|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:13 pm
Tiger of the Fire See. thats another thing that upsets me...I had to go through it when I was attending collage. People who consider themselves "Religion Majors" just because they went through a few years of collage classes. I'm sorry, but until you've walked a mile in the shoes of another religion, you cant even begin to fathom what it is they believe. I've read too many books on Bahai (a religion I'm considering converting to) Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam,. Judaism, Christianity, and Paganism only to actually speak with some who's spent their whole life in that religion (And believe me, with my recent new job I've been able to do more of this) and find out the author of one or more of those book was totally wrong. Sorry, and no offense, but claiming you're a religion major now makes me want to say even less of my beliefs. A secular school, a school of any kind other then the one dedicated to teaching the specific religion for that matter, is the worst place to learn about religion. I've been studying religion since I was freaking 8. Heck, I was reading books of mythology when I was 5! Thanks for making assumptions about me though. I'm a religion major because I've been having issues with one of the two computer science professors, so I needed another subject that I was interested in.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:29 pm
Brainwashed? Thank you for giving me a perfect example to show Waters why I do not like discussing my belief system any more. Thank you for letting me show Waters that there are people like around, who are clearly biased in their belief, clearly know nothing at all, and clearly have no room to speak in this matter. Thats exactly why the words of a secular scholar mean s**t to me compared to the words of the people who follow the religion.
No, a secular school would not have the best "opinion." Secular schools are clearly biased in what they teach. The best way to learn about a religion or faith is to listen to the words and ideas of the people who follow that faith. Why? Because to them that faith is not just a faith. Its not just an opinion, a way of looking at life like it would be to a secular curriculum that is required to teach things in a secular manner. Nor is it being "brainwashed." What we would some times call being brainwashed or zealots is merely ardent faith and belief to the followers.
The reason why its better to speak to the "brainwashed?" Because to them, its all reality, they actually FEEL to be true what they say, and they are more often able to convey what they feel far better then any atheist school. This is why I trust the word of a Buddhist concerning the words of Buddha more then i did my professor. Its why I trust the words of an Islamic janitor more then the words of my professor. Its why I trust the "brainwashed" more then I do the secular. You get a true, honest, unfiltered look at their reality.
Do you understand now Waters? I wasn't assuming anything about you, merely trying to explain why I am so unwilling to publicly discuss my beliefs, and why I don't trust some one who thinks having a degree form a secular place of learning would mean something. I'm sorry. If you IM me I'd be more then willing to talk about what I feel. Things concerning, religion, evolution, anything else. You already know how I view life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:34 am
Tiger of the Fire Brainwashed? Thank you for giving me a perfect example to show Waters why I do not like discussing my belief system any more. Thank you for letting me show Waters that there are people like around, who are clearly biased in their belief, clearly know nothing at all, and clearly have no room to speak in this matter. Thats exactly why the words of a secular scholar mean s**t to me compared to the words of the people who follow the religion. No, a secular school would not have the best "opinion." Secular schools are clearly biased in what they teach. The best way to learn about a religion or faith is to listen to the words and ideas of the people who follow that faith. Why? Because to them that faith is not just a faith. Its not just an opinion, a way of looking at life like it would be to a secular curriculum that is required to teach things in a secular manner. Nor is it being "brainwashed." What we would some times call being brainwashed or zealots is merely ardent faith and belief to the followers. The reason why its better to speak to the "brainwashed?" Because to them, its all reality, they actually FEEL to be true what they say, and they are more often able to convey what they feel far better then any atheist school. This is why I trust the word of a Buddhist concerning the words of Buddha more then i did my professor. Its why I trust the words of an Islamic janitor more then the words of my professor. Its why I trust the "brainwashed" more then I do the secular. You get a true, honest, unfiltered look at their reality. Do you understand now Waters? I wasn't assuming anything about you, merely trying to explain why I am so unwilling to publicly discuss my beliefs, and why I don't trust some one who thinks having a degree form a secular place of learning would mean something. I'm sorry. If you IM me I'd be more then willing to talk about what I feel. Things concerning, religion, evolution, anything else. You already know how I view life. Didn't I say, in my post, that I did not, in any sense want you to discuss your beliefs in a public forum? I would, very much, enjoy (privately) learning about them (not debating them, as you have expressed that such is very unpleasant for you). There is just no way that you could express your beliefs in here without people debating them. The "brainwashed" comment was a bit over the top, I agree. I think that it is important to learn about religions from the members, not to rule out the information that can be gathered from the outsiders, of course (which has become very important when looking at, say, the Early Christians - since there isn't a lot of information about them, it is wonderful to find some mention from non-Christians). Though, when talking about an actual cult (like the Hale-Bop people or the Kool-Aid Jim Jones people) I do somewhat agree that talking to members won't get you the best information about them (in such cases, ex-members are a bit more trustworthy and objective, I feel).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:47 am
Back to the original topic, I really would like to know how dangerous ABORTION actually is. Peo-choicers keep saying that abortion is safer than childbirth and citing stats on pro-choice biased sites. There are several reasons that I don't believe these stats to be accurate. I just don't believe they possibly could be accurate.
1. Sometimes I've seen comparisons made on the death rate due to pregnancy to the death rate due to abortion. What is rarely given is the death rate per what? Many times these stats are presented in deaths per 1000 pregnancies. But there are more pregnancies carried through than aborted (thank god). So if there are for example 3 deaths per 10000 pregnancies (real numbers seem closer to 1) and 1 death from abortion per 10000 pregnancies, it looks like pregnancy has a higher death rate. But only 1 of 4 pregnancies end in abortion, so the abortion death rate should be 1 in 2,500 which is actually higher than that due to pregnancy. Also, it is uncertain whether or not the abortion deaths are actually included in the deaths from pregnancy or not which would further skew the numbers.
2. Given current privacy laws it's impossible to imply that the actual number of deaths from abortion are actually known by anyone. If the woman actually dies in the clinic, then there is a good chance that it would be reported, but there's also a chance the information would be obscured or hidden to protect either the woman and her family's privacy or the clinic's reputation. There is still shame associated with abortion and many people don't want it known that they're having one. If the woman dies later of complications is it far more likely that the death would not be reported as abortion. Abortion record are kept secret and my understanding is that they aren't listed on the woman's general medical records. Unless she volunteers the info then heath care professionals elsewhere would have no way of knowing she'd had an abortion, and if she asked them to keep it secret then most professionals would. Some complications like infection can take weeks or months to have an effect further reducing the chances that the real cause would be reported.
Basically, statistics are very easy to twist for your own purposes. Furthermore the privacy laws and secrecy surrounding abortion make it impossible for good stats to be collected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:26 am
elffromspace Back to the original topic, I really would like to know how dangerous ABORTION actually is. Peo-choicers keep saying that abortion is safer than childbirth and citing stats on pro-choice biased sites. There are several reasons that I don't believe these stats to be accurate. I just don't believe they possibly could be accurate. 1. Sometimes I've seen comparisons made on the death rate due to pregnancy to the death rate due to abortion. What is rarely given is the death rate per what? Many times these stats are presented in deaths per 1000 pregnancies. But there are more pregnancies carried through than aborted (thank god). So if there are for example 3 deaths per 10000 pregnancies (real numbers seem closer to 1) and 1 death from abortion per 10000 pregnancies, it looks like pregnancy has a higher death rate. But only 1 of 4 pregnancies end in abortion, so the abortion death rate should be 1 in 2,500 which is actually higher than that due to pregnancy. Also, it is uncertain whether or not the abortion deaths are actually included in the deaths from pregnancy or not which would further skew the numbers. 2. Given current privacy laws it's impossible to imply that the actual number of deaths from abortion are actually known by anyone. If the woman actually dies in the clinic, then there is a good chance that it would be reported, but there's also a chance the information would be obscured or hidden to protect either the woman and her family's privacy or the clinic's reputation. There is still shame associated with abortion and many people don't want it known that they're having one. If the woman dies later of complications is it far more likely that the death would not be reported as abortion. Abortion record are kept secret and my understanding is that they aren't listed on the woman's general medical records. Unless she volunteers the info then heath care professionals elsewhere would have no way of knowing she'd had an abortion, and if she asked them to keep it secret then most professionals would. Some complications like infection can take weeks or months to have an effect further reducing the chances that the real cause would be reported. Basically, statistics are very easy to twist for your own purposes. Furthermore the privacy laws and secrecy surrounding abortion make it impossible for good stats to be collected. Usually the statistics are given worldwide, and both pregnancy and abortion are far, far more dangerous in developing countries than in developed countries. It is undisputed that, worldwide, more women die from pregnancy than from abortion, but this discounts that most pregnant women (in all countries) don't choose to abort. I'm really too lazy (and by "lazy" I mean "supposed to be doing my Bible homework, but sick of Paul") to go looking through all of the Pro-Life (for abortion death rates) and Pro-Choice (for pregnancy death rates) biased sites to find actual studies. I did do so at some point, and I'm pretty sure that both are very safe (less than 3 deaths out of 10,000 women) in developed countries. Not to mention that almost no one, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, wants to take away the option for doctors to recommend abortion when a pregnant women's life is in danger (thus reducing the number of pregnancy-related deaths). There are a few developing countries where abortion is mostly provided by licensed doctors, but pregnancy is done with midwifes or no help at all, where abortion is probably statistically safer than pregnancy. But there are plenty of places where "abortion" means an abortive herb or a sharp stick, and both methods are very unsafe. I think that your figures are off. Since abortion death rates aren't given out of pregnant women, but out of women who choose to abort (and probably also doctor recommended abortions). Elective abortion is very safe, and the options for early on in the pregnancy are the safest. Though, of course, most pregnancies are also very safe. Especially in our country. I think it's pretty silly when people say that abortion should be an option because all pregnancies are potentially dangerous. Because almost no one is trying to keep women from getting needed life saving abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:45 am
Either way it would have been more relevant before doctors had the brain-wave that washing their hands might reduce instances of that virus that was killing thousands of women after giving birth. Before proper cleanliness childbirth was certainly a major killer and dying was a very real and relevant threat, because it used to be common rather than rare as it is now.
Thank goodness for soap and water. Such a simple solution to a terrible problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:05 am
La Veuve Zin Tiger of the Fire A secular school, a school of any kind other then the one dedicated to teaching the specific religion for that matter, is the worst place to learn about religion. Uh, I'd wager it's the best, because it's unbiased. A member of a cult isn't going to tell you about how they've been You'd be surprised how candid my World Religions teacher was. But at the same time, you won't get an unbiased perspective in a religiously affiliated school. You just can't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:29 am
kp is dcvi Tiger of the Fire A secular school, a school of any kind other then the one dedicated to teaching the specific religion for that matter, is the worst place to learn about religion. Uh, I'd wager it's the best, because it's unbiased. A member of a cult isn't going to tell you about how they've been You'd be surprised how candid my World Religions teacher was. But at the same time, you won't get an unbiased perspective in a religiously affiliated school. You just can't. Even a secular school isn't going to be completely unbiased. It's pretty hard, for humans, to distance one's deeply held beliefs from one's statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:04 am
WatersMoon110 kp is dcvi Tiger of the Fire A secular school, a school of any kind other then the one dedicated to teaching the specific religion for that matter, is the worst place to learn about religion. Uh, I'd wager it's the best, because it's unbiased. A member of a cult isn't going to tell you about how they've been You'd be surprised how candid my World Religions teacher was. But at the same time, you won't get an unbiased perspective in a religiously affiliated school. You just can't. Even a secular school isn't going to be completely unbiased. It's pretty hard, for humans, to distance one's deeply held beliefs from one's statements. True.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
