I'll Pray For You Nanomites

Amongst some religious folk, there is an inclination to end a disagreement with a curt "I'll pray for you." This is not the proper way to argue. An argument should stand on its own merit; an argument can even be largely emotion, but it still stands on its own merit. When we break this ending statement down, we see a petition to a deity, hoping that the deity will proceed to intervene and make the opposition find the argument more agreeable. Most people, I think, can see that this is certainly a problem if we are attempting to argue rationally. I think that even those whom are initially convinced that this sort of argument holds would find themselves offended if it were used against them. Imagine discussing slavery with someone, where you are pro-abolition and they are pro-slavery. If the opposition throws, in your face, a mist of nanomites which rewire your brain to find their stance more agreeable, that does not actually lend merit to their argument. The point is that slavery is still wrong even if, by some miracle, you thought otherwise due to nanomites having had rewired your brain.

In response to Lauren on Dania's post - found here

Hmm... I am not sure that Jesus would view anyone as a true Catholic, because I don't think he would make that distinction between Christians. He seems not to make judgement claims, he simply openly accepts everybody; so there is no sense in calling someone a "good (enter specific denomination of specific religion here)." I think Jesus would probably recognize her as a 'good and highly motivated person.' Additionally, Jesus didn't know anything about the Catholics as he was a good practicing Jew, and didn't seek to start Catholicism. Even if he did know about the Catholics, I do not think that Jesus would find most of the Catechism, or the actions of the church (given the power structure of the ROMAN Catholic church) agreeable, though he would probably still accept them. I don't know, it seems a bit unjustified to suggest that Jesus would qualify someone's good actions like that.

Jesus Obeys the Old Testament

In response to Julia's post - found here

Actually, my last Q & A was related to how Jesus viewed the Old Testament.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says, or at least is made out to have said, that he has not come to destroy the law (of the Old Testament) and advises that we not break the commandments. However, I can see Jesus disagreeing with one of the laws in Exodus; Exodus 20:12 features the fifth commandment which states that you should honor your mother and father; Jesus seemed to be very vehemently against this commandment given his saying something akin to hate your mother and father.

Debt and Contracts

I think that parents bring obligation of taking care of children unto themselves. They would surely be awful people and parents if they forced an obligation upon themselves and then chose not to take care of that obligation. Parents have children most often of their own volition. The child has their own life thrust upon them, and by the time they are aware of the fact that they had no choice in their creation, they can't do anything about it. Well, they could, but it would likely involve a large amount of pain and cause severe amounts of emotional trauma to those who know them, including their parents whom forced the child to begin living.

Even if a child does enjoy their life because their parent fulfilled the obligations that they gave themselves, children do not owe any debt to the parents for abiding by the parent's self constructed contract. This is not to say that individuals cannot choose to pay them back, but simply that doing so would be going well beyond what is necessary; which is to say, doing nothing at all. Debt is only incurred when both people initiated an agreement at the onset of a contract.

Debt to Parents

Children do not owe their parents a single thing. Parents have children completely of their own volition, they usually enjoy the acts that creates the child. The child has their own life thrust upon them, and by the time they are aware of the fact that they had no choice in their creation, they can't do anything about it. Well, they can, but it would likely involve a large amount of pain and cause severe amounts of emotional trauma to those who know them. They are pressured into thinking that they have a gift, even if they don't want it, and that ending that would be a terrible thing to do - some even invoke religion, suggesting that God will send them to eternal punishment if they try to get rid of their 'gift.' I don't think anyone should be expected to repay someone for a gift that was forced upon them since before they were remotely conscious.

Imagine it this way - imagine that Person A are the Parents, and that person B is the child

A, because he wanted to, put a book in your house, unbeknownst to you. When you finally discover the book, you start to read it. The book is, in general, uneventful (kind of monotonous), though some parts in it made you laugh, other parts make you cry out of sadness, and some parts, yet, fill you with rage or disappointment. Person A, then, demands, not only that you keep the book which he wanted to give to you, but also that you pay him back for having given you the book in the first place. Though you enjoyed a few passages from it, or even if you enjoyed all of it, why should you have to pay him for slipping a book, that you didn't ask for, into your house?

Response to Lauren - full post here

Well, as we were saying in class, many of the ideas behind Christianity are indeed heavily related to Greco-Roman and Hebraic histories and cultures. Many of the stories in Christianity can be found be in other religions which predate it. I would recommend that you look into the similarities between the Zoroaster and Jesus. In fact, I would recommend you look up many other son of god - death and resurrection god-men, like Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Tammuz, and so on. Stories of deities becoming flesh, dying, passing through hell, and being resurrected are a religious commonplace. Which is fine, given that these are often metaphors; often times, however, religious people claim that their religion is unique and more correct than others.

Hidden Openness

In response to Lauren - full post here


I agree, the Westboro Baptist Church is really outlandish. I think it is a terrible thing when a group is so incredibly openly hateful towards everybody. On the other hand, it's also a good thing that they are so openly hateful. Due to the open method they practice most people have grown to understand that the members of the WBC are unreasonable; Few people support the WBC's endeavors; in fact, I wouldn't doubt if it brought more people to the cause for gay-rights.

Sometimes an even worse thing can be hiding your discrimination from the world, while you continue to try to indoctrinate people into thinking that this discrimination is warranted. Imagine if the WBC had an enormous wealth and the ability to lobby the government, because it provides aid to those in need, to prevent gay marriage. The Catholic Church, for instance, decided to try to lobby the government in Washington D.C. When the Catholics found out about the new legislature with potential to allow gay marriage they threatened to discontinue providing services for 68,000 people in need; they threatened to cease providing shelter for the homeless, offering food to the hungry, and helping cure the ill. This is probably largely due to the fact that equality for homosexuals is against the catechism (Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, lines 2357-2359).