God's law and the Word

I've seen a lot of lifers go on about Gd and scripture and whatever else as a justification for their moral convictions. There is nothing wrong with taking these values as a source of justification HOWEVER they must be justified in their own right. There is no such thing as an individualized 'revelation' bestowed upon the religious, known only to them, which makes abortion wrong. If it is wrong, and is wrong because God or someone/thing similar said so, then such reasoning must be argued on its own merits.

This point was made clear in ancient philosophy. In Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, written around 390BC, Socrates and Euthyphro debate the nature of piety (this summary is taken from wikipedia):

"Euthyphro proposes (6e) that the pious (τὸ ὅσιο&#957 is the same thing as what is loved by the gods (τὸ θεοφιλέ&#962, but Socrates finds a problem with this proposal: the gods may disagree among themselves (7e). Euthyphro then revises his definition, so that piety is only what is loved by all the gods unanimously (9e).

At this point the dilemma surfaces. Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is only pious because it is loved by the gods (10a)? In other words, do the gods love something because it is pious, or is something pious because the gods love it?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

A rephrasing from wikipedia is also handy for the modern context:
'As German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz presents this version of the dilemma: "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."[1]'

If they (these values) are arbitrary, then they need not be followed because they are contrived. If they are not arbitrary, and rather objectively truthful values, then they can be justified as such. If the latter case is to be held, it then falls upon religious lifers to justify these values based on logical reasoning, else they make fallacious and arbitrary value judgments that no one need follow but for the sake of personal taste and fashion amongst any other pointless reason.

 

Great post, thank you.

 

What does this have to do with abortion..?

 

People use religious conviction to justify their views on abortion. These people need to genuinely debate their convictions in a fair and open manner.

 

Nothing...UNLESS there are people who post here who use religious reasons or references in relation to their arguments against abortion.

 

I wonder are there any

 

Gosh, I don't know.

BTW, notice none of them seem bothered by the fact that God orders the death of not only actual babies, but older children in the Book of Samuel???

 

I thought the religion forum was where people created their repeated threads trying to convince themselves there is no God.....

 

Ok. What does your opinion about the religion forum have to do with this thread?

 

That's a good point. Christian history, and its most cherished text, have been very much open and even encouraging of abortion at particular times and sections

 

I guess its not surprising this was the fate of the thread, but its a shame there wasnt more religious people explaining why the morals ordered by their god(s) were morally justified or where they ever stated as much.

 

They cannot as there is no logic involved with faith, it is by definition a belief that requires no logic.

 

You appear to be entirely correct. Seems as if no religious anti-abortion person here can actually stipulate a coherent code/principle of right and wrong that is divinely inspired AND provide a rational thought process as to why that code should be followed in preference to others.

Its almost always some arbitrary appeal - either to faith, as you note, or the absurdly ignorant idea that only religion effectively allows for ethical thinking, or they describe everything as axiomatic; 'of course killing a human is wrong, this is unquestionable' etc etc.

 

Why do we need to justify anything to you?

 

No that is the science fiction forum. The religious forum is where people create their repeated threads trying to convince themselves there is any actual evidence there is a God.

 

Actually 99% of the threads here are the same tired atheists whining that God isn't real.

 

Why do people equate pro-life with religion? Christopher Hitchens was pro-life.

 

In other words men's will rule?

 

What do you mean by the question, exactly? If you dont want to debate or discuss justifications of abortion that is fine - in that case you can leave this thread.

 

Morality is a human invention, it does not apply to God because it implies that there is something greater than God and that is not possible.

We have given this answer many times but you folks keep asking the same question.

It gets old after awhile.

 

Could you rephrase this question? I dont fully understand it.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is that not possible?

The answer above makes no sense.

You are saying God's morality is arbitrary then?

 

You do not have to base an opposition against abortion on God just because you are a Christian you know.

 

er

Sure is in the Old Testament.

 

Nothing God does is moral or immoral, right or wrong, those are human concepts. If you can hold God to human standards then he isn't really a God and this thread would be pointless.

 

Interesting. Then how does God get to judge us by moral standards he/she/it doesn't have? I get it, St Peter just retired from running the P.G.E.F. ( Pearly Gates Entry Francise.)