The cradle

[matrixmann]

What in the world actually has God to do with if a woman bears a child or not?

Comments

[red-child.livejournal.com]

Didn't you know? God is obligated to consume dead fetuses. So every time a woman doesn't bear a child God is forced to eat what would've been one of his beloved, lazy children. Therefore, women cannot commit abortion. It's for God.

[matrixmann]

Whereas I question against again: Why is he not obligated to swallow also the trash and the worst that his creatures produce?
His creatures are obligated to swallow deadly diseases, chronic diseases, emotional loss and brutality and need to deal with it, so it's something mutual.
A God that only picks out the best for him to consume is a pretty arrogant God, don't you think?

xD

[red-child.livejournal.com]

I love how you took my comment supporting your entry (you know, through jesting) and responded to it in a way that gives more credit to your thoughts, even though I said something completely ridiculous and as unrealistic as some people's religious opinions seem to be (or worse?). That's incredibly adaptive, props to you.

I have a bunch of problems with God, and people's impression that he's perfect, all knowing and loves us all. None, and I mean absolutely none, of those things have ever been suggested by how humans are treated and what they're like, which is made worse by the conviction that we're his 'crown jewel'. A lot of things I would have thought were entirely mandatory for when you're creating a brand new species, if you're acting on love.. He's never tried them. Given how we're built, we probably would have found ways to fuck up even if he took good care of us by nurturing us, but if he were all knowing he also could have designed us to not be a species that would fuck things up like that. So if you go with the idea that God made us, and believe he's all knowing, he likely has no problem with being negligent and probably a little sadistic towards his creations. That suggests a lot of selfishness, which most religious zealots are deep in.

God has everything to do with a woman's right to an abortion, he's apparently a negligent sadist, he wants to leave her alone to (hopefully) go through suffering and he's too negligent... the fetus would go to hell so he can neglect raising it and see it suffer all in one. Sending the fetus to hell is wrong, so you can't have abortions. It's somehow the human's fault instead of God's, as per natural religious edicts.

Re: xD

[matrixmann]

Didn't fully realized that.
But, you know, the reaction suited in all seriousness...

I came upon that question through some kind of context, thought for a moment and really found no answer why should a God say "you've not allowed to do that!". You see, why should there be a rule like "you're not allowed to refuse"? It doesn't say anything about that in any kind of Holy Book. There's only telling "you shall bear a man's impregnation", if there's talking about it at all because hundreds and thousands years ago there hardly was any possibility to do an abortion.
So that seems like a rule that comes from much more recent times.

And naturally speaking: You have a possibility, in many cases, to refuse a thing. There is no urge, there is no coercion to take everything you've been given. You're also offered the possibility, as a human, to say no to it.
So why should that, out of all things, be the case with bearing a child? Only with that subject? (See, there's a commandment in every religion saying you shall not kill, but do they always comply with it? If it's the right person and the right purpose, they fuck it too.)

The only thing I need to admit it is right about it is: If you do an abortion, you are a killer. Months further, under normal circumstances, it would have been able to live.
But you chose "I don't want it to live" with the wisdom you had.
But that's that kind of decisions reasonable adults do.
Sometimes there is no way around.

[red-child.livejournal.com]

Haha, sorry for not being very obvious in my comment. I can do a lot of things, being obvious isn't one of them.

I really have no criticisms for your findings. It sounds like you've got quite your share of information and thoughts on your mind. I don't think i have the answer for you. Without knowing what happens to a fetus' soul when it dies without having proven who it is, without having developed enough to become worthy off judgement, or given it may not have even had a soul to worry about yet... Well, I mean, I obviously don't know enough to tell you if the abortion is sacrificing anyone in a way God would be obliged to punish as a wrong. I do remember reading commands for women to bear a man's child, which have been put out in very extreme interpretations, but I've also read from Christian authors that the old testament absolutely, and I mean ABSOLUTELY needs to be taken as old advice, as in is no longer relevant. I don't know that I've given you anything new on the subject. I honestly haven't the slightest clue as to what the Muslim faith has to say on it, though I've heard a lot of stories about how much it can ruin a woman's life in the Middle East if she has an abortion. But does that reflect what the prophet would have encouraged? The KKK doesn't really reflect what Jesus would've wanted.

I know in typical Buddhism the aborted fetus would just have its soul move on. :/

[matrixmann]

I think you have confirmed the thought for me that none of these books actually contains any concrete information about that issue. It's more like a sort of custom that people kept over centuries - like that tradition that only males can beome priests.
In Islam it is also that way, Quran doesn't say explicitly that only males can become imams, it is only some kind of tradition that built up over the time - got to hear that during reports about a mosque in Denmark where they have their women's only days where a female is the imam. She made that clear that there is no such explicit rule in the Holy Book for that.

About abortion, one can image the same because clinical abortions can only be done since a relatively short amount of time.
Before, well, they could use some poison cocktail which is deadly harmful to the unborn, but a grown-up human is able to survive it, to wash it out, to cause a miscarriage.
But other methods are tied to modern medicine and to knowing at all how that works when a child is created.
How could they have dropped a line about that 2 thousand years ago? It's simply impossible.

On another note, one must say: Religion was the motivation of yesterday to conquer lands. For sure they told every of their women to bear their child because they wanted to spread their population and reduce that of the enemy. In that cycle it's totally a working against if women decide to get rid of their unborn children.

[red-child.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the shared information about the rather sexist decree about letting women lead worship in any formal sense. I find that the majority of pop-cult-like religious beliefs I personally encounter through people trying to say what others can and cannot do are all without direct relevance. An educated person of the same faith can usually explain where they were wrong. It's more likely that people are taking what they want to believe (the reasons they want to believe it not expounded on), using a twist on a minor reference from their religious text and putting the two together into an argument for which they can justify vilifying disagreement. I'm not positive on its commonality in full context of how people work their beliefs, but I've seen it occur in a fair number of cases.

And yeah, abortion was rather unavailable for quite a long stretch of humans' existence. A lot of our knowledge was rather unavailable throughout most of humans' existence. It rather complicates religious beliefs.

Abortion definitely would have gotten in the way of invaders spreading their genes into conquered/invaded territory. It's ironic how horribly brutal these invaders were when my understanding of the religions predominantly worshiped in those circumstances were all ones that held peace and care for other people as pedestals to strive for. I have trouble blaming the religions, and not the people who said they held to them.

[matrixmann]

I'd say it's both.
People make out of religions (and political ideologies!) whatever they want, whatever suits their purpose and their intentions, but on the other side, lots of the old religions were martial from the start in their core points.
One should see it that way: It's not about God in the substance - God was the thing they named to reason their culture, the way they lived their culture and the way they kept it with their culture, defense of spread or both.
In those times, it was so. They didn't know or assume a better reasoning than doing it "in the name of God" because in those times this was the highest of noble reasons to do something.

Today their could do differently.
But because they don't regard it as a cultural thing, because they also forgot it's nothing more than that, they keep doing the "it was said by a higher entity, so it is more right than human judgment"-stunt. And that leads to the troubles modern world has.
It isn't regarded as that that even religion is a collection of customs and anti-customs against foreign invaders and over time they also may have added a few things into the religious understanding of this. (Because the progress in technology made it due, the progress in society and moral values, or because a relgious scholar thought to understand something differently to the official position of that religion.)
Speaking: Religion these days - from those that are centuries old - assume their religion has always been like this like they know it to be like today. They totally turn a blind eye to that idea that the customs and the views of their religion once could have been differently than today or factually were.
And with this mindset, they still base themselves upon "God wants it this way", undergirding themselves with such absoluteness like "what we say can only be true".

[red-child.livejournal.com]

I read through that, I'm glad it sounds like it comes from personal experience; that tends to make it easier for me to thoroughly understand. On it all, it kind-of just translates out to:

People worship themselves. This, not uncommonly, creates their opinions and decisions.

In explanation on people who worship themselves:
They can be ignorant and commonly enough use God as an argument for opinions/decisions being undeniable and something you should also worship, in order to appeal to their worship of themselves creating a demand for other people to never challenge them (therein making them insecure about their self-worship).

[matrixmann]

It sure speaks for itself how much of a high opinion I have about all of this.
I'm pretty much the evil guy that says to you "God just starts in your head and ends in your head".

[red-child.livejournal.com]

Haha, maybe that's a message that a lot of people need to hear, no?

I'm the heretic that expresses detailed messages on how God obviously isn't perfect in his love, and humanity in all of its flaws isn't a project he takes very seriously.
All of the commentary is justifiable, but most people don't truly understand human nature so the arguments tend to be lost on them.

[matrixmann]

Sometimes people will tell you how much they hear Karl Marx speaking from your mouth... And you know, he was and "evil communist", the founder of that ideology which tried to bring education to the poor and take power away from the wealthy and rich and make their wealth serve the normal public.

Well, at least to me it's what I've found.
It doesn't need to be a God from one of the recognized world religions - it can be somebody or something else you worship like a God. In the end there happens the same. You project something onto this God which actually lives in you.

Human ability for perceiving something is very manipulable.
Either by talking yourself into believing something, or other people doing the same to you, and by consuming substances which influence your senses that make you perceive the world.
Saying - if there are pills causing you to see pink elephants or other illogical stuff that doesn't exist in reality, so what then about the lots of apparitions that people want to have seen, if I know that is possible to tickle it out of human mind?
Nothing with the non-ability of it to ever be wrong.