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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
matrixmann) wrote2016-05-21 12:15 pm
xD
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
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.