devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/26/86)
In article <> stim@fluke.UUCP (Randy Stimpson) writes: > >The October issue of Sojourners featured an article on abortion by feminist >Ginny Soley. In the article she shows how the rights of women and unborn >children must be addressed together, rather than separately. Following are >a few quotes from the article. > >.... > >"The particular and unique contribution of Christian feminism is to question >two assumptions. The first assumption it questions is that the individual's >self-interest is, in fact, the highest value. The second assumption it >questions is the vision of justice that pits a woman's rights against a child's >right to life, that forces us to see only one victim over and against another >victim. > >"What we need is to find a way that is good for both mother and child. In the >Christian worldview, the highest value extends beyond individual self-interest >to what is good for the whole of the community. The responsibility for >anything we do also extends beyond the individual to the whole of the >community." > > >Randy Stimpson Randy, Exactly how is this statement a "unique contribution" of Christian feminism? Churches faithful to be Bible have always taught that love for neighbor is a central tenent of the Christian faith. It doesn't matter whether that neighbor is a pregnant teenager in need of a place to stay because her parents have tossed her out of the house, or an unborn child who is about to be scraped from the womb for the sake of convenience. The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the sake of another. -- Tom Albrecht "Reformata, semper reformanda"
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (09/29/86)
>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a >people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should >all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the >sake of another. > >Tom Albrecht >"Reformata, semper reformanda" Why? raghu
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (09/30/86)
In article <5833@ut-sally.UUCP> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: >>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a >>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should >>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the >>sake of another. >> >>Tom Albrecht >>"Reformata, semper reformanda" > >Why? > >raghu Interesting question. I don't recall the Samaritan risking life and property for another. He bandaged some wounds, took the man to an inn and paid for the bill until the man could leave on his own. The description led me to believe the man did not have the strength to attack the Samaritan. (Perhaps having this person around increased his chance of becoming a victim.) The story seems to say go out of your way to help a stranger, even if it is going to cost some money. This does not mean there are not other stories that claim christians should risk life and property for other, I just don't think this one says it. -- Disclaimer: This is just my responding, with an ambiguous language, to what someone else wrote, in an ambiguous language. At no time did I read anyone's mind to find out what they really meant. Pamela K. Whitehurst ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur ...!sun!idi!tymix!whitehur "Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too."
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (09/30/86)
raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) says: >>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a >>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should >>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the >>sake of another. >> >>Tom Albrecht >>"Reformata, semper reformanda" > >Why? > >raghu Someday when *you* need help and everyone else is asking ``Why?'' maybe you'll know. -- _______________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- without a Terry Grevstad ECNALG Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry _______________________________________________________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) (09/30/86)
In article <5833@ut-sally.UUCP> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: >>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a >>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should >>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the >>sake of another. >> >>Tom Albrecht >>"Reformata, semper reformanda" > >Why? > >raghu When one becomes a Christian many changes occur in his or her life. The biggest change is that God becomes the center of the person's life rather than self being the center. As the relationship between God and man continues, man becomes transformed into the image of God. God himself is love. After Christ's life on earth, Christians are giving just *one* new commandment as shown in John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you." This commandment lives in our heart's and is powered by God himself. We see many examples of this attitude that was shown in the life of Christ and documented in the Bible. One such example is the role of Christ as a servant where he is shown washing the feet of his disciples. He shows us that we should put the needs of others before our own. Jesus himself said that "there is no greater love than this that a man would lay down his life for a friend." As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life. Now imagine the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the best for others. If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like. Kiki
smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) (10/01/86)
In article <> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: >In article <> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: >>>[...some xtian propaganda saying we should all be "Good Samaritans"...] >>> >>>Tom Albrecht >> >>Why? >> >>raghu > >[...more xtian propaganda saying the same thing...] > >Kiki This is called begging the question. You assume that for some reason there is something intrinsically good about treating other people as equals and then say, "Now wouldn't it be nice if people really did this." There are real and good _reasons_ for treating with others as equals; they also have nothing to do with one or another religion. There is the pragmatic reason that people will have nothing to do with you if you do not act as if they are worth something. There is the internal reason that quite often it simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others. If you don't want to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and expect people to care to associate with you. I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong) because "the Bible says so." \scott -- Scott Hazen Mueller lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev City of Turlock work: (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628 901 South Walnut Avenue home: (209) 527-1203 Turlock, CA 95380 <Insert pithy saying here...>
rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/01/86)
In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: >As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin >to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life. Now imagine >the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the >best for others. If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd >have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like. > >Kiki The intention is a nice one, but the idea frightens me. My first question, of course, is who is going to decide whats best for me? If I am to decide, then you need to know of my decision and abide by it. If you are to decide, then I am to be bound by something that will very likely cause me great amounts of discomfort. Be careful with this idea. It can be easily used to justify a lifestyle akin to that depicted in "1984". I think what has a better outcome is to live and let live. Its like I tell my kids, "Don't you worry what she's doing, you take care of yourself and let her take care of herself." -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (10/02/86)
In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: >When one becomes a Christian many changes occur in his or her life. >The biggest change is that God becomes the center of the person's life >rather than self being the center. Thank you for your helpful posting. I understand that one's attitude towards life - one's set of values - changes with the acceptance of a concept of God and a set of divinely inspired (and perhaps truly divine :-)) values. Clearly, this acceptance is an act of faith. If one does not make this act of faith, there are several alternative sets of values, including, in particular, that which gives pre-eminence to self-interest. On what basis can this set of values be compared to a God-given set of values? (You will immediately recognize, of course, that this basis cannot rest on faith.) - raghu
devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/02/86)
rap@olivej.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes: >In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: >>As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin >>to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life. Now imagine >>the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the >>best for others. If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd >>have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like. >> >>Kiki > >The intention is a nice one, but the idea frightens me. My first >question, of course, is who is going to decide whats best for me? If >I am to decide, then you need to know of my decision and abide by it. >If you are to decide, then I am to be bound by something that will >very likely cause me great amounts of discomfort. > I guarantee that if you were the unfortunate individual helped by the Good Samaritan you wouldn't question whether his helping you was in your best interest. >Be careful with this idea. It can be easily used to justify a >lifestyle akin to that depicted in "1984". I think what has a better >outcome is to live and let live. Its like I tell my kids, "Don't you >worry what she's doing, you take care of yourself and let her take >care of herself." >-- > Robert A. Pease I hope you never run into trouble and the only people who come by have the same attitude as you. As a matter of fact, I hope *I* never run into trouble and the only people who come by have the same attitude as you. -- Tom Albrecht
kiki@isieng.UUCP (10/02/86)
In article <50@oliveb.UUCP> rap@olivej.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes: >In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: >>As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin >>to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life. Now imagine >>the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the >>best for others. If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd >>have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like. >> >>Kiki > >The intention is a nice one, but the idea frightens me. My first >question, of course, is who is going to decide whats best for me? If >I am to decide, then you need to know of my decision and abide by it. >If you are to decide, then I am to be bound by something that will >very likely cause me great amounts of discomfort. > >Be careful with this idea. It can be easily used to justify a >lifestyle akin to that depicted in "1984". I think what has a better >outcome is to live and let live. Its like I tell my kids, "Don't you >worry what she's doing, you take care of yourself and let her take >care of herself." >-- > Robert A. Pease That is exactly my point in why we should base our decisions on what God wants. Every person can make his or her decisions based on many different elements. Take the extreme example of Hitler who slaughtered the Jews because he thought he was doing the right thing. Everybody else thought he was doing the wrong thing! People make decisions based on many different factors. But they are not always the right decisions. One person's decision on what is right may be completely different to what is really right. Jesus said that He is the Truth. If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right. If we base our decisions on His Truth, then the will not fluctute with the whims of man. This does not mean that we become a monotaneous unthinking society, but that we put the Love of God as our primary goal and react to people with that Love. Kiki
larrabee@decwrl.UUCP (10/03/86)
The charter of net.women, now soc.women, specifically says that abortion is *not* to be discussed. It is to be left to net.abortion, now talk.abortion, and not touched upon in this group. I support this decree and I have been waiting for someone else to mention this to the group at large. What the hell, I may not be a net authority, but I may be able to refresh some memories. (See whatever net.announce.newusers has become if you don't believe me). -- Tracy Larrabee tracy@sushi.stanford.edu decwrl!larrabee
kiki@isieng.UUCP (10/03/86)
In article <5862@ut-sally.UUCP> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: >In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: >>When one becomes a Christian many changes occur in his or her life. >>The biggest change is that God becomes the center of the person's life >>rather than self being the center. > >Thank you for your helpful posting. I understand that one's attitude >towards life - one's set of values - changes with the acceptance >of a concept of God and a set of divinely inspired (and perhaps >truly divine :-)) values. > >Clearly, this acceptance is an act of faith. If one does not make this >act of faith, there are several alternative sets of values, including, >in particular, that which gives pre-eminence to self-interest. > >On what basis can this set of values be compared to a God-given >set of values? (You will immediately recognize, of course, that >this basis cannot rest on faith.) > >- raghu O.K. Let's see if I can explain this....Here's an analogy to use as a comparison, and one that is frequently used in the Bible. That is that God is our Father. Now think of when you were young and you didn't know what was right or wrong. A lot of times you needed to find out from some body who had more wisdom than a young child. So you would ask your father for advice or follow the role that your father set. Now imagine the most intelligent thing in existence which is God. God knows the short-term and the long-term results of our decisions in life because he is wise. Often times decisions are easy to make because they are easy choices. But often decisions we need to make aren't so easy, so it is necessary to get advice from someone who is more intelligent--God. So your original question about why these values are different than those from God is this: Often times a decision that is made through God would be completely different if decided by the *same* person without God in that person's life. So as God imparts his will on believers, those believers make decisions based on God, not based on themselves. But in the long run and often the short run, those decisions are a lot more wise than decisions made merely by the human mind. I hope that answers your question. Have a good day! Kiki
matt@oddjob.UUCP (10/05/86)
In article <313@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: > If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right. And if he isn't, then look at the pickle we're in if we stamp out all other philosophies! Just as in agriculture, we'd better keep many strains of thought alive in case some of them should prove to have hidden weaknesses later on. Matt Crawford - if it GLISTENS, gobble it!!
kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) (10/06/86)
In article <1513@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: >In article <313@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: > >> If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right. > >And if he isn't, then look at the pickle we're in if we stamp >out all other philosophies! Just as in agriculture, we'd better >keep many strains of thought alive in case some of them should >prove to have hidden weaknesses later on. > > Matt Crawford > Yeah, but if something is true, why worry about everything that's not true? If there were a book on "Everything You Wanted to Know About Agriculture But Were Afraid to Ask" and your prime concern as you said is agriculture. Would you read a book about car maintenance or opera? Of course not, you won't find a section on agriculture in either of those books. Kiki P.S. One of my old work partners was named Matt Crawford. Do we know each other? :-)
li@uw-vlsi.UUCP (10/14/86)
In article <1513@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: >In article <313@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: > >> If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right. > >And if he isn't, then look at the pickle we're in if we stamp >out all other philosophies! Just as in agriculture, we'd better >keep many strains of thought alive in case some of them should >prove to have hidden weaknesses later on. > That was what turned me away from Christianity for SOOOoooo long (better than 21 of my years). The concept that Christ and God would encourage everyone to be the same, to smear all the varied and beautiful colors of human endeavour and thought and faith into one runny mess really repulsed me. The thought that there would only be one truth, that could actually be seen and interpreted by a failable human elected by failable humans, would be the only truth for all humans was something that I could not accept. Not on faith nor on hope. If I had accepted that as the basis of my faith it would crumble to nothing. Then one day, someone showed me Corinthians I, 12 and 13. I'm going to take lines out of them. 12.4-7 "There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit gives them. There are different ways of serving, but the same Lord is served. There are different abilities to perform service, but the same God gives ability to everyone for their particular service. The Spirit's presense is shown in some way to each person for the good of all." 12.14-20 "Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one body, even though it is made up of different parts. In the same way, all of us, wheither Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptized into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink. For the body itself is no made up of only one part, but of many parts. If the foot were to say, "Because I am not a hand, I don't belong to the body." that would not keep it frombeing a part of the body. And if the ear were to say, "Because I am not an eye, I don't belong to the body," that would not keep it from being a part of the body. If the whole body were just an eye, how could it hear? And if it were only an ear, how could it smell? As it is, however, God put every different part in the body just as he wanted it to be. There would not be a body if it were all only one part! As it is there are many parts but one body." We are all needed. I am a Christian, first a Catholic baptised and confirmed as a child, then, repulsing the human element, failings and bigotry of that section of that Church that I was involved with I declared myself NOT a Christian. Now, I am back. Accepted as a part that is different, yet still a PART of Christ's body. 13.8-10 "Love is eternal. There are inspired messages, but they are temporary; there are gifts of speaking in strange tongues, but they will cease, there is knowledge, but it will pass. For our gifts of knowledge and of inspired messages are only partial; but when what is perfect comes, then what is partial will disappear." The Bible is a series of "inspired messages", something that must be interpreted to adapt to present day situations, otherwise it stagnates and dies and is no longer relavent. There is a Truth that is eternal, but I do not really believe that any one person can perceive or interprete it, at least I know that I cannot, you may be gifted enough to perceive the whole, and able to judge all who might abort an innocent. All I know is what I have seen. And from that view I have seen what unwanted children go through, from seeing the terrible emotional scars that led to physical scars on one of my boyfriends, to hearing with horror the death of a sister of a friend who was an unwed mother, to reading of the terrible storys of child abuse from elementary school teachers. Every teacher of children that I have known has agreed with me on my view of the issue of abortion. And from what I have seen and experienced and been told and felt, the terrible price of a childhood unwanted is not paid by just the mother, it is also paid by the child, the father, the teachers of the child, the social workers that have to deal with child abuse, all the friends the child may have, and the lover that child may wish to love later. No, I know, not all unwanted childhoods turn into these feast of horror, but enough have that I am conviced that to make *all* abortions illegal is a Bad Thing. Mostly because anyone who can make the decision to go through the grief, risk and clinical horror of an abortion in order to get rid of a child, will NOT make a good mother at that time. I cannot condone abortion as a method of contraception, nor can I condone abortions after the first trimester. But I also cannot condemn all abortions as a crime against an innocent, because a childhood unwanted is a penalty no innocent should have to pay just to exist. I, personally, will never and have never had an abortion, I love kids too much to even think of it. However, and this is also a personal view, I cannot think that He who loved children so much could actively condone and help those that which could make their lives a living hell. Liralen Li -- "A closed mouth gathers no foot." USENET: ihnp4!akgua!sb6!fluke!uw-vlsi!li ARPA: li@vlsi.cs.washington.arpa
george@scirtp.UUCP (George Greene Jr.) (10/14/86)
I am sure that I am just as liberal as Robert Pease, but here he is taking moral relativism *entirely* too far. (This particular branch of the discussion also happens to belong in talk.politics and talk.religion rather than here.) Robert was (and I'm glad he was) trying to refute the following: > >That is exactly my point in why we should base our decisions on what God > >wants. So Robert said, > First of all, no one really KNOWS what "God" wants. All we can do is > point to something and say, "This indicates that God wants ta-da." If > someone KNEW what "God" wanted then there would not be such a heated > debate about "The TRUE Religion." This was fine and dandy. Then, his victim continued, > >Every person can make his or her decisions based on many different > >elements. Take the extreme example of Hitler who slaughtered the Jews > >because he thought he was doing the right thing. Everybody else thought > >he was doing the wrong thing! Then Robert replied: > Hitler is not at issue here. What is at issue is using the idea that > "I know what is right for you." Only I and my deity know what is best > for me and only I and my deity should make that choice. Not you. Not > Jerry F. Not Ronnie R. (BTW - Hitler was enforcing his idea of what > was right on other people and that made him wrong.) > I hate to disappoint you, but enforcing your idea of what is right on other people is NOT usually wrong. Whether it is right or wrong depends on whether your idea of right or wrong is right or wrong. If you see a person committing a murder, and you know that you can easily prevent it, you are (usually) morally obligated to prevent it, even if he thinks that murder is good clean fun. Any morality worthy of the name will occasionally REQUIRE itself to be enforced upon the unwilling. About the only thing that can be said in favor of Robert's position is that these occasions are a hell of a lot rarer than the Ayatollah Robertson thinks they are. Nevertheless, when one arises, you had darn well better recognize it (South Africa should leap to mind unbidden here, as Dixie did in 1956-66). If you have a morality then you are usually morally obligated to enforce it through as wide a sphere as your power will permit. There are some cases where you can claim ignorance of how other people ought (morally) to behave, but in most cases that is just a cop-out. An obviously key component of any morality is some guidelines about legitimate use of force. A morality that cannot legitimize force in its own defense is usually untenable.