Human life is sacred

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

There are many arguments in defense of religious people today the idea of ​​what is sacred and what is not. Many people who profess to believe in God are convinced that they have a very close personal relationship with their creator, some are not so convinced of this proposition, and allow the idea of ​​god or spirits to enter their lives only when other half failed. For those whose lives center around religion, their beliefs and ideas about society and government will have the influence of the doctrines of their church, temple, or synagogue. Their support or opposition to a social movement can be primarily motivated by their religious ideals. For example, there is the Temperance Movement, which sought to acquire prohibited. It 's been almost exclusively a religious movement. Once women's suffrage became a popular call for social justice, the churches adopted some ideas of equality for women. I've already covered the general topic of religious influence on social or moral ideas, in his essay The religious rule, which proved to be a bit 'too deep. This essay is an examination of the same subject but with different ideas and a different ending. I know that I talked about before, and I briefly answered the arguments in essays. The argument I am about to address here is the argument of nature. That is to say, what is or is not natural. The need for me to approach this subject in my other writings is clear. Many of my pieces are taken from the point of view of an anti-religious, anti-church position. Since many churches support one thing or another, often on the simple question of "what is natural," I have always been faced with the problem. But, in this piece, I get a little 'more in-depth study of the question.

The fundamentalist Christians of our time are guilty of using the argument "is natural" or "is unnatural" in a number of social issues. When it comes to abortion, homosexuality and alternative or non-monogamous sexuality, euthanasia and stem cell research and cloning, many Christians take the position of opposition. And, a lot of the time, we will always know that eco recurring nature. What is natural is always associated with good, sometimes replaced, just the way that is unnatural is always associated with the bad and harmful. These associations are never justified. I'm all for granted. The conclusion of these ideas assumed, however, results in some rather oppressive political and socially sound, influenced by religious followers. It should also be noted that on these issues, as what is natural or unnatural, the religious followers call themselves the final judges. Many of them for granted preconceptions of society on what is natural or unnatural. When you think of how nature works, for example, is familiar with all its aspects: support of life and its reproduction. Since homosexuality does not support the end of reproduction, many people confess that must be unnatural. However, not all people go so far as to say that since it is unnatural should be prohibited and repressed. But, then again, there are many followers of the Invisible who do not believe that homosexuality is unnatural or that it should be banned.

However, as I said above, your attorney standards of Christian politics in the government, either through school prayer or prohibit abortion, reserves themselves as the final judge of what is natural or unnatural. Those monsters insatiable lynch that are known for killing blacks, atheists, homosexuals, and "unclean" has never tried to understand what is natural or unnatural, or because it is deserving of that title. The ideology of Christian fundamentalists today have not taken in this research, either. In their speeches, they will do a thousand references to what is or is not natural - not once, not remember, never heard a satisfactory definition of the term. I heard the attempts by some believers, but they only proved to be better than blindly follow that with debate and discussion. But, this is my question. What is natural? And what is unnatural? I have already said that the company has entered on these questions: there is only a vague association with the maintenance of natural life and its reproduction, and that is little more definitive.

They are the tools that humans craft natural? These buildings, technology, science, and all the other wonders of innovation unnatural? If you were to classify homosexuality as unnatural, simply because it does not seem to serve any purpose in nature, because it is most of what we considered to be unnatural? And how come these enemies of a new vision of sexuality are not opposed to all technological progress? After all, these creations of our minds and hands are not part of any ecosystem on this planet. They appear anywhere on this world, except that of humanity in our society apart. I imagine that most of the answers would sound something like this:. '. While these things that create and maintain are not present everywhere in nature, yet all other natural bodies seek an end to satisfy their interests predators hunting prey avoid those who want to eat, and all organisms enter the world of the living with the desire or plan to reproduce. Human beings, in like fashion, try to get their own purposes, like all other species. However, it is enough to go about it at a more advanced any other organism on this planet. "And, such an argument would certainly have some merit to it. After all, it is common to find some primates using tools such as hammers and sticks. Many birds also build structures, many of which share a fair comparison to the human construction. What initially seemed alien and foreign to nature, our technology, actually appears regularly in our animal counterparts. It must be admitted that the progress of political ideas and organizational structure of human society is a type of technology. And, likewise must be confessed that the animals often are organized for groups, to accomplish a task that would not be possible without the cooperation.

However, after discovering this redefinition of terms, it might take have a better chance to defend things like abortion and homosexuality. We know, for example, that when a primate uses a club as a weapon, has advanced beyond the technology of those other species that are under him, but, of course, considering the primate still primitive compared to our science. Just as a monkey could use some technologies with a club, so humans use technology that is not normal for other species. Therefore, one could say that homosexuality, abortion, and other activities are thus only an advanced form of technology, that other species of the planet are ignorant of. Just as the primate is ignorant of computer systems and electronics, as well as the zebra ignores the club, all others are ignorant of our sexual capabilities, and our ability to control all aspects of the human body. All of this line of thought, of course, is based on the premise that our primary purpose in all the technological advances is to improve the happiness of all peoples. Some religions say that all moral guidance is based solely on what God insists, of course, if you want these religions seem logical in the face of a people more educated and more humane than two thousand years ago, God's will in general be somehow pleasing to human desires. Since the main purpose of our science is to improve our condition on this planet, you could argue that abortion is moral, because it eliminates a life that otherwise would have been in pain, and creates the potential for a life that would have a good education and life potential. It is also unquestionable that the relations are open homosexuality and an advancement as any other type of technology. Given the choice, many people think that homosexuality or other non-traditional sexual relationships are what pleases them most, in a word, is progress, not unlike any other.

Suppose, for argument's sake, that even with this reasoning, some still opposed to everything that their religious leaders called unnatural. It is not uncommon for people to have an opposition to technology. In fact, it seems the idea of ​​abandoning society and a peaceful lifestyle hermit is found underground in every culture, from Buddhist monks in our Thoreau admirers. Cleverly, these hermit subcultures tend to have anti-technology trend, which is similar to that of anti-unnatural tendency found in many major religions. There are Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, who refuse blood transfusions on religious principle, which is against the will of God, or, what some have called "unnatural". Many of the orthodox religions have responded to the introduction of modern medical technology with fear and contempt. Besides having the opposition to certain life-saving medicines, as unnatural to the body, we are also aware that the churches were opposed to a new, passionate style of music, Jazz. But, the life-saving capacity of medicines was finally assessed more important than writing that called profane. Today, most of our churches support the medical use of chemicals to treat any disease, mental or physical, but very few still oppose it. However, the churches still oppose the idea of ​​recreational drug use as a beneficial habit, and even useful. There will always find the churches on the edge of the conservative side. Their measure of human life is always based on prejudices and fears ancestors who wrote their religious text. And 'this mentality that you will find the largest number of people with disabilities. The Amish are a great example. They have a system of strict discipline based on their religion and their faith, have moral qualms with the use of cars and other advanced technologies.

There are so many religions. Just as we each have a different face for spiritual beliefs, we each have a different admiration or suspicion regarding the technology. Again, for them, is the battle of the natural versus the unnatural, of good over evil. The issue at hand, then, is to what extent can we attribute the word natural, and to what extent can we attribute the word unnatural? Using the Amish as an example again, we see that they are in favor of certain technologies. They wear clothes and shoes, work and live in houses, and have techniques for agriculture and skills of the craftsmen. However, they are against the use of automobiles, electricity, steam engine, and many other more sophisticated aspects of our science. They scored a point in technological development that is ideal. They idolized the era of European farmers in 1500, where the technology of gunpowder was being born, and the technology was little more than simple tools. Everything that happened after this period, all the inventions that came after the year 1500, the Amish are considered as heretical, blasphemous, indecent and to God. And, all the technology that occurred before this year, they consider primitive. Of course, this is a simplification. I'm not quite sure at what point along the timeline of human innovations that decide is ideal, but 1500 seems a good guess.

With this beautiful example of the Amish, I think the question asks. At what point in the history of technological innovation we call the ideal age? Christians today, the fanatics and evangelists, those foes of abortion, stem cell research and cloning are all supporters of the moral, legal and technology that existed between 1920 and 1930. Perhaps the churches and religious institutions than fifty years in the future will adopt a less oppressive ideology of humanity, like that which is current in today's society. So, the question must then be answered: "At what point along the timeline of innovation we need to stop and take as our current thoughts on politics, ethics, science and technology What argument is there to say that we should use ? the cultural lifestyle of the 1300 or 1990 or the scientific wisdom of the religious ideas of 600? "The question is loaded. If someone tries to respond to defend a historical period rather than another, they are obviously guilty of poor reasoning. There is no evidence to say that it was "natural" or whatever it was is "unnatural." There once was a time in the history of human civilization in which clothing was considered a technology incredibly useful. At that time, humanity was living natural or unnatural? What about the historical moment in which humanity began to farm and lived in the city? Or, for the moment when the first homo sapiens appeared on the planet, has evolved from a common parent of monkeys, chimpanzees and other primates? At what point in our history, we are going to stop, and say that people who were then living natural or unnatural? There is an answer.

Of course, there will always be attempts to hear this answer. There are the conservatives of today who are in favor of a combination of modern technology with the political and ethical ideals of 1500 - even if it meant racism, slavery and feudalism. And, again, there are liberals who are now in favor of modern ideologies of the people, their views on civil liberties, their ideas about freedom and peace, they prefer the technology of the 800 BC - Living a simple life, as a means of happiness and enlightenment. We will always find a few generations of admirers and lovers of a bygone time and passed. There are those who fantasize about the 1800 and the birth of Romantic literature, as there are those who would like to contribute to the development of the Enlightenment, or to contribute to the intellectual awakening of the Renaissance. These topics are more likely to take the form of secret murmurs of the heart and mind, as it is impossible to live in the past. However, the arguments arising from the choice of a person whose time in history is the most desirable are all based on the premise of happiness. Namely, if we choose a past point in time in which to live, we chose the one that made us happier. We can simply ideas that we had to do with it, then. The question is not how long was that we should choose to live, the question is what kind of conditions of life and society would be more likely to create prosperity and justice for all peoples? What the company should build more than satisfy this desire for happiness?

This question, and the new train of thought that develops, is the end of the debate. We can not choose any old time, because no time in human history has any innate reason for being the place where we live. And when we see hints on which time we should choose, they are based on the question to make us happy - that is the new debate. I did all the logical fallacies in the arguments I have presented? Well, I think I can rightly compare political and social ideas to other types of innovation, as these ideas are always changing to adapt to new emotions, thoughts and prejudices of the next generation of the world. The only reason I brought up this point of view, as regards the ideas go, it's because it refers to the original question I had: why should we see a natural thing and another as unnatural? People usually consider things like old fashioned natural world, and recent things in the world as unnatural. It is an incorrect assumption used by many Christians. The fact remains, though: there is no reason to say that something is natural or unnatural. The existence of the human species was an innovation of evolution itself. Those who say it is natural, unnatural to call the car, even if the machine was simply the result of natural processes of evolution: a species that rises to the top of the technological chain above all other creatures.

And 'sacred human life? This could be the last question. Since there is no argument of what is natural, unnatural, or (hopefully) supernatural, then there should also be the use of the term sacred, simply implies that a type of natural connotation. When it comes to abortion, homosexuality, or other social issues, are the crusaders of the natural order in constant conflict. This is, of course, in spite of the seemingly awkward contradiction that many of them are pro-nuclear weapons, pro-neo-imperialism, pro-war and anti-animal rights. It would seem, in fact, that religious leaders are more interested in abolishing the unnatural heretics, homosexuals, atheists, non believers, drug lawyers, and every group of fringe left. The existence of billions of lives miserable has never been the source of their cross. Many churches and religious associations are happy to get together for common worship and study. They are peaceful, and their right of association should always be respected. But, there are more churches and religious groups that are connected only for the sake of mobilizing their pew holders to violence and coercion. In one of these conflicts, what is natural or unnatural, or sacred or profane, we take a step back and ask some final questions: how much pain and suffering are? And, is there any reasonable argument for not adopting a social system that will eliminate their pain? The argument, namely, the case for libertarian communism, has been done in other parts.

http://www.punkerslut.com

For Life,
Punkerslut...