- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Southern Baptist Convention: IVF is a sin
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:12 am to Jim Rockford
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:12 am to Jim Rockford
My ex (no pics) had health issues and the Dr. said it was the last thing we could try, which is why I have my son.
I think there should be exceptions to the rule,but I’m biased.
I think there should be exceptions to the rule,but I’m biased.
0
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:13 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Freezing the embryos is every bit as evil as destroying them. In the case of freezing you create a life, and then rob it of any chance of humanity.
Even if you later use that frozen embryo to have another child?
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:15 am to low end
quote:
Then prove it? If it's not opinion, it is fact and it can be proven.
So here's the premise:
quote:
Without a creator there is no truth.
And here's my response: If there is no creator then the universe has no design. We are the product of random particles that bounce off one another. Everything we experience is only and ever a chemical reaction. There is no purpose to life, there is no telos or end goal. There can't be. We are the product of random chance and cannot deviate from whatever it is that started the whole show.
So in this sense, precious logic and reason can never be verified. It can only be circular with no appeal to anything above or outside the random chemical reactions that take place.
This is the truth of modern science. Note that I can accurately use that 'truth' word, and technically, or logically you should not be able to use it.
quote:The Heretic
Contemporary philosophers have a name for the way you and I see the world, a world filled with other people, with colors and sounds, sights and sensations, things that are good and things that are bad and things that are very good indeed: ourselves, who are able, more or less, to make our own way through life, by our own lights. Philosophers call this common view the “manifest image.” Daniel Dennett pointed out at the conference that modern science, at least since the revelations of Darwin, has been piling up proof that the manifest image is not really accurate in any scientific sense. Rather science—this vast interlocking combine of genetics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, particle physics—tells us that the components of the manifest image are illusory.
Color, for instance: That azalea outside the window may look red to you, but in reality it has no color at all. The red comes from certain properties of the azalea that absorb some kinds of light and reflect other kinds of light, which are then received by the eye and transformed in our brains into a subjective experience of red. And sounds, too: Complex vibrations in the air are soundless in reality, but our ears are able to turn the vibrations into a car alarm or a cat’s meow or, worse, the voice of Mariah Carey. These capacities of the human organism are evolutionary adaptations. Everything about human beings, by definition, is an evolutionary adaptation. Our sense that the colors and sounds exist “out there” and not merely in our brain is a convenient illusion that long ago increased the survival chances of our species. Powered by Darwin, modern science proceeds, in Dennett’s phrase, as a “universal corrosive,” destroying illusions all the way up and all the way down, dismantling our feelings of freedom and separate selfhood, our morals and beliefs, a mother’s love and a patient’s prayer: All in reality are just “molecules in motion.”
This post was edited on 6/13/24 at 11:20 am
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:17 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Got a scripture to back that up?
Why do you assume that 'religious' = new testament every time I use the word? I'm using the term as a category of how we perceive the world.
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:20 am to North Dallas Tiger
quote:News reporter voice: “They are calling it.. the gayest post of all timeeee.”
Think for a moment about the power to create a human life. The power of creation is sacred. Our power as humans to create a human life in the image of the Great Creator is very Holy and Divine. It's easy to see why. The power of creation is the power of God. Where in our Father God's creation (Mother Nature) do you see IVF? This is as unnnatural as all the other stuff we all admonish in this, the month of June, in the year of our Lord, 2024... Amen
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:21 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Freezing the embryos is every bit as evil as destroying them. In the case of freezing you create a life, and then rob it of any chance of humanity.
If someone is freezing embryos they’re almost certainly doing so to create life later. Your comment that it’s robbing them of humanity makes no sense.
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:22 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
And here's my response: If there is no creator then the universe has no design. We are the product of random particles that bounce off one another. Everything we experience is only and ever a chemical reaction. There is no purpose to life, there is no telos or end goal. There can't be. We are the product of random chance and cannot deviate from whatever it is that started the whole show.
Thanks for defining the atheist view of the world.
quote:
So in this sense, precious logic and reason can never be verified. It can only be circular with no appeal to anything above or outside the random chemical reactions that take place.
Answer this question: what color is an orange?
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:25 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
Why do you assume that 'religious' = new testament every time I use the word? I'm using the term as a category of how we perceive the world.
I haven't read the whole thread. I assumed with the title of the thread and it being a Southern Baptist and Catholic view of it being a sin, you were talking about religion/organized religion. Which if it's the case, should actually have a scriptural basis of coming to that conclusion.
I persoanally don't associate the word religion automatically with "a category of how we perceive the world." That's a very broad way to look at it and a easy way for you to simply take a stance of "yea I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because it's religious because I say it is."
This post was edited on 6/13/24 at 11:27 am
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:26 am to low end
quote:Typicaly, the fruit that we call an orange is what most of us perceive to be orange in color.
Answer this question: what color is an orange?
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:28 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:As I've argued for a while now, value judgements or determining the morality of a thing is a religious exercise, broadly speaking.
That's a very broad way to look at it and a easy way for you to simply take a stance of "yea I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because it's religious because I say it is."
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:28 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
If you don't want to be part of a society, sure. But back to my original point, politics that govern a society are instrically linked to religious determinations. Not religious like the SBC or the Roman Catholics, but religious as in oriented toward a truth that's higher than merely factual.
Truth is that it is increasingly expensive for young couples to own a home and get their life started pushing the average age for first pregnancy is pushing into their 30s. Which means the rate of IVF use is only to continue going up.
average costs of a private adoption is anywhere between 40-60k depending on the state
IVF with a few rounds of IUI is going to run you around 20k depending on what your insurance covers.
I don't care what baptist or Catholics have to say about IVF unless Christians want a society that is full of aimless people that are priced out of having a family
This post was edited on 6/13/24 at 11:29 am
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:29 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
Typicaly, the fruit that we call an orange is what most of us perceive to be orange in color.
Is that an opinion or a fact?
If it's a fact, how did religion play into you coming to that determination?
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:40 am to low end
quote:Any time someone states a fact correctly they are appealing to the laws of logic, specifically the law of noncontradiction.
If it's a fact, how did religion play into you coming to that determination?
I am therefore appealing to truth, which is a religious exercise.
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:41 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
Everything about human beings, by definition, is an evolutionary adaptation.
That is a philosophical statement rather than a scientific one. It's not possible to use the scientific method to prove that "everything about human beings is an evolutionary adaptation" with science. Whoever wrote this can go ahead and prove self-awareness evolved via an experiment and get back to me.
quote:
Our sense that the colors and sounds exist “out there” and not merely in our brain is a convenient illusion that long ago increased the survival chances of our species.
What absolute nonsense. Is the author of this statement just very bad at formulating sentences, or do they actually mean what this seems to say? Are vibrations and physical properties that reflect and absorb certain light waves not reality?
The confusion with this one is that the sounds we here are a representation of something that, in reality, doesn't "sound" the way it does to us. But colors and sounds absolutely represent an object "out there" with certain properties.
quote:
Powered by Darwin, modern science proceeds, in Dennett’s phrase, as a “universal corrosive,” destroying illusions all the way up and all the way down, dismantling our feelings of freedom and separate selfhood, our morals and beliefs, a mother’s love and a patient’s prayer: All in reality are just “molecules in motion.”
Science is limited to studying material reality. It can't answer philosophical questions. Most fundamentally, it can't address why anything is. It also can't be wielded to claim there is no why.
This post was edited on 6/13/24 at 11:43 am
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:44 am to CatholicLSUDude
quote:Yes. I've stated these exact arguments in previous pages.
Science is limited to studying material reality. It can't answer philosophical questions. Most fundamentally, it can't address why anything is. It also can't be wielded to claim there is no why.
I was using the article to support my definition of atheism because I wanted the definition to be accurate.
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:45 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
I am therefore appealing to truth, which is a religious exercise.
Nothing you have said has shown that it is a religious exercise. So you can keep saying it, but it means absolutely nothing.
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:51 am to low end
quote:It's not my fault that you refuse to accept my definition of religion or religious. But back to the original argument, are you positing that I arrived at truth without god?
Nothing you have said has shown that it is a religious exercise. So you can keep saying it, but it means absolutely nothing.
I did not, for without god there is no truth.
That is, unless you can explain to me how the laws of logic are a product of material molecular action.
So again, when I appeal to the law of noncontradiction, aka "truth", I appeal to God. Is an appeal to God a religious exercise? I dare say it is.
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:54 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
my definition of religion or religious.
Your certainly entitled to your opinion of the definition of those words, but you can't just change the meaning of them for everyone else because you can't grasp thinking on your own without using religion as a crutch.
Posted on 6/13/24 at 11:56 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
Yes. I've stated these exact arguments in previous pages. I was using the article to support my definition of atheism because I wanted the definition to be accurate
Good to hear. I wasn’t sure, which is why I criticized the author of your quote rather than you.
Posted on 6/13/24 at 12:01 pm to low end
quote:As it stands, if religion is my crutch, and I'll happily concede that, then I must be standing on something.
but you can't just change the meaning of them for everyone else because you can't grasp thinking on your own without using religion as a crutch.
The difference between you and I right now is that I'm standing and you're not.
Page 22 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News