Post by moritz on Nov 17, 2008 2:59:52 GMT -8
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
First, the point of my comments, above all, has been centered on one key principle that informs our understanding of the ethical implications of stem cell research. That principle, which I clearly stated, explained, and defended, is this: The ends never justify the means.
I disagree with that. I would agree if you said "the ends never justify all means". The conclusion of whether or not an end justifies a specific mean must be weighed for every particular case. A generalization doesn't help. I agree with you that the Hisoshima bomb wasn't a justified mean for a justified end. But the decision to use war to defeat Hitler was justified in my opinion even though war is probably the most terrible solution for a conflict one could imagine. I'd like to advocate a more balanced view of this. To say ends never justify means is too across-the-board.
Let me ask you this straight out: Does the forgiveness of all sins justify the cricifixion of the Christ? I want an answer. And if you say no, I want an additional answer for question: If it doesn't, why was this precisely God's plan?
If you say yes, the crucifixion was the right mean for the right end, I take it you'll agree that ends do justify means in particular cases. Let's hear what you think.
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
But because I mentioned the afterlife, you decided that because I believe in the afterlife, that also trumps my entire thesis
That wasn't my point. My point was to explain why I think that afterlife-belief is dangerous. I think the 9/11 example is still a good one. Here's the crucial point: Mohamed Atta didn't use Islam as a stalking-horse. He believed that he was performing God's will. There's a huge difference. He was willing to lay his life down for Allah, to sacrifice himself for a greater cause. He put his trust into God's judgment and into the afterlife. I believe his motives were sincere.
Do you understand the full extent of this perversion? You, Marcus, may not think that killing "nonbelievers" or enemies of God is a justified mean. But others do. If I'm not mistaken, even God committed mass murder to rid the world of wicked creatures. More than once.
I don't feel like I explained this well. What I'd like to make everybody consider is that the belief that saving life isn't or shouldn't be a major concern because life can't be taken away ultimatel naturally causes a depreciation for earthly life. It's a very thin line from there to 9/11. This is not a logical jump. All that separates you from Mr. Atta is that you don't believe ends justify means. But I tried to point out that you must think some ends justify some means. If you should ever change your mind on that one, hell can break loose.
I understand that you'll say that you DO appreciate life. But you don't appreciate it the way I do. To tell a five year old cancer kid that we dismiss a promissing chance to find a cure for his suffering, and that he should take it easy because he would have to die anyway some day is absolutely cynical.
Marcus, it is important to underline a point of agreement we have here. I also believe that death is a part of life. It's natural. But I totally disagree with your thesis that there is no right time to die. I see a big difference between the death of a 5 year old and a 90 year old. Not only in terms that the five year old cancer kid will never grow old enough to experience all shades of the greatness of life (which is a pitty). But also in simple terms of reproduction. To me the sense of life is multi-facetted. But one of the more obvious and important layers is reproduction. It's what all kinds of life have been doing ever since life began and we've been equiped - by nature or our creator or however you wanna call it - with a strong impulse to do it (if I'm not mistaken, the Bible-God even gives the explicit order to do so).
Hence, there's a big difference between a five year old kid dying before he can reproduce himself and a 90 year old grandpa.
That of course doesn't mean grandpas death isn't a pitty too. But just think of your own intuition. If grandpa dies, people cry but they also say, "he had a long and fulfilled life and it was his time to go now". That doesn't go for the cancer kid.
By the way, I don't understand why you say something along the lines of "death is always terrible" when at the same time you think that the dead are with God. Isn't that a bit crude? Shouldn't everyone celebrate the death of a human in an act of selflessness? Instead of pittying oneself for the loss we should pray for their souls, trust in God's mercy and be happy our beloved are gone, shouldn't we? So how come death is terrible? Just curious.
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
Because I believe in heaven, and because I won't compromise on the ends not justifying the means, I could NEVER do something immoral like that.
But it's only immoral for you. Josh and I have a discussion about morals going on which I will dedicate myself to when I've finished my M.A. thesis (isn't it ironic that I told him I would put the discussion on hold until I'm done with university and now I got entangled here again? I'm such a victim of procrastination!!). The point here is: For us Atta perverted his faith. For other people, especiallyin the Middle East, he is a hero. A saint so to speak. Whileit appears immoral to us, it's truly moral to them. And while I call Christianity immoral, you call it truly moral. You get the idea. You happen to think you are right and so do they. And as much as we would like it, none of us is qualified to decide. Maybe Mr. Atta is in paradise now...
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
Heaven makes you more moral, not less - the belief that consequences await actions and beliefs propels people to be more moral and righteous.
okay, but "moral" and "righteous" are in the eye of the beholder which I hope became clear. Mr. Atta sure believed he became more moral and righteous. The morality of the Bible is really twisted at many parts. So I just hope you don't extract your morals from there.
For more detailson this read the "God's personality thread".
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
Look, if you want to interact with my beliefs, please discuss some of the examples I've provided. Hiroshima, the Good Samaritan, the Garden of Gethsemane, abortion, stem cells.
Actually my intention was to sort out Josh's thoughts. It wasn't really directed at you. But if you want me to, I'll interact with your examples.
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
And really, do I need to come right out and reassure you that I want people to live, to avoid suffering, and to be peaceful? Okay, I do. Believing that God will reward those who suffer does not mean I want people to suffer. It means that when immoral acts occur, and victims endure the consequences and maintain their morality instead of lashing back or seeking vengeance (and therefore suffer), God will bless them for it. It means that a child who suffers and dies of cancer will find comfort in heaven beyond their imagination. It does not mean I want every child to get cancer.
Of course you don't. I never said you did. But wait a minute... why don't you? I mean, if the heavenly reward is beyond their imagination, we should all hope they get cancer. That's what I was getting at. What I said was, that the logical conclusion of this rationality is, that I, Mo, am doing you, Marcus, a really big favor if I torture and kill you for example. As a believer, you will get a reward beyond your immagination for your suffering. It wouldn't even be evil of me to do it, because I would sacrifice my soul for your benefit. Maybe there's a fallacy in that rationality but for the time being I can't see it. Through this process, evil loses it's meaning because an evil action ends up doing more good than a good action.
You'll say the flaw is that ends never justify means and that the end "reward beyond imagination" doesn't justify an evil action. And I'll ask if the action is really evil if the purpose of the action is to do good? And we'll spin in circles. Where are we by the way??
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
Our concern is not to save lives. Our concern is acting morally (as Jesus would).
So in this case acting morally is the end. And this end could never justify any mean? Is that what you're saying?
Needless to repeat right here that acting morally is in the eye of the beholder. I know I'm repeating myself.
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
If your goal is to save people and extend life, you're bound for frustration and disappointment, because life is just never long enough. But if your goal is to love and serve people regardless of outcome, you'll find peace and contentment. I've tried both, believe me.
I disagree with the first part. Life can be long enough. We don't have to live forever. There comes a a certain point at which the death of one person is less tragic than the death of another person. This line can't be drwan at a certain age. There are 90 year old people who didn't manage to achieve any of their dreams and there are peoplewho lived to the fullest at age 45. We can't help that part. We can't influence what people do of their lives. But we can try to give everyone a fair chance. A five year old cancer kid doesn't even have the chance.
About mother Theresa: There's nothing wrong with giving love to the dying. But prolonging the life of a person for a month could be just as beneficial if that month can be used for instance to make peace between a father and a son who separated years ago in anger. Sometimes the prolongation oflife is merely a prolongation of pain too. Again, these questions have to be estimated individually. And if we speak of stemcell research as a possible remedy for cancer, we are not speaking about a prolongation of life for 3 months, but maybe 80 years? As I said, I see a lot of difference here. That doesn't mean I don't see the worth of mother Theresas efforts.
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
That's why I'm committed to teaching and practicing non-violence.
I appreciate that.
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
And by the way, using the term Christian Nazi is a cheap shot. A Christian is not a title that one can randomly bestow upon themselves while doing whatever the hell they want to do. A Christian is a follower of Jesus. If someone kills out of racism and commits unspeakably moral acts, they are not a Christian, regardless of what they claim.
Unfortunately you're no one to decide this. Who's a Christian, what is a Christian? I agree that those aren't Christians who use Christianity for their purposes without believing. But I daresay there were enough people, also among the Nazis, who believed to be righteous, morally good and to have the Lord on their side. Who believed in Jesus and that the Jews had to pay the price for killing Jesus (that was part of the propaganda).
The sad thing is, that there are as many Bible interpretations as there are humans. None of us can look into the hearts and heads of the Nazis. We can't know who believed in Jesus and who merely used Jesus. We can't know who believed to be moral and who satisfied his perverted drives. Unfortunately, the mere fact that they acted against what YOU believe to be the true lesson of the Bible doesn't mean they weren't Christians.
Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8 @marcus said:
And if you're against the Bible because people pervert it for their own evil agendas, then you shouldn't be a fan of affection, or friendship, or love, or prescription drugs, or having children, or a whole number of other things that people manipulate for selfish, evil purposes.
The things you listed are just one side of the coin. I can't blame anyone for committing murder in the name of the Lord, because it's all in there. If God is the highest instance of moral, why should it be immoral to murder the wicked? He did that too. And despite all his teachings of love, Jesus never condemned Jahwe's mass murder, did he?
But that's a different story.
I just like to add for the record that I TRY to differentiate as much as possible. I know I often fail to do that. But I try.
If you mean "unconditional supporter" when you say "fan", then I must agree, I'm no fan of those things you listed. That doesn't mean I don't think they are all in all good things.
;D