Conquer Club

Whats more disgusting? Forgiveness or a "Christian" that supports abortion and "gay rights"?

(Don't bother answering, it was rhetorical )

PLAYER57832 wrote:
AND, this type of thing is precisely why so many of us are Protestant and NOT Roman Catholic.

Speak for yourself, I am not Roman Catholic for a few reasons that have nothing to do with abortion.


Like:


Mary worship

Confessing to a priest who then absolves you of your sin (sorry, I can confess to Christ directly and He has the power to forgive not a guy in a white collar)

The churches stance on not really wanting its congregation to read the Bible for themselves


Not that Catholics can't be Christians, they can. I just don't like all the religiosity.

jay_a2j wrote:Whats more disgusting? Forgiveness or a "Christian" that supports abortion and "gay rights"?

(Don't bother answering, it was rhetorical )

Well, I will anyway.

The most disgusting and harmful is to distort Christ's message to one that is more restrictive even than that of the Pharisees that he admonished.

Regarding abortion, I realize you wish to believe that it is murder. The problem is that this does not come from anything in the Bible. In fact, the old Testament makes quite clear (and the new Testament does nothing to dispute) that unborn children are NOT the same as born children. The law differs in their preception and treatment. It is science, not religion that made the change.

The old Testament makes many references to a child "breathing life", etc. The law makes a distinction between harm to the unborn and the born. It is not the Bible that tells us to consider a child in the womb as human life, it is, ironically enough science. It is science that tells us that no, life doesn't just begin at birth, there is a living, feeling human being at 7 months. One who may not be able to fully thrive outside the womb, but a child who can hear and feel. However, science also shows us that 1 in 3 pregnancies will end before the third month. Science also allows us into the word of knowing before birth that some children will be born so deformed that under old Testament law, they would be condemned to live outside of real society. We have moved beyond that, but, again, through science. Christ began people toward thinking that disease is from external forces, reminded us of Job, etc. However, it was not until biology taught us of microbes and bacteria that most people began to truly separate the idea of sin from illness. Even now, many still attach the two.

Interestingly, they don't make a distinction for damage, but they absolutely do for death. Specifically, is someone strikes a pregnant woman and that child is born without an arm or a leg, then the person shall pay "eye for eye", (exactly as for anyone else). BUT, if that child is born still, then there is no penalty. Why? because no one could know that the child would live. This gets back to some old and quite visceral ideas. I can remember being a child on a farm. I knew about "miscarriages", children and animals that just "were not born". I knew it was a very sad thing, but part of God's plan. Then, when I was about 7, one farm had several calves born with serious deformities. I remember looking at one animal, born without a head and being repulsed. I was afraid to touch it, even. My father patiently explained that it was "not catching", explained something about a "bad bull" (we did not know details, but had the vague idea that males and females were required for young). He probably even used the word "semen", though it would not have had much reference to me then. That deoformity hit me in a way no death ever did. It was just wrong. I did not see God's hand in it, not really. As an adult, I see it like a child getting hit by a car or other tragedies.
Now, what you may not realize, maybe do, is that most of those old laws regarding sanitation and "purity" really amounted to quarantine. People were not able to worship, because to have them in amongst the body would have made everyone sick. They had not knowledge of bacteria, pathogens. They DID know that in many cases, these things were "catching". So, this was codified into religious law. Christ came and gave us a different message. He essentially started people along the path to consider that there was something else involved. He reminded us of Job, that evil things like pestilance were not result of the person doing evil, but were the result of the presence of evil in society, amongst humanity.

The biggest change, however only came with advent of biologic knowledge. Only when we began to really understand that diseases came from bacteria, etc did we really and truly move away from this idea that illness=sin. Some people still cling to portions of that. And yes, it is complicated.

Now, here is the other part. You have to distinguish between early abortions and later ones. I agree that too many women take too lightly the idea of an early abortion. However, I also know what happened when abortion was made illegal. The truth is it harmed a good many lives. Letting abortion be legal is not about "promoting" or "encouraging" abortion, it says 2 things. First, that the primary means of control need to happen elsewhere, outside the halls of law. Kids need to be taught real and true sex education, THEN they have fewer abortions, fewer incidents ov STDs, etc. You can claim this is untrue, but check the facts. The teen pregnancy rates were DECREASING up until very recently. They began to rise again in those places, and ONLY in those places that advocate a non-education called "abstinence only". The truth is that any real sex education is designed to encourage abstinence, to encourage safe and sane choices, which do not mean getting pregnant at 16 in our society. (in our great grandparent's day 16 year old girls often got married to also young husbands who could get decent paying jobs, so that is why the "our society" clarification).

A law, by contrast, simply moves abortions "underground", into unsafe venues, into "back room" shops where the death rate used to be very, very high. Ironically enough, they often even occured later than is now allowed. The truth is that legalizing abortion was NOT about killing children, it was about saving mothers.. mothers who could reform, mothers who could go on to have other children, which they would hopefully love, care for and cherish. The so-called "right to live" faction tries to ignore that. They wish to ignore the impact of a law assert that the life of the mother just does not matter, that her full and complete obligation is to have that child, even if it literally does kill her. Never mind that the child is also likely to die, supposedly that is "God's will".

The other situation is much more difficult, but it is difficult for EVERYONE. Older children, who are known to have very serious problems or who are being born by a woman who cannot carry the child without serious risk of harm to herself, those situations, situations such as the one in this article, don't deserve to be lumped with women who think abortion is "just another form of birth control". In many cases, these women fully want their children. In many cases, they have endured a lot to even try to have that child. BUT, they also know that not every child is born whole, is even born to anything we would call ar real life.
You want to bring out the "God's will" dictum, then do it both ways! Then don't have surgery, don't allow any medical intervention. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot accept the grace and wonders of science, medicine and yet deny responsibility for the other side.. the side that says sometimes God very much does choose death. When the life of a child will require surgary after surgary, only to create and existance (I don't say life, because it is no real life!) needing complete care, where there is no chance of talking, of communication, where the child is dead to the world, even if they still technically breath. That is not God's choice, that is arrogance of humanity.

The Roman Catholic Church and the new "Evanglical" conservatives are equally hypocritical in claiming that its OK to accept any and all benefits of medical science, but that this entails no obligation to consider the bad side.. to consider that sometimes God does choose death. If God always chose life, then no child would die. Kids would not die of illness or be hit by cars or anything else. In the Bible, we are taught not to fear death. No, we don't welcome it before its time, but when it is time.. we are to embrace it. A child facing a life of nothing but pain, no hope of anything like what Stephen Hawkins, etc live.. that is not life. In the old dasy, there would be no question. Many children with far, far lessor disabilities would have no chance at life. For that matter, children with even mild problems -- simply being blind, or lacking a limb, etc., were condemned to live outside of society. Science and medicine have allowed us to release these children from their fates. But, the Roman Catholic church would force parents to submit their children to far worse fates because of those same "wonders" of science. That is not wonder, it is terror and horror.

I would never, ever tell someone they had to have an abortion. BUT, I don't feel that I or anyone else has the right to tell soemone faces those horrible choices that I and not they, their doctor and clergy have the right to decide this.

I myself actually am opposed to abortion. I am opposed because, to me, any shadow of a doubt should be given the benefit. I am only OK with abortion,( and "OK" is not really the best choice of words, just the best I can do) when it is very clear that the child will not have a life, is either already dead, doomed to die or will live in complete pain. However, I also acknowledge 2 further points. First, not everyone shares my religion, my moral values. You , others wish to claim that you are "speaking up for the children" when you make abortion illegal. However, are you really? Get back to the Bible. Which is really and truly the greater harm? Is death really and truly the worst thing that can befall a child? If you beleive that, then I don't believe you have fully read the Bible. The greatest harm is keeping a child from God and making a child suffer.

You can argue that these children are not blessed because their parents are not Christian. Well, if you argue that then you deny anyone who is Christian the right to even have children. We don't believe that, don't accept that in our society. You can argue that you "know better". Well.. it is a dead point. Everyone believes they know better. The point is proof. If you cannot convince someone not to have sex, not to have an abortion if they become pregnany unwillingly or find that the child they carry is facing a life that they don't believe to be a real life, then you don't have the right to proscribe it. This is not a case where there is moral unity. This is a point of serious and severe disagreement. This is a point where loving, caring CHRISTIANS, BIBLE-READING CHRISTIANS all disagree. That there is such disagreement shows you are not standing on the firm high ground you wish to claim. It is YOUR belief, YOUR view, but it is not that of many people.

Laws are not for passing on requirements of YOUR beliefs. Laws are to preserve society, to set boundaries for people of many beliefs and doctrines.

The Roman Catholic church steps well beyond this. You, when you claim that abortion should be made illegal, step beyond it. You may talk within your church. You may discuss and argue in public. But, changing the law, making something illegal because it doesn't meet YOUR moral values is not what this country is about.

and make no mistake, jay. Yes, that debate in the beginning of the constitution was about which Christian church should rule.. should it be the Roman Catholics, should you, not a Roman Catholic be denied the right to live in Maryland? When you open the door to religious rule, there is no stopping. THAT is the point.

You may feel happy if the religious doctrine being put forward happens to match your personnal beliefs, but make no mistake, that will change. The people who fight the most against establishing one religion are other people with religious beliefs, not these "liberal secularists" to whom you like to blame for every evil in this country.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
AND, this type of thing is precisely why so many of us are Protestant and NOT Roman Catholic.

Speak for yourself, I am not Roman Catholic for a few reasons that have nothing to do with abortion.


Like:


Mary worship

Confessing to a priest who then absolves you of your sin (sorry, I can confess to Christ directly and He has the power to forgive not a guy in a white collar)

The churches stance on not really wanting its congregation to read the Bible for themselves


Not that Catholics can't be Christians, they can. I just don't like all the religiosity.

Seems like you fail to understand the meaning of the words "this type of thing". Nothing I have said disagrees with those points. This thread, however, is not a "all the problems with Roman Catholicism" thread.

Timminz wrote:Does anyone here not live within 100 kilometres of somewhere where there were numerous children abused, over the course of many years, by Catholic leaders in their community?

There's a very recent(ly exposed), and fairly large scandal at a local-ish Catholic church, and I live in a mostly protestant province.

Maybe I shouldn't assume. How many others have had this going on in their own community?

I have never lived where this was a prominant issue in modern times, though I did live near some California Missions guilty of many historic abuses. I understand there are issues in Pittsburgh (not sure if they are verified or not), but I live more than 100 miles from there.

I can point to a lot of other types of abuse and hypocrisy, but real discussion of that could fill several other threads. (a minor recent example was not baptizing one child from one family because the godparent wasn't a currently active Roman Catholic, but baptizing another child who's godparent and father each had violated a particular commmandment publically -- supposedly the money donated had "no bearing" ) .

People are quick to burn the church, because unlike the despot queens and kings, and the imperialistic Romans, Greeks and ect, it's still around hiding it's crimes and fucking up prepubecent boys.

Without so much as an appology.

Supporting the pope is like supporting Nambla because they donate proceeds from their annual bakesale to the red cross.


Johnny Rockets

Player,

Considered sections called Genesis 9:5-6 and Exodus 21:22-25?

When do spirits enter physical bodies if not right at conception points? Do babies not generally get regular heart beats around a 21st day of development either way?

And abortions being totally illegal by US federal law would lead to there being less overall abortions in the US and on earth as a whole even if some people did it opposed to the law and some people left the country to get them done maybe.

Lionz wrote:Player,

Considered sections called Genesis 9:5-6 and Exodus 21:22-25?

When do spirits enter physical bodies if not right at conception points? Do babies not generally get regular heart beats around a 21st day of development either way?

And abortions being totally illegal by US federal law would lead to there being less overall abortions in the US and on earth as a whole even if some people did it opposed to the law and some people left the country to get them done maybe.

My friend, good luck trying to get through to her. She is unlike any Christian I have ever met, and I've met a great many. She somehow thinks her views are mainstream which is hardly the case. Most Christians view abortion as sin, homosexuality as sin and usually don't go around bashing different denominations. I myself would love to sit and listen in on a conversation with her and Christ. Now THAT would be some debate!

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
AND, this type of thing is precisely why so many of us are Protestant and NOT Roman Catholic.

Speak for yourself, I am not Roman Catholic for a few reasons that have nothing to do with abortion.


Like:


Mary worship

Confessing to a priest who then absolves you of your sin (sorry, I can confess to Christ directly and He has the power to forgive not a guy in a white collar)

The churches stance on not really wanting its congregation to read the Bible for themselves


Not that Catholics can't be Christians, they can. I just don't like all the religiosity.

Nevermind that Catholics were the first Christians...

thegreekdog wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
AND, this type of thing is precisely why so many of us are Protestant and NOT Roman Catholic.

Speak for yourself, I am not Roman Catholic for a few reasons that have nothing to do with abortion.


Like:


Mary worship

Confessing to a priest who then absolves you of your sin (sorry, I can confess to Christ directly and He has the power to forgive not a guy in a white collar)

The churches stance on not really wanting its congregation to read the Bible for themselves


Not that Catholics can't be Christians, they can. I just don't like all the religiosity.

Nevermind that Catholics were the first Christians...

Um no, the first Christians were probably the 12 disciples and then those that they preached to. The Catholic church came later.

jay_a2j wrote:

Lionz wrote:Player,

Considered sections called Genesis 9:5-6 and Exodus 21:22-25?

When do spirits enter physical bodies if not right at conception points? Do babies not generally get regular heart beats around a 21st day of development either way?

And abortions being totally illegal by US federal law would lead to there being less overall abortions in the US and on earth as a whole even if some people did it opposed to the law and some people left the country to get them done maybe.

My friend, good luck trying to get through to her. She is unlike any Christian I have ever met, and I've met a great many. She somehow thinks her views are mainstream which is hardly the case. Most Christians view abortion as sin, homosexuality as sin and usually don't go around bashing different denominations. I myself would love to sit and listen in on a conversation with her and Christ. Now THAT would be some debate!

At least I know how to read. I never said I thought abortion was OK, I said it is a definite dispute within the church and if you think it isn't, you have not visited many mainline Protestant churches. In fact, even within most Roman Catholic communities, you find dissenters.. they just cannot officially proclaim that position without coming under fire from their clergy.

What I SAID is that a law is not the way to deal with this.

Similarly, I believe the harm from the hatred of homosexuals that too often is the REAL "slippery slope" of the conservative mindset is very much more harmful than simple tolerance of law-abiding people who live in a way I do not like.

jay_a2j wrote:Whats more disgusting? Forgiveness or a "Christian" that supports abortion and "gay rights"?

(Don't bother answering, it was rhetorical )

A pope that condones gay pedophiles.

Lionz wrote:Player,
Considered sections called Genesis 9:5-6 and Exodus 21:22-25?
When do spirits enter physical bodies if not right at conception points? Do babies not generally get regular heart beats around a 21st day of development either way?

Wait, wait, wait...you're equating a regular heartbeat with the spirit entering the body?

Lionz wrote:And abortions being totally illegal by US federal law would lead to there being less overall abortions in the US and on earth as a whole even if some people did it opposed to the law and some people left the country to get them done maybe.

No. LEGAL abortions would go down. But abortions would still happen, as they always did...but with far less safety involved. But you're ok with that, right...because "they'd get what they deserved"?

jay_a2j wrote:

Lionz wrote:Player,

Considered sections called Genesis 9:5-6 and Exodus 21:22-25?

When do spirits enter physical bodies if not right at conception points? Do babies not generally get regular heart beats around a 21st day of development either way?

And abortions being totally illegal by US federal law would lead to there being less overall abortions in the US and on earth as a whole even if some people did it opposed to the law and some people left the country to get them done maybe.

My friend, good luck trying to get through to her. She is unlike any Christian I have ever met, and I've met a great many. She somehow thinks her views are mainstream which is hardly the case. Most Christians view abortion as sin, homosexuality as sin and usually don't go around bashing different denominations. I myself would love to sit and listen in on a conversation with her and Christ. Now THAT would be some debate!

There wouldn't be much debate involved, I don't suspect...now YOU and Christ...I'd love to listen in on that one.

jay_a2j wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:
AND, this type of thing is precisely why so many of us are Protestant and NOT Roman Catholic.

Speak for yourself, I am not Roman Catholic for a few reasons that have nothing to do with abortion.


Like:


Mary worship

Confessing to a priest who then absolves you of your sin (sorry, I can confess to Christ directly and He has the power to forgive not a guy in a white collar)

The churches stance on not really wanting its congregation to read the Bible for themselves


Not that Catholics can't be Christians, they can. I just don't like all the religiosity.

Nevermind that Catholics were the first Christians...

Um no, the first Christians were probably the 12 disciples and then those that they preached to. The Catholic church came later.

Definitely gotta side with jay on this one, however, some language clarification is in order. Although folks commonly refer to "Catholic" as opposed to "Protestant", the term "catholic" really refers to the wider Christian community who accept the affirmed Bible, some other details. The church to which you belong is properly called Roman Catholicism. It is generally considered (by all but some Roman Catholics) to have arisen when the Latin/Western church split from the Byzantine/Eastern church.

It has been a while since I studied church history, and I don't want to get bogged down in all the intricacies (and there are many, many), however, that difference in language is part of the lack of agreement there.

Also, for the record, my primary difference with the Roman Catholic church, religiously/personally (why I won't belong) is that I feel I don't need someone else to interpret the Bible or God. I don't bow to any other human being in that manner (though I absolutely consider thoughtful discourse, opinions and so forth of others and agree that many are more knowledgeable about certain aspects than I). It is, however, a technicality.

Politically, I am not the only one disturbed by the many recent moves of the Roman Catholic church to influence legislators. We don't live in a theocracy for good reason. I would ask those who think it is OK to remember that 50 years ago, many Roman Catholics were excluded from all sorts of places, the idea of electing a Roman Catholic in many areas was considered abhorrant precisely because of that threat..the threat that they would take their church beliefs and try to make them law.

Woodruff wrote:
.now YOU and Christ...I'd love to listen in on that one.

There would be no debate. He would correct me where I need correcting and I would be in such a state of awe I'd probably be speechless anyways.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
.now YOU and Christ...I'd love to listen in on that one.

There would be no debate. He would correct me where I need correcting and I would be in such a state of awe I'd probably be speechless anyways.

Fair enough. And you believe PLAYER wouldn't be in the same state of mind...why?

Lionz wrote:Player,

Considered sections called Genesis 9:5-6

This has nothing to do with the subject... at all.

Lionz wrote:and Exodus 21:22-25?

Yes, this section does contradict what I said. However, there is another listing of the law that goes as I said. It really is not a contradiction. One explanation given is that those who are injured cannot recieve the sacarments and therefore to injure is to cause more harm (which, ironically enough, also gets toward what I said above). I don't agree that is the correct reading, because of the context. That is, those who are "deformed" (using Old Testament concepts there), could not recieve the sacraments, but it must be viewed in terms of quarantine. Also, the context specifies that the penalty is less because no one can know if the child would live.

Also, some Newer versions do strike out the passage I quoted.

Lionz wrote:When do spirits enter physical bodies if not right at conception points? Do babies not generally get regular heart beats around a 21st day of development either way?

This is irrelevant. Among other things, I already said I do not think abortion is OK. I just don't believe a law is the proper way to limit them, because the harm from that law is far, far greater than the death of children.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of what is statistically included in the lable "abortion" is actually removeal of a child who is already dead, as was true in my case. Another huge number are women who, through various tests, know their child has a very serious genetic disorder. When you limit the numbers to just those that are truly voluntary (and you can even toss in post-rape cases, if you wish), the number is not that great.

Lionz wrote:And abortions being totally illegal by US federal law would lead to there being less overall abortions in the US and on earth as a whole even if some people did it opposed to the law and some people left the country to get them done maybe.

It would also lead to many, many woman dying, people having to care for a child who has no real life, a child who we, the taxpayers will have to support unless the parents are wealthy (and if htey are, they won't be after paying for the child's care). It would be nice not to have to talk about the costs, but when children in my town have to go without basic medical visits and dental care because of funding cuts... it needs to be taken into consideration. Its called "triage". It means making the best of terrible choices.

We don't live in an ideal world. In an ideal world, no child would be born with any kind of disability. No child would be born except to parents who eagerly want that child. This just is not reality.

All he's saying is that it would be an exceptionally long, and one-sided conversation.

Timminz wrote:All he's saying is that it would be an exceptionally long, and one-sided conversation.

Jay's conversations are all long and one-sided, as he doesn't listen to the other side.

Whatever happened to that other god-squadder who was even more (tries to put it flameslessly), um, convinced he was right? Um, [searches memory] - Gregrios, right?

Johnny Rockets wrote:People are quick to burn the church, because unlike the despot queens and kings, and the imperialistic Romans, Greeks and ect, it's still around hiding it's crimes and fucking up prepubecent boys.

Without so much as an apology.
.....


Johnny Rockets

ummm..... they've read apologies from the pulpit at my church. offhand, i don't remember if it was a letter from the pope or the archbishop, but it was an acknowledgement of failings to protect children.

and if i remember correctly, a couple of high ranking irish clerics just apologized and stepped down.

jonesthecurl wrote:Whatever happened to that other god-squadder who was even more (tries to put it flameslessly), um, convinced he was right? Um, [searches memory] - Gregrios, right?

I can remember some interesting conversations with Gregrios. But, maybe its a case of looking back with rose-colored glasses. (oops, make that rose -coloured classes... lol)

jonesthecurl wrote:

Timminz wrote:All he's saying is that it would be an exceptionally long, and one-sided conversation.

Jay's conversations are all long and one-sided, as he doesn't listen to the other side.

Oh I listen, but quickly recognize rubbish and move on.

Woodruff and Player,

What about using suction to rip an unborn living baby to pieces would you not consider murder?

Woodruff,

I was not equating a heartbeat with a spirit entering a body depending on definition at least maybe. I might have been making one or more point having to do with when life begins.

No to what? Are you arguing that abortions in general would not go down? People would be more likely to wait until marriage to have sex and be more likely to use condoms and other things maybe.

Player,

You mean to argue that Genesis 9:5-6 has nothing to do with abortion? I might have never read an original and might not be sure what it says, but would using suction to rip an unborn living human baby to pieces be shedding blood of someone created in an Image of Him?

Can you explain the sacarments sentence or whatever it is? What does Exodus 21:22-25 have to do with sacraments or someone being deformed?

You claim some versions strike out a passage you quoted? What do you refer to?

Is when spirits enter physical bodies and when heartbeats start irrelevant in discussing when life begins?



Maybe little to no one would be opposed to someone helping a woman remove a baby that was already dead and I would not vote against that being allowed, but who can rightly judge if an unborn baby will have a real life or be happy?

You claim a number of abortions that are purely voluntary is not that great? Do you have numbers to back that up? There are numbers on repeat abortions that don't back you up maybe. Here's an interesting quote you should consider perhaps...

Repeat Abortion Rate Approaches 50%
The repeat abortion rate in the U.S. has risen rapidly since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. In 1973 it was estimated that only about 12% of the induced abortions were repeat abortions. By 1979 the national repeat rate had risen to 29.4% and by 1983 it had reached 38.8%. In 1987 the Alan Guttmacher Institute took a survey of 9480 women at approximately 100 abortion clinics throughout the U.S. and found that 42.9% of the women said they were having repeat abortions. 26.9% were having a second abortion; 10.7% were having a third abortion; and 5.3% were having a fourth abortion or more. (Henshaw 1987, 1988)

Based upon these figures and also extrapolating the fourth abortion or more category to more precise figures based upon state health department reports of repeat abortions, it is estimated that there were about 643,500 repeat abortions in the U.S. in 1987 out of a total of 1.5 million abortions. Of these 403,500 women had a second abortion; 160,500 had a third abortion; 53,250 had a fourth abortion; 17,500 had a fifth abortion; 4400 had a sixth abortion and 4400 had a seventh or higher abortion.

Note: Maybe formatting type stuff messed up and that should contain more for all I know and it's a misquote for all I know. You might want to check here...

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/a ... _1989.html

Do you want to compare human life with money regardless of how much tax money you might be asked to pay? What if we should be willing to live under a bridge without a penny if it means saving the life of even a single baby?