Asking questions, learning, reading, doubting, thinking, reflecting. Presupposing God is a beginning, not an end.

It's a pity too that you keep on misunderstanding Jesus. Matt 18 clearly speaks of humility not the lack of reason. Maybe you were trying to misread Mark 10, but then again you assume, without asking about context, what the welcoming of children mean. Do we not appreciate the openness the lack of pretentiousness the laugh out loud honesty of children? My interpretation again is positive. Cross reference it with Luke 9.

The early Church before Nicea didn't agree on the humanity and/or deity of Jesus? I presume you exclude Paul. Did others deny it, yes, but that was the point of holding to the apostles teaching. The synoptics do not make such a claim? Virgin birth, Matthew and Luke - pretty big clue. Matthew 3 "This is my Son whom I love." Luke 3 as well. Mark 1 too! Matthew 14 Peter says "Truly you are the Son of God." The resurrection in the gospels is a big hint too. Mark 9 - Transfiguration. The same is recorded in Luke. Luke 24 Jesus interprets, from all of the bible who he is.

On another thread you imply it's OK to follow him regards ethical teaching but now, not if he is God. Curious.

Read Shakespeare? Which bit would you like me to quote.

I suggested I had doubted more than you. Would you like to investigate this?

You say, "Your comment is thrown back at you by both Jesus ('men must become as little children') and Einstein (the bible is 'pretty childish')"

Einstein has a right to his views. As I have show, you misinterpret Jesus.

On abortion, you remember? I said that the emphasis should be on saving life.

Now, after more answers from me, have you any answers to my questions. (post 83)

Smasher,

We appeared to have formed some sort of ecumenical team! We could call it Roma Reformed United!

This could be a new experience for me.

Maybe we could come to some sort of agreement about the possibility of 'invincible ignorance' being conquered by unquenchable grace!

Hi Peter:

You say: "Presuppositions form the basis of our thinking. For example I assume you exist, even though I have never met you. I assume I exist. I assume there is something rather than nothing; I quite sure you do too. I assume that it is valid to suggest that God exists, and having done all this I move on".

Not so fast. I can give you evidence that I exist. I can appear in your presence if you wish and you can experience me with all your senses. So the supposition that I exist is perfectly rational. The supposition that a god exists is nothing of the kind. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. As I have said repeatedly, we have to ask a number of questions. What is God? Why only one? Is he is a Greek god? An ancient Egyptian God? The god of Ian Paisley? The god of Pope Benedict? Is he a good god or a bad god? A fallible god or an infallible god? A sadistic god who brought Noah’s flood (a question you yourself asked but could provide no answer)? You say that presupposing god is a beginning, and from there we ask questions. I think you have got it entirely the wrong way round. But let us for a moment accept that you presuppose your god exists (and it is your god, Peter, because unless you tell us what he's like, we cannot assume that he is like any other god). What would need to happen to destroy your presupposition? Or would you hold it in the face of anything? You have wobbled a little here and there (over the Flood etc), but what would cause a turnaround? What would make you realise that your presupposition it was all a delusion?

You say that "It's a pity you keep on misunderstanding Jesus".

Peter, Christians have been doing it for nigh on 2,000 years (how many Christian sects are there?) so don't blame me for the confusions. Let me say that I have read a fair number of books about Jesus, and your interpretation is only one of many, so stop pretending that there is an unmistakable truth that I am missing. The point about the 'children' remark is that it fits in with the whole approach of the mystic. A mystic doesn't want anyone to question anything about him. He simply wants to be worshipped, or to be believed in. Your own questioning is actually a contradiction of what he wanted: uncritical obedience. "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men" (Matt 4: 19); "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt: 12:30).

All these remarks are about demanding unquestioning obedience. In the view of Jesus you were either a sheep or a goat, and to the latter he showed no mercy: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt: 25:41). And what could be clearer than: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned". The message is unmistakable, Peter. Either you believe or you go to hell. This does not allow for doubting, thinking, reflecting etc. The implication is that your presupposition should not only be a starting point, but the end point as well. In questioning religion, you are actually disobeying Jesus.

The question of Jesus's divinity, Peter, is also the subject of much heated debate among Jesus scholars. Again, it is misleading to present the matter as if it was crystal clear and sewn up. A problem is whether the words attributed to Jesus are the words the man said, and whether the deeds attributed to him are the actions he made. You seem to take too much of it at face value (while presumably accepting, with Smasher, that Genesis is only an imaginary depiction of the beginning, or rather 2 pictures). That is part of the problem here too. Christians aren't at all sure and disagree about how literally to take much of the Bible (it seems to me that many of them pick and choose which when it suits them). Anyhow, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels believed that he had a special relationship with god, but this does not necessarily imply that he believed he WAS god. The words you quote from John do not say "I am God" and none of it is found in the other Gospels. The early Church had broadly three views:
logos: he was a divine being but subordinate to god; adoptianism: he was filled with a divine power by God; and modalism: he was a mode of appearance of God. Nicea and Chalcedon laid down that he was God.

Of course, they were wrong. He was a man who made certain claims about himself and preached a message of love and forgiveness (tainted somewhat by his condemning non-believers to hell). That message is worth following, but not the man taken as a whole.

I have no idea what this means below, since he isn't God:

“On another thread you imply it's OK to follow him regards ethical teaching but now, not if he is God. Curious”.

Ernest Renan wrote a Life of Jesus, and I think he put it well. Jesus, he said, ‘had no knowledge of the general conditions of the world”, was unacquainted with science, ‘believed in the devil, and that diseases were the work of demons’, was ‘harsh’ towards his family, was ‘no philosopher’, went to ‘excess’, aimed ‘less at logical conviction than at enthusiasm’, ‘sometimes his intolerance of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and apparently absurd’, and ‘bitterness and reproach became more and more manifest in his heart’.

The point I have been making all along is that there is no objection definition of Christianity and 'Christian'. I think you can be a Christian if you think that some of Jesus's ethical message is worth following (along with other messages from others: I am eclectic). You say not, because you insist that a Christian has to believe in God. Yet in England and other countries it is often not seenb this way at all. 'The myth of God incarnate' was written by contributed to by people calling themselves Christians.

You see, I think that once again this is an example of the backward and unscholarly nature of Irish Christianity. It is too rigid and archaic. Iris Robinson's anti-gay outburst is yet another example.

On abortion, you say the emphasis should be on saving life. Could you translate this vague statement into a legal position that can be debated?

Hi Brian

You can give you evidence that you exist.

The point is, I don't have any, and if you were to present me with some I would have to accept it in er, em, ... good faith; as I have to accept my own existence. Why should I bother to do that? Because I can see you? Hear you? Read a birth certificate? A driving license? Why should I accept your presentation of who you are? There are those who set out to deceive others. (I'm not suggesting you would of course) Maybe I could deceive myself. Maybe I do deceive myself. Why should I trust anyone? Never mind claims of god-men. So you are quite right, not so fast.

I say again, with all these assumptions you could actually have more faith than me, yet you champion skepticism. Brian I have doubted. I have doubted my doubts, that's an interesting exercise. Mere skepticism seems like a walk in the park compared with the doubt I can do. Or the Psalms; Psalm 88 for example. "What would make you (me) realise that your presupposition it was all a delusion?", you ask. Been there, and back. Maybe I'm a delusion. Little atoms and particles of matter floating around, but only a delusion. I type, however, therefore I.... a.. am? hold on a minute, is it I am or am I? Who's to say.

"What would cause a turnaround" I see you suggest a metanoia. Very good. Very biblical!

There is no evidence for it (God) whatsoever. What kind of evidence would you like a god to present?

You have yet to give me with a unified alternative to meaning and determinism and suffering without God. Yes, there's the problem of suffering again. Removing God however does not remove the reality of suffering. We have it one way or another, you don't appear to have an answer; maybe you are a Stoic.

And this god is (merely) my god. Now I'm an existentialist when it comes to religion. I see. Unless I tell you what he is like. Well I had started to, but that was a smokescreen.

You have presented Jesus as a social worker, a cynic, a mystic; which is it?

The question of Jesus' divinity is debated among scholars. I have acknowledged that. Agreeing or disagreeing with a proposition is neither here nor there. Do some believe, do some disbelieve, of course that is obvious. That's what this discussion is about. You have given me **no** reasons to disbelieve. I actually have better reasons than the ones you have given me for not believing. I have thought about it, lots, and rationally at that! Isn't that a surprise, a christian with a brain!

You have problems with the variety of views among christians, sects, doctrine, etc. OK. But you make no mention of the history, the development, the change, the opposing world views in secular philosophy. Yet if I understand you correctly, in this case differences are to be welcomed. "Be skeptical, seek the truth." (post 89) Now, on that basis, how would we recognise truth if it jumped out at us? Truth is an absolute sort os word, don't you think? Come to think of it, what is truth, the phrase rings a faint bell.

Ernest Renan, never heard of him. According to wiki (if it can be trusted) he was French. Wiki says he was anti-Semitic too. Oh dear! And according to wiki he didn't stop there. Maybe of course it's a different Ernest.

I see you accept now that Jesus believed he had a special relationship with God.

You quote the early church again. I have answered that point.

You are concerned that 'I am God' is not in big, bold, or perhaps I should say, red letters in the gospel of John. Context please. You are going to have to tell me which bit of Yahweh, didn't mean God to the Jewish leaders. It wasn't a bland statement, it was a provocation, it was tension; like the question, Who do you say that I am? And his question is still being asked and debated. You have also changed your objections to John. First, you tell me to ignore John and direct me to the synoptics, in the issue of the incarnation/deity of Jesus, I did that. (yet you still say, "none of it is found in the other gospels.") Now somehow John doesn't claim Jesus is God.

You raise the word logos, as did I. Heraclitus, as you probably know, used the word to capture the concept of, the source of, or the purpose of, or the reason why. It is the origin of the suffixes of words like biology, psychology meteorology etc. John in his gospel takes the word and applies it to Jesus, saying he is the ultimate reason why, and the source of all things. You used the word to imply subordination, that as I am sure you know is debated.

I am still answering your questions and objections.

You say I "insist that a Christian has to believe in God. Yet in England and other countries it is often not seen this way at all." What, all of England? Anyway, who was the last person to make the statement, 'I am a christian, a follower of Jesus, but I don’t believe in God.' ? I've heard some strange, debatable, controversial things, but any vicar who said that might be had up under the trade descriptions act. Or maybe, as Matthew Parris suggests in The Times, he might hang a 'For Entertainment Purposes Only', label somewhere in his church. (The Times website May 29)

Iris Robinson has nothing to do with me. Deal with my questions, not the current news reports about her and some doctor or other.

And which bit of 'saving life' is supposed to be vague?

Hi Peter:

I think you forget what you write from one post to the next. You certainly keep changing the goal posts. You admit that "The question of Jesus' divinity is debated among scholars". Yet you argue for a point of view on it and present it as if it were beyond dispute and accuse me of a lack of understanding if I don't accept it. You quote references which to you indicate his divinity. But I could just as easily quote references which seem to indicate not. "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me" (John 7:16). "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work" (John 4:34). The phrase 'him who sent me' occurs several times in the NT. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only" (Matt:24:36). "And Jesus said to him: 'Why do you call me good. No one is good but god alone'" (Mark 10:18). And, of course, we have the cry from the cross: "My god, my god, why has thou forsaken me" (Matt 27:46). Why would a god cry out to himself in this way? It makes no sense. Adam, by the way, is also called the 'son of God' (Luke 3:38).

The point is that the NT, like the rest of the Bible, is a collection of confusions and contradictions. Yes, Jesus is presented as a kind of social worker; yes, he is presented as a mystic; yes, he is presented as an itinerant preacher, a revolutionary, etc. In other words, he is presented as a confused mixture. Which is what he may have been. No one knows. Did he even exist? Some scholars, like G A Wells think not

I am pretty agnostic about Jesus, Peter, which seems pretty reasonable, given the lack of evidence. You talk of presupposition. But why not presuppose that the moon is made of green cheese? Or that there are cigarette trees and lemonade springs in the Big Rock Candy Mountains? Just imagine going through 20th century writing in search of Churchill but unable to find a single mention of him on earth until you examine the works of authors who put pen to paper 40 years after his death, as is the case with the first written Gospel, Mark. there is simply no credible evidence that an historical Jesus ever existed, so I remain a doubting Thomas on that score.

When I say that the ethic is partly good and worth following I am not referring to the ethic of a particular person who existed, but the ethic spoken by the person portrayed in the Gospels, real or imaginary. I hope that is absolutely, crystal clear. If he didn't exist and other people put these words into an imaginary being because they believed them (the ethic, that is), then all the better for them.

But of this I am sure: if he existed, he was a human being and not God or related to God in any way, because there is no such god any more than there is Zeus or Amun-Ra. He did not rise from the dead, any more than Osiris or Krishna who also allegedly rose from the dead. Indeed, the gospel story of Jesus matches the pattern of the Mythic Hero Archetype in several details. The pagan philosopher Celsus criticised Christians for trying to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of pagan myths. In this, he may have been right.

On Sunday sequence this morning Don Cupitt was interviewed He stated that God does not exist except in our minds as a perfect ideal: 'the sum of all our values', to use a phrase he has employed elsewhere. He said also that he was a 'Christian humanist', which he believed was a fairly position nowadays.

I look forward to the day when most Christians in Norn Irn see the light too.

Oh Brian please

You say, "I think you forget what you write... "The question of Jesus' divinity is debated among scholars". Yet you argue for a point of view on it and present it as if it were beyond dispute and accuse me of a lack of understanding if I don't accept it."

Of course I have argued for a particular view on the subject, I have a view. I suggested you had a lack of understanding because I could offer you another interpretation of the bible than the one you gave me. Debating with others who have different views I would say the same thing. Then I would listen to what they had to say. That is what debate is.

Now you say that Jesus may not even have existed at all. OK. That's your view, but no, you having that view has not been clear to me before. Maybe that’s my fault.

On your other quotations from the gospels, yes you quote accurately. These comments can be explained too. Again I do not drive dichotomies, but I will preserve you from more of my theology!

I will say this though; "of this (you) are sure, if he (Jesus) existed, he was a human being and not God or related to God in any way, because there is no such god"

I see. You don't believe Jesus was God because there is no god. That Brian is a statement of believe (or the lack of it) based on a presupposition.

Now lets deal with the no evidence thing. I have already posted something related to this on another thread. I reproduce some of it here.

When Christians speak of God being the source and sustainer of the universe (i.e. existing) we also ask, does this 'god-picture' fit with what we see around us.

Part of the Christian answer is that God is personal-infinite; and one of the implications of this is that it gives a personal yet finite human race a reference point. It fits with the concept of self awareness, personality, meaning. In other words here is a reason not to doubt myself. It fits with the fact that something is here rather than not. It fits with language, love, emotion and so on. It is not however, as I have said before, a scientific answer, but then again I don't think we necessarily need to set science and religion in opposition to one another. Science and religion can, I think, happily coexist, indeed they probably should coexist.

It is my belief that the christian answer fits with so many of our why questions. It is not exhaustive, it is not scientific and while it does date from the agrarian Eastern Mediterranean, that does not mean it is without meaning.

That is the beginning of an answer to a question which I have been asking you for quite a few posts now. What is your presupposition? Why do you have it? What are the implications of it? How to you reconcile determinism with meaning?

Many/most in the modern world (except those who have admitted to giving up all hope of meaning) still speak of finding something. This 'something' is often uncertain, vague, wooly and left unexplained, yet the determination to establish meaning remains. Every time we speak of morality, every time we pass judgement, every time we seek to improve, protect, paint, sing, play, love, hope, help etc. we establish the validity of a search for meaning. And the trouble is it won't go away. What then are we to do? How do we extrapolate meaning from chance, dignity from mere matter. How come we, the human race, are more than the sum of our parts? The thing is this, few really, truly and consistently live their lives on the basis that we are nothing but machines. (Or on the basis that the moon is cheese) How then shall we unify our belief in determinism, in a random, chance driven universe, with our deeply held desire for meaningful experiences and human dignity?

What is your answer to this dilemma? I still don't know, because all you have continued to do is to raise objections.

On Christian humanism. I suppose it could be termed a no god moral argument. Fair enough. However as I have pointed out the trouble is that Jesus claimed to be more. You dispute my views. OK, I respect that. But I have answered all your objections, and as I said before have given me no reason not to believe.

Peter:

Yet more contradictions. You seek debate, yet when I offer quotes which contradict the view that Jesus as depicted in the Gospels claimed to be God, you say: "I will preserve you from more of my theology". So you only debate a point when it suits you.

"You don't believe Jesus was God because there is no god. That Brian is a statement of belief (or the lack of it) based on a presupposition". No; it is based upon a process of reasoning, observation and empirical study.
It is not merely presupposed.

What you offer is an obtuse paragraph which reads like a contorted attempt to suggest that such a belief is based upon such things as language, love, emotion, etc. What relevance these things have to the basis for theism is totally unclear. How does emotion lead to God? How does language lead to God? How does love lead to God?

The 'Christian answer', as you call it, fits with none of the why questions because it does not explain the most important why question of all: why did the Christian God create the universe? Unless you answer that question, Christianity does not provide a meaning for our existence. Instead, it evades an answer.

Whether Jesus claimed more than 'Christian humanism' allows isn't really the point. If he claimed more, he was wrong anyway. That's Cupitt's point. God is a fiction but in his view the idea of God is an imaginative representation of the human striving for perfection.

Cupitt, like many 'Sea of Faith' thinkers, realises that science, reason and emotion all lead inexorably towards atheism, and he is trying to preserve some good ideas from the wreckage of religious faith washed up on the shore.

Holding on to obsolete beliefs in the face of the evidence is a characteristic of the Ulster psyche in so many areas: an antiquated biblical literalism, anti homosexuality and abortion, pro the monarchy, the British Empire, a narrow Gaelic nationalism etc. Some of this you yourself deplore, Peter. Yet I am not so sure that you are as free of it all as you think you are.

Brian

Just give me some of *your* answers please.

Brian

You say in response to, 'I will preserve you from more of my theology', "So you only debate a point when it suits you."

I hardly think that answer after answer after answer, whether you like them or not is merely a matter of suiting me.

Another obtuse paragraph? Really?

Maybe you could establish a basis for all of these issues of meaning and personality and language and so on.

I'm all ears.

There is no god is based on reason, observation, empirical study. So you've cracked it, have you. God does not exist. Period. For sure and certain. Proved. Done and dusted.

Again, I'm all ears.