Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by MiserereNobis

  1. Can you not distinguish between the BLM organization and the BLM slogan/movement? In the wake of George Floyd's murder, I attending a couple of marches/protests. They were completely non-violent, though there was some civil disobedience (kneeling in an intersection and blocking traffic for 8 minutes). All the chants and signs were focused on issues of police reform and ending racism. There were a lot of the standard BLM signs (one dude near me had a "Free Tibet" sign, which was odd). I didn't hear anything about communism, marxism, or capitalism. So you tell me. Did I attend a communist march? Did I support communism? Was I signaling to the proletariats of the world to unite? Or maybe, just maybe, the marches and protests were about what they were about: black lives matter and policing needs some reform.
  2. It certainly has been difficult for many believers. It doesn't affect my faith, though. Perhaps it's because my journey to Christianity took me through psychedelic spirituality and Buddhism, with a focus on non-dualism. Or perhaps some other reason.
  3. It's not that simple. And the fact that you think it is that simple, that you reduce the whole controversial issue to a solution that is completely on your side of the issue, and then call it simple, means you have little or no understanding of the pro-life side. It's unfortunate that you are unwilling to try to understand us, and instead dismiss us so easily out-of-hand. I don't need to continue this conversation further, so I'll let you have the last word, if you want it.
  4. I'd try, Ahab, but I'm afraid our missionary partnership might have some friction. I'd probably end up praying lots of Hail Mary's
  5. Let's do it. I'll wear a white shirt and you learn to speak Latin.
  6. In the wedding cake situation, you say that the baker doesn't have to act contrary to their beliefs, they just have to pay the price if they act according to their beliefs. They refuse to bake the cake, they lose their business license. That's the price of acting according to their beliefs. So, if they act according to their beliefs, they can no longer work in their chosen field. That's a big price to pay, which seems tantamount to forcing them to act contrary to their beliefs. It's like telling someone: you're free to do whatever you want, but if you don't do what I want you to then I'll ruin your life. Your definition of freedom seems pretty academic, meaning that it doesn't really apply in real life: Sure you're free to choose, but make the wrong chose and your life is ruined. Imagine this law: Any healthcare provider (doctor, nurse, etc.) who is involved in an abortion loses their medical license and can no longer practice medicine. Do you support this law? It allows the healthcare providers to perform an abortion, but then they pay the price and lose the ability to work in their chosen field. They are not forced to act contrary to their beliefs -- they can still provide the abortion. They just have to pay the price and lose their license. They may be pro-choice, but losing their ability to work in their chosen field is, as you say "the price for holding that belief." What's the difference?
  7. So... baking a cake for a gay wedding? Now, I've seen the arguments back-and-forth before about it. You often rely upon public accommodation laws, civil rights laws, and protected classes. But, if those laws require someone to act contrary to their belief, shouldn't you be against them, too? Shouldn't you be in favor of lunch counters denying service to blacks because serving blacks makes some owners act contrary to their belief that blacks are inferior and shouldn't be served with whites? You are using a broad general principle to attack positions you are against, while ignoring that principle for positions you want to defend. That's why I said your previous question is too broad, too general. We can't rely on principles like "don't legally make people act against their belief." That's totally unreasonable. Laws MUST make some people act contrary to their belief. Justice requires this. Mercy, too.
  8. This doesn't make much sense. If my vote according to my belief ends up being law, then that forces people to act according to my belief (no law forces anyone to believe something, just to act). So voting according to belief = hoping my belief becomes law = legally forcing people to act according to my belief. How can it be otherwise? The second part of your quote is again strange, because I'm pretty sure you (and everyone) would vote for laws that force someone to capitulate. Can't you think of some laws that you are in favor of that would force people to not act on their beliefs? Laws that would force them to capitulate to your beliefs?
  9. First, get him to go on record as to his true identity 😁
  10. This is getting into the problem of evil. If a natural event occurs that causes evil, is God culpable? Say, an earthquake causes a tsunami which then kills 1000 people. Did God commit murder? Likewise, to use your example, if a natural process ends the life of a child, did God commit murder? As I said previously in the thread, I haven't found a theodicy that is fully satisfactory, but I have faith in the goodness of God, so I trust in that without having all the answers. I don't fully know why God allows evil to occur, both manmade and natural. Well, it certainly has historical precedence However, your question is too general to answer, though I feel like it's more of a rhetorical question, i.e. you are making a point with the question rather than looking for an answer. Laws almost always force someone to act or not act based on someone else's belief. It's all a matter of where we draw the line. That's why I say your question is too general. So let me ask you an identical question to the one you asked me: do you believe someone should be legally forced to act (your words: Catholic doctrine forced upon them) in a way that goes contrary to their beliefs (your words: they don't believe in the Catholic Church)? My question is also rhetorical, because I know your answer. You are more than ok forcing people to act contrary to their beliefs in certain situations. See, it's all a matter of where we draw the line.
  11. You are trying to set up two camps: one cares for the woman-victim (pro-choice) and the other does not (pro-life). I reject that false dichotomy.
  12. Nobody should have the right to kill an innocent child. The unborn are the voiceless and rely on us to speak for them and advocate for them, and I will do so. And I will also advocate for the women that need so much more support from our society. A single minded focus on the legality of abortion will not solve the problem. It is a systemic issue that can only be solved by creating a system to fix it. We cannot separate the mother from the child: before conception, during pregnancy, and after birth.
  13. If you remove the bold, then the question remains why should a child from rape or abuse be allowed to be aborted. If the bold is the answer, it is not a very good one, because agency matters in all situations, and there are, I presume, sins that require the withdrawal of membership, despite the use of agency to commit that sin.
  14. DNA is not at all the core of our disagreement. Unless you think that people who share DNA with terrible sinners don't have a right to life. Allow me to quote myself: Yet I don't see how this has anything to do with whether or not it is moral to abort the child of a rapist unless, as I said above, "you think that people who share DNA with terrible sinners don't have a right to life." This is asinine, too. "A morally correct choice is one you choose." Dang bro, you ARE pro-choice! I always find it odd to discuss abortion with LDS, because at some point I usually end up hearing pro-choice arguments. Yes, and this is a good thing, both in Catholic and LDS theology, isn't it? From my understanding of LDS doctrine, coming to earth and getting a body is a wonderful thing, a step towards exaltation, right? P.S. Why did you create a sock puppet account, Ahab? Were you banned again? Or just hoping for a fresh start?
  15. I ultimately find all theodicies lacking in one way or another, so the problem of evil is a bit of a mystery to me. So I suppose that God will have to answer for evil, but I imagine His answer will be a perfect one. I know you like to have a sarcastic flippant tone, and you usually make me laugh, but characterizing my position as telling a rape victim to "suck it up, wimp" is wrong.
  16. Even for me, eh? But... you don't know me since you've only been posting here for a day. Or have you? Do you mind answering me if you are Ahab? Of course I see that. No one in their right mind would deny it. Of course the child's genetics are a combination of him and the mother-victim. That doesn't change the fact one bit that the child is innocent. This is asinine. The child is not a new version of the rapist. The child is a unique being. No, I would not. There are also thousands of other experiences I would not like to experience, either. What I would or would not like to experience does not affect morality. It would be a terrible cross to bear. I do not deny it. There are many terrible crosses that the Lord asks us to pick up and carry. I believe the morally correct choice is for her to carry the child to term. And society should do everything in its power to support her in her very difficult situation. Why? Do you believe rape is the worst sin? My understanding of LDS doctrine is that murder is worse than rape. What do you think?
  17. Do you mind explaining? God allows all sorts of evil to occur. How does that relate to this issue?
  18. Yes, this is a reasonable analysis. I suppose Catholicism avoids the issue by having no exceptions for abortion. I will point out thought that pretty much all laws force someone out there to do something they don't agree with, rare though that may be with some laws.
  19. What about children whose fathers are murderers? Alcoholic abusers? Molesters? Genocidal dictators? Are those children lesser because of the sins of their fathers? The "fruit" is the innocent child! The mother-victim can give up the child at birth. She doesn't even have to see the child after it's born if she doesn't want to. She never has to know about the child's life if she doesn't want to. And I am in no way trivializing how hard those 9 months of pregnancy would be. But killing the child isn't the answer. Helping the mother to the utmost of society's ability is the answer. I don't think whether or not the mother-victim has forgiven the rapist plays much of a role in whether or not she should abort the baby. I think it might play a role in how difficult carrying the baby to term might be.
  20. I do agree with this, but I don't think it is an either/or situation. Let's have anti-abortion law AND provide as much help to women as we can. I get frustrated at those in my religion who spends considerable time advocating for anti-abortion laws (a good thing), but THEN, because of some supposed conservative principle, argue against laws that would help women, relieve poverty, and do things that would make abortion less likely to happen in the first place.
  21. But the "fruit" is an innocent child! Imagine telling a child that she needs to die because she would cause more harm to her mother than the man who raped her mother. I have a real problem with this kind of thinking.
  22. I share the story when I teach Lord of the Flies: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months
  • Create New...