CycloWizard
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 12,348
- 1
- 81
Once one has tested his faith (or worked to internalize it, however you'd like to phrase it), I believe that it will stick with him regardless of circumstance. Otherwise, it was never very deeply held to begin with. The exception being where one finds some fatal flaw in his faith and it is exposed, though I can't think of any particular examples of where this would happen.Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Well written. I'd like to jump on faith a smidgeon more though.
For Faith to be significant, to me at least, it is to posess it regardless of circumstance. In fact, according to the definition of faith, being a synonym of belief, once Faith is justified through confirmation is ceases to exist; like I said, it becomes knowledge. Never has a miracle been scientifically proven, it can't, and in accordance to what I understand about your religion, it shouldn't be considering it would undermine the very foundation of Christianity. Really, how significant would faith be if it were as easy as replying to this message, or doing any sort of observable and definitively provable activites?
I do appreciate your willingness to parse and ponder your beliefs though, it seems that is a virtue lost unto most Christians I know. What's interesting is that I actually appreciate and agree with what I understand to be the teachings of Christ, I just don't see it practiced correctly by those who would weild at as an instrument to force and coerce obediance as if it were the law of Islam.
Personally I'm all for recognizing Christianity in a historical context in our Gorvernment, but I see the lines of separation between church and state being deliberately blurred by evangelical Christians trying to wrestle control of this nation. I see that as wrong for the Christian faith and wrong for society. That is why I can objectively understand (not being a Catholic could in this case allow me to be objective) Kerry's position on abortion, or any other potential intrusion of Religion on government or (vise versa.)
I have seen, in person, a 'miracle' that has achieved scientific backing. Linky Take it for what it's worth. If you read up on the story surrounding the event, I believe it will grant you some insight into why a miracle might occur and not counteract faith. In and of itself, a miracle such as this does not grant faith. Instead, it requires faith even to believe in the miracle. Further, miracles typically only present themselves in tangible form to those who already have a deep faith. While others may encounter them, they do not recognize them due to their lack of faith. So, as I said, miracles do not decrease the necessity of faith in any way.
As I've mentioned before, I believe that our laws should be based on educated ethics rather than morals. As I mentioned in this thread, it is clear why we should not legislate morals. Thus, I form my arguments based on ethical arguments rather than moral arguments, as moral arguments lose all meaning outside the context of the particular religion to which they belong. The amazing thing that I have learned after taking more ethics than religion classes is that ethics and religion overlap more often than not. The underlying philosophy governing Christianity is really based on sound ethical principles. These same principles, if truly ethically based, would likely appear in other major world religions. This is a common test that I use to gauge the ethical nature of a question: do all major world religions support or oppose the action? If yes, then there is a good chance that there is an underlying ethical reason why that action is frowned on, and one only needs to examine the issue to determine why it might be unethical. One example is extramarital sex - it is opposed by all major world religions, and there are sound ethical arguments for why this is the case. After you consider it, it's pretty obvious in most cases, though some are far from obvious and require deeper inspection.
Tell me - how do the references in my sig come down to morality? Because there are three lines from the pope? I quoted pages of Mary Anne Warren and only a few lines from the pope. I guess that's too biased for you, huh? Well, in case you didn't notice, even the lines I quoted from the pope are from an ethics handbook and have nothing to do with morality. Obviously, you didn't read the links in my sig, or you would have realized this. You obviously didn't search very hard for my posts on this issue either. Just so you can repeat my two second procedure, I'll spell it out for you:Originally posted by: Abraxas
CW: I read everything that came up through October 7 IIRC was the cutoff on the posts that came up with the terms you gave me.
And I did in fact read the link in your sig. That once again came down to morallity and fetal rights.
Tell you what, since you are asserting that your posts are easy to find on the topic, why don't you just c&p one over here? I gave it a shot and didn't see I so I am asking that you spell it out for me. What reason that is neither based in religion or morallity is there to outlaw abortions?
1. Go to 'advanced search'
2. Select 'Politics and News'
3. Search Phrase: abortion
4. Author: cyclowizard