"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[-1-]

Of the three, Jesus was never mentioned in current affair documents then, he is only described in the Bible.

Well, a little more than the Bible.

Jesus is metioned three times by Flavius Josephus, a first-century Romano-Jewish scholar and historian as well as the near contemporary Roman authors: Suetonius, in the Life of Claudius, and Tacitus, in Annals, where he reports that a Christus, after whom Christians are named, was killed by Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius.

Ahem. The Internet is the murderer of false facts.

A little (very little) research revealed this on Wikipaedia:

1. Boman (2012) states that there are many different spellings of this word in the manuscripts he examined, namely "Chresto, Cherestro, Cresto, Chrestro, Cheresto, Christo, xpo, xpisto, and Cristo"

2. But the temporal order for the documents begins with Pliny writing around 111 AD, then Tacitus around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius around 122 AD.[58][61]

1. The manuscripts were not original.
2. Tacitus and Suetonius wrote (supposedly) about Jesus about 80 years after J died. This is comparable to truth value when people 50-70 years after the Holocaust deny that it happened. In other words, could have been a political or religious agenda that commanded the writers to write this. Tacitus, Suetonius etc. wrote 80 years after Jesus perished allegedly; this long a lag does not exclude the high probability that the text was ficiton.

Christianity obviously started. There is no denying it. Perhaps by Jesus the Christ, but there is no document of that other than the Bible.

The upshot is, that Christianity started, and that we don't know how, why, and by whom. We have the bible, which is an historical document at the same time as a religious text; believing in the bible for facts is the same as believing the bible as god's own words: no external references or proofs exist for its claims.

[-1-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQzZPGBMmVc

This video talks extensively how Flavius Josephus' passage about Jesus was a latter addition to the annals of FJ. It stands out stylistically, stands out as a composition, and stands out as an undiscovered text for four centuries.

Flavius Josephus wrote serious, well-researched texts; but his passage about Jesus certainly appears to be a fraud, committed long after FJ's death.

[Belinda]

-1- wrote with reference also to The Ugly Duckling, and Macbeth:

Hehe! Of the three, Jesus was never mentioned in current affair documents then, he is only described in the Bible. Which is a historical evidence all right, if we can find a first edition. But even that does not exist.

None of the three literally existed as told in story and legend . However Shakespeare's Macbeth and Jesus of the Gospels as persons had historicity. Some of the events in the famous stories of Macbeth and Jesus were possibly real events, or at least historians can gleam historical facts from the historiographies and their related fictions.

Biblical scholars and even some undergraduates can cite ancient codices which are the earliest known written sources for Biblical OT and NT material. A few of these ancient codices still exist, i believe I forget the details you can look them up as well as I.
Anthropology and history benefit from The Bible as a source for contemporary cultures of belief and practise, even without reference to ancient sources.

As for "first edition" there is an old Gutenberg Bible in a museum.

-1-, Your attitude towards the historical Jesus is not unusual. Unfortunately most priests, and even schools, don't teach Bible as history or anthropology. The Bible as still considered by many unquestionably to be the word of God which does little for a reformed Christianity for the modern age, and Jesus is brought into disrepute for being confused with the supernatural and politicised Christ.

[-1-]

-1-, Your attitude towards the historical Jesus is not unusual. Unfortunately most priests, and even schools, don't teach Bible as history or anthropology. The Bible as still considered by many unquestionably to be the word of God which does little for a reformed Christianity for the modern age, and Jesus is brought into disrepute for being confused with the supernatural and politicised Christ.

In fact, in a recent survey made for grade seven students in Kentucky, Alabama and New York states, 67% of students could not identify Christ on a picture presented with mugshots of other death row inmates at the time of their arrests; 34% thought Jesus the Christ was the one and the same person as Superman. 23% of university freshmen in the Kholkhozhn'izhgaya province of Russia thought it was a man with the name Jesus Christus who was responsible for bringing Germany out of the depression after WWI, and starting the second world war with the intent of exterminating all Jewish peoples.

67% of Hungarian immigrants in the Flamington Estates of Sommerville County, West Holmstead, Cheshire, think that "Jesus Christ" is the locals' way of saying (in their incomprehensible accent), "Juicy Crisps".

[-1-]

None of the three literally existed as told in story and legend . However Shakespeare's Macbeth and Jesus of the Gospels as persons had historicity. Some of the events in the famous stories of Macbeth and Jesus were possibly real events.

Absolutely. Other examples exist: Robin Hood was based on many a rouge element, whom the downtrodden looked up to as people defiant of the feudalist status quo. Gilgameesh was supposedly a hero and legendary man who defied the whatevers to succeed at bringing the whatever to whatever.

Jimi Hendrix is was a legendary guitar player, singer, and composer, whom many a modern-day music afficionadoes revere.

Furthermore, many of us on these forums, including yours truly, are legends in our own minds. In two-thousand years from now, we'll be written up as one hero, one legendarily self-important person, who made all kinds of incomprehensibly stupid statements, one after another, on the antiquated forums of what they called back then, in the twenty-first century, the "Internet".

[RCSaunders]

Flavius Josephus wrote serious, well-researched texts; but his passage about Jesus certainly appears to be a fraud, committed long after FJ's death.

There are three different references to Jesus in the writings of Flavius Josephus. The one mentioned is almost surely a spurious addition.

This whole discussion seems pointless to me. If Jesus was an historical person or not makes not difference whatsoever except to those who feel compelled to either defend or deny his existence. History is interesting as a record of human behavior. The Bible is interesting as both history and literature. Profound or fundamental principles based on either are almost certainly mistaken.

[RCSaunders]

The upshot is, that Christianity started, ...

Which is most unfortunate; as if there were not already enough superstition in the world.

[Belinda]

RCSaunders wrote:

This whole discussion seems pointless to me. If Jesus was an historical person or not makes not difference whatsoever except to those who feel compelled to either defend or deny his existence. History is interesting as a record of human behavior. The Bible is interesting as both history and literature. Profound or fundamental principles based on either are almost certainly mistaken.

I think it's relatively important that Jesus lived as an hisrorical individual because his cultural and historical background is needed for his life and work to make sense.

King Arthur or Robin Hood have been mentioned as on a par with the Jesus myth. But they aren't such complete guides to the good life as Jesus is. Robin Hood and King Arthur myths are about specific moral tenets, distributive justice and the just war respectively whereas the Jesus myth covers all facets of what it means to be good universally and for a long duration through time. As do the myths of Buddha, and Muhammad.

It's time this discussion returned to the topic of clinical abortion. The ethics of clinical abortion is one of the big challenges of our times. The modern way to discuss the ethics of clinical abortion is situation ethics. Each case that raises the possibility of clinical abortion is different. Rape , incest, maternal death , and disease or injury of the foetus are cases where clinical abortion is mostly indicated but even in these cases clinical abortion may be relatively contraindicated.In cases of death or ineradicable suffering of the foetus clinical abortion is always indicated.

[RCSaunders]

It's time this discussion returned to the topic of clinical abortion.

I agree.

The ethics of clinical abortion is one of the big challenges of our times.

It is not a challenge for me. I think it is too bad it is used as a social or political issue. Like all true ethical questions, only the principles should be involved, the woman, the father if reasonable, and medical personnel. Otherwise it's nobody else's business.

That is my view, not meant to convince anyone else to adopt it (even though I know they would be happier if they did).

[Gary Childress]

I am going to tell you why the pro-life argument in the context of abortion is correct in a way that does not depend on an overtly religious commitment.

The argument turns on two principles, one is biological, the other ethical.

The first principle is the biological reality of the unborn child's identity. Every embryology textbook in the West that is currently used acknowledges that the human organism that emerges from fertilization is a living member of the human species, it is a member of the species homo sapiens, it is a whole human organism that directs him/herself along a developmental trajectory that is species specific and on his/her own power. She/he needs ,of course, - ( like we all do) - , a natural environment to support them in this process , and so on. I say he or she because
at conception (i.e; when the father's sperm cell fertilizes the mother's ovum) there is sex. Embryos are male or female and one can test for that, in fact, in fact people do in the case of sex-selection in the context of IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). So, in sum, the first idea is that what we are talking about here is a living member of the human species and this is an INCONTROVERTIBLE, hard scientific fact. One that does not require require any kind of religious conceptions at all.

The second principle of the argument is ethical, in particular, it concerns justice and equality, which in the United States (and most other Western democracies) is nested in the nation's most foundational documents, most specifically, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and the idea that individual human beings ALL deserve equal protection under the law. If you are going to exclude an entire segment of the human family from the protection of the law because they are small or dependent or biologically immature or temporarily incapable of certain kinds of advanced, high-level biological functions, that is an injustice of the highest order. That is a legal form of discrimination and to argue this does not require one to be a Christian or a Jew or a theist of any kind.

So, if you recognise the fundamental categories of biology, and the moral principles of equality and equal justice under the law, which I presume we all do as civilized citizens of Western nations, then you should be able to understand and agree with the pro-life proposition in the context of abortion. It is a simple matter of defending fundamental human rights.


Regards


Dachshund

To be honest, this seems like a very shaky argument. For one thing, "rights" were originally seen as a 'social contract', something people AGREE to in order to escape a "state of nature" where everyone is against everyone. So for one thing, it's an agreement and agreements can be modified or amended depending upon circumstances. If it can be reasonably determined that a fetus does not possess all the same rights as more mature humans (including infants) and is therefore not yet part of society and bound by a 'social contract', and the 'general will' is to exclude fetuses such rights (due to justifiable reasons), then that's the law of the land.

Now if you want to say that people are endowed with specific inalienable rights "by their creator" (the Lockean move), independent of any such 'social contract' then you are invoking God into the argument, which basically undermines your statement that your argument doesn't depend on a religious commitment. And if you ARE invoking God, then you open up a whole new can of worms regarding, what exactly is the will of God and by what means are we to determine the divine will.

[Belinda]

RCSaunders wrote:

It is not a challenge for me. I think it is too bad it is used as a social or political issue. Like all true ethical questions, only the principles should be involved, the woman, the father if reasonable, and medical personnel. Otherwise it's nobody else's business.

But it's also the foetus's business. Modern ethics includes universally applying human rights without excepting persons who are very small and or helpless. The question remains . What should be the criteria for personhood?

Gary Childress wrote:

For one thing, "rights" were originally seen as a 'social contract', something people AGREE to in order to escape a "state of nature" where everyone is against everyone. So for one thing, it's an agreement and agreements can be modified or amended depending upon circumstances. If it can be reasonably determined that a fetus does not possess all the same rights as more mature humans (including infants) and is therefore not yet part of society and bound by a 'social contract', and the 'general will' is to exclude fetuses such rights (due to justifiable reasons), then that's the law of the land.

Gary writes about the nature and scope of personhood.

Dachshund wrote:

If you are going to exclude an entire segment of the human family from the protection of the law because they are small or dependent or biologically immature or temporarily incapable of certain kinds of advanced, high-level biological functions, that is an injustice of the highest order.

but these attributes of foetuses are not why foetuses are deemed to be not persons. The reason foetuses are deemed to be not persons is foetuses are in important physiological respects indistinguishable from their mothers who are persons.

[-1-]

se.

King Arthur or Robin Hood have been mentioned as on a par with the Jesus myth. But they aren't such complete guides to the good life as Jesus is. Robin Hood and King Arthur myths are about specific moral tenets, distributive justice and the just war respectively whereas the Jesus myth covers all facets of what it means to be good universally and for a long duration through time. As do the myths of Buddha, and Muhammad.

The point in this utterance is completely subjective. It makes a value statement without any basis. A person accepts Jesus' teachings not because of the merit in Jesus' teachings, but because s/he chooses to. Once a commitment is made, you can't declare a value of "absolute good" because the "good" depended in the first place on your choice (which is not based on reason) to accept it as "good".

I resent the quoted paragraph adamantly, and reject its validity as a philosophical statement vehemently.

[-1-]

The abortion issue is an artificially created issue. Theists hate abortion, atheists accept it. In my experience that's where the buck stops.

I think the USA high judges had this principle or opinion in mind, when they refused to make a decision either way on the issue. It's a sticky one; the answer to its ethical problem is that it's not an ethical problem to atheists, and a sin against god's own very special will to theists.

Any future discussion is futile; much smarter men and women than I have decided that.

[-1-]

The abortion issue is an artificially created issue. Theists hate abortion, atheists accept it. In my experience that's where the buck stops.

I think the USA high judges had this principle or opinion in mind, when they refused to make a decision either way on the issue. It's a sticky one; the answer to its ethical problem is that it's not an ethical problem to atheists, and a sin against god's own very special will to theists.

Any future discussion is futile; much smarter men and women than I have decided that.

Of course abortion will be politicized. That's a natural. If a politician smells in the winds that his or her voting area will back abortion, then s/he will support the idea; if the politician smells in the winds that his or her future constituents are religious, the s/he had better put on his/her agenda to abolish abortions.

This is common sense. This is not an issue to avoid on ethical bases, since abortion is not an issue of ethics, it's an issue of theism/atheism. Theists don't find it unethical; they find abortion to be a horrible sin. They dress the issue in the clothes of ethics, so to speak, only to be able to impress the non-theists. But that's shmafu. Abortion is NOT an issue of ethics, I have to reiterate. It is, instead, a thing supported by atheists and a thing rejected by theists.

[henry quirk]

Yep. That's what I've been askin', over and over, across multiple threads.

If what a pregnant woman carries is just meat, then what happens to that meat is her decision.

If what a pregnant woman carries is a person, then -- no -- she doesn't have carte blanche.

So: seems to me, until 'we' arrive at consensus (on what a person is, on when meat transitions to person), 'we' ought to err on safety's side and assume what a pregnant woman carries 'is' a person (at the very least, 'we' ought to assume she carries a person in the second & third trimesters).