Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
All of those are objective, rational arguments, not emotional ones.
What constitutes personhood is a philosophical argument that is very debatable. Religious people, unfortunately, are often completely uninterested in engaging with such philosophical questions, because they think their religion provides all the answers, while trying to pass off their myriad superstitions as objectively correct.
Really, the whole argument against abortion is just based on semantics, and not anything practical. Why do you get to decide the definition of personhood?
It provides the answers on this topic
Because we are objectively correct. We can live with concessions on people being wrong when it only harms them, but not when it harms others.
To us, from our perspective, this is like a flat-earther telling us "why do you get to objectively decide that the earth is round?" Or a climate change denier saying "why do you get to define that emitting less CO2 is good for the environment?". I am so thoroughly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and that He will return in glory to judge both the living and the dead and establish an eternal kingdom which will have no end, that I don't see any anti-pro-life arguments as rational at all.
There are unhelpful strawmen as well "oh, you only want to control women". No. We genuinely believe that a foetus is a valuable human life. That's the sum of the argument, a human life isn't degraded by circumstance either. The Pro-life reason is so incredibly simple and it's not exclusive to Christians either. While every Christian should be pro-life (the ones who aren't are typically lukewarm cultural Christians who don't really respect the actual faith itself and just like to pick and choose) there are also secular pro life organisations.
No you are not. "Objectively," is it? Is there something physical you can point to that proves your philosophical position on personhood correct? Of course not. I can point to all kinds of physical evidence to prove to a flat-earther that the earth is round. That is what "objectively" means, which you don't seem to understand. You are not "objectively" correct if your position relies on a bunch of faith based assumptions.
I literally never even said that, you are literally accusing me of strawmanning you by putting words into my mouth.
You can believe whatever you like, doesn't mean the law should be based around purely religious beliefs.
But you are unwilling to make any arguments along secular terms, so that's completely irrelevant.
If you want to participate in modern civilization without trying to take us back into the fucking dark ages, then you have to play by the rules of secular governance that prevent you from being burned at the stake for being the wrong type of Christian. And that is especially true if you expect to get through at all to anyone who is not a Christian, if you expect me to even have a modicum of respect for your beliefs and not see you as fundamentally incompatible with a functioning society. And if it's actually true that your position is just as defensible from a secular perspective, then why are you constantly bringing religion into it?
You're literally just adding a bunch of pointless, irrelevant, faith-based assumptions that you know I reject, and making them fundamental to your argument. And according to you, there is no reason to do this, as your position is supposedly equally defensible from a secular perspective.
Being raised around this exact bullshit is exactly why I'm a Marxist. Because I have already seen the future you would bring humanity into and it's utterly horrifying and must be stopped at all costs.
The resurrected Jesus Christ was physically here on earth, so yes.
I wasn't doing this and I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about other activists I've dealt with.
I never said that, and Abortion isn't the primary topic at hand here.
I can imagine a Nazi saying this to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the 1940s.
Marxism seems to fully depend on humanity in order to work. The issue with the human condition is that we're sinful and corrupt. That's why Marxism is a pointless pursuit. It would never work on corrupted humans. And hence, has never fully worked. Even the UK's healthcare system which is socialised gets pilfered by corrupt people in charge. We can't even have marxism working on a healthcare system, nevermind the country. Humans are too evil.
No, because this is just your belief. It isn't something that is proven by evidence. Because it isn't true.
Then what the fuck was the point of bringing it up and arguing on exclusively religious lines about it??
"You know who else didn't like Christianity? Adolf Hitler." Is this really the level of reasoning you operate at?
Lol. The classic, "Marx failed to consider human nature" meme argument. "Humans are too sinful, that's why we need to stick with systems that incentivize and reward greed and corruption, while keeping others poor and desperate."
I swear, how am I even supposed to have a conversation with someone who's so confidently incorrect about so many things, has zero intellectual curiosity, and just wants to mindlessly recite meme-level arguments and religious orthodoxy?
Has nothing to do with Marxism whatsoever. You're literally pointing to corruption under capitalism as a reason why Marxism is bad and we should keep doing capitalism.
What evidence would you need to prove it exactly?
It was on the subject of bringing religion into politics.
It's a good example of how secularism is needed to abolish morality.
I never said we needed to stick with capitalism. I'm saying that relying on humans is deeply fallible, and marxism completely fails at replacing religion.
Never said that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence would you require to believe the Buddhist sutras that describe talking animals and flying monks? Probably more than hearsay, I'd imagine.
I swear, trying to follow your chain of reasoning is impossible. So, you brought up abortion to demonstrate to me that religion belongs in politics, by simply asserting that it does?
Are you really going to make me bring up all the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, then? The crusades, the inquisitions, the witch burnings, the wars of religion - all perfectly moral, apparently, because "secularism is needed to abolish morality." What a load of crap.
Right, what you want then is even worse. A return to feudalism, perhaps? Yes, that's how we can ensure that humanity's sinful nature never manifests into anything bad, by giving some random asshat like the guy in your profile pic absolute power and no checks or accountability.
Better yet, maybe we can have a theocracy? Surely, nobody claiming to represent the will of God could ever be subject to that same sinful and corrupt human nature, and can be trusted implicitly to rule.
And if not capitalism, socialism, feudalism, or theocracy, then what is it exactly that you support?
Eyewitness testimony. Said eyewitnesses literally dying on that hill helps. As well as a religious movement spontaneously and uncontrollably erupting from it.
For a start, were the crusades really an atrocity? And the inquisitions? They were fighting against Islam. I don't think you'd prefer a caliphate over Christendom. The Bible doesn't mandate witch burnings either. In fact, it was usually over superstitious nonsense which it condemns. What didn't help is that people back then couldn't actually read the Bible - probably the largest answer to your question, actually. So corrupt people in the Church had more control. Now your average layman can read the Bible and see Trump is in fact an antichrist. Many churches also condemned the witch hunts as superstition. That's kind of like the right using instances of transgender people committing atrocities to invalidate all of them.
None of these work. They all rely on humans. I don't see a need to participate in that argument. Empires come and go. Whether they be feudal, theocratic, democratic or socialist. I'm more concerned with Christ's eternal Kingdom. Christ didn't preach an earthly political system, much to many people's dismay at the time. All He did in regards to political systems was emphasising that people should submit to the authorities over them. So whether you live in Britain, Canada, America, China or Russia. As long as said submission doesn't undermine or overtake your submission to God. You shall love the LORD your God with all of your heart. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, you shall love your neighbour as yourself. These two commandments should govern the affairs of a Christian's life.
Cool. That describes most religions. So either you need to convert to basically every religion at once, or you need to raise your standards of evidence.
And Judaism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and anyone who happened to be standing in the way of valuables. How can you possibly be this deluded about history?
You don't see a problem with the numerous times all Jews were expelled from their respective countries? Like when Jews in Spain, who had previously been tolerated under Islamic rule, were forced to convert, leave, or die, and many of them had to flee to Islamic countries for whatever refuge they could find there? Why the hell do you think there's a diaspora?
Or the crusades, when the Byzantines asked the Church for help fighting the Muslims, and the crusaders sacked and looted Constantinople, leaving them more vulnerable?
Then you'll be relieved to know that Marx never mandated any sort of atrocities, so that means Marxism has a totally clean record on that front.
The Preacher and the Slave
Yeah, no thanks. If more people listened to your "submit to authority" bullshit, we'd still have chattel slavery. Fuck off with this bootlicking nonsense.
You don't think I should care about politics? Well my boss and my landlord do, and every day they're working to make my life worse. It's long past time to start fighting back. We didn't start the class war. We just recognize it exists.
Eh, not really. The Bibe points to specific points in time, letters appear to be addressing actual people and sending greetings, etc. They also reference real people contemporary for it's time. I haven't found any other religious document that does this. The Gospels and Epistles read as eyewitness testimony.
That part wasn't right, but I can see noble intentions behind the motivations.
I know.
Jesus criticised this exact attitude.
So you don't submit to the authorities of the country you live in, then? What about your employer?
I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm saying that politics shouldn't be your god, which is a folly of most political systems
So if I send a letter to a real person claiming that I'm god, does that make my claim immediately legitimate, or do we have to wait?
Noble intentions my ass. They wanted to kill and loot and conquer, I see no real difference between the crusades and say, Genghis Khan. At least the Khan was honest.
Maybe you should listen.
"Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimises the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists." - Lenin, "No Compromises?"
Yes, I submit to my rulers, temporarily, insofar as I don't have the power to do anything else. This is fundamentally different from advocating for "submission to authority" as a general principle.
Yes, sometimes we have to endure defeat, indignities, and abuse, sometimes we must recognize a conflict as unwinnable in the current state of affairs, but that's just a matter of surviving until that state of affairs can be changed. This is a practical, strategic calculation about how to win, it is not the same on giving up all hope of winning, of denouncing winning as immoral, and extolling the "virtue" of submission to authority. Surely you must understand this.
I'll never understand why Christians have this incessant need to assume everyone else has to have something that acts as a "god." It seems to be a total lack of imagination, an inability to understand anyone who thinks differently from them.
That's not what the Bible is.
Not once did I advocate against helping the poor?
You will never win. No matter the system you will be oppressed until the Kingdom of Heaven comes.
Luke 6:20-26
Luke 1:50-53
You are literally advocating against the poor right now. Any hope of actually helping the poor, advancing the people's condition through systemic change, is impossible and a foolish, immoral endeavor, according to you, we should all just suffer and accept whatever oppression and injustice is inflicted on us so that we can get pie in the sky when we die. It's literally exactly what you're saying.
Curiously, the crusades, which were also a political endeavor, do not fall under the same logic (nor does banning abortion, for that matter). Because it was a ruling class endeavor. The ruling class's boot is so far down your throat that you can't even speak coherently.
No, I'm just saying that politics cannot replace God.
It's the ruling class who seems to criticise the Crusades and Christianity the most
"Politics replacing God" just means "people advocating for politics you personally disagree with."
No, it doesn't. For example, there are some people who have a Christ-centred socialist view. Karl Marx was Antitheist and Materialist. That's my main reason for disagreeing with Marxism.
The reality is that no political system will ever abolish oppression due to The Fall.
Then it is useless to try to ban abortion or wage holy war against Islam, and you are contradicting yourself.
You can implement measures to reduce oppression, but can never eliminate it.
Ok then, I want to reduce oppression through Marxism.
That's fair and very respectable, provided Marxism isn't attempting to replace God in this case. Is Marxism antitheist? Probably best to ask an actual marxist instead of listen to what people say about Marxists and what I've observed about The People's Republic of China.