Various Moral Issues
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Not sure how long to wait to see if anyone is interested in answering this question, so I will try to stimulate your minds by going ahead and posting my political musings:
It seems reasonable that governments should encourage employers (via incentives rather than via dictates) to pay workers a wage that will provide at least a subsistence level of living (able to afford the necessities for life, such as food, clothes and shelter) plus ten percent (a “tithe”) for a family of four people. However, it also seems reasonable that parents should not procreate more children than they can afford to support.
It seems reasonable for a typical work week to be no more than six days (then a “sabbath” rest), and for a typical work day to be about ten hours (MT 20:1-8 speaks of sunrise to sunset), so that workers have enough time to rest and be with their families.
My idea about how governments might help people find jobs utilizes the concept of indentured employment is a form of workfare as follows. Every county seat and large town would have a job assistance office, and all of these would be connected by a nationwide computer system. People could apply for a job anywhere in the country, and the federal government and hiring business would split the costs of relocation and training for those below a qualifying amount of assets.
In return the employee would have to commit to some minimum time of employment (comparable to contract rules of sports teams?). During the term of the contract, the employee’s tithe (the amount of the minimum wage that is above subsistence level) would be garnisheed until the hiring costs were reimbursed up to some limit that corresponded to the length of the contract (assuming an appropriate minimum wage for 10 hours per day for six days per week).
The federal government would insure the contract and reimburse employers if an indentured employee wanted to quit before the costs associated with their hiring were recouped. Quitters would not be eligible for welfare; they would have to accept another job, unless they could support themselves some other legal way. (Of course, those who resorted to crime in order to make a living would be punished with a just penalty.) The amount of hiring costs owed from their previous job would be added to the new contract.
Ideally, this program would be self-supporting, but it may need to be subsidized by the federal budget, so that the minimum wage and cost of living would be equivalent for everyone in the country. Surely the cost of helping people become productive workers should be less than that of welfare. This workfare program would only guarantee job opportunities for legal citizen independent adults. It would provide tax incentives that reward companies who have profit-sharing (and loss-sharing for CEOs), healthcare, retirement plans, and other benefits such as those mentioned previously.
Over...
It seems reasonable that governments should encourage employers (via incentives rather than via dictates) to pay workers a wage that will provide at least a subsistence level of living (able to afford the necessities for life, such as food, clothes and shelter) plus ten percent (a “tithe”) for a family of four people. However, it also seems reasonable that parents should not procreate more children than they can afford to support.
It seems reasonable for a typical work week to be no more than six days (then a “sabbath” rest), and for a typical work day to be about ten hours (MT 20:1-8 speaks of sunrise to sunset), so that workers have enough time to rest and be with their families.
My idea about how governments might help people find jobs utilizes the concept of indentured employment is a form of workfare as follows. Every county seat and large town would have a job assistance office, and all of these would be connected by a nationwide computer system. People could apply for a job anywhere in the country, and the federal government and hiring business would split the costs of relocation and training for those below a qualifying amount of assets.
In return the employee would have to commit to some minimum time of employment (comparable to contract rules of sports teams?). During the term of the contract, the employee’s tithe (the amount of the minimum wage that is above subsistence level) would be garnisheed until the hiring costs were reimbursed up to some limit that corresponded to the length of the contract (assuming an appropriate minimum wage for 10 hours per day for six days per week).
The federal government would insure the contract and reimburse employers if an indentured employee wanted to quit before the costs associated with their hiring were recouped. Quitters would not be eligible for welfare; they would have to accept another job, unless they could support themselves some other legal way. (Of course, those who resorted to crime in order to make a living would be punished with a just penalty.) The amount of hiring costs owed from their previous job would be added to the new contract.
Ideally, this program would be self-supporting, but it may need to be subsidized by the federal budget, so that the minimum wage and cost of living would be equivalent for everyone in the country. Surely the cost of helping people become productive workers should be less than that of welfare. This workfare program would only guarantee job opportunities for legal citizen independent adults. It would provide tax incentives that reward companies who have profit-sharing (and loss-sharing for CEOs), healthcare, retirement plans, and other benefits such as those mentioned previously.
Over...
Sounds about like the plan for getting a new phone, if you get it from a major service provider and pay for it monthly as part of your contract charges.
What if a person in this program becomes disabled before completing the indentured part to recoup training and relocation losses? What if he cannot complete the full term because of his new disability?
You're gonna run up a lot of net losses here...
What if a person in this program becomes disabled before completing the indentured part to recoup training and relocation losses? What if he cannot complete the full term because of his new disability?
You're gonna run up a lot of net losses here...
-
1
- Show all
I do comment on the things that i find interesting, but for the other topics i'm not sure what to say because ... i don't know ... you can beat a dead horse to death and not gain any new insights because that's how it is.
I mean, what else can we say about abortion that hasn't been said? So it's not interesting to me anymore.
What is interesting are new things in our generation which involve technology that i find interesting.
Things such as gene editing, assisted suicide, legalization of drugs and things like that. UFOs too.
But the topic of abortion has been beaten to death, literally.
I mean, what else can we say about abortion that hasn't been said? So it's not interesting to me anymore.
What is interesting are new things in our generation which involve technology that i find interesting.
Things such as gene editing, assisted suicide, legalization of drugs and things like that. UFOs too.
But the topic of abortion has been beaten to death, literally.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I welcome you introducing discussion of those topics, but I am surprised that you did not find what I said about abortion to be a new approach. I will repeat it below for you to reconsider:
If a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb. This should lead one to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding. And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults.
Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins. and they should mourn the death of a miscarried fetus at any stage of development in the same manner they would memorialize the death of a post-birth baby, in order to practice what they preach or believe. Those who adopt the birthist opinion apparently assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. However, learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive.
Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”. Are there any changes between conception and viability that might more reasonably/logically be viewed as indicative of the beginning of personality? There is one possibility: the counterpart of the basis doctors use for determining when an adult person no longer is alive. This basis is brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalo-gram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, referring to the level of brain activity which indicates the fetus has brain life and is therefore a person, who should be granted the civil right to life. If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable. Thus, I think every open-minded and truth-seeking person on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. Birthists or viabilists and conceptionists should become “sentientists“.
This is only a partial solution, but it is better than the current consensus that allows abortion throughout pregnancy. It is a big step in the right direction toward no abortion except in order to save the life of the mother. It recognizes that a gray area still exists from conception until sentience, so people may still reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus during this period, which may change as science improves. This view permits most forms of birth control. Implementing this solution requires educating every post-pubescent person about fetal development until society develops a new consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of murder and should be punished appropriately. Two wrongs do not make a right.
If a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb. This should lead one to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding. And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment? People on both sides of the debate usually overlook this question when they discuss this issue, but considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults.
Those who adopt the conceptionist viewpoint are certainly right that a qualitative change occurs when the chromosomes in the egg and sperm are united, so that physical development of a new human being begins. and they should mourn the death of a miscarried fetus at any stage of development in the same manner they would memorialize the death of a post-birth baby, in order to practice what they preach or believe. Those who adopt the birthist opinion apparently assume that birth is the qualitative change that marks the beginning of personhood. However, learning about fetal development should enable birthists to realize that the advent of personhood definitely does not extend beyond the seventh month or viability, when a premature baby is frequently able to survive.
Thus, birthists should at least become “viabilitists”. Are there any changes between conception and viability that might more reasonably/logically be viewed as indicative of the beginning of personality? There is one possibility: the counterpart of the basis doctors use for determining when an adult person no longer is alive. This basis is brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalo-gram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, referring to the level of brain activity which indicates the fetus has brain life and is therefore a person, who should be granted the civil right to life. If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable. Thus, I think every open-minded and truth-seeking person on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. Birthists or viabilists and conceptionists should become “sentientists“.
This is only a partial solution, but it is better than the current consensus that allows abortion throughout pregnancy. It is a big step in the right direction toward no abortion except in order to save the life of the mother. It recognizes that a gray area still exists from conception until sentience, so people may still reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus during this period, which may change as science improves. This view permits most forms of birth control. Implementing this solution requires educating every post-pubescent person about fetal development until society develops a new consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of murder and should be punished appropriately. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Sorry, this is not new.
Look, i understand that you're passionate about abortion. Many Christians in USA are obsessed with this topic, but for me like i said, what i find interesting is things in the last 20-30 years which i can talk about for hours.
I don't want to talk about topics which are as old as time like abortion, prostitution, war, slavery etc etc.
We have different preferences and levels of interest but thank you for bringing up these various moral topics. It is an interesting thread.
You might be looking for people to be more interested in abortion and i am looking for people to be more interested in gene editing, the merging of man with machine, assisted suicide etc, and we haven't found a lot of people here interested in them i guess.
So it is what it is.
Look, i understand that you're passionate about abortion. Many Christians in USA are obsessed with this topic, but for me like i said, what i find interesting is things in the last 20-30 years which i can talk about for hours.
I don't want to talk about topics which are as old as time like abortion, prostitution, war, slavery etc etc.
We have different preferences and levels of interest but thank you for bringing up these various moral topics. It is an interesting thread.
You might be looking for people to be more interested in abortion and i am looking for people to be more interested in gene editing, the merging of man with machine, assisted suicide etc, and we haven't found a lot of people here interested in them i guess.
So it is what it is.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
While I would not claim what I wrote about abortion to be new, I would be very interested to know who else espouses it, because I am not aware of anyone. In fact, IMO the insight that "If our best definition of sentient death is the cessation of these brain waves, then it is logical and consistent to view sentient life as beginning at least when these brain waves are detectable" is about as close to being divinely inspired as any I have had, so someone else saying that before it occurred to me in about 1980 is what I would like to know.
Scriptural it silent on some issues, which indicates one of three things:
1. The practice was so uncommon that it was not mentioned, so we have to apply Scripture about other issues in order to arrive at the best opinion. For example, with regard to abortion we need to consider whether it is murder.
2. The practice was common but not mentioned, so we might assume it might be acceptable in some way that does not contradict the law of love. For example, war was common but nowhere does the Bible condemn being a soldier, so we must assume it might be acceptable as a means of resisting evil or enforcing peace.
3. The practice was common but not clearly defined, so we have freedom to observe it or amend it in accordance with NT teaching. For example, the Sabbath law was the fourth of the Ten Commandments, but unlike the moral commandments it was neither reaffirmed nor cancelled in the NT, although CL 2:16-17 indicates the "reality in Christ" is that we should serve the Lord every day, just as we should be continually prayerful, joyful and thankful (1THS 5:17, PHP 4:4-6).
In our alphabetical order we arrive at the issue of gambling. What do you want to say about THAT?
1. The practice was so uncommon that it was not mentioned, so we have to apply Scripture about other issues in order to arrive at the best opinion. For example, with regard to abortion we need to consider whether it is murder.
2. The practice was common but not mentioned, so we might assume it might be acceptable in some way that does not contradict the law of love. For example, war was common but nowhere does the Bible condemn being a soldier, so we must assume it might be acceptable as a means of resisting evil or enforcing peace.
3. The practice was common but not clearly defined, so we have freedom to observe it or amend it in accordance with NT teaching. For example, the Sabbath law was the fourth of the Ten Commandments, but unlike the moral commandments it was neither reaffirmed nor cancelled in the NT, although CL 2:16-17 indicates the "reality in Christ" is that we should serve the Lord every day, just as we should be continually prayerful, joyful and thankful (1THS 5:17, PHP 4:4-6).
In our alphabetical order we arrive at the issue of gambling. What do you want to say about THAT?
You brought abortion up, you berated us for not discussing it and you made it very clear what you personally think of it. Um... Where does the discussion part come in again? Apparently the rest of us are just tired of discussing it!
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on believing we misunderstand you. Multiple people have given sufficient evidence that we understand you perfectly well. We just don't care to rehash what has already been thoroughly hashed to a pulp.
As for gambling, it is your money, your business, so if you have the money to throw away, go for it. I don't have enough money to throw it away like that.
The only Bible verse that applies to gambling is the one about being a good steward. But if you are a bad steward and throw your money down a gambling hole, I'm guessing God will not make a way for you to get a lot more money anytime soon. So to some extent the problem is self-correcting, as you will not wind up wasting a whole lot of money over time.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on believing we misunderstand you. Multiple people have given sufficient evidence that we understand you perfectly well. We just don't care to rehash what has already been thoroughly hashed to a pulp.
As for gambling, it is your money, your business, so if you have the money to throw away, go for it. I don't have enough money to throw it away like that.
The only Bible verse that applies to gambling is the one about being a good steward. But if you are a bad steward and throw your money down a gambling hole, I'm guessing God will not make a way for you to get a lot more money anytime soon. So to some extent the problem is self-correcting, as you will not wind up wasting a whole lot of money over time.
Abortion is more than a topic.
Doctors leave the abortion industry because of the efforts of people Kristen Hawkins and she and her organization should never feel like they are beating a dead horse ever.
I am sorry you find the unborn being torn apart limb by limb and thrown in garbage bags boring, I am quire sure God is not bored by it.
Doctors leave the abortion industry because of the efforts of people Kristen Hawkins and she and her organization should never feel like they are beating a dead horse ever.
I am sorry you find the unborn being torn apart limb by limb and thrown in garbage bags boring, I am quire sure God is not bored by it.
I love GW so much that I try not to be proud of my initials including GW.
Regarding reconciling reality: I think GW created God's World, and so I am impressed that Paul said Creation reveals God's power and loving nature.
Because the creation also manifests God (RM 1:20, cf. JN 1:1-3 & PS 33:6), in a sense God may be viewed as a “Quadity”.
As Paul told the Athenians (ACTS 17:28), “In Him we live and move and have our being.” God as Creation is throughout physical reality (called “panentheism”). However, since this mode of revelation is impersonal and studied by science it has rightly been de-emphasized by Christian denominations.
Regarding reconciling reality: I think GW created God's World, and so I am impressed that Paul said Creation reveals God's power and loving nature.
Because the creation also manifests God (RM 1:20, cf. JN 1:1-3 & PS 33:6), in a sense God may be viewed as a “Quadity”.
As Paul told the Athenians (ACTS 17:28), “In Him we live and move and have our being.” God as Creation is throughout physical reality (called “panentheism”). However, since this mode of revelation is impersonal and studied by science it has rightly been de-emphasized by Christian denominations.
-
1
- Show all
