Thursday, November 18, 2021

Is Human Life is Sacred?

Religious people today make many arguments in support of the idea of what is sacred and what is not. 

Many people who claim to believe in God are convinced that they have a very close, personal relationship with their Creator; Some people do not believe in this proposition and only when all other methods have failed does the idea of ​​God or spirits come into their lives.

For people whose lives are centered around religion, their beliefs and ideas about society or government will influence the principles of their church, temple, or synagogue. Their support or opposition to the social movement may have been primarily motivated by their religious ideals.

Take, for example, the Temperance Movement, which demanded a ban. It was almost a religious movement. Once women's suffrage became a popular term for social justice, the Church adopted some of the ideas of equality for women. I have already covered the topic of general religious influence on moral or social thought in the Theological Testament article, which goes into a bit more detail. This article is an examination of the same topic, but with different ideas and endings. 

Christian fundamentalists of our time are guilty of using the logic of "this is natural" or "this is unnatural" in many social problems. Many Christians take an anti-Christian stance when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and alternative or non-single sexuality, euthanasia, or stem cell research and cloning. And, a good part of the time, we always hear the recurring echoes of nature. What is natural is always associated with good, sometimes it is changed, just as the unnatural is always bad and harmful. These unions are never neutral. They are all just assumed. However, these hypothetical ideas result in some oppressive and socially unhealthy policies affecting religious followers. 

It should also be noted that on these issues, so far, natural or unnatural, religious adherents call themselves the final judges. Many of them accept society's preconceived notions about the natural or the unnatural. For example, when we think of nature's actions, we are aware of all aspects of it: sustaining life and being reborn. Because homosexuality does not perpetuate the end of procreation, many would agree that it must be unnatural. However, since it is unnatural, not everyone goes so far as to say that it should be banned and suppressed. But, again, there are many invisible adherents who do not consider homosexuality to be unnatural or should not be banned.

However, as I noted above, your standard advocate of Christian policy in government always defends itself as the final judge of the natural or the unnatural, either through school prayer or by banning abortion. The disgruntled mob is known for killing blacks, atheists, homosexuals, and "profane" never tried to understand whether it was natural or unnatural or why it deserved such a title. Even today the fundamentalists of Christian ideology have neglected this discovery. In his speech he quoted a thousand times whether it was natural or not - not once, I remember, ever heard a satisfactory explanation of the word.

I've heard of some believers' attempts, but they turned out to be better than logic and reason. However, here is my question. What is natural? And what is unnatural? I have already pointed out what society has concluded on these questions: there is an ambiguous relationship between the preservation of life and its reproduction, natural and definite.

Are they natural tools for making idols? Are all other miracles in manufacturing, technology, science, and innovation unnatural? If one classifies homosexuality as unnatural, simply because it does not serve any end of nature, why not a large part of what we consider unnatural? And how is it that these enemies of the new view of sexuality don't resist every technological advancement? After all, the making of our brains and hands are not part of any ecosystem on this planet. 

They are nowhere to be seen in the world, except in the lonely society of our humanity. I imagine most of the answers would be: "Even though the things we create and maintain do not occur anywhere in nature, they are natural. All other animals seek ends." Humans, like fashion, are any other Like species, want to achieve their goal. However, we are more advanced in this regard. faster than any other animal on the planet. Our technology, which initially seemed alien to nature and alien to nature, actually appears regularly among our animal companions. The evolution of the organizational structure of human society is a kind of technology. Animals sometimes organize themselves, join groups to accomplish tasks that would not be possible without cooperation.

However, re-examining this interpretation of the word may offer a better chance of defending things like abortion and homosexuality. For example, we understand that when a primate club is used as a weapon, it overtakes the techniques of other species under it; Yet, of course, we still consider primates to be more primitive than our science.

Just as a monkey can use certain techniques with a club, so humans use techniques that are not common to other species. Therefore, one can say that homosexuality, abortion, and other activities are advanced forms of technology by which other types of planets are unknown. Just as the primate is unfamiliar with computer systems and electronics, the zebra is unfamiliar with Baldagan, so are all other animals unfamiliar with their enhanced sexuality and their ability to control all aspects of the human body.

This whole ideology is, of course, on the premise that our main goal is to improve the happiness of all people in all technological developments. Some religions say that all moral guidance is based on God alone; Of course, if those religions want to appear more educated and rational to mankind than they were two thousand years ago, then God's will generally attract human desires to some degree.

Because the main goal of our science is to improve our status on this planet, one could argue that abortion is ethical, because it removes a life that is otherwise painful and such a life. creates the possibility of what is good. Care and Consciousness. It is also irrational that gay and free relationships are as advanced as any other form of technology. Given the freedom of choice, many people find that homosexuality or other unconventional sexuality satisfies them the most; In a word, it is a progression unlike any other.

For the sake of argument, let's say that, despite this argument, someone is opposing everything their pastors call unnatural. It is not uncommon for people to be opposed to technology. In fact, the idea of ​​renouncing society and living a peaceful life has found its way into every culture, from Buddhist monks to Thoreau fans. Obviously, these subcultures have anti-technological tendencies, similar to the supernatural tendencies found in many major religions. For example, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who do not accept blood transfusions for religious reasons that are against God's will, or what some of them call "unnatural." Many Orthodox religions reacted with fear and disgust to the introduction of modern medical technology. In addition to opposing some life-saving drugs as unnatural to the body, we all know that the church was opposed to a new, exciting musical genre, jazz. 

However, the life-saving potential of the drug was eventually deemed more important than the science that declared it unholy. Today, most of our churches support the medical use of chemicals to treat any mental or physical illness, while very few still oppose it. However, churches still oppose the use of recreational drugs as a beneficial and beneficial habit. We will always find the Church on the Orthodox side. 

The measure of their human life has always been based on the prejudices and fears of the ancestors who wrote their scriptures. It is this mindset that will find the most obstacles. The Amish are a great example. They have a strict system of discipline based on religion, and because of their faith, they have the moral ability to use cars and other advanced technology.

There are many religions. Just as they give us a different face to spiritual beliefs, they each present us with a different appreciation or doubt about technology. Then, for them, it is a battle between good versus natural versus unnatural, evil. So the question is, at what level do we describe the word natural, and at what level do we describe the word unnaturally? Using the Amish again as an example, we can see that they support certain technologies. 

They wear clothes and shoes, they work and live at home and they have farming techniques and artistic skills. However, they are opposed to cars, electricity, steam engines, and many other good things in our science. He mentioned a turning point in the development of technology which is the norm. They symbolize the European peasant era of the 1500s, where gunpowder technology was born and technology was little more than a simple tool. Whatever happened after this period, all discoveries made after 1500 were held against the Amish, reprehensible and unworthy of God. And, any technology that has come before this year is considered basic. Of course, this is a simplification. I'm not sure at what point this would be the norm for human invention, but 1500 is a good guess.

With this beautiful example from the Amish, I think the question is still being asked. At what point in the history of technological innovation are we called the ideal age? Today's Christians, enthusiasts, and preachers advocate for the enemy of abortion, stem cell research and cloning, the ethical, legal, and technological environment that existed between the 1920s and 1930s. Fifty years from now, churches and religious institutions will in the future adopt less repressive ideologies about humanity than they do in today's society.

Therefore, the question needs to be answered: "At what point do you need to stop and accept your current ideas about politics, ethics, science, and technology for innovation? What does it mean to say that you should use them? needed?" Cultural Lifestyle 1300s or 1990s Scientific Enlightenment or 600s Religious Thoughts? There is no evidence that "unnatural" ever was the case. There was a time in the history of human civilization when clothing was considered an incredibly useful technology. Was humanity then living naturally or unnaturally? Or what about the time when Homo sapiens first appeared on the planet, which evolved from a common relationship between monkeys, chimpanzees, and other primates?


What Is Religious Fundamentalism?- Meaning & Origin

Religion, in some cases, religious differences will play an important role in shaping national identity. Religious sentiments have also bee...