Image

They’re really not human


Advertisements

21 thoughts on “They’re really not human

  1. I recently heard someone say, about the “freedom of choice” idea, that the same people who have a moral issue with God’s decisions about the lives of His children are the same ones who have no moral issue doing the same with the life that resides inside of them. Even if there were no difference between God and man, it would still be an inconsistent argument.

  2. Ironically, your cartoon reminded me of this image, regarding the Christian argument against gay marriage:

    Not to mention the Bible’s inability to outright condemn the practice of slavery…

    Regarding this cartoon, I think there is some clear delineation between black people and human embryology so the comparison is unfair, in my opinion.

    There are some very real discussion to be had as to when a growing cell mass may be called a human. Is it when its viable outside the womb? Is it when it has a heartbeat? When it can perceive pain? When it can think?

    I don’t know.

    But masquerading as if the issue is settled is simply disingenuous.

    1. By the way, it was part of the evolutionary concept in that time that that Africans were descendants of apes. Or so people tried to think to enforce slavery.

      By the way, why God called Israel out of Egypt, what was so bad there?
      Slavery.

  3. Hmmm, I don’t think the issue is settled. There are a ton of things which need to be considered. But regarding the cartoon Its just what I have observed as to how casually people treat the issue, at times.

      1. The argument about abortion is most often turned into a straw-man debate (if that is an actual thing). As you essentially said, Andrew, it is not about whether killing is right or wrong – we all pretty much agree about that. The crux of the argument is about at what point a “mass of cells” becomes a life. The Biblical view on this is clear, but that also gives rise to numerous points of confusion and debate. Biologically speaking, there are any number of views that are presented. I have my views, both biologically and theologically, but the “why’s” of arguments are rarely considered, with the focus being simply one of “whose side you are on?”

        As far as slavery is concerned, the confusion of the slavery of the ancient world as confronted in the Bible with the more modern African slave trade is the source of a lot of misunderstandings about what the Bible actually says (Richard Dawkins is a key victim of this).

      1. People love to throw around the term “Zeitgeist,” as if cultural norms and memes had little or nothing to do with an internal sense of right and wrong. This is an example of how cultures view “convenient truths.” Abortion is convenient, slavery is convenient, relative morality is convenient. But convenience does not denote truth, much less morality.

        1. Why do Christians constantly assert objective morality without even offering a decent definition of morality itself?

          The concept of “zeitgeist” is hugely relevant to the ongoing to study of the nature of morality and ethics among humans. Once again, your inability or unwillingness to understand these studies doesn’t negate their impact on our world.

          1. As an initial thought, I would define “morality” as that which we inherently know that we “ought” to do, regardless of whether we want to, think it is the best course of action, or actually do. It is As an initial thought, I would define “morality” as that which we inherently know that we “ought” to do, regardless of whether we want to, think it is the best course of action, or actually do. It is the internal mechanism that pushes us to choose between two alternate courses of action, based on an understanding of which is truly “right.” Objective morality is far from a Christian concept; Christianity simply has a specific view of its origins.

            Unfortunately for the relativist, any relative statement is doomed at formation, since it cannot say anything substantial about truth. Relativism is a philosophical question, with little application to real life, since we have to live in a world of absolutes. The burden of proof in this case is not on the absolutist, since there is a myriad of evidence to the absolute nature of ethics, morality, etc.

            I will not argue my “inability” to understand studies, since there are many that I have not – or do not – understand. I am constantly working towards a greater understanding, but there is unfortunately not enough time left in my life to make the desired progress; “unwillingness” I will not accept, but I understand that it is difficult for those who do not directly interact with me may not have the opportunity to see that. However, “these studies” is a fairly nebulous designation, and I would assert that the generalization you appended to Christians in your comment could easily be turned around in this case. Furthermore, the application of “Zeitgeist” as a cause, rather than an effect, seems to have some foundational problems. I am not saying that Zeitgeist is not a real concept, or an effective model, just that it is used as a catch-all whenever moral and ethical decisions and feelings cannot be explained. The term is rapidly losing its meaning purely from its profligate – and often incorrect – use.
            I wi

        1. Actually, the science in the second case is not complete. We cannot decide ultimately at what point life begins, and if scientific exploration beyond our own world is a hint, any living cell is life that must be protected at all costs; we just do not apply the same reasoning to life here on Earth.

          It would seem wise, at this point where science is inconclusive, to err on the side of caution as regards human life. We do this in every other aspect of life (law, medicine, traffic), and yet we do not when it infringes upon the convenience of someone’s life. Convenience holds precedence where the science of life is unsure. *That* is the Zeitgeist…

  4. “Why do Christians constantly assert objective morality without even offering a decent definition of morality itself?”

    I’d love to hear a “decent” definition of morality. Feel free to share. 🙂

    “The concept of “zeitgeist” is hugely relevant to the ongoing to study of the nature of morality and ethics among humans. ”

    In my opinion the problem is not in the study but how it is used in an argument, for it does not proves subjective morality definitely, only observes it.

    1. Sorry John, I meant to respond to this yesterday and I forgot.

      I don’t have a great definition of morality…just one that is being formed and certainly open to criticism. I balk at those, whoever, who claim to have arrived at a solid definition…one that is somehow revealed to them by “god.”

      I also don’t think the concept of a zeitgeist should be a conclusion to an argument. Rather, I think it is a useful tool in studying the origin of cultural morality.

      1. I would tend to be wary of the arguments of anyone who felt they had it all figured out. I feel very strongly about things, but judging by how my opinion and beliefs have changed just in the last two years, it would be absurd to think that I cannot expect more of the same. That is exactly why I keep coming back to these conversations, because even when I am stubborn and hard-headed, and refuse to admit the validity of a statement (which I hope isn’t too often), I typically spend some time researching later in private. Iron sharpens iron, right?

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s